472 S.W.3d 523
Ky.2015Background
- Appellant William R. King was convicted in Laurel Circuit Court of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse with a combined sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.
- Eleven-year-old Thomas testified that King engaged in sexual acts with him during a sleepover at King's house, forming the basis for the sodomy and sexual abuse charges.
- King challenged the sodomy conviction as a directed-verdict error, while the Commonwealth conceded the trial court correctly denied the motion.
- Detective Anderkin testified about delayed reporting and described a Laurel County Task Force on Child Sexual and Physical Abuse that allegedly recommended prosecution, which King challenged as improper bolstering.
- The trial court did not err on the directed-verdict issue, but palpable error was found in the Detective's testimony about CSAAS and the Task Force, affecting Thomas's credibility.
- The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial due to palpable error and manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict on sodomy | King contends insufficient elements for sodomy. | King argues the evidence did not prove first-degree sodomy. | Court upheld denial of directed verdict; evidence could support sodomy. |
| Palpable error from CSAAS/Delayed reporting and Task Force | King argues Detective Anderkin's CSAAS-delayed reporting and Task Force testimony improperly bolstered Thomas's credibility. | Commonwealth contends any error was not palpable or could be cured. | Task Force testimony constituted palpable error; delayed-reporting detail was improper but not alone; combined errors supported manifest injustice. |
| Impact of errors on final judgment | King asserts the errors deprived him of a fair trial. | Commonwealth maintains trial fairness was not fatally compromised. | Convictions reversed and new trial ordered due to manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standard; weigh all evidence for reasonable doubt)
- Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (standard for appellate-directed-verdict review)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566 (Ky. 2002) (CSAAS-delayed reporting improper evidence)
- Hellstrom v. Commonwealth, 825 S.W.2d 612 (Ky. 1992) (CSAAS-related error; delayed disclosure)
- Hoff v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2011) (improper bolstering by expert-witness testimony)
- Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997) (prohibition on witness credibility bolstering)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 321 (Ky. 1993) (credibility bolstering generally improper)
- Bussey v. Commonwealth, 697 S.W.2d 139 (Ky. 1985) (CSAAS not generally accepted; exclusionary rule)
- Dyer v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 647 (Ky. 1991) (Daubert/Frye context for CSAAS evidence)
- Newkirk v. Commonwealth, 937 S.W.2d 690 (Ky. 1996) (CSAAS credibility-vouching exclusion)
- Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 930 (Ky. 1989) (CSAAS evidence lacking proof of validity)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (Daubert standard for scientific evidence)