IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.” PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: JUNE 15, 2023 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2021-SC-0539-MR
JOSEPH F. SMITH APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE SAMUEL TODD SPALDING, JUDGE NO. 19-CR-00259
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
A Marion County jury convicted Joseph F. Smith of sodomy in the first
degree, criminal attempt to commit rape in the first degree, and terroristic
threatening. Smith was sentenced to twenty years in prison. This appeal
followed as a matter of right. See KY. CONST. § 110(2)(b). Having reviewed the
record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the Marion Circuit Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On the night of November 3, 2019, J.A.1 was in her bedroom at her home
which she shared with her adult son, Joey, and her sister, Roberta. Other
people often stayed at the house, including Janice who was Roberta’s daughter
1 We identify the victim by her initials for her privacy. We have also chosen to identify all witnesses by only their first names to assist in maintaining the privacy of the victim. and J.A.’s niece. On the night of November 3, when J.A. went to bed, several
people were present in the home, including Joey and two other individuals who
often stayed at the house, April and Shoney. At some point, J.A. believed
everyone had left her house, and she left her bedroom to use the restroom. She
saw someone sitting in her living room. Although she did not know who it was
at the time because she did not have her glasses on, she later determined it
was Smith. Smith had dated her niece, Janice, for a period of time but had
been banished from the house a few months prior, after getting into an
argument with J.A.’s children.
After J.A. returned to her bedroom, Smith knocked on her bedroom door
and politely asked for a cigarette. She gave him one, and he thanked her. When
he left the room, J.A. shut her bedroom door and locked it. Shortly thereafter,
Smith forced his way into J.A.’s bedroom. He placed his hand on J.A.’s neck
and unsuccessfully attempted to forcefully insert his penis into her vagina. J.A.
became so nervous that she defecated on herself and Smith. This enraged
Smith so much that he then forced J.A. to use her mouth to clean the
defecation from his penis. At some point during these events, J.A. said,
“Joseph, stop.” Smith responded, “I’m not going to stop until I get what I want.”
J.A. heard someone come into the house, and she began to yell for help.
Roberta, a man named Jesus, and another woman had come back to the house
to check on Roberta’s dog. When Roberta heard her sister’s shouts for help, she
tried to open J.A.’s bedroom door, but Smith closed it in her face. Roberta tried
again to open the door, and Smith again closed it in her face. Smith then told
2 J.A. to tell Roberta to let him leave or else he would kill J.A. J.A. did as she was
told, and Smith ran out of the house. By this time, Roberta was outside of the
house seeking help. She saw Smith, although she did not identify him as such
at trial, run around the house with his pants down.
Roberta then rushed into J.A.’s bedroom and wrapped J.A. in a blanket.
J.A. had on no clothes other than a single sock. Feces was on the bed, blanket,
sock, J.A.’s body, face, and in her hair. Roberta walked J.A. to the home of
Santana, Roberta’s other daughter, who lived just behind J.A. Santana then
drove J.A. to the emergency room at Spring View Hospital. In the emergency
room, Nurse Karen Rogers and Doctor Stephen Grover collected samples from
J.A. for a sexual assault evidence collection kit. A swab was taken of J.A.’s face
because J.A. told Nurse Rogers that Smith had spit on her. This swab was
eventually tested for saliva, and the results were presumptive positive. The
swab was then DNA tested. The DNA test showed a mixture of DNA from two
individuals. Once J.A.’s DNA was accounted for, Smith was shown to be a
contributor to the mixture.
Lebanon Police Officer Daylon Moore responded to the hospital and took
a statement from J.A. He then went to Santana’s house to speak with Roberta.
He asked Roberta if she recognized or knew the name of the man who ran out
of J.A.’s house. Roberta said that the man’s name was “Joseph Something,”
but she did not know his last name.
Officer Moore was eventually able to identify Smith as the perpetrator
and obtained an arrest warrant for him. Lebanon Police received a tip regarding
3 Smith’s location, and Sergeant Henry Keene went there to attempt to locate
and arrest Smith. Sergeant Keene arrived at the apartment with two other
officers and knocked loudly on the door for two to three minutes while
announcing they were with the Lebanon Police. No one answered the door.
Apartment complex management eventually unlocked the door for the police to
enter. They went inside, continuing to loudly announce that they were with the
police department. No one responded. Police officers cleared the first floor of
the apartment and proceeded to the second floor, continuing to announce their
presence. They then found Smith on a bed in one of the bedrooms. He was
arrested without further incident.
Smith was indicted on charges of sodomy in the first degree, burglary in
the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, intimidating a witness in the
legal process, attempt to commit rape in the first degree, and being a persistent
felony offender in the second degree. During trial, the intimidating a witness in
the legal process charge was amended to terroristic threatening. The jury
convicted Smith of sodomy in the first degree, criminal attempt to commit rape
in the first degree, and terroristic threatening and recommended a sentence of
twenty years in prison. The trial court sentenced Smith consistently with this
recommendation. Additional facts are developed as necessary for our analysis.
II. ANALYSIS
Smith alleges that the trial court made several errors warranting reversal
of his conviction. First, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting
irrelevant, prejudicial evidence of his flight and pretrial silence. Second, he
4 argues that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to improperly
impeach Roberta and erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after Officer Moore
misled the jury. Third, Smith argues that the trial court erred in allowing J.A.
to identify him. Fourth, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting
improper hearsay evidence. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in
denying his request to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of sexual
abuse. We address each allegation in turn.
A. Evidence of Flight and Pretrial Silence
Smith first argues that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant,
prejudicial evidence of his flight and pretrial silence. He asserts this occurred
in three ways. First, he argues that the Commonwealth improperly used the
fact that he did not answer the door of the apartment when the police knocked
and announced themselves as evidence of flight. Second, he argues that
Sergeant Keene improperly commented on his silence when the police were in
the apartment. Finally, he argues that evidence of the man fleeing from J.A.’s
house after committing the sodomy should not have been used as evidence of
his guilt.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on the admission of evidence
for an abuse of discretion. Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky.
2007); Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). “The test for
abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Goodyear Tire
5 & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000) (citing English, 993
S.W.2d at 945).
Smith argues that evidence that he did not answer the door when police
knocked and did not respond when they announced themselves once inside of
the apartment was improperly used as evidence of his guilt. He argues that his
failure to respond is not the same as flight, which can be used as evidence of
guilt, because the police’s attempt to serve the warrant was not spatially or
temporally close to the crime and because there was no proof that he knew of
the allegations that had been made against him. Smith argues that this
evidence was not relevant and even if it was relevant, its probative value was
substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice.
Under Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 401, “‘Relevant evidence’ means
evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.” Generally, “[a]ll relevant evidence is
admissible” unless prohibited by another rule, statute, or the Constitutions of
Kentucky or the United States. KRE 402. Under KRE 403, “[a]lthough relevant,
evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,
or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.”
This Court has long held that “proof of flight to elude capture or to
prevent discovery is admissible because ‘flight is always some evidence of a
6 sense of guilt.’” Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 107 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Ky. 2003)
(quoting Hord v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 439, 13 S.W2d 244, 246 (1928)). This
rule is “based on the inference that the guilty run away but the innocent
remain.” Id. at 219. Further, “evidence of flight is admissible because it has a
tendency to make the existence of the defendant's guilt more probable: a guilty
person probably would act like a guilty person.” Id.
Smith argues that Rodriguez requires that the flight be “both spatially
and temporally close to the crime charged.” Id. However, although we noted in
Rodriguez that the defendant’s theft of a truck and subsequent flight in the
stolen truck was close in time and space to the commission of the robbery
offense with which he was charged, we explained that what was “more
important[]” was that he likely
stole the truck to avoid the officers and not because he desired the truck itself. In other words, there was evidence to infer that Rodriguez stole the truck as a means to escape arrest for the robbery, rather than as an end in itself. Thus, the evidence was relevant and admissible subject to the balancing test of KRE 403.
Id. Thus, the proximity in time and space was relevant to our analysis, but not
determinative. Further, Smith has pointed us to no other case where we have
held that proximity in time and space is required.
In Cherry v. Commonwealth, we explained that “evidence of a defendant’s
flight or attempts to avoid arrest has long been admissible under Kentucky
law ‘to show a sense of guilt because flight is always some evidence of a sense
of guilt.’” 458 S.W.3d 787, 795 (Ky. 2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Doneghy
v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2013)). In this case, a reasonable
7 inference that could be drawn from Smith’s failure to answer the door or
respond when police knocked on the door and entered the apartment, while
loudly announcing their presence, is that Smith was “attempt[ing] to avoid
arrest.” Id. This attempt to avoid arrest was then relevant as evidence of guilt.
Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
Smith next argues that the Commonwealth improperly used his pre-
arrest silence, specifically his failure to answer the door or respond to officers
upon entry to the apartment, as evidence of his guilt in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. A defendant has a Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent that extends to the pre-arrest phase of a
case, and “an invocation of that right by remaining silent cannot be used
against him.” Moss v. Commonwealth, 531 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Ky. 2017).
However, “official compulsion is required for the privilege to attach.” Baumia v.
Commonwealth, 402 S.W.3d 530, 538 (Ky. 2013).
In Baumia, we held that the defendant “was not officially compelled to
incriminate herself” when an officer asked her to submit to a breathalyzer test
after suspecting she had been drinking. Id. at 538–39. We further held that
while the fact of the defendant’s refusal to submit was admissible, her entire
statement explicitly invoking her right to remain silent was not. Id. at 539.
In this case, there was no official compulsion for Smith to incriminate
himself. First, he was not compelled to do anything. Second, merely answering
the door or responding to police announcing their presence would not, in and
8 of itself, be incriminatory. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting this evidence.
Finally, Smith argues that the Commonwealth improperly argued in
closing argument that the man’s running from the house after the sodomy was
evidence of Smith’s guilt. He argues that the man running from the house
would only be evidence of Smith’s guilt if there was evidence that Smith was
the man seen running. He asserts that there was no proof of this.
We have held on countless occasions that “[c]ounsel has wide latitude
during closing arguments. . . . The longstanding rule is that counsel may
comment on the evidence and make all legitimate inferences that can be
reasonably drawn therefrom.” Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336, 350
(Ky. 2010) (citations omitted). In this case, although Roberta could not identify
Smith as the man who ran out of J.A.’s house while she was testifying, she had
previously identified him as such to the police. Further, J.A. identified Smith as
her attacker,2 and no testimony was elicited that anyone else was in the home
when the crimes were committed. From this evidence, a “legitimate inference[]”
could be drawn that Smith was the man who ran out of J.A.’s house. Thus, the
Commonwealth’s closing argument was proper.
B. Roberta’s Identification of Smith
Smith next argues that the trial court erred in allowing the
Commonwealth to impeach Roberta by playing a portion of Officer Moore’s
2 We acknowledge that both of these identifications are challenged by Smith.
However, we find no error in the admission of either. See Subsections B and C.
9 body camera video in which Roberta identified Smith as the man who ran from
J.A.’s house. Smith argues that the video was improper impeachment evidence
for two reasons. First, he argues it was improper impeachment because
Roberta’s statement in the video was not based on personal knowledge but
instead was based on J.A.’s statement to her. Second, he argues it was
improper impeachment evidence because Roberta could not remember making
the statement to Officer Moore. Finally, Smith argues that the trial court
should have granted his motion for a mistrial when Officer Moore incorrectly
testified that Roberta identified the man she saw running from the house as
“Joseph Smith.” We address each of these arguments.
During Roberta’s trial testimony, she was adamant that she did not see
the face of the man who ran from J.A.’s house and could not identify him. Her
testimony in this regard was clear. Because of this, the Commonwealth sought
to impeach her with the statement she made to Officer Moore on the night of
the incident. In the video of that interaction, Officer Moore can be heard asking
Roberta, “Do you recognize him? Do you know his name?” Roberta then
responded, “Joseph Something. I don’t know his last name.” At the bench
conference to discuss the admission of this recording, Smith argued that in the
video Roberta also told Officer Moore that she did not see anything. The
implication, according to Smith, was that Roberta’s identification of Smith on
the night of the incident was not based on her personal recognition of him but
instead was based on information provided to her by J.A. The trial court
decided to allow the Commonwealth to impeach Roberta with her prior
10 inconsistent statement but also told Smith that he could play the portion of the
interview where Roberta said she did not see anything.
The trial court’s decision on the admission of evidence is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Clark, 223 S.W.3d at 95; English, 993 S.W.2d at 945.
Under KRE 602, “A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal
knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need
not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.” Smith argues not that Roberta’s
trial testimony was not based on her personal knowledge, but instead argues
that Roberta’s statement to Officer Moore, which was used to impeach her
credibility at trial, was not based on her personal knowledge. However, Smith
only points to Roberta’s trial testimony as evidence that her prior statement
was not based on personal knowledge. Despite the suggestion by the trial
court, Smith did not play any additional portion of Roberta’s statement to
Officer Moore during trial.
As previously mentioned, Roberta’s testimony at trial was clear that she
did not see the face of the person who ran from J.A.’s house and thus could not
identify him. However, admission of a prior inconsistent statement is just
that—admission of a prior statement that is different from the statement
made at trial. There is nothing in the record before us, other than her trial
testimony, that suggests Roberta’s statement to Officer Moore identifying the
man who ran out of the house as “Joseph Somebody” was not based on her
personal knowledge at the time. Because of this, there was no error in the
11 admission of Roberta’s prior inconsistent statement based on the argument
that it was not based on personal knowledge.
Smith also argues that the video recording was improper impeachment
evidence because Roberta did not remember what she told Officer Moore on the
night of the incident. Smith relies on Wiley v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570
(Ky. 2010) as support for his argument. In Wiley, we held that “the relevant
inquiry in determining if a lack of memory is (or should be treated as) a prior
inconsistent statement, is whether, within the context of the case, there is an
appearance of hostility of the witness which is the driving force behind the
witness’s claim that he is unable to remember the statement.” Id. at 578. Smith
argues that because Roberta was not hostile to the Commonwealth, her
inability to remember what she told Officer Moore is not inconsistent with what
she did tell him.
What Smith fails to acknowledge, however, is that “[a] statement is
inconsistent for purposes of KRE 801A(a)(1) whether the witness presently
contradicts or denies the prior statement, or whether he claims to be unable
to remember it.” Brock v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Ky. 1997)
(emphasis added) (citing Wise v. Commonwealth, 600 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Ky.
App. 1978)). In this case, Roberta’s testimony at trial—that she did not know
who came running out of the house—“presently contradict[ed]” her statement
to the police that she knew or recognized the man as Joseph Something.3
3 Many of the cases on which Wiley relies involve witnesses who claim an inability to remember the entire underlying event, not just the content of their prior 12 Further, we have previously held that a “trial judge has considerable discretion
in determining whether testimony is ‘inconsistent’ with prior statements;
inconsistency is not limited to diametrically opposed answers but may be found
in evasive answers, inability to recall, silence, or changes of position.” Meece v.
Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627, 672 (Ky. 2011) (quoting United States v.
Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 795 (8th Cir. 1980)). The trial court did not abuse its
“considerable discretion” in admitting Roberta’s prior inconsistent statement to
Officer Moore.
Finally, Smith argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a
mistrial when Officer Moore incorrectly testified that Roberta told him she
recognized Joseph Smith as the person who ran from the house. Immediately
after Officer Moore testified to this, Smith objected, and a bench conference
ensued. Smith argued that Officer Moore testified to a fact not in evidence, as
the recording of Roberta, which had already been played for the jury, clearly
showed Roberta identified the man who ran out of the house as “Joseph
Somebody” and not Joseph Smith. The Commonwealth agreed that in the
recording Roberta identified the man as “Joseph Somebody.” Smith then moved
for a mistrial, and the trial court denied that motion. When the Commonwealth
resumed questioning Officer Moore, the Commonwealth immediately elicited
testimony that Roberta actually said, “Joseph Somebody.”
statement, as in this case. See e.g., Wise v. Commonwealth, 600 S.W.2d 470 (Ky. App. 1978); Manning v. Commonwealth, 23 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2000)
13 We have explained the circumstances under which a trial court should
grant a mistrial as follows:
A trial court only declares a mistrial if a harmful event is of such magnitude that a litigant would be denied a fair and impartial trial and the prejudicial effect could be removed in no other way. Stated differently, the court must find a manifest, urgent, or real necessity for a mistrial. The trial court has broad discretion in determining when such a necessity exists because the trial judge is “best situated intelligently to make such a decision.” The trial court's decision to deny a motion for a mistrial should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.
Matthews v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 11, 17 (Ky. 2005) (footnotes omitted).
In this case, the jury had already twice heard the recording of Roberta’s
statement. Further, they heard Roberta repeatedly deny being able to identify
the man who ran out of J.A.’s house. Finally, the Commonwealth corrected the
error in Officer Moore’s testimony as quickly as it could. For these reasons, we
cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Smith’s motion
for a mistrial.
C. J.A.’s Identification of Smith
Smith next argues that the trial court erred in allowing J.A. to identify
him as her assailant because J.A.’s personal knowledge came not from her
observations of the man in the room but instead from the person’s response
when she said, “Joseph, stop.” He argues that J.A. based her ID on an
improper adoptive admission that the man’s name was Joseph. We review
alleged errors in the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. Clark, 223
S.W.3d at 95; English, 993 S.W.2d at 945. Smith acknowledges that this
14 alleged error was not preserved and requests palpable error review under
Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26.
Under KRE 801A(b)(2), “[a] statement is not excluded by the hearsay
rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness, if the statement is
offered against a party and is . . . [a] statement of which the party has
manifested an adoption or belief in its truth.” This rule provides for an
exception to the usual hearsay rule which prohibits admission of out of court
statements offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” KRE 801, 802.
Use of KRE 801A is only necessary if the statement being admitted is in fact
hearsay which would otherwise be excluded. In this case, the statement
admitted was not offered for “the truth of the matter asserted.” Thus, KRE
801A does not apply.
The statement at issue is J.A.’s statement, “Joseph, stop,” which she
made on the night in question. See Trigg v. Commonwealth, 460 S.W.3d 322,
331 (Ky. 2015) (“[I]t is not the silence itself that constitutes the ‘statement’ to be
admitted into evidence. The ‘statement’ that the rule admits into evidence is the
audible expression of another person, ‘the declarant,’ whose statement the
defendant heard and to which the defendant's silence ‘manifested an adoption
or belief in its truth.’”) J.A.’s statement was not being offered for the truth of
that statement; it was not offered to actually prove that Joseph was the man to
whom J.A. was speaking. Instead, it was offered to explain why J.A. identified
Joseph as the man who sexually assaulted her. Although this difference is
subtle, it is material to this analysis. Without there being hearsay, we need not
15 determine if an exception to the hearsay rule applies. Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting J.A.’s identification of Smith as
her attacker.
D. Hearsay Evidence
Smith next argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of
J.A.’s hearsay statement that “he spit on me.” He further argues that the
admission of this evidence violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.
This issue is partially preserved and partially unpreserved. Smith requests
palpable error review for any portion of this issue that is unpreserved. The trial
court’s decision to admit this evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Clark, 223 S.W.3d at 95; English, 993 S.W.2d at 945.
In addition to serving the arrest warrant on Smith, Sergeant Keene was a
part of the chain of custody of the physical evidence in this case, as he was the
evidence custodian for the Lebanon Police Department. He testified about the
sexual assault evidence collection kit and the individual items included in that
kit. As he was describing the swabs that were taken, he read the label on the
face swab which said, in part, “He spit on her face.” Smith objected, and a
bench conference was conducted.
At the bench conference, Smith objected to the admission of both the
label itself and the reading of the label on hearsay grounds, noting that J.A.
had not testified at trial that Smith had spit on her. Initially, Smith also asked
for an admonition. The Commonwealth explained that it was offering this
evidence both to impeach J.A. and to explain why Nurse Rogers took the face
16 swab, as face swabs are not generally collected after a sexual assault. The trial
court acknowledged that the label itself was “problematic” and would not be
admitted into evidence. The trial court also excluded the statement itself, as
there had not been any evidence presented yet that Smith had spit on J.A.’s
face. The court then asked Smith what he wanted done, since Sergeant Keene
had already testified to the statement. Smith explained that he did not want an
admonition at that point, but that if the appropriate testimony was not elicited
later in the trial, he would likely ask for an admonition at that time. Smith
expressed a concern that an admonition would only draw more attention to the
inadmissible statement. The trial court then reserved ruling on an admonition.
Smith did not request an admonition on this issue at any later point of the
trial, and none was given.
After Sergeant Keene testified, Nurse Rogers testified. During her
testimony, another bench conference was held regarding J.A.’s statement to
Nurse Rogers that “he spit on me.” During this bench conference, the trial
court ruled that no proper foundation under KRE 613 had been laid to
introduce J.A.’s prior inconsistent statement. The trial court instructed the
Commonwealth to re-call J.A. in order to directly ask her about her prior
statement, and then the Commonwealth could re-call Nurse Rogers.
The Commonwealth then did as instructed by the trial court. It called
J.A. to testify and asked her specifically if she recalled telling Nurse Rogers that
Smith had spit on her. J.A. testified that she told Nurse Rogers something
similar, but that she would call it “slobbering” rather than “spitting.” The
17 Commonwealth then re-called Nurse Rogers who testified that she took the face
swab because J.A. told her Smith had spit on her face. Dr. Stephen Grover
then testified to the same thing. The trial court admitted this evidence after
finding that it was important for the medical professionals to explain why they
had taken the face swab.
We first address Smith’s argument that the admission of J.A.’s out of
court statement violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The Sixth
Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that, “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the
witnesses against him.” In this case, J.A. testified once and then was re-called
to be questioned directly about her prior statement. Smith had an opportunity
to confront and cross-examine her each time. Smith alleges that he was only
able to confront her about her prior statement because the trial court
erroneously allowed her to be re-called to testify. As we discuss below, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the trial court to re-call her.
Accordingly, Smith’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated.
We now move to Sergeant Keene’s testimony in which he read from the
swab label which said, “He spit on me.” Smith objected to this testimony, and
the trial court effectively sustained his objection. The trial court then asked
Smith what remedy he wanted. Smith merely asked the trial court to note the
issue and then explicitly stated that he did not want an admonition at that
time. He stated he would request one later if he deemed it desirable. Smith
never asked for an admonition regarding this testimony. We have previously
18 held that “where an admonishment is sufficient to cure an error and the
defendant fails to ask for the admonishment, we will not review the error.”
Lanham v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 14, 28 (Ky. 2005). Thus, we will not
review the allegation of error in Sergeant Keene’s testimony.
Smith next argues that the trial court should not have allowed J.A. to be
re-called and to then be asked a leading question about her statement to Nurse
Rogers. He further argues that J.A.’s prior statement to Nurse Rogers was not
inconsistent with J.A.’s trial testimony because J.A. merely failed to mention it
at trial, and thus J.A. was improperly impeached with the prior statement.
Under KRE 611(a), “the trial court has inherent authority to control the
trial proceedings and . . . to control the mode of interrogation of witnesses.”
Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Ky. 2011). It should exercise
this control over both “the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and
presenting evidence so as to . . . [m]ake the interrogation and presentation
effective for the ascertainment of the truth.” KRE 611(a)(1). Given this broad
authority, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing
the Commonwealth to re-call J.A. to testify about her prior statement.
We further cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in
allowing the Commonwealth to ask J.A. a leading question about the out of
court statement. Although leading questions are generally not permitted during
direct examination, they may be allowed as “necessary to develop the witness’
testimony.” KRE 611(c). In order to confront a witness with a prior statement, a
party must be able to present that statement to the witness. Often the only way
19 to accomplish this is to directly ask the witness if he or she remembers making
the statement. That is what occurred in this case. Further, we have previously
held that “judgments will not be reversed because of leading questions unless
the trial judge abused his discretion and a shocking miscarriage of justice
resulted.” Tamme v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 13, 27 (Ky. 1998) (citations
omitted). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and no
“shocking miscarriage of justice resulted.” See id.
Finally, as we previously explained, a “trial judge has considerable
discretion in determining whether testimony is ‘inconsistent’ with prior
statements; inconsistency is not limited to diametrically opposed answers but
may be found in evasive answers, inability to recall, silence, or changes of
position.” Meece, 348 S.W.3d at 672 (quoting Dennis, 625 F.2d at 795). We
cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that J.A.’s
prior statement to Nurse Rogers was inconsistent with her trial testimony in
which she completely failed to mention that Smith spit or slobbered on her.
Next, Smith argues that the trial court erred in allowing Nurse Rogers to
be re-called to testify to J.A.’s out of court statement in order to explain why
Nurse Rogers took the face swab. Smith asserts that the reason the face swab
was taken was not relevant. However, as the trial court found, it was important
for the jury to understand why the face swab was taken and why it was tested
for saliva and then for DNA. We cannot hold the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding so.
20 Finally, Smith asserts that the probative value of J.A.’s out of court
statement to Nurse Rogers was substantially outweighed by the danger of
undue prejudice under KRE 403. Under KRE 403, relevant evidence “may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
undue prejudice.” However, KRE 403 “does not offer protection against
evidence that is merely prejudicial in the sense that it is detrimental to a
party’s case.” Webb v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Ky. 2012)
(citations omitted). Instead, it prohibits “[e]vidence that appeals to the jury’s
sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, provokes its instinct to punish, or
otherwise may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the
established propositions in the case.” Richmond v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d
228, 232 (Ky. 2017) (quoting Butler v. Commonwealth, 367 S.W.3d 609, 615
(Ky. App. 2012)). In this case, J.A.’s out of court statement did none of these
things, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion under KRE 403 in
admitting it.
E. Lesser Included Offense Instruction
Smith next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the
jury on sexual abuse in the first degree as a lesser included offense of sodomy
in the first degree. This argument was preserved by Smith’s oral request for
this lesser included offense instruction and the tendering of the requested
instruction to the trial court. See RCr 9.54; Elery v. Commonwealth, 368
S.W.3d 78, 89 (Ky. 2012). We review the trial court’s refusal to give a specific
21 jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. Sergeant v. Schaffer, 467 S.W.3d
198, 204 (Ky. 2015).
We review a trial court’s decision not to give the jury an instruction on a
lesser offense under two principles:
(1) it is the duty of the trial judge to prepare and give instructions on the whole law of the case ... [including] instructions applicable to every state of the case deducible or supported to any extent by the testimony; and (2) although a defendant has a right to have every issue of fact raised by the evidence and material to his defense submitted to the jury on proper instructions, the trial court should instruct as to lesser-included offenses only if, considering the totality of the evidence, the jury might have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt of the greater offense, and yet believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the lesser offense.
Holland v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 792, 802 (Ky. 2003) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted). Sexual abuse in the first degree is a lesser
included offense of sodomy in the first degree. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 864
S.W.2d 266, 277 (Ky. 1993). Therefore, if the evidence supported it, Smith
would have been entitled to an instruction on sexual abuse in the first degree.
Smith argues that he is entitled to the instruction because the jury could
have doubted that he was trying to penetrate her with his penis, as required for
a conviction for sodomy, and instead believed that he merely rubbed her with
his penis, which would constitute sexual abuse. However, there was simply
insufficient evidence of this presented for us to hold that the trial court abused
its discretion in refusing to instruct on this offense. J.A.’s testimony was clear
that Smith tried to insert his penis into her vagina but was unsuccessful. She
testified that this made him angry, and that he said he was not going to leave
22 until he got what he wanted. Dr. Grover also testified that he would usually use
a speculum when taking the vaginal swab after a sexual assault, but that his
attempts to insert the speculum caused J.A. great pain, and thus he took the
swab without one. This supports J.A.’s testimony that Smith tried but was
unsuccessful in inserting his penis into her vagina. No other testimony was
offered to contradict hers. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of
sexual abuse, as the jury could not have had a reasonable doubt as to Smith’s
guilt of sodomy and yet still believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was
guilty of sexual abuse.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Marion Circuit Court.
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Kathleen Kallaher Schmidt Department of Public Advocacy
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Daniel J. Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky
Kristin Leigh Conder Assistant Attorney General