Hale v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 90
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Hale, age 44, was convicted in Christian Circuit Court of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor under KRS 530.064(1) for inducing a 14-year-old girl to have intercourse.
- The victim was the daughter of a recently deceased family friend; Hale and his wife provided extensive help to the victim’s family and developed a close relationship.
- The act occurred October 18, 2008; Hale ultimately admitted one incident during police interview.
- Hale argued KRS 580.064 applies only when the minor is induced to commit a crime, not to submit to unlawful sexual contact, seeking a directed verdict and a lesser charge.
- Trial resulted in a ten-year sentence, the minimum for a Class B felony.
- The Court of Appeals and this Court rejected Hale’s construction of KRS 530.064 and affirmed the conviction, while also addressing prosecutorial misconduct claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KRS 530.064 requires inducing a crime or merely engaging illegal activity by a minor | Hale: UTM requires inducing crime; unlawful sexual activity by minor should not trigger UTM. | Commonwealth: statute targets inducements to engage in illegal activity by a minor, including sex due to minority. | KRS 530.064 applies; inducement to engage in illegal sexual activity due to minority is sufficient. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal | Hale: closing remarks were improper and biased the jury. | Commonwealth: remarks were within allowable closing argument and not flagrantly improper. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; trial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 670 (Ky.1998) (overlap between UTM and Chapter 510; grand jury discretion in charging)
- Hillard v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 758 (Ky.2005) (upheld first-degree UTM conviction for inducement to engage in illegal sexual activity)
- Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574 (Ky.2006) (reversed UTM conviction where no evidence of inducement)
- Quist v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 778 (Ky.App.2010) (rejects narrow reading limiting UTM to inducement to commit a crime)
- Willock v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.2d 771 (Ky.1968) (contributing to delinquency law precedents influencing UTM scope)
- Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky.2003) (prosecutorial discretion in charging overlapping offenses)
- Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky.2001) (prosecutor closing argument scope and fair comment)
- Roach v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 101 (Ky.2010) (closing argument analysis; sympathy vs. improper manipulation)
- Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2006) (prosecutorial argument acceptable to stress seriousness of offense)
- Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744 (Ky.2005) (limits on emotional appeals in guilt phase)