Kingrey v. Commonwealth
396 S.W.3d 824
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Kinrey hosted a party for his 16-year-old daughter Emma and her friends, with most attendees under 18 and Kinrey aged 84; a virgin rule was imposed for those arriving as virgins.
- A truth-or-dare game, overseen by Kinrey, featured largely sexual dares; Kinrey offered $50 to the winner.
- During the party, Emma and Sophia undressed; Sophia reportedly received a lap dance and performed oral sex on her boyfriend; others engaged in various sexual acts.
- Months later Emma and Sophia ran away; authorities learned of the party and a separate incident involving Blake and Sophia at Kinrey’s home, where Sophia and Blake were involved when Sophia was younger.
- At trial, Sophia testified inconsistently with prior statements; Blake testified about an event involving Sophia and 14-year-old Blake at Kinrey’s home; Sophia claimed she was not naked and that Kinrey advised about condom use if she had sex with Blake.
- The grand jury charged Kinrey with one count of use of a minor under 18 in a sexual performance and later superseded to two counts under 16 and six counts under 18; the jury convicted him on one under 16 as to Jacob and six under 18 as to Emma, Sophia, Alex, Ethan, Ryan, and James, with a total recommended sentence of 25 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial was error | Kinrey argued CHFS investigator Morgan’s testimony about sexual-abuse allegations was improper and prejudicial. | Kinrey claimed the denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion despite a curative admonition. | No abuse of discretion; error harmless. |
| Whether Sophia verdict violated unanimity | Kinrey contends the Sophia instruction aggregated two separate acts, risking non-unanimous verdict. | Commonwealth asserts instruction allowed one crime under two theories with sufficient evidence for both. | Unanimity violated; reversal required and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2003) (unanimity issues when multiple acts under one instruction)
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 331 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2011) (palpable error when multiple counts/acts not distinguished)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (unanimity and jury instruction analysis guidance)
- Bell v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. 2008) (presents considerations on combining multiple acts in one instruction)
- King v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 270 (Ky. 2009) (unanimity and multiple theories within one count)