explaining that “trial courts must apply [KRE 25 404(b)] cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused’s propensity to commit a certain type of crime”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “trial courts must apply [KRE 25 404(b)] cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused’s propensity to commit a certain type of crime”
- explaining KRE 404(b) must be strictly construed to eliminate evidence of criminal propensity towards a specific crime
- “As for the prejudice side, there exists universal agreement that evidence of this sort is inherently and highly prejudicial to a defendant.”
- “[T]here exists universal agreement that evidence [of other bad acts] is inherently and highly prejudicial to a defendant.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEPHENS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I must dissent on the issue raised by appellant concerning the admissibility of the victim’s drawing depicting his version of appellants sexual abuse.
Although the drawing was not the subject of testimony in which the social worker testified as to her conclusions regarding the occurrence or nonoccurrence of sexual abuse, it is nevertheless inadmissible. It is beyond question that the drawing constituted an out of court statement by the victim offered for the truth of the matter asserted and for this reason should have been excluded. KRE 801(a)(1), (c). Hellstrom v. Commonwealth, Ky., 825 S.W.2d 612, 615 (1992).