Court Opinion

ID: 9680574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:34:22.616388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.428416
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Hayes did not testify by avowal in this case. Thus, the alleged error is not preserved for review under Mathews v. Commonwealth, Ky., 997 S.W.2d 449 (1999). For this reason, I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. This should end the matter, but the majority opinion goes further unnecessarily and *884overrules Mathews, sua sponte. At the very least, we should let the opportunity present itself in the form of the proper case before we consider striking sound precedent from the body of law in the Commonwealth. To do so with neither argument nor invitation is both unsound and unwarranted.
STUMBO, J., joins this concurring opinion.