# Ice v. Commonwealth

> Kentucky Supreme Court · February 16, 1984 · 667 S.W.2d 671

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674902

## Case

- **Full name:** Todd ICE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 16, 1984
- **Citations:** 667 S.W.2d 671; 1984 Ky. LEXIS 212
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stephenson
- **Judges:** Stephens, Gant, Leibson, Vance, Aker, Stephenson, Wintersheimer
- **Cited by:** 110 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/9674902

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that prosecutor’s emphasis in closing argument that jury’s sentence of death was only recommendation was improper for it conveyed message that jurors’ awesome responsibility was lessened by fact that their decision was not final one
- finding lay testimony used to rebut an expert's testimony as to sanity was sufficient

## Opinion text

*684 STEPHENSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion at the same time recognizing the seriousness of the question raised by the polygraph evidence.
The questioning of a minister as to a biblical basis for the death penalty was in response to Ice’s introduction of testimony by a minister that the Bible taught that the death penalty was wrong. This seems eminently reasonable to me, Ice opened the door on this subject.
The opinion here unfairly characterizes the closing argument as prosecutorial misconduct. What is wrong with asking the jury that Ice not be “turned loose to kill again”? This does not violate Payne (which I believe should be overruled) as it does not address the consequence of a verdict. Insofar as the criminal justice system is concerned, a not guilty verdict “turns him loose.”
As to the polygraph evidence, I agree that it was error to admit that testimony. It was irrelevant. It was never an issue, only a smoke screen. Insanity was the defense from the beginning. The testimony of Ice’s psychiatrist that he had no recollection of events, that he could not bear to remember what he had done etc., clearly shows there was no pretense that anyone other than Ice did the killing.
Had Ice taken the stand and testified he did not do the killing or that Mayberry did, then the polygraph evidence would have been relevant and reversible error. Here it was irrelevant and did not prejudice Ice’s defense.
I would affirm the conviction and accordingly dissent.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674902. Public record. Not legal advice.