Frank Rodgers, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee

Summary

The Court affirmed Rodgers's conviction, holding that the joint trial was permissible, the redacted statements did not require severance or reversal, and the trial court properly limited Rodgers's attempt to introduce additional self-defense statements. It further held that the substantive 2006 self-defense amendments did not apply retroactively, although the new immunity provision did apply retroactively and was properly denied because probable cause supported the conclusion that the force may have been unlawful. The Court also rejected Rodgers's jury-selection and jury-instruction challenges. Justice Scott, dissenting in part, would have applied the no-duty-to-retreat amendments retroactively and ordered a new trial; Justice Noble would likewise have required a no-duty-to-retreat instruction and disagreed that the immunity provision was procedural.