Kentucky Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Posey v. Commonwealth

The Kentucky Court of Appeals rendered a decision in *Alisha Posey v. Commonwealth of Kentucky* on September 11, 2026, which is explicitly designated as "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED," signaling its limited precedential impact.

This designation carries significant legal implications for practitioners in Kentucky. "Not to be published" opinions, under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) and Criminal Procedure (RCr), generally lack precedential value and cannot be cited as binding authority in other cases, except under very specific, narrow circumstances such as establishing res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. This means that while the decision resolves the dispute between Alisha Posey and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it does not contribute to the broader body of binding legal precedent that shapes future legal arguments or judicial rulings. For attorneys, understanding this distinction is crucial for effective legal research, argument construction, and advising clients on the likely outcomes of similar cases.

The legal context for this ruling is the Kentucky judicial hierarchy, with the Court of Appeals serving as the intermediate appellate court reviewing a criminal action (Action No. 25-CR-00024) from the Green Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Samuel Todd Spalding. The practice of designating opinions as "not to be published" is common across many U.S. jurisdictions and is typically governed by court rules designed to manage the volume of published opinions and ensure that only decisions establishing new legal principles or significantly altering existing ones are formally published. The future date of rendering (September 11, 2026) suggests this document may be a hypothetical or illustrative example rather than an actual past ruling.

Practitioners in Kentucky must be acutely aware of the "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED" designation and its ramifications. They should refrain from citing such opinions as binding precedent in their legal arguments, as doing so could undermine their credibility and the strength of their case. While an unpublished opinion might offer some insight into how a court *might* approach a particular factual scenario, its persuasive value is minimal. Attorneys should prioritize published opinions for authoritative legal principles and ensure their research strategies account for the differing precedential weight of published versus unpublished decisions.