Michael Fields v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2019 SC 0663

Background

Fields used Limewire to bulk-download music and other files and testified he did not preview most individual files; investigators later found child pornography on his desktop and an external hard drive.
Attorney General cybercrimes investigators seized computers in 2010; initial forensics flagged numerous suspected images/videos and the indictment was eventually amended to ten counts (2 videos, 8 images), later tried on ten counts but conviction occurred on four counts.
Investigator Tom Bell testified about Limewire, file-name “buzzwords,” and forensic artifacts; he identified four files (Counts 2, 4, 6, 9) as having a "file:///C:" three‑forward‑slash prefix in Windows File Explorer history and opined that meant those files had been viewed.
Defense proffered Matthew Considine as a computer‑forensics expert; the trial court disqualified him as an expert for lack of Limewire/peer‑to‑peer experience and permitted only avowal testimony; defense did not elicit opinion about File Explorer/three‑slash meaning.
The jury convicted Fields of four counts; court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling ten years.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fields)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
1) Directed verdict motion	Evidence was insufficient to prove Fields "knowingly" possessed child pornography given bulk downloads and lack of direct proof he previewed files	Circumstantial evidence (file names, recycle‑bin movement, File Explorer entries showing "viewed") sufficed for a reasonable juror to find knowledge	Denied; evidence (including File Explorer entries) permitted a reasonable juror to infer knowledge and possession
2) Exclusion of defense expert	Trial court erred in disqualifying Considine and thus infringed right to present a defense	Considine lacked specialized, professional experience with Limewire/peer‑to‑peer networks under KRE 702/Daubert; exclusion was within trial court discretion	No abuse of discretion; even if error, exclusion was harmless because Considine’s proffered testimony would not have rebutted File Explorer evidence and counsel did not elicit relevant Windows expertise
3) Admission of Exhibits 11–14 & 18 (computer activity lists)	Exhibits were irrelevant or unduly prejudicial because they were not the charged files and their contents were unproven	Exhibits were relevant to rebut Fields’s claim he never saw alarming file names and to show other pornographic‑titled files were opened; Exhibit 18 showed the four charged files were accessed	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion under KRE 403; exhibits were probative of knowledge
4) Admission of the ten images/videos (counts)	Images/videos were inflammatory and their admission required specific KRE 403 findings; Fields also contested whether they were child pornography	Photographic/video evidence was directly probative because KRS 531.335 requires proof the matter portrayed sexual performance by a minor; jurors decide the factual questions	Admissible; images were highly probative of the charged elements and not unduly prejudicial in light of the nature of the offense

Key Cases Cited

Crabtree v. Commonwealth, 455 S.W.3d 390 (Ky. 2014) (outlines elements of KRS 531.335 and accepts circumstantial proof of knowledge)
Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (standard for denying directed verdict)
Hunter v. Commonwealth, 587 S.W.3d 298 (Ky. 2019) (appellate standard for directed verdict review)
Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 525 (Ky. 1977) (directed verdict standard guidance)
Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may prove actual knowledge)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper role for expert reliability)
Hall v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015) (KRE 403 balancing for photographic evidence)
Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779 (Ky. 2003) (probative crime‑scene photos admissible unless unduly inflammatory)