Opinion

Dickerson v. Commonwealth

  • 174 S.W.3d 451
  • 2005 WL 2674943
Court
Kentucky Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 20, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Roach
On the bench
Cooper, Lambert, Graves, Johnstone, Roach, Scott, Wintersheimer
Cited by
61 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.1%

permitting introduction of "evidence of a victim's emotional state following a sexual assault as proof that the assault, in fact, occurred" and collecting similar cases

How later courts described this case

  • permitting introduction of "evidence of a victim's emotional state following a sexual assault as proof that the assault, in fact, occurred" and collecting similar cases
  • “[E]vidence that [the victim] visited a rape crisis center for treatment was relevant to prove that she was sexually assaulted.”
  • "However, because there is no likelihood that the jury issues, as discussed in Part III.C., will be present at retrial, I do not believe that we should address them. See Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671, 680 (Ky.1984) (`Since we have reversed this case for the reasons previously given, we will not discuss the other points raised by appellant inasmuch as they are unlikely to recur on retrial of this case.'); Terry v. Commonwealth, 153 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Ky. 2005) (`We will also address other issues that are likely to recur upon retrial.')."
  • “It is improper to permit a witness to testify that another witness has made prior consistent statements, absent an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence. KRE 801A(a)(2). Otherwise, the witness is simply vouching for the truthfulness of the declarant’s statement, which we have held to be reversible error.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Concurring opinion by

Justice ROACH.

As to Appellant’s May 2002 trial, I join Parts III.A., III.B., III.D., III.E. and III.F. of the majority opinion. However, because there is no likelihood that the jury issues, as discussed in Part III.C., will be present at retrial, I do not believe that we should address them. See lce v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671, 680 (Ky.1984) (“Since we have reversed this case for the reasons previously given, we will not discuss the other points raised by appellant inasmuch as they are unlikely to recur on retrial of this case.”); Terry v. Common *474 wealth, 153 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Ky.2005) (“We mil also address other issues that are likely to recur upon retrial.”).

As to the March 2003 trial, I join Parts IV.B., IV.C. and IV.D. of the majority opinion. I concur in result only as to Part IV.A.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.