*1 622 is that final contention Appellant’s Brown v. Illi- (1963). also L.Ed.2d See erroneously admitted hear the trial court nois, 45 L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. Conley John tes testimony. Detective say relevant to a question The sole Moran, the man Diane tified that Ronald Murtaugh’s state- of whether determination from her hus separation during her dated under the Fourth ment was admissible band, about the Mur- several details related whether that statement was Amendment is Diane relationship. Moran said told taughs’ “The whether voluntarily given. up her and threatened him that Kevin beat will product is the of a free confession (cid:127) claimed that Diane to kill her. Moran answered on the Wong must be Sun pills while an overdose had tried to take Illinois, case,” supra, V. facts each Brown dating. they were introduc- to the objection was made held an extensive The trial court proba- testimony. hearsay tion of this the voluntariness of hearing

in-chambers part apparent: silence ble reason for that determined that Murtaugh’s admission support the de- tended to of the evidence will. The an act of free the admission was Because theory drug overdose. fense all the circumstances trial court considered court, no in the trial was not raised issue statement, making of the surrounding the Kennedy v. error was committed. See cooperative attitude Murtaugh’s including Commonwealth, Ky., 544 S.W.2d police willingness accompany and his is affirmed. judgment courthouse, background and rela his intelligence, and the absence of tively high All concur. investigating officers. We coercion findings of the trial say that the unable to clearly erroneous.

court assignment of er

Murtaugh’s third evidence of into goes

ror to the admission wife’s he severed his

the saw with which charged was argues He that he limbs. OF ELECTION REGISTRY KENTUCKY dismemberment, murder, and that not with FINANCE, Appellant, value on the probative saw had no Appel murder. of whether he committed saw introduction of the lant submits that ASSOCIATION, An- BAR LOUISVILLE error. prejudicial constituted Individually, Anderson, F. drew E. was not relevant Consisting agree that the saw We Representative of Class Mur- inasmuch as issue in the Registered Voters in Jefferson of all Eligible charged with murder Kentucky, taugh was not County, to Vote dismemberment, not have Elec- and that should the 1977 Judicial Candidates However, tions, Appellees. allowed into evidence. been prejudiced Murtaugh see how cannot Kentucky. Appeals of freely He into evidence. its admission dismem- strangled he Withdrawn Opinion admitted that Original dis- 1979. body. the act of bered Diane’s Since Reissued March disgusting is so by chain saw memberment April 1978. Opinion Rendered nature, it is very by its reprehensible chain saw unlikely that the admission those emotions intensified

into evidence the minds of extent in

any appreciable Therefore, to reverse

jurors. we decline that basis.

Murtaugh’s conviction on *2 Prewitt, Jr., Frankfort, controversy began appel- Allen when the Bar As- interpretation lant. an requested sociation Registry legality Gorin, Frankfort, William H. Victoria poll by paid newspaper means ad. Louisville, Warner, Ann Ogden, William T. an registry issued effect for appellees. that the dissemination of the results of the the news media would *3 HOWERTON, Before and WILHOIT prohibited, publication by that but means of WINTERSHEIMER, JJ. paid newspaper a ad would violate certain Thereafter, provisions of the statute. HOWERTON, Judge. declaratory judg- Bar Association a ment. The to case submitted the trial Kentucky Registry The of Fi- Election arguments. on pleadings court and oral nance, “Regis- referred to hereinafter The appropriate statute is try,” appeals declaratory judgment from a provides part: It KRS 121.025. which held that the Louisville Bar Associa- tion, to as corporation, agent hereinafter referred “Bar Associ- officer or of and no ation,” behalf, publish judi- its shall corporation results of a on its contrib- ute, indirectly, any qualification directly cial or mon- poll, certain restric- either tions, thing of to- ey, use of an service or other value advertisement from any its wards the nomination or election of Registry argues funds. The officer, state, (1) city or county, or district Chapter that 121 and 150 of the § pay, promise, pecuniarily or loan become prohibit expend- Constitution way liable in for or any any other iture any corporate direct for the any valuable thing on behalf of candidate or any indirect benefit of candidate for election, any primary for or office office, public (2) and that of the nominating convention held state. poll lawyers results aids in the election of the favorites of the in viola- poll

tion Practices Act. appropriate portion reads: Constitution In judgment defense of trial of the shall, any if and court, argues (1) the Bar Association offer, indirectly, promise or directly or public has a duty lay to advise the authorize, directly give, or or indi- shall qualifications judicial for of- candidates offer, rectly, promise any person or fice, (2) poll concern- give any money or value anything ing qualifications is not of all candidates any influence result of election in this candidate, presented support any one state, any or voter authorized the vote (3) preserving the state’s interest therein, afterward to vote or who shall cor- integrity of elections and avoidance of any compensate in manner reimburse or rupt practices justify not the denial of whatever, of- any person who shall have publish the right of the Bar Association to fered, given or promised any money or and the voters to receive the information. value influence the re- thing points Bar Association also out that any vote of any sult of election or the judgment any advertisement voter, organized if corporation, such such in “proper, dignified, and tasteful form Commonwealth, under the laws requirements in accordance with the shall, thereof, its forfeit conviction Profes- American Bar Association Code of rights, privileges, im- charter all Responsibility; provided sional and further thereunder; munities that any such advertisement shall not actuality, or language contain which construction, endorses,

upon expresses language of the statute the Con- fair for, preference simple quite election clear. There or advocates the stitution any exceptions, includ- provisions are no for candidate.” Responsibility The Code of Professional ing incorporated bar Contri- associations. explain why Association may the Bar con- directly butions from funds which it, publish and desired to but ducted indirectly promote candidate for justify alone cannot the act. The the code office are prohibited. primarily guide lawyers in the code is attempt The Bar Association did not themselves, they must and it is way conduct soliciting establish true developing an aid them in self-disci- using voluntary contributions of its mem pline professionalism. is no more bers, apparently permissible. Pipe which is for a bar association to assist in appropriate fitters 562 et Local Union a l. v. United informing public regarding qualifi- States, than it would cations of candidates Also, such contributions to inform the be for medical association expressly prohibited by not the Ken regarding qualifications of candi- Furthermore, tucky Corrupt Practices Act. coroner, or for an dates for office the Bar Association did as a register to run an advertise- association C.P.A.’s *4 any particular candidate, for the merits of candidates state ment on group supports which is if a auditor. candidate. decision, purposes For the of this have publication poll conceded that the the did specifically trial court found that the expenditure the money, involve “intent, primary and and effect principal and it did benefit one or more of the candi- the . . results of the dates, indirectly. at least We must then judicial poll its tois inform the electorate of ask, activity this was actual violation of candidates, qualifications judicial the meaning intent of the true Ken- an objective preferential manner without tucky Corrupt Practices Act and the Ken- or endorsement of such can- declaration For the reasons tucky Constitution? here- didate.” finding We do determine this expressed, inafter we conclude erroneous, to be clearly but for sake would not be a violation the facts in deciding case, discussing this we will case, paid if the advertisement was this concede that poll of a terms presented according to the kind provide indirect least some An judgment of the trial court. even more help have, to the leader or winner. We not the is whether or restric- question basic therefore, agreed Reg- with everything press sought free and free tions on istry by way has had to offer fact imposed by through to be KRS 121.025 argument in its favor. Constitution What then the Bar Association abridge the First Amend- present Registry? to offset the case of the was ment of U. S. Constitution meant The first argument relates to No. 8 Canon At to the facts protect? least as of the American Bar Code of Association case, we conclude that circumstances Responsibility Professional which enti- they do. tled, Lawyer “A Should Improving Assist in Registry Hennepin v. cited LaBelle Legal System.” lawyers It is true that Minn., Association, County Bar 206 Minn. position are in unique to evaluate the (1939) as leading 288 N.W. 788 “the qualifications candidates, judicial country respect political case in with they the legal system should assist and the by incorporated activities bar associations.” general public by supporting good candi- many involve similarities with LaBelle does making dates and known about the truth County Bar Asso- Hennepin this case. The their qualifications. They may do this permitted to conduct ciation collectively alone or through an association. permitted preference poll, and it was comply association must with laws publish confer- the results pertaining incorporated organizations, being in the Min- ence without violation Regis- however. Practices Act. Our nesota York, Regents University of New activity is try is of the that such Kentucky Corrupt 675, 17 also lawful under the Act, it would be but that unlawful The courts also insist that there be what is publish poll by way the results of the characterized as “relevant correlation” paid The Minnesota court advertisement. govern “substantial relation” between adver- never reached the involved and the restric mental interests tisement LaBelle. imposed. Buckley v. to be tions Valeo, 46 L.Ed.2d The Bar Association cites Pecora Association, N.Y., Queens County 46 659 (1965) Misc.2d as its N.Y.S.2d Registry seeks to enforce In this Queens County Bar “leading case.” The preserving integ- the state’s interest qualifica Association established minimum process by prohibiting rity of the election a method judges, together tions for all publications, by prohibiting but not evaluating candidates. The evaluations long publications so as a free free published, and in some cases certain seems to be a release is available. This actually candidates were endorsed Reg- a difference. The distinction without brought A association. candidate any explanation or istry has not made alleging suit the action of the Bar rationalization as to how the presented any Association violated election laws publication by paid mere advertisement pur New York. The court examined the judicial qualification results of pose they and found that of the statutes integrity of the adversely will affect prevention corpo of inordinate were for the *5 publication the process electoral while rate influence on elections and not for in will not. by press the a conference results legitimate with otherwise terference or “sub- We find no “relevant correlation” public authorized activities in the interest. protection the stantial relation” between that the statutes The court also reasoned elections, pro- or even the the integrity nature, penal they were and that thus interests in the Bar As- minority tection of strict and narrow construction. paid sociation, prohibition of the and the Queens County Bar Association was corporate As as poll. far performing public

found to be function concerned, the Bar Association funds are canons, acting accordance its own poll, to take the and if spend had to aiding primary purpose with a the ad participated press in a by seeking staff member justice ministration of the elec too, results, qualified judges. tion of conference to release the expense. some would involve provides penalties 121.990 severe corporations and their upon and sanctions the Publication of the results of who violate KRS 121.025. Section officers poll, by paid advertisement Bar Association the Constitution is also 150 of conference, receipt as the press well penal very aOnly in nature. strict inter- Anderson, appellee, the information the pretation Act the Practices represents, he are and the class of voters would find that the Bar Association was the protected rights under fundamentally violation under the circumstances of this Amendments First and Fourteenth strictly case. We do not construe the stat- States, as well as the United Constitution of Association, against against ute the Bar but 1 of Constitution. Also, a state when Commonwealth. advertisements, that is well established Corrupt regulation such as the involving speech” “commercial even those infringe Act on fundamental First seeks protection. First Amendment are entitled to the interest of ad- Amendment Sullivan, 376 Company v. New York Times interest, legitimate vancing state 710, 11 (1964). L.Ed.2d 686 254, 84 S.Ct. U.S. require regulation be nar- courts right protection also extends purpose for rowly accomplish drawn to and ideas. to receive information Keyishian which it is intended. Board

fi27 Virginia Pharmacy also have to consider editorials in favor State Board v. Vir Council, Inc., ginia Citizens’ a cor- particular Consumer candidate or 748, 1817, newspaper 48 L.Ed.2d 346 owned would also be porately S.Ct. (1976). corporate proscribed. Expenditure funds any poll of the results of Any time free and free candidates or is- involving political suppressed, to be the reasons for such might illegal. be Chief Justice sues suppression subjected must be to close scru concurring opinion in Burger, separate in a tiny. government The burden is on the Bellotti, supra, expressed similar concerns. show the existence of such an interest. El disquieting stated that “a The Chief Justice Burns, rod v. S.Ct. aspect position of Massachusetts’ is that it Regis In this may carry impinging the risk of on the try why publica has offered no reason rights of those who em- First Amendment made, poll may tion of the not except be ploy form —as most do—to it is in interpre violation of a narrow carry on the business of mass communica- tation of the statute and the constitution tions, particularly large conglom- media because involved in Bellotti, supra, erates.” at at S.Ct. payment advertisement. quite 1426. The Justice made it clear Chief Perhaps the best and most recent authori- that freedom of the freedom ty subject on this is First National Bank of speech apply only to individuals but to Boston v. 435 U.S. corporations “any category definable outset, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 At the persons belongs to all who or entities: we will note that may the Bellotti case Bellotti, supra, exercise its freedoms.” distinguished from this action on several 802, 98 grounds. The primary distinguishing factor purpose of both the constitu is that the Bellotti case was concerned with statutory provisions appear tional and to be spending its own funds to prevention for the of un exertion speak out on an issue it felt would affect its perhaps warranted and unwholesome influ business. The issue was to be voted on political ence by corporations over affairs Massachusetts In voters. the case before *6 profit. corporations formed for These often court, this we corporate are concerned with disposal large have at their sums of being used to advertise an capable being corporate used further poll regarding the qualifications through aspirations promoting fortunes by candidates to be elected Kentucky vot- of selected candidates. The activities of the Bellotti, ers. principles in discussed Louisville Bar Association this case clear however, are important pertinent ly do not fall within the conduct our principle case. One was that the inher- by be has been no avoided our laws. There protected ent worth of speech is not affect- buying by corruption of candidates or vote by ed emanating corpo- reason of its from a contributions, and we cannot see rate speakers source. “If the here were not protection need for of the individual corporations, no one suggest would that the members of the Bar Association this situ proposed speech. State could silence their ation. It is the type speech indispensable

decisionmaking in democracy, and this is showing greater Without dan no less true because the comes from ger interest than has been rather than an individual.” we must con shown to exist supra, at S.Ct.. proposed application of clude that the KRS

We have an additional concern when we 121.025 150 of the Constitu § interpretation thought consider the narrow request- prohibiting expression tion ed by Registry. we If should decide the Bar Association’s adver the action of the Bar incompatible Association vio- tisement would be with the Act, lates the Corrupt might we Amendment by freedoms secured the First highest obligation to organizations have the Kentucky and the United States of both the spirit. law and its the letter of the observe we decide that Specifically, Constitutions. interpretation of 121.025 proper with a only what is imme- Court can decide This constitution, neither was indulge in We cannot diately before it. publication as prohibit intended to to what would result from speculation as judgment of the trial for in the provided corporate politi- challenge types other court; but, to reach that if we were unable the American activity. This Court and cal conclusion, compelled be to reach would clearly respect jurisprudence tradition basis the First the same result on the expression, to free Amendment issue. freedom insert the fallacious but to totally case is unneces- of the judgment of Franklin Circuit sary. is affirmed. relatively simple and Here, is the solution J., WILHOIT, concurs. formation of a by the achieved of in- express purpose J., WINTERSHEIMER, dissents. Association’s forming electorate WINTERSHEIMER, dissenting. Judge, Additionally, regulations poll results. respectfully I dissent. administratively amended could be legislative action. Constitu- KRS 121.025and tion, 150, specifically prohibit the Section agree with the Philosophically, I would funds, directly or either use of in the American an article conclusions in or election of indirectly, for the nomination 1978,Page only Journal, June officer, including officers. any state and determine should debate persons real statutory constitutional sections These corporations public policies. Treatment provide for and do not are absolute persons legal fiction. simple 121.025 is a exceptions. KRS parties are seems that both Because it which does not lend clearly worded statute ques- the election in well-intentioned interpretation itself to because over, of this resolution long tion is since language used plainly stated accomplished by dispute might be better obligation of the legislature. is the than compromise rather arbitration language of the uphold courts to the clear question. such a involving the courts unnecessary “judicial impose law and not interpretation of legislation” by means by statute. clearly defined

what has been Registry of challenge is made promulgation

Election Finance to the *7 press conference poll by means release, exter- byor internal or GROUP, INSURANCE HARTFORD regu- objection The sole nal means. Appellant, agency is the use latory Kentucky law. contravention & TRUST BANK FIDELITY CITIZENS voting The need for information Leroy J. COMPANY abundantly questions is all Kastlehun, Appellees. language used Jus- apply To clear. Kentucky. Appeals in the case of his Rehnquist tice dissent information flow of supra, the free 30, 1979. March Rendered Opinion regulatory way is in no diminished April 1979. Published Ordered The meri- requirement legislation here. electorate informed goal of a better torious of the clear justify avoidance legal Lawyers and

meaning law.