finding defendant not entitled to protection-of- another instruction where “[u]nder the actually existing facts, there was no need to kill [victim] in order to protect [third person] from ‘imminent death, serious physical injury . . . or [forcible] sexual intercourse’ at his hands”
How later courts described this case
- finding defendant not entitled to protection-of- another instruction where “[u]nder the actually existing facts, there was no need to kill [victim] in order to protect [third person] from ‘imminent death, serious physical injury . . . or [forcible] sexual intercourse’ at his hands”
- finding that confession was not involuntary despite police ruse, in which police falsely used videotape to convince woman accused of murdering her husband that her calls had been monitored
- explaining that “[a] new theory of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”
- stating “[a] new theory of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRAVES, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I must dissent from so much of the opinion that finds reversible error in the allocation of peremptory challenges. The majority opinion holds that the appellants were jointly entitled to 13 peremptory challenges. The trial court’s interpretation of the rules so as to allow 11 peremptory challenges is reasonable. Under the facts of this case, I would apply a harmless error analysis and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, I would modify the inflexible holding in Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, Ky., 590 S.W.2d 875 (1979).
LAMBERT, C.J, and WINTERSHEIMER, J., join in this dissent.