Blount v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 15
Ky.2013Background
- Blount was convicted in Graves Circuit Court of two counts of first-degree sodomy and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse involving his step-granddaughter Sally, who was under 12 at the time.
- The State admitted Sally’s mother Brandi and Sally’s father Kevin testified about changes in Sally’s behavior around the time of the alleged abuse, prompting defense objections.
- Brandi testified she did not recognize the signs of abuse until counseling with Lori Brown, a psychologist who counseled Sally’s family.
- The court allowed Brandi to testify about observed behavioral changes but prohibited testimony that these changes were signs of CSAAS as explained by Brown.
- The trial court admonished the jury to disregard the testimony linking behaviors to CSAAS, and Appellant sought a mistrial which was withdrawn in favor of the admonition.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the convictions, holding the CSAAS evidence improper but not reversible given the relief granted and preservation considerations under RCr 9.22 and case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSAAS evidence was admissible. | Blount argues Brandi’s testimony implied CSAAS signs. | Blount contends the testimony violated CSAAS prohibitions. | Yes, improper, but not reversible. |
| Whether the trial court properly limited the evidence and granted relief. | Prosecutor’s questions about signs were improper. | Court sustained objections and gave an admonition. | Relief granted; no reversal. |
| Whether preservation requirements were satisfied for a mistrial claim. | Moved for mistrial; error preserved. | Appellant withdrew mistrial request; admonition sufficed. | Error not preserved for mistrial; affirmed. |
| Whether the testimony influenced the jury beyond permissible lay observations. | Signs testified as indicators of abuse. | Testimony was limited and curative measures were taken. | Admissibility corrected by admonition; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bussey v. Commonwealth, 697 S.W.2d 139 (Ky. 1985) (CSAAS evidence not admissible; lack of reliability and scientific acceptance)
- Lantrip v. Commonwealth, 713 S.W.2d 816 (Ky. 1986) (CSAAS line of cases prohibiting such testimony)
- Hellstrom v. Commonwealth, 825 S.W.2d 612 (Ky. 1992) (reliance on CSAAS evidence rejected; delay in disclosure noted)
- Newkirk v. Commonwealth, 937 S.W.2d 690 (Ky. 1996) (distrust of expert testimony based on CSAAS)
- Sanderson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2009) (reversed conviction for improper expert testimony on CSAAS and related content)