# Tackett v. Commonwealth

> Kentucky Supreme Court · October 23, 2014 · 445 S.W.3d 20

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5283209

## Case

- **Full name:** General TACKETT, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 23, 2014
- **Citations:** 445 S.W.3d 20; 2014 Ky. LEXIS 494; 2014 WL 5392071
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Venters
- **Judges:** Abramson, Cunningham, Keller, Minton, Noble, Only, Scott, Venters
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5283209

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the defendant waived his ability to challenge the admission a physician’s report that identified him as the perpetrator because defense counsel stated it had “no objection” to the admission of the report
- noting that “[u]nlike the parents in Blount, [victim’s mother] did not attempt to tie [victim’s] vaginal rashes and overactive gag reflex to anything she learned during counseling or to anything she learned from a counselor[]”
- noting that invited errors reflect a “knowing relinquishment of a right” and amount to a waiver
- discussing that invited error precludes relief

## Opinion text

VENTERS, J.,
concurring in result only:
I concur in result only with the Majority opinion. I agree with Justice Noble’s dissent that KRE 404(b) was violated by introduction of evidence of crimes other than the singular offenses charged, that the testimony about the victim’s behavior violated, at least marginally, our long-standing prohibition against evidence based upon child’s sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, and that defense counsel’s opening statement did not open the door so as to justify the subsequent bolstering of the witness’s testimony. Nevertheless, I do not join Justice Noble’s dissent because none of the errors were preserved for appellate review and I cannot conclude that even the accumulation of those errors amounted to palpable error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5283209. Public record. Not legal advice.