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
Opinion by
Justice SCOTT,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I concur with all of Justice Cooper’s opinion except issue IV.A.2, in regards to the “continuing objection.”
The granting of such objections is controlled by the trial courts and is used to avoid repetitive interruptions. They are a useful tool and should be upheld when granted. Otherwise, their use will become so fraught with the “danger of waiver,” that trial attorney’s will avoid their use. One, who has sat through trials with repetitive objection after repetitive objection, knows how damaging they can be to a party and how irritating it can be to the court — and the jury. It’s not something one should do and this is the reason for asking for, and getting a “continuing objection.” The continuing objection granted in this case served its purpose and should be upheld so as to preserve its intended function — which in this case was to object to any evidence (hearsay or otherwise) pertaining to the prior convictions.