Tackett v. Commonwealth
2014 Ky. LEXIS 494
Ky.2014Background
- Tackett was convicted in the Carter Circuit Court of multiple counts of first degree sexual abuse and sodomy involving two victims, Sarah and Nicholas.
- The jury found Tackett guilty of four counts and acquitted on two others; sentence was 30 years’ imprisonment.
- The Commonwealth presented testimony from Sarah and Nicholas, plus medical experts, investigators, and Hope’s Place personnel.
- Tackett did not present evidence and challenged several evidentiary and procedural issues on appeal.
- The court reviewed for palpable error under RCr 10.26, as issues were not properly preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Hunt and Dr. Fineburg testimony admissibility | Tackett argues hubbering identity/testimony by doctors was improper | Commonwealth says error occurred but not palpable | No palpable error; invited error or waiver precludes reversal |
| Admission of 404(b) and unindicted acts | Evidence of other acts violated KRE 404(b) or exceeded indictment | Errors unpreserved; no palpable error | No palpable error; trial court properly limited use within indictment and instructions |
| Victim impact and bolstering testimony | Testimony by victims and relatives improperly bolstered credibility; affected guilt | Error not preserved; admissible or harmless in context | No palpable error; some testimony had rebuttal/background purpose and opening statements allowed |
| Juror dismissal and impartial jury | Juror with conflicts remained; denial of fair trial | Failure to object waives; no demonstrable prejudice | Not palpable error; waiver and lack of shown prejudice apply |
| Speedy trial rights | Delay violated Barker factors and defendant’s right | Delay was justified by computer analysis and plea related delays | Not a speedy-trial violation after Barker balancing; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 517 S.W.2d 233 (Ky. 1974) (improper credibility attestation in opening statement but little prejudicial effect)
- Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2010) (hearsay and perpetrator identification in medical context)
- Hoff v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2011) (palpable error for physician to identify perpetrator in child sexual abuse case)
- Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (invited error and waiver principles in appellate review)
- Mullins v. Commonwealth, 350 S.W.3d 434 (Ky. 2011) (invited error/waiver, appellate review limits)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2010) (background/bolstering evidence admissible when credibility attacked)
- Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744 (Ky. 2005) (allowance of witness background vs. bolstering in sexual abuse cases)
- Gordon v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. 1995) (investigative testimony; concern about bolstering police informant)
- Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2001) (opening statements; prosecutorial latitude)
- Blount v. Commonwealth, 392 S.W.3d 393 (Ky. 2013) (relevance of child-abuse accommodation syndrome testimony)