Court Opinion

ID: 9748516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:04:28.051101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:36.547674
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by
Justice KELLER.
I concur but write separately because I do not agree that evidence at the penalty phase is admissible only if relevant to Appellant’s character. The 1998 amendment to KRS 532.055 makes the statute applicable to all felony cases, including capital cases.1 Accordingly, “[t]he defendant may introduce evidence in mitigation or in support of leniency [.]”2 Appellant claims error because the father of her children was not allowed to testify about the effect the death penalty would have on the children. I agree with the majority’s opinion that such testimony is not relevant to Appellant’s character, but it is clearly “evidence in support of leniency,” and therefore admissible. But, inasmuch as Appellant failed to offer the excluded testimony by avowal, the issue concerning its exclusion, *88as noted in the majority opinion, was not appropriately preserved for this Court’s review.3 However, if Appellant is again convicted of a capital offense on retrial, she should be allowed to present such testimony in support of leniency in the penalty phase of the trial.

. St. Clair v. Commonwealth, Ky., 140 S.W.3d 510, 562.

. KRS 532.055(2)(b) (emphasis added).

. Commonwealth v. Ferrell, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 520 (2000).