Ky. Decisions: Court of Appeals - Dec. 29, 2005

Court of Appeals Minutes with Links to All Decisions for this date.

Published Decisions - Dec. 29, 2005 - COA

COM. V. YOUNG
EVIDENCE - Rape shield rule KRS 412
2004-CA-002370
Published 
TACKETT
AFFIRMING
Date: 12/29/2005

In rape prosecution, TC properly ruled to admit evidence of the prosecuting witness’ sexual fantasy about the defendant, her multiple appearances at his place of employment prior to the incident, and her relationship with the Lawrenceburg City Police Department afterwards.

Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 412 sets forth the protections for victims of sexual crimes by restricting the type of evidence which can be admitted in a rape prosecution. The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows:

(a) Evidence generally inadmissible. The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c):

(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual           behavior.

(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules: (A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence; (B) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution; and (C) any other evidence directly pertaining to the offense charged. . . .

In drafting Federal Rule 412, it was contemplated that sexual thoughts would be treated as behavior, rather than sexual predisposition. Since the prosecuting witness’ sexual fantasy was directed toward Young, the trial court properly found that it constituted sexual behavior which is admissible under KRE 412(b)(1)(B).  Young’s entire defense to the charge of first-degree rape is that the sexual encounter was consensual; therefore, evidence of the alleged victim’s predisposition to have sex with him would relate directly to the charged offense.  This is a case which hinges solely on the credibility of the prosecuting witness and Young. There is no medical evidence since the alleged rape was not reported for months.  Excluding the evidence as the Commonwealth desires would be tantamount to denying Young his constitutional right to present a defense of consensual sexual contact.

B.C. V  B.T. AND K.F.
FAMILY LAW - Jurisdiction of Family Court - Its role as a division of Circuit Court
2005-CA-000045
Published 
JOHNSON
AFFIRMING
Date: 12/29/2005

Family Court is not both district court and circuit court.  Pursuant to KRS 23A.100 Family Court “ is a division of Circuit Court with general jurisdiction pursuant to Section 112 (6) of the Constitution of Kentucky.”  Family Court has jurisdiction of cases including child custody and visitation as well as “dependency, neglect, and abuse proceedings under KRS Chapter 620".  When Family Court hears cases normally heard by district court, it is not sitting as a district court, but as a circuit court with special jurisdiction to hear these cases.  Family Court applies to the law to “cases normally heard by district court” in the same manner as District Court applies - that is the law remains the same, regardless of which court is hearing the case.  As Family Court is a division of Circuit Court, Appeals from Family Court go directly to the Court of Appeals. 

The issues of the rest of this case are whether their was sufficient evidence for the Family Court to make its decision; the opinion does not discuss the evidence presented; it does reproduce some of the findings; restates the statutes (and in some cases reproduces the statutes) and concludes that the evidence was sufficient and their was clear - even overwhelming - evidence of abuse and neglect in the household and that father was unfit to parent his young child.  Custody was granted to the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt.

Thanks to Scott Byrd, Patrick Bouldin,  John Hamlet, Cherry Henault, Sam Hinkle, Suzan J. Hixon, Chad Kessinger,  Stephen Keller,  Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes , Peter Naake,  Paul C. O'Bryan, Bryan Pierce, Alma Puissegur, Richard Schiller, Paul Schurman, and James Worthington for their efforts in digesting Kentucky's appellate decisions.