Grigsby v. Commonwealth, 2013-CA-002068-MR
Decision Date | 07 August 2015 |
Docket Number | NO. 2013-CA-002068-MR,2013-CA-002068-MR |
Parties | CHRISTOPHER GRIGSBY APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
Grigsby was indicted by the Marion Circuit grand jury and originally charged with thirteen sex crimes1 involving his step-daughter, A.B., the daughter of Grisgby's wife, Crystal. A.B. was five years old when the charges arose. After a jury trial, Grigsby was acquitted of all charges, except one. He was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, as a lesser included offense of the original charge of rape in the first degree.
In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2000), the Kentucky Supreme Court stated, (internal citations omitted). The test for abuse of discretion is "'whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.'" McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.3d 643, 655 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).
Grigsby challenges a number of the trial court's evidentiary rulings: a) excluding the victim's testimony of other allegations involving sexual contact: b) admitting into evidence an electric blanket seized by a deputy sheriff and its semen evidence despite a gap of seventy-six days in its chain of custody; c) permitting introduction of Grigsby's DNA from the blanket without confirming the source of other unknown DNA on the blanket; and d) permitting medical opinion evidence without a proper foundation. And finally, Grigsby challenges, under palpable error review, the jury instruction used to convict him of sexual abuse first degree. We address these issues in turn, with additional facts as necessary.
Grigsby filed a pretrial motion to permit testimony of A.B.'s claims that an eight-year-old, D.D., had performed sodomy on her over a year prior to the allegations involving Grigsby, and that this act had been witnessed by her six-year-old brother, M.G. In addition, Grigsby sought to introduce A.B.'s allegation of a similar act by M.G. The trial court denied the motion based on Capshaw v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. App. 2007); finding that since the allegations had not been shown to be demonstrably false, they were inadmissible. Grigsby argues the trial court erred, and that since the evidence was not presented as evidence of A.B.'s character, he was denied his right to present a meaningful defense.
KRE2 412 provides:
KRE 412 is commonly known as the "rape shield" law. In Capshaw, after analyzing earlier cases, this court held that 253 S.W.3d at 565. In otherwords, prior accusations are admissible only if they are shown to be "demonstrably false."3 The court further stated that "'demonstrably false' is self explanatory: '[p]rior accusations are demonstrably false where the victim has admitted the falsity of the charges or they have been disproved.'" Id. (citation omitted). In this case, A.B.'s allegations have not been shown to be demonstrably false, and thus would be inadmissible under the Capshaw analysis.
Notwithstanding, Grigsby argues that in Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 28 (Ky. 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court effectively modified the Capshaw ruling such that "KRE 412 must be construed, as must all the rules of evidence, in a manner that does not contravene [a defendant's] constitutional right to present a meaningful defense[.]" Id. at 40. The Court expounded at length on the tension between KRE 412 and a defendant's right to present a meaningful defense:
To continue reading
Request your trial