Phillip Edmondson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2017 Ky. LEXIS 356
| Ky. | 2017Background
- Victim ("Jessica"), age 11, was touched on her buttocks multiple times by Phillip Edmondson at a youth center; she later wrote a note and law enforcement obtained surveillance video said to corroborate her account.
- Edmondson was indicted, tried, convicted of first-degree sexual abuse, and sentenced to six years imprisonment; defense moved for new trial after conviction based on juror issue.
- After verdict but before sentencing, defense learned the jury foreman, Mark Danhauer, was brother‑in‑law of Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Mike Williamson (who assisted in voir dire despite not prosecuting the case); this relationship was not disclosed during voir dire.
- At voir dire the judge asked generally whether anyone had relationships with Mr. Williamson that would impair impartiality; the record shows no clear response from Danhauer and the judge and parties did not further explore any such relationship.
- Trial court denied new‑trial motion; Court of Appeals affirmed. Kentucky Supreme Court granted review and found Danhauer’s familial tie to the prosecutor was presumptively disqualifying and that defense and court failed to obtain disclosure; reversal and remand for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror impartiality / undisclosed relationship with prosecutor | Edmondson: Danhauer’s relationship to the prosecutor was concealed and is presumptively disqualifying; denial of new trial violated right to impartial jury | Commonwealth: Danhauer attempted to disclose or raised hand; parties and court could have followed up and failure rests with them | Reversed: familial relationship with prosecutor creates presumed bias; Danhauer not qualified and failure to disclose denied Edmondson a fair trial; new trial required |
| Juror mendacity standard (McDonough) | Edmondson: juror failed to answer honestly on voir dire, which would have supported a challenge for cause | Commonwealth: no proof Danhauer intentionally concealed relationship; juror believed he could be fair | Court: First prong (intentional mendacity) not met, but relief granted under RCr 10.26 due to constitutional right violation |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument: Catholic priest analogy) | Edmondson: reference to priest molestation was improper and prejudicial | Commonwealth: comment was brief, used to rebut fabrication inference | Held: Not reversible error; caution given about comments outside the record |
| Sufficiency — sexual gratification element | Edmondson: insufficient proof that touching was for sexual gratification, so directed verdict should have been granted | Commonwealth: intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances (victim testimony, repeated touching, comments, staring) | Held: Evidence sufficient for jury to infer sexual gratification; directed verdict properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (juror nondisclosure standard requiring dishonest answers that would have supported a challenge for cause)
- Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779 (Ky. 2003) (juror mendacity framework and McDonough application)
- Ward v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 404 (Ky. 1985) (presumed bias where juror has close familial relationship with a party)
- Futrell v. Commonwealth, 471 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2015) (discussing implied bias from personal relationships of jurors)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 135 (Ky. 2001) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial for abuse of discretion)
- Anastasi v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 860 (Ky. 1988) (intent may be inferred from actions and circumstances in sexual‑offense cases)
- Cunningham v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 854 F.2d 914 (6th Cir. 1988) (counsel’s duty of candor re: juror‑witness relations)
- McGuire v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 100 (Ky. 2012) (constitutional impact of jury impartiality on fairness and public confidence)