Court Opinion

ID: 9596318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:48:18.645675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:35.010626
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Justice KELLER,
concurring and dissenting in part.
I believe that under the clear and unambiguous language of KRE 103(d), i.e., “[a] motion in limine resolved by order of record is sufficient to preserve error for appellate review,” errors occurring during Levy’s testimony were preserved by the trial court’s order overruling Appellant’s objections to the Commonwealth’s motion in limine, and, therefore, to the extent that Tucker v. Commonwealth1 holds otherwise, it should be overruled. Accordingly, I dissent as to Part 1(C) (Preservation of error) of the majority opinion; otherwise, I concur.
STUMBO, J., joins this opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

. Ky., 916 S.W.2d 181, 183 (1996).