IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE ; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD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 OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION.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: APRIL 23, 2009 P LIS :
,*uyrrmr (~vurf -of ~ir 2007-SC-000260-MR
D J L FRANK YARNO
ON APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT V HONORABLE JOHN DAVID PRESTON, JUDGE NO . 06-CR-00110
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Between 2004 and 2006, Mildred Mann had partial responsibility for the
care of her eight-year-old granddaughter, A .Y. She lived in an apartment
building. Her ex-husband, Frank Yarno (hereinafter "Appellant"), lived across
the hall from her. Mann and Appellant maintained a cordial relationship .
Although they were no longer married, Mann continued to cook, clean, and do
laundry for Appellant. Appellant was in poor health and did not work;
however, he would often watch A .Y. while Mann was at work or busy doing
chores.
On July 26, 2006, A.Y. went across the hall to visit with her grandfather.
Mann went to check on them after a while and discovered that they were not in
the living room. She opened the door to Appellant's bedroom and saw both
Appellant and A.Y. with their undergarments removed . When Mann asked what they were doing, Appellant answered : "I'm sorry; she was on top of me ."
When A .Y. moved off of her grandfather, Mann noticed that Appellant had an
erection, and A.Y. had "spots" all over her shirt. Mann immediately took A .Y.
to Social Services. At trial, A.Y. said that she and her grandfather were
"playing doctor" on the date in question, and that it had happened before. She
further testified that his "private parts" went inside her "private parts."
Appellant was indicted and charged with two counts of rape in the first
degree. Count I referred to the rape occurring on July 26, 2006, and Count 11
referred to a rape or rapes occurring before July 26, 2006 . A Johnson County
jury convicted Appellant of both counts of first degree rape, sentencing him to
fifty (50) years in prison on each count. The sentences were ordered to run
consecutively up to the maximum allowed by law, and concurrently thereafter .
Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right pursuant to Ky.
Const. § 110(2) (b) . He claims five grounds of error: (1) that the trial court erred
by failing to swear in A.Y . after it found her competent to testify; (2) that the
trial court should not have allowed Appellant's recorded statement to police to
be played for the jury; (3) that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during
closing arguments; (4) that Appellant was denied due process of law when the
trial court denied his motion to strike a juror for cause ; and (5) that a directed
verdict should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence to
support the verdict.
Failure to Swear in A.Y.
Prior to testifying at trial, A.Y. was asked by the trial judge if she knew
where she was. A .Y. responded that she was eight years old, and that she 2 knew she was in court. When asked why she was in court, A .Y. began to
respond : "Because my Papaw did something . . . . .. The judge interrupted A.Y.
and asked if she was there to tell what happened . A.Y . responded in the
affirmative . A.Y . was also asked what it meant to tell the truth . She
responded : "That you have to tell what happened and you have to tell the right
thing ." When asked what "the truth" was, A.Y. hesitated and did not
immediately respond. The judge stepped in and asked A.Y. if she knew what a
lie was. She responded: "A lie is when you don't tell the truth and lie about
something." The judge impressed upon A .Y. that it was very important that
she tell the truth, and he asked her if she understood. A.Y. responded in the
affirmative . When the judge asked A.Y . if she would promise to tell the truth,
she said that she would. The judge did not formally administer an oath to A .Y.
Appellant did not object that A.Y. was not formally sworn in .
Absent proper objection, we review only for palpable error. RCr 10 .26 .
In order to "[t]o prove palpable error, Appellant must show the probability of a
different result or error so fundamental as to threaten his entitlement to due
process of law." Brooks v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 219, 225 (Ky. 2007) .
On appellate review, our focus is on whether "the defect is so manifest,
fundamental and unambiguous that it threatens the integrity of the judicial
process ." Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S .W.3d 1, 5 (Ky. 2006) .
Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 603 provides that "every witness shall
be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or
affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness'
conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." However, 3 we have never required any "magic words." Rather, "the rule is flexible enough
to allow a trial judge to accommodate to the religious beliefs or disbeliefs of
particular witnesses and to the intellectual immaturity of children or mentally
impaired witnesses ." See Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law
Handbook, § 3 .00[3], p. 220, (4th ed . 2003), citing to United States v . Thai, 29
F.3d 785 (2nd Cir. 1994) ; and Spigarolo v. Meachum, 934 F .2d 19 (2nd Cir.
1991) . Courts in this jurisdiction have long recognized that no particular word
or form of oath is necessary as long as the child witness acknowledges that he
or she will tell the truth, comprehends the nature of truth, and understands
the consequences of lying. Bright v. Commonwealth , 120 Ky. 298, 86 S.W . 527
(1905) ; Whitaker v . Commonwealth, 297 Ky. 279, 179 S .W .2d 448, 451 (1944) .
Here, although there was no formal oath, the judge asked questions of the
eight-year-old witness that were calculated to awaken her conscience and
impress upon her the duty to tell the truth . After asking A.Y. if she would
promise to tell the truth, she responded in the affirmative . In fact, the detailed
inquisition of a child as to the moral imperative of telling the truth is based
upon an assumption that the mere giving of the oath to an infant might not be
sufficient . While the more cautionary way might be to do both, we find no error
here, much less palpable error.
Admission of Appellant's Recorded Statement
Appellant next argues that his taped statement to police was
impermissibly admitted in violation of Missouri v. Seibert because the officer
engaged in an impermissible "question first" tactic. 542 U .S . 600 (2004) . We
agree with the Commonwealth that this issue was not preserved for appellate 4 review, nor has Appellant requested palpable error review . Therefore, we do
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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, CR 76.28(4)(C), 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: APRIL 23, 2009 P LIS :
,*uyrrmr (~vurf -of ~ir 2007-SC-000260-MR
D J L FRANK YARNO
ON APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT V HONORABLE JOHN DAVID PRESTON, JUDGE NO . 06-CR-00110
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Between 2004 and 2006, Mildred Mann had partial responsibility for the
care of her eight-year-old granddaughter, A .Y. She lived in an apartment
building. Her ex-husband, Frank Yarno (hereinafter "Appellant"), lived across
the hall from her. Mann and Appellant maintained a cordial relationship .
Although they were no longer married, Mann continued to cook, clean, and do
laundry for Appellant. Appellant was in poor health and did not work;
however, he would often watch A .Y. while Mann was at work or busy doing
chores.
On July 26, 2006, A.Y. went across the hall to visit with her grandfather.
Mann went to check on them after a while and discovered that they were not in
the living room. She opened the door to Appellant's bedroom and saw both
Appellant and A.Y. with their undergarments removed . When Mann asked what they were doing, Appellant answered : "I'm sorry; she was on top of me ."
When A .Y. moved off of her grandfather, Mann noticed that Appellant had an
erection, and A.Y. had "spots" all over her shirt. Mann immediately took A .Y.
to Social Services. At trial, A.Y. said that she and her grandfather were
"playing doctor" on the date in question, and that it had happened before. She
further testified that his "private parts" went inside her "private parts."
Appellant was indicted and charged with two counts of rape in the first
degree. Count I referred to the rape occurring on July 26, 2006, and Count 11
referred to a rape or rapes occurring before July 26, 2006 . A Johnson County
jury convicted Appellant of both counts of first degree rape, sentencing him to
fifty (50) years in prison on each count. The sentences were ordered to run
consecutively up to the maximum allowed by law, and concurrently thereafter .
Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right pursuant to Ky.
Const. § 110(2) (b) . He claims five grounds of error: (1) that the trial court erred
by failing to swear in A.Y . after it found her competent to testify; (2) that the
trial court should not have allowed Appellant's recorded statement to police to
be played for the jury; (3) that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during
closing arguments; (4) that Appellant was denied due process of law when the
trial court denied his motion to strike a juror for cause ; and (5) that a directed
verdict should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence to
support the verdict.
Failure to Swear in A.Y.
Prior to testifying at trial, A.Y. was asked by the trial judge if she knew
where she was. A .Y. responded that she was eight years old, and that she 2 knew she was in court. When asked why she was in court, A .Y. began to
respond : "Because my Papaw did something . . . . .. The judge interrupted A.Y.
and asked if she was there to tell what happened . A.Y . responded in the
affirmative . A.Y . was also asked what it meant to tell the truth . She
responded : "That you have to tell what happened and you have to tell the right
thing ." When asked what "the truth" was, A.Y. hesitated and did not
immediately respond. The judge stepped in and asked A.Y. if she knew what a
lie was. She responded: "A lie is when you don't tell the truth and lie about
something." The judge impressed upon A .Y. that it was very important that
she tell the truth, and he asked her if she understood. A.Y. responded in the
affirmative . When the judge asked A.Y . if she would promise to tell the truth,
she said that she would. The judge did not formally administer an oath to A .Y.
Appellant did not object that A.Y. was not formally sworn in .
Absent proper objection, we review only for palpable error. RCr 10 .26 .
In order to "[t]o prove palpable error, Appellant must show the probability of a
different result or error so fundamental as to threaten his entitlement to due
process of law." Brooks v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 219, 225 (Ky. 2007) .
On appellate review, our focus is on whether "the defect is so manifest,
fundamental and unambiguous that it threatens the integrity of the judicial
process ." Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S .W.3d 1, 5 (Ky. 2006) .
Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 603 provides that "every witness shall
be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or
affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness'
conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." However, 3 we have never required any "magic words." Rather, "the rule is flexible enough
to allow a trial judge to accommodate to the religious beliefs or disbeliefs of
particular witnesses and to the intellectual immaturity of children or mentally
impaired witnesses ." See Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law
Handbook, § 3 .00[3], p. 220, (4th ed . 2003), citing to United States v . Thai, 29
F.3d 785 (2nd Cir. 1994) ; and Spigarolo v. Meachum, 934 F .2d 19 (2nd Cir.
1991) . Courts in this jurisdiction have long recognized that no particular word
or form of oath is necessary as long as the child witness acknowledges that he
or she will tell the truth, comprehends the nature of truth, and understands
the consequences of lying. Bright v. Commonwealth , 120 Ky. 298, 86 S.W . 527
(1905) ; Whitaker v . Commonwealth, 297 Ky. 279, 179 S .W .2d 448, 451 (1944) .
Here, although there was no formal oath, the judge asked questions of the
eight-year-old witness that were calculated to awaken her conscience and
impress upon her the duty to tell the truth . After asking A.Y. if she would
promise to tell the truth, she responded in the affirmative . In fact, the detailed
inquisition of a child as to the moral imperative of telling the truth is based
upon an assumption that the mere giving of the oath to an infant might not be
sufficient . While the more cautionary way might be to do both, we find no error
here, much less palpable error.
Admission of Appellant's Recorded Statement
Appellant next argues that his taped statement to police was
impermissibly admitted in violation of Missouri v. Seibert because the officer
engaged in an impermissible "question first" tactic. 542 U .S . 600 (2004) . We
agree with the Commonwealth that this issue was not preserved for appellate 4 review, nor has Appellant requested palpable error review . Therefore, we do
not address this issue . See Dant v. Commonwealth , 258 S.W.3d 12, 21 (Ky.
2008) (holding that an appellate court will not review for palpable error unless
requested and briefed by Appellant, absent extreme circumstances) .
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Appellant next argues that the Commonwealth's Attorney made improper
statements during closing arguments for the guilt and penalty phases .
His first argument is a "Golden Rule" argument. He alleges that it was
improper, during closing arguments for the guilt phase, for the prosecutor to
ask the jurors to step into the shoes of the child victim. During this argument,
the Commonwealth's Attorney reminded the jury that it was spring break for
the Paintsville School District . The Commonwealth's Attorney told jurors that
when A.Y. got back from spring break and other children asked her what she
had done, she would not be able to say that she had gone to the beach.
Instead, he opined, she had to spend her spring break going before thirteen
people she had never met before and tell them about the most traumatic thing
that had ever happened to her. This allegation of error is preserved for review.
When considering allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we must
determine whether the conduct was of such an egregious nature that the
accused is denied his constitutional right of due process of law. Donnelly v.
DeChristoforo, 416 U.S . 637 (1974) . On appellate review, the reviewing court
"must focus on the overall fairness of the trial, and not the culpability of the
prosecutor." Slaughter v. Commonwealth , 744 S.W.2d 407, 411-12 (Ky. 1987) . As we have previously acknowledged, it is well-settled that broad latitude
must be afforded counsel in presenting a case to the jury. Stasel v .
Commonwealth , 278 S .W .2d 727, 729 (Ky. 1955) . Moreover, opening and
closing arguments are not evidence in the case and prosecutors are given
considerable leeway in both . Stopher v. Commonwealth , 57 S .W.3d 787, 805-
806 (Ky. 2001) . Here, the statements made by the Commonwealth did not rise
to the level of prosecutorial misconduct . As we stated in Stopher: "In order to
justify reversal, the misconduct of the prosecutor must be so serious as to
render the entire trial fundamentally unfair." Id. at 805. We do not find that
the statements here were so egregious as to render the entire trial
fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we affirm on this ground .
Appellant next alleges that the Commonwealth Attorney's statement to
the jury calling for a harsh sentence was improper . During penalty-phase
closing arguments, the Commonwealth's Attorney asked the jury: "If we are not
going to be zealous in the case of a man who sexually molests and destroys
innocence, when can we be harsh? When can we stand for what is right?" The
Commonwealth's Attorney then told the jury that he wanted them to look in the
mirror the next day and say that they had made "a stand." Although this
alleged error was not preserved for review, Appellant has requested palpable
error review under RCr 10 .26 .
We have previously said that a prosecutor cannot cajole or coerce a jury
to reach a verdict. Dean v. Commonwealth , 844 S .W .2d 417, 421 (Ky. 1992) .
However, in Brewer v. Commonwealth , we stated that "a prosecutor may use
his closing argument to attempt to `persuade the jurors [that] the matter 6 should not be dealt with lightly."' 206 S.W .3d 343, 350 (Ky. 2006), citing
Harness v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.2d 485, 490 (Ky. 1971) . In Brewer, we
found fault with the prosecutor's theme in closing arguments that the jury
should "send a message" through its sentence. However, as the error in Brewer
was unpreserved, we found that it was not palpable. Id . Likewise here, even if
error, the prosecutor suggesting that the jury "make a stand" does not rise to
the level of manifest injustice . See Brewer, supra. Moreover, as we stated in
Young v. Commonwealth , 25 S .W.3d 66, 75 (Ky. 2000)
Kentucky's sentencing procedures do not give juries absolute sentencing authority . KRS 532 .070(1) leaves the final determination regarding sentencing up to the trial court . . . the court may modify that sentence and fix a maximum term within the limits provided . . . . While KRS 532 .060 does not insulate all sentencing phase errors from palpable error review, we believe Kentucky's sentencing procedures provide an additional layer of protection from prejudice which we should consider in the context of RCr 10.26 review in this case .
Accordingly, we also do not find the current error palpable due to the
additional layer of protection afforded by Kentucky's sentencing procedures .
Failure to Strike for Cause
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to strike
venire member Nannie Ward from the panel. Ward ultimately sat on the jury
which convicted Appellant.
During voir dire, Ward was asked whether she or any member of her
family had ever been accused of sexual abuse. Ward initially answered, "No";
but then said, "Well, I shouldn't say that . . . ." She went on to explain that one
of her grandfather's brothers had molested his daughters many years ago . She
explained that she did not know them very well, as they were third or fourth
7 cousins, but she recalled that there was a criminal prosecution and that the
man was forced to leave the state . Ward explained that she did not know the
victims at the time and did not know about the molestation until much later .
She explained that it was "not a real close situation ." Ward indicated that she
could put the experience aside and decide the case, noting that the other
incident had occurred thirty to forty years ago .
Defense counsel moved to strike Ward from the jury because she had
cousins that had been sexually abused. The Commonwealth pointed out how
far removed the situation was . The Court agreed that the situation was far
enough removed and declined to strike Ward from the panel .
We have long held that a trial court's decision on whether to strike a
prospective juror for cause is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Shane v .
Commonwealth, 243 S.W .3d 336, 338 (Ky. 2007); Pendleton v. Commonwealth ,
83 S . W.3d 522 (Ky. 2002) . A reviewing court must weigh the probability of
prejudice or bias based on the entirety of the juror's responses . Shane , 243
S .W.3d at 338 .
RCr 9 .36 instructs that a trial judge shall excuse a juror for cause where
there is a reasonable basis to believe that the juror cannot be fair and
impartial . However, we recognize that the trial court is granted broad
discretion to determine whether a prospective juror should be stricken for
cause . Mabe v. Commonwealth, 884 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Ky. 1994) .
Ward's responses, when viewed as a whole, do not indicate that she was
unable to be fair and impartial. We cannot say that the trial judge had no
sound legal basis for his ruling. The judge was within his discretion when he 8 found that Ward could be fair and impartial as the incidents of abuse were so
far removed from the present day. Further, Ward did not appear to have a
close relationship with the victims. In Richardson v. Commonwealth, 161
S .W.3d 327, 330 (Ky . 2005), we held that a juror did not have to be stricken for
cause in a sexual abuse case where she herself had been a victim of sexual
abuse fourteen years earlier, as she indicated an ability to be fair and
impartial. In the present case, Ward indicated that she could put the situation
aside and decide the case without bias. Accordingly, we affirm on this ground .
Sufficiency of the Evidence
We have reviewed Appellant's argument that a directed verdict should
have been granted . However, we find Appellant's argument to be without
merit. Appellant contends that a directed verdict should have been granted
because the child witness A.Y. was unable to specifically state the date and
time of Count II of the indictment. As we have previously stated, we find it
"wholly unreasonable to expect a child of such tender years to remember
specific dates[.]" Garrett v. Commonwealth, 48 S.W .3d 6, 9 (Ky. 2001), citing
Hampton v . Commonwealth , 666 S.W.2d 737 (Ky. 1984) . The Counts in the
indictment were differentiated, as A.Y . was able to say that one of the rapes
occurred on July 26, 2006, and that the other rape(s) occurred at a time
previous to July 26, 2006 . Indeed, "the evidence was as specific as is usually
found in such cases and ample to separately identify the various offenses
charged." Hampton, 666 S .W.2d at 740 . Accordingly, we affirm on this
ground . Conclusion
The judgment of the Johnson Circuit Court is affirmed .
All sitting. All concur .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Julia Karol Pearson Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 301 Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway Attorney General
Susan Roncarti Lenz Assistant Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204