405 S.W.3d 519
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Chames appeals after Kenton Circuit Court conviction for two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of attempted sodomy, with concurrent sentences totaling seven-and-a-half years and seven-and-a-half years respectively.
- Victim S.S., then sixteen, lived with Chames and Mary; Mary later married Chames; S.S. was placed in foster care in 2009, increasing contact with the alleged abuser.
- S.S. disclosed sexual abuse to a teacher and the Child Advocacy Center, and a forensic interview was conducted; police interviewed Chames and Mary in 2010.
- The Commonwealth moved in limine to exclude prior subject allegations; Chames sought to exclude pornographic materials and a violent act by Chames, which the court denied.
- During trial, issues included credibility bolstering of S.S.’s consistency, and whether to include a lesser-included offense instruction; the jury convicted on all counts.
- The trial court later included conditional discharge conditions and restitution terms; on appeal, the court vacated those portions and remanded for a new judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior false accusations | Chames argues prior accusations were admissible to attack credibility. | Commonwealth contends such evidence is admissible only upon demonstrable falsity. | Exclusion affirmed; no abuse of discretion; prior accusations insufficiently proven demonstrably false. |
| Admission of pornographic materials and violence evidence | Chames challenges use of pornographic material and violent act evidence as prejudicial. | Commonwealth asserts relevance to intent, plan, and forcible conduct. | Admission not an abuse of discretion; evidence relevant to intent and forcible compulsion. |
| Bolstering threat of fabrication by prior statements | Chames claims expert testimony bolstered S.S.’s credibility improperly. | State contends testimony rebuts fabrication/motive charge. | Not an abuse; testimony properly admitted to rebut fabrication claim. |
| Directed verdict on sufficiency | Chames claims no evidence of forcible compulsion or sodomy; verdict should fail. | Commonwealth contends sufficient evidence viewed in light favorable to the Commonwealth. | Directed verdict denied; evidence supports forcible compulsion and attempted sodomy. |
| Conditional discharge and restitution authority | Judgment improperly dictated conditional-discharge conditions by the trial court and failed to set restitution amounts. | Commonwealth argues conditions may be imposed by trial court or made recommendations. | Remanded to strike conditional-discharge terms and specify restitution amounts; judge acted beyond authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 466 (Ky.2010) (requires demonstrably false prior accusation to attack credibility)
- Capshaw v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 557 (Ky.App.2007) (prior accusations prove false if admitted or disproved)
- Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 (Ky.2006) (forcible compulsion can exist without resistance)
- Yarnell v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 834 (Ky.1992) (past duress admissible to show ongoing fear and compliance)
- Hudson v. Commonwealth, 202 S.W.3d 17 (Ky.2006) (lesser-included offenses analysis; defenses against greater charges)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 295 (Ky.2010) (separation of powers; trial court cannot set DOC-discretionary conditions)
- Manning v. Commonwealth, 281 Ky. 453 (1939) (restitution/order legality when beyond authority is void for excess)