Hoff v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 172
Ky.2011Background
- Hoff was convicted in Christian County, Kentucky of eight counts of first-degree rape and eight counts of incest, resulting in a life sentence for the rapes and varying terms for incest; the court reverses and remands for a new trial due to admissibility errors.
- B.H. was twelve at trial and testified Hoff, her father, repeatedly sexually abused her since about age four; the abuse occurred weekly from ages five or six.
- Hoff and Marilyn Benedict cohabited since 1984; Benedict has three children with Hoff (David Jr., Tiffany, Matthew).
- Angela Green is Benedict’s daughter from a prior relationship and B.H.’s biological mother; B.H. believed Benedict was her mother, though Green is her real mother.
- The trial relied heavily on the credibility of B.H. and included extensive hearsay and bolstering by a medical examiner, with limited physical evidence besides injuries.
- The opinion holds that the errors require reversal and remand, and sets guidance for retrial on evidentiary grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Calhoun’s testimony | Hoff argues hearsay and bolstering; Colvard over Edwards | Colvard excludes perpetrator identity as hearsay; testimony helpful for diagnosis | Palpable error; reversal warranted |
| Hearsay and bolstering under KRE 803(4) and 703 | Statements identifying perpetrator and uncharged acts were relevant to diagnosis | Such statements were not pertinent to treatment and overly prejudicial | Improper hearsay and bolstering; reversible error on retrial |
| Prior consistent statements by the victim | Detective Roberts’ testimony about consistency bolstered credibility | No prior specific statements admitted; hearsay exception misapplied | Error under KRE 801A(a)(2); not applicable here; reversible on retrial |
| Other bad acts evidence and lack of notice under KRE 404 | Evidence of protective orders and Louisville trip admissible to show motive/intent | Not properly noticed; may be admissible under 404(b) with proper foundation | Error for lack of notice; retrial requires proper noticed foundation under 404(c)/(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2010) (rejected Edwards’s per se exception for perpetrator identity in KRE 803(4))
- Alford v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 240 (Ky. 2011) (bolstering concern; dr. testimony repeating victim’s statements prejudicial)
- Edwards v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 842 (Ky. 1992) (perpetrator identity related to diagnosis treated cautiously)
- Rabovsky v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 6 (Ky. 1998) (KRE 703(b) foundation requirements for expert reliance on otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997) (expert testimony on injuries consistent with history; credibility concerns)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 321 (Ky. 1993) (limits on testimony vouching for victim’s truthfulness by experts)
- Bell v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. 2008) (no expert may vouch for truthfulness of out-of-court statements)