The Kentucky Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling that allowed Kendall Daugherty to block his wife’s testimony in his attempted murder trial. This decision affects the ongoing case against Daugherty, who is accused of shooting William Harris. The ruling clarifies the application of spousal testimony privilege in Kentucky law.
The court's decision was made public on May 29, 2026, and it is significant because it reaffirms the principle that spousal privilege can be waived if one spouse allows the other to testify in related proceedings. This ruling could impact how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly those involving domestic relationships.
Background
Kendall Daugherty was indicted for attempted murder on May 24, 2024, after allegedly shooting William Harris. The case was brought before the Montgomery Circuit Court, where Daugherty's wife, Haley Daugherty, testified during two pre-trial hearings. During these hearings, she was questioned by both Daugherty's defense counsel and the prosecution.
However, just before the trial was set to begin, Daugherty filed a motion to prevent his wife from testifying at trial, citing the spousal privilege outlined in Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 504(a). The trial court granted this motion, leading to an appeal from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which argued that Daugherty had waived his right to the privilege by allowing his wife to testify during the pre-trial hearings.
The Ruling
The Kentucky Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Thompson, ruled that the trial court had erred in allowing Daugherty to invoke the spousal privilege to block his wife's testimony. The court stated, “We believe that Appellee waived this privilege by allowing his wife to testify during pre-trial proceedings.” This decision was based on the understanding that spousal privilege can be waived if one spouse voluntarily discloses information.
The court emphasized that the spousal testimony privilege does not apply to testimony that is not adverse to the party-spouse. It stated, “The spousal testimony privilege neither applies to favorable testimony, nor to impeachment testimony.” The court clarified that a trial court must evaluate whether the testimony sought is truly adverse to the party-spouse.
Additionally, the court addressed the Commonwealth's argument that Daugherty should not be allowed to invoke the privilege at all due to the apparent breakdown of his marriage. The court declined to negate the privilege based on marital strife, stating that it would not assess the happiness of a marriage to determine the applicability of the privilege.
Impact
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the spousal privilege in Kentucky law, particularly in criminal cases. It establishes that allowing a spouse to testify in pre-trial hearings can lead to a waiver of the privilege, enabling that spouse to provide testimony at trial. This could influence future cases where spousal privilege is invoked, as it sets a precedent for evaluating the waiver of privilege based on prior testimony.
The decision also reinforces the idea that spousal privilege is not absolute and can be challenged if one spouse has previously allowed the other to testify. This ruling may encourage more scrutiny of how spousal testimony is handled in court and could lead to more cases being appealed on similar grounds.
What's Next
The case will now return to the Montgomery Circuit Court for trial, where Ms. Daugherty will be permitted to testify. There is no indication in the ruling that this decision will be appealed further, but the dynamics of the case may change as it proceeds to trial.