Linda Richmond v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 534 S.W.3d 228

Background

Linda Richmond was convicted by a jury of 1 count first-degree assault, 1 count second-degree assault, and 11 counts of first-degree criminal abuse for systemic abuse of her boyfriend's minor daughter, N.V., resulting in a 70-year sentence.
Victim N.V. was hospitalized with bruises, pressure sores, dehydration, malnutrition, and low body temperature; she spent 17 days in the hospital and was later placed in foster care.
Evidence at trial described an organized regimen of abuse intended to "break" N.V.'s autistic behaviors (forced cold showers, withholding food, restraining to write punishments, soiled bedding, forcing ingestion of waste, etc.). Richmond at first denied abuse but later admitted to various abusive practices when confronted with evidence.
Richmond objected on appeal to portions of testimony from N.V.’s foster mother (Curry) admitted on the fourth day: testimony about N.V.’s current developmental level, bowel/ bathing issues, aversion to showers, and autistic self-stimulatory behaviors (flapping, jaw-squeezing).
Richmond raised three evidentiary challenges: relevancy of Curry’s testimony, that it amounted to improper victim-impact evidence, and that Curry improperly offered expert testimony about neurological/autistic responses without proper qualification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Richmond)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Admissibility — relevancy of foster mother's testimony	Curry’s testimony about N.V.’s current behaviors was not relevant to the abuse months earlier and was unduly prejudicial.	Testimony described victim characteristics directly tied to the abuse (showers, toileting, writing) and was probative, not cumulative.	No abuse of discretion; testimony was relevant background and not unduly prejudicial.
Victim-impact vs. victim-background evidence	Testimony amounted to victim-impact evidence that was prejudicial and intended to arouse sympathy.	Testimony was neutral background about the victim’s condition helpful to understanding the crimes; not emotional or glorifying.	Unpreserved; reviewed for palpable error — no manifest injustice; admissible as victim background.
Improper expert testimony (KRE 702)	Curry (foster parent) offered expert-style opinions about neurological/autistic responses without qualification.	Curry’s remarks were lay observations about N.V.’s behaviors formed from direct care, admissible under KRE 701.	Unpreserved; reviewed for palpable error — testimony was lay opinion about observable behaviors, not impermissible expert testimony.
Cumulative/prejudicial effect on fairness of trial	Testimony unfairly bolstered other evidence and prejudiced jury.	Trial already contained ample graphic evidence; Curry’s testimony was limited, factual, and not exploited in argument.	No reversible error; overall fairness and integrity of proceeding not undermined.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117 (Ky. 2007) (standard for reviewing trial-court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744 (Ky. 2005) (permissibility of victim background evidence during guilt phase)
Bussell v. Commonwealth, 882 S.W.2d 111 (Ky. 1994) (background evidence about victim relevant to understanding the nature of the crime)
Roe v. Commonwealth, 493 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015) (palpable error review requires manifest injustice)
Crum v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Human Res., 928 S.W.2d 355 (Ky. App. 1996) (limitations on nonexpert testimony about existence/effects of abuse)