Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883

Sally, a 14-year-old, lived with Appellant Richard Yates and her mother in 2010; Sally dated an 18-year-old, Austin.
Appellant confronted Sally about her relationship, threatening to tell her mother and harm Austin.
Sally agreed to sexual activity with Appellant to protect Austin, believing the threat would cause him harm if exposed.
The assault occurred in Appellant’s bedroom; Sally described physical actions and a bagged object inserted during intercourse.
Authorities later found a sex toy and several computers at Appellant’s residence; Sally reported the assault to police in July 2011.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse; convictions and sentence were appealed, and the Court reversed based on the issues raised.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient forcible compulsion for first-degree rape	Commonwealth contends forcible compulsion existed via physical force or threat	Yates contends there was no forcible compulsion; sex act was voluntary under statutory analysis	First-degree rape conviction reversed for lack of forcible compulsion
Admissibility of the computer password as evidence	Commonwealth argues password is relevant and probative to show awareness and context	Yates argues password should have been excluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial	Password evidence admitted; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred by denying cross-examination about a prior inconsistent statement	Commonwealth argues records could impeach Sally's credibility under Jett doctrine and KRE 613	Yates contends the court restricted cross-examination and deprived defense	Trial court abused its discretion; error not harmless, requiring reversal of remaining conviction

Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2006) (forcible compulsion may be shown by direct physical force on the victim)
Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566 (Ky.2002) (no forcible compulsion where no evidence of force or imminent threat)
Yarnell v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 834 (Ky.1992) (subjective standard for fear but must fit statute)
Yamell v. Commonwealth, Yarnell v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 834 (Ky. negative citation) (discussed in context of immediacy of threat)
Barroso v. Commonwealth, 122 S.W.3d 554 (Ky.2003) (Barroso used to discuss Barroso remedy and privilege handling)
Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574 (Ky.2006) (guidance on lesser-included offenses and double jeopardy)