James v. Commonwealth, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 5

Appellant Joseph James was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree unlawful imprisonment, fourth-degree assault, violating a protective order, and being a persistent felony offender (PFO).
Heather Frazier and James had a tumultuous relationship beginning in 2002, with multiple claims of domestic violence and periodic protective orders.
On January 16–17, 2008, they violated a no-contact domestic violence order and stayed in the same apartment; Heather alleges James battered her for hours and coerced sexual activity.
Heather testified to extensive injuries and to engaging in sexual acts during a beating to stop the assault; a SANE examination documented serious injuries and sexual contact.
The jury convicted on some counts and acquitted or mistried others; James was sentenced to a total of 35 years, including enhancements for PFO.
On appeal, James argues the trial court erred in directed verdict rulings, Brady disclosure, admission of unredacted medical records, and admission/bolstering related to his statements and the victim’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was enough forcible compulsion for first-degree rape	James argues no forcible compulsion was proven	James contends the evidence did not show coercion to have sex	Sufficient forcible compulsion supported conviction
Brady violation due to alleged exculpatory evidence	Heather’s statements that she initiated sex were exculpatory	No Brady violation; statements were not exculpatory	No Brady violation; not material to guilt
Admission of unredacted medical records and Confrontation Clause	Records contained prejudicial hearsay and violated confrontation	Records should have been redacted; Confrontation concerns	Harmless error; Confrontation clause not violated; records admissible as business/medical records with limits
Rule of completeness and exclusion of exculpatory statements	Exculpatory parts of Appellant’s interview should have been admitted under completeness	Statements were hearsay and not admissible under completeness	Trial court’s exclusion proper; completeness not applicable to unrevealed portions
Admission of prior consistent statements to rehabilitate credibility	Prior consistent statements bolstered Heather’s credibility	Statements admissible to rehabilitate credibility after impeachment	Court properly admitted prior consistent statements for rehabilitation; not offered for truth

Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991) (directed-verdict standard: draw all reasonable inferences for prosecution)
Salsman v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 688 (Ky.App.1978) (subjective fear supports forcible compulsion; not require resistance)
Yamell v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 836 (Ky.1992) (duress and ongoing abuse can establish forcible compulsion)
Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566 (Ky.2002) (no forcible compulsion where no threat or fear linked to sex)
Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (double jeopardy concerns in mistrial contexts)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial statements)
Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239 (Ky.2009) (SANE nurse interviews deemed testimonial)
Gabow v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 63 (Ky.2000) (completeness doctrine; limits on admission of statements)