Court Opinion

ID: 9635993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:11:47.475694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:39.952748
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
concurring.
I wrote a dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Lundergan, Ky., 847 S.W.2d 729 (rendered February 18, 1993), and concluded that the “rule of lenity” was without any application. I have reached a similar conclusion in this case and for that and other reasons, have joined the majority opinion and declined to join Justice Leib-son’s dissenting opinion.
Despite the foregoing, I agree with Justice Leibson that this Court has engaged in an inconsistent application of the rule of lenity. The logical underpinning for the opinions in Lundergan are as applicable here as there, but the result is different. While the cases differ in that one involved a political crime while the other was a *474vicious sex crime, the rule of law should be the same.