# Smith v. Commonwealth

> Kentucky Supreme Court · April 22, 1980 · 599 S.W.2d 900

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661759

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny Marshall SMITH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 22, 1980
- **Citations:** 599 S.W.2d 900; 1980 Ky. LEXIS 223
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stephenson
- **Judges:** Palmore, Aker, Clayton, Lukowsky, Stephenson, Sternberg
- **Cited by:** 41 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/9661759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[ijnstractions in a criminal prosecution must have a source within the framework of the evidence introduced at the trial.”

## Opinion text

STEPHENSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Ordinarily I would agree with the reversal of this case for failure to give an accomplice instruction. However, we have tentatively decided to abolish the accomplice rule after a lengthy period of reflection on the viability of the rule. The instruction the trial court failed to give would have, according to the rule, informed the jury that it could not convict on the testimony of the accomplice alone, that in addition there must be some other evidence tending to connect the crime. We have held as a matter of law that there is sufficient other evidence tending to connect the appellant with the crime. Thus, the jury did not convict on the accomplice testimony standing alone. Consequently, the failure of the trial court to give the accomplice instruction is a formal error with absolutely no prejudice to the appellant at all. With the accomplice rule being abandoned there is no longer a valid reason to enforce the giving of the instruction; accordingly, I would not reverse on this formal error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661759. Public record. Not legal advice.