# Bell v. Commonwealth

> Kentucky Supreme Court · March 24, 1994 · 875 S.W.2d 882

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763370

## Case

- **Full name:** David BELL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 875 S.W.2d 882; 1994 Ky. LEXIS 36; 1994 WL 94166
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stephens
- **Judges:** Lambert, Leibson, Reynolds, Stumbo, Stephens, Wintersheimer, Spain
- **Cited by:** 162 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/9763370

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763370. Public record. Not legal advice.