Newman v. Commonwealth
366 S.W.3d 435
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Newman was indicted for two counts of first-degree sodomy and one count of first-degree sexual abuse involving two victims ages under twelve.
- The indictment was amended to include forcible compulsion as an alternate theory for the sodomy counts.
- Trial evidence included testimony from B.C. and J.M. about alleged assaults, physical restraint, and semen/baby-oil DNA evidence linking Newman to the offenses.
- The jury convicted Newman on both sodomy counts under forcible compulsion and on attempted first-degree sexual abuse as to J.M.; the jury recommended life sentences for the sodomy convictions.
- The trial court sentenced Newman to life on the sodomy counts and a separate sentence for the attempted sexual abuse, but on appeal the Court vacated the life sentences and remanded for new penalty phase due to sentencing-range error.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior-bad-acts statement under 404(b) | Newman alleging 404(b) error; statement used to show forcible compulsion. | Newman contends error and palpable impact; lack of preservation. | Not reversible error; use to prove forcible compulsion proper. |
| Moss cross-examination comments about lying | Prosecutor improperly called witnesses liars, prejudicing Newman. | Error but not palpable under facts; defense theory already in dispute. | Mere improper questioning did not rise to palpable error. |
| Sentencing under Class A vs Class B for sodomy | Jury found forcible compulsion; age not required for Class A. | Age element not found beyond reasonable doubt; Class B applies. | Remand for sentencing under Class B guidelines; Class A error. |
| Penalty-phase evidence describing prior offenses’ nature | Evidence describing crimes against children affected jury sentencing. | Mullikan controls; describe only elements of prior offenses. | Mullikan rule applied; remand for new penalty phase consistent with rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be charged, proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury must find any fact increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum)
- Dixon v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.3d 583 (Ky. 2008) (Stricter jury finding requirements for enhanced penalties)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2003) (applies Apprendi to Kentucky sentencing)
- Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2011) (nature of prior offenses limited to elements; guide penalty phase on remand)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2006) (palpable error standard for improper prosecutorial conduct)