415 S.W.3d 614
Ky.2013Background
- Victim Larry was allegedly sexually assaulted (anal intercourse) in his apartment after a party; he suffered rectal bleeding and a rape kit matched Appellant Minter by DNA.
- Appellant admitted sexual contact but claimed it was consensual; victim testified he resisted and repeatedly asked Appellant to leave.
- Indictment charging first-degree sodomy, first-degree burglary, and fourth-degree assault was returned ~17 months after the incident; trial occurred ~25 months after the event.
- One month before trial, Commonwealth obtained a superseding indictment adding a PFO (persistent felony offender, second-degree) count; Appellant moved to dismiss or exclude that count.
- At trial, the jury convicted Appellant of first-degree sodomy and first-degree burglary and found him a PFO in the second-degree; he was sentenced to 35 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree burglary (directed verdict) | Commonwealth: testimony and physical injuries support intent to commit a crime inside victim’s dwelling | Minter: he was invited in; testified the encounter was consensual, so no criminal intent | Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer unlawful entry with intent; credibility for jury to decide (no directed verdict) |
| Exclusion of evidence under KRE 412 (rape shield) | Minter: testimony that victim had prior homosexual encounters is relevant to show motive to lie/consent and complete defense | Commonwealth: KRE 412 bars evidence of other sexual behavior; proffered testimony doesn’t fit exceptions and was hearsay | Affirmed — trial court properly excluded the evidence under KRE 412; exclusion did not violate right to present a defense |
| Allowing PFO charge in superseding indictment (timing) | Minter: late addition of PFO count prejudiced him and offended fundamental fairness; invoked speedy-trial concerns | Commonwealth: no unfair advantage shown; Price requires notice before trial and separate indictment suffices | Affirmed — no undue prejudice shown; PFO count properly proceeded to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (standard for directed verdict and viewing evidence in favor of Commonwealth)
- Sawhill v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (directed verdict review standard)
- Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 28 (Ky. 2010) (balancing KRE 412 exclusion against right to present a defense)
- Price v. Commonwealth, 666 S.W.2d 749 (Ky. 1984) (notice requirement for PFO sentencing enhancement)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (limits on confrontation/right to present a defense in context of competing evidentiary rules)
- Gerlaugh v. Commonwealth, 156 S.W.3d 747 (Ky. 2005) (a single witness’s testimony can support a conviction)