# Brown v. Commonwealth

> Kentucky Supreme Court · December 19, 1996 · 934 S.W.2d 242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665115

## Case

- **Full name:** Bobby Chester BROWN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 19, 1996
- **Citations:** 934 S.W.2d 242; 1996 WL 554515
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wintersheimer
- **Judges:** Stumbo, Stephens, Baker, Lambert, Wintersheimer, Graves, Furkin, King
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Keeling v. Commonwealth, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 160 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665115

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting longtime precedent that lay witnesses can testify as to a defendant’s sanity when “ ‘by association and observation [they] have had an opportunity to form an opinion as to the sanity of a person’ ”
- noting longtime precedent that lay witnesses can testify as to a defendant's sanity when "'by association and observation [they] have had an opportunity to form an opinion as to the sanity of a person'"
- describing cross-examination as “the primary means by which trial counsel can attempt to persuade jurors of the weight or significance to be attached to the testimony of the witnesses” (quotation omitted)

## Opinion text

WINTERSHEIMER,
Justice, concurring.
I concur only in the result achieved by the majority opinion to the extent that it affirms the judgment of conviction. However, I wish to state my views separately. I certainly do not agree with the language of the majority opinion or with what I believe is the clear implication of it. Our only appellate duty is to review the facts and the law. The majority opinion is almost an engraved invitation to seek RCr 11.42 relief or to challenge the validity of the statute.
This conviction should be affirmed because Brown was not entitled to a directed verdict regarding his insanity defense. KRS 504.130 and the verdict of guilty but mentally ill are cleai’ly constitutional. The instructions by the trial judge pertaining to insanity and the verdict of guilty but mentally ill were sufficient to advise the jury that they must reject the insanity defense in order to find the defendant guilty but mentally ill. In addition, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury regarding the consequences of a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. The other allegations of the appellant are equally without merit.
The judgment of conviction should be affirmed in all respects.
GRAVES, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665115. Public record. Not legal advice.