Alford v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 84
| Ky. | 2011Background
- William Alford was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse, receiving a total sentence of life plus five years.
- The victim, S.A., was thirteen at trial and alleged years of sexual abuse by Appellant, who was her mother’s boyfriend and lived with the family since she was three.
- The alleged abuse occurred in a Hardin County trailer, with S.A. describing multiple acts starting in early childhood; physical evidence included hymenal notching but inconsistent hospital findings.
- Key witnesses included S.A., her mother Billie Jo White, her brother W.A., Dr. Patrick Hayden, and Detective Bruce Slack; incompatible statements and hearsay arose during interviews and medical discussions.
- The trial relied heavily on hearsay from Detective Slack and Dr. Hayden, which the court later deemed highly prejudicial and impermissible.
- On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the palpable error from inadmissible hearsay, addressing other related issues only in the context of retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay and its impact | Alford argues hearsay from Slack and Hayden was admissible error. | Commonwealth contends any error was harmless or non-preserved. | Palpable error; reversal and remand required. |
| Indictment sufficiency and double jeopardy | Indictment insufficient to inform of conduct and to allow defense against future charges. | Single general counts permitted given pattern of abuse; no double jeopardy issue. | Indictment sufficient; no due-process or double-jeopardy violation identified on face. |
| KRE 404(b) evidence admissibility | Other-crimes evidence against Appellant proper to show fear and context. | Evidence unduly prejudicial and not probative of the charged offenses. | Admissible for retrial with proper notice; prejudicial risk may be outweighed by probative value. |
| Jury instructions on sexual abuse counts (Harp issue) | Identical lesser-included offenses instructions risked confusion and double jeopardy concerns. | Instructions, viewed in toto, distinguished the two counts; no Harp issue. | No Harp error as charged instructions, when read as a whole, directed the jury appropriately. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. 1995) (hearsay from alleged sexual-abuse victim to police lacks exception)
- Bussey v. Commonwealth, 797 S.W.2d 483 (Ky. 1990) (reversible error when multiple officers repeat victim's statements)
- Belt v. Commonwealth, 2 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. App. 1999) (reversible error for police detective to read narrative of allegations)
- Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2010) (extreme prejudice from physician repeating victim's hearsay)
- Schrimsher v. Commonwealth, 190 S.W.3d 318 (Ky. 2006) (due-process concerns in indictment and instruction)
- Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2008) (requiring distinguishing instructions when multiple offenses share terms)
- Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2010) (extreme prejudice from repeated hearsay by medical professional)
- Applegate v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 266 (Ky. 2009) (indictment sufficiency when multiple abusive acts occur over time)