Hester v. Com., 86-SC-439-MR
| Decision Date | 11 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-SC-439-MR,86-SC-439-MR |
| Parties | Roger Ellis HESTER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Larry H. Marshall, Asst. Public Advocate, Frankfort, for appellant.
David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Tom Castlen, Commonwealth's Atty., 6th Judicial Dist., Owensboro, for appellee.
Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right from the judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court sentencing him to forty years imprisonment for three counts of sodomy in the first degree, and three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The persons against whom appellant is alleged to have committed these crimes are his stepdaughters, ages nine years and seven years.
In April of 1985, these children informed their teachers that they had been sexually abused by appellant. An investigation was undertaken and during the investigation, the children repeated their accusations to social workers and a police officer. During the police investigation, a videotaped statement was taken in which the children detailed the incidents of sodomy and sexual abuse. At trial, the Commonwealth produced the testimony of the teachers and a social worker who repeated the stories told by the children. The Commonwealth also produced the police officer who testified as to the information the children had given him, and during the officer's testimony, the Commonwealth was permitted, over objection, to play the videotape for the jury.
When the children were called as witnesses, however, they flatly denied that appellant had committed any act of sexual abuse against them. Both children stated that they had made up the story in order to have appellant temporarily removed from their home so that they could see their natural father. One child attributed her detailed knowledge of the acts of sexual abuse to information provided by a young friend, but this was denied by the young friend and her mother.
After the children's testimony, the Commonwealth called a family sociologist as a witness. The Commonwealth established that this witness held a masters degree in sociology with a specialty in family sociology; that she was a full-time professor at Kentucky Wesleyan College; and that she had participated in a number of workshops and seminars dealing with child sexual abuse. Over appellant's objection to the qualifications of the witness and the substance of her testimony, the court permitted the witness to testify, in part, as follows Children do not usually have a lot of details in--when they are--tell something like this unless it has actually happened,.... When they have given specific details to adults, generally--well almost universally this has happened to them. One of the reasons children often will say later it didn't happen is because the family has put pressure on them either verbally, or by their actions to be loyal to the family.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the expert witness to testify. He argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish the scientific reliability of the expert opinion; that the witness in question was not shown to be an expert in her field; and that her testimony constituted improper bolstering of the children's out-of-court statements. In essence, appellant contends that the testimony of the expert witness was introduced to persuade the jury that the children had told the truth initially, and were lying in court, and that such constitutes an opinion on the ultimate issue of fact. The Commonwealth responds that the witness was shown to be an expert; that her testimony did not violate Bussey v. Commonwealth, Ky., 697 S.W.2d 139 (1985) and Lantrip v. Commonwealth, Ky., 713 S.W.2d 816 (1986); and that her testimony was based only on a hypothetical question which summarized facts properly in evidence.
We are at once confronted with our recent decision in Lantrip wherein an expert was permitted to testify that the victim fulfilled the guidelines of the "sexual abuse accommodation syndrome" and the elements which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. J.Q.
...(Wyo.1990); Scadden v. State, 732 P.2d 1036, 1046 (Wyo.1987). But see Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 930 (Ky.1989); Hester v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 457 (Ky.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989, 108 S.Ct. 510, 98 L.Ed.2d 508 (1987); Commonwealth v. Garcia, 403 Pa.Super. 280, 588 A.2d 951 (......
-
Steward v. State
...considered a sound diagnostic tool. See id. at 835-36; Rimmasch, 775 P.2d at 400-01; Myers et al., supra, at 67.6 See Hester v. Commonwealth, Ky., 734 S.W.2d 457, cert. denied (1987), 484 U.S. 989, 108 S.Ct. 510, 98 L.Ed.2d 508; Mitchell v. Commonwealth (1989), Ky., 777 S.W.2d 930; Dunkle, ......
-
King v. Commonwealth
...or credibility among clinical psychologists or psychiatrists." 713 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Ky.1986).In the next case, Hester v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Ky. 1987), we held that the need to prove the scientific validity of the CSAAS theory could not be evaded simply by avoiding the use of......
-
Sanderson v. Com., No. 2007-SC-000537-MR.
...Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 930, 932, 933 (Ky.1989) (use of CSAAS for determination of guilt and perpetrator profile); Hester v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Ky.1987) (recantation); Lantrip v. Commonwealth, 713 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Ky.1986) (use of CSAAS to prove abuse); Bussey v. Commonweal......