 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lanham v. Commonwealth8/25/2005
uture intentions, not to events that have already occurred. Ernst, 160 S.W.3d at 753; Blair, 144 S.W.3d at 805; Crowe v. Commonwealth, 38 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Ky. 2001); Moseley v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Ky. 1997).
The only diary entries admissible under these legal principles were those dated February 7, 2001 ("We'll probably end up in a fight tonight cause he blames me for all his woes."); February 10, 2001 ("I dread today. We have no pot so Phillip will either hide in his bedroom all weekend or come stomping out with that mean, disgusting look on his face.... He'll try to fight wlme today but God help me keep my cool."); and August 7, 2001 ("Still things are OK. I've still got a few hundred dollars. But that will be gone this week & I don't get paid till the 20th. Even after that there's no money... its all owed in bills. That's when the fighting will start again."). These are the only entries that relate to future events and tend to prove Appellant's motive to kill the declarant.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent and would reverse Appellant's convictions and sentences and remand this case to the Garrard Circuit Court for a new trial.
Lambert, CJ; and Scott, J., join this dissenting opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|