Jason Dickerson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 Ky. LEXIS 109
Ky.2016Background
- Two-year-old Watson Adkins died from severe abdominal and other trauma in Sept. 2011; medical experts and autopsy evidence showed widespread chronic physical abuse of Watson and siblings.
- Watson and his siblings had been placed in custody of Gladys and Jason Dickerson earlier in 2011; Gladys later recanted preliminary statements to police and testified against Jason, saying she had lied out of fear of his domestic abuse.
- Jason Dickerson gave two recorded statements blaming a "white-headed boy" for Watson's injuries; police investigation of that story produced interviews of ~14 trailer-park residents.
- Prosecution presented medical examiners (Drs. Rolf and Currie), testimony from the oldest child (Braxton) and others describing repeated, severe abuse; defense presented forensic pathologist Dr. Wetli who opined the fatal injury was acute and occurred while Jason was away.
- Jury convicted Jason of murder and four counts of first-degree criminal abuse; trial court imposed life imprisonment (appeal followed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dickerson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of spousal-abuse testimony (KRE 404(b)) | Testimony about abuse of Gladys was improper other-bad-acts evidence and unfairly prejudicial | Testimony was admissible to show Gladys's fear and explain her prior inconsistent/false statements (non-propensity purpose) | Admitted; court: probative to explain Gladys's failure to report and lies outweighed prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Mistrial for sister-in-law's hearsay about mother's suspicion | Testimony that mother "suspected abuse" was hearsay/character evidence requiring mistrial | Trial court admonished jury to disregard; evidence was not devastating and other evidence of abuse existed | No mistrial; admonition cured the error |
| Admission of medical statements (KRE 803(4)) | Pediatrician's testimony repeating children's ID of abuser was hearsay beyond medical-treatment exception | Statements relevant to diagnosis/treatment and limited in scope; trial court carefully considered scope | No reversible error; testimony limited and any error harmless |
| Detective's summary of interviewees (investigative hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | Detective's summary was admissible non-hearsay and relevant | Court: summary conveyed testimonial out-of-court statements; most interviewees unavailable and not cross-examined | Admission violated Confrontation Clause but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent evidence |
| Prosecutorial misconduct—cross-exam and closings (attacks on expert, personal comments) | Prosecutor made inflammatory, opinionated, and prejudicial attacks (e.g., calling expert a "hired whore") that denied fair trial | Many remarks were proper commentary or isolated; trial court admonished where appropriate; evidence of guilt overwhelming | Some closing remarks (attacking defense expert) were improper but not flagrant; overall trial remained fundamentally fair; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1994) (requires balancing probative value and unfair prejudice for KRE 404(b) evidence)
- Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 534 (Ky. 1988) (police summaries of interview results constitute inadmissible hearsay; rejects "investigative hearsay" exception)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements by primary purpose of interrogation)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (U.S. 2015) (focuses on objective primary purpose of statements to determine testimonial nature)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional error reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117 (Ky. 2007) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)