Allen Cunningham v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The dissent argues that the Commonwealth properly used the defendant's failure to identify an alibi witness for approximately fifteen months to challenge the credibility of the surprise alibi testimony. It contends that the issue involved inconsistent conduct rather than an adoptive admission or inconsistent statement, and that the defendant knowingly waived his Miranda rights. The dissent further concludes that the issue was unpreserved and should be reviewed only for palpable error, which it believes did not occur.