Case Title: RONALD GENE WAGERS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2005-SC-000261-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED_OPINION THIS OPINIONISDES`IGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED," PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION ISNOT TO BEPUBLISHED AND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED ASAUTHORITYINANY OTHER CASE INANY COURT OF THIS STATE. ,SuprEme Courf of R] U L~_ RONALD GENE WAGERS V 2005-SC-000261-MR ON APPEAL FROM TRIMBLE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE PAUL W. ROSENBLUM, JUDGE NO . 03-CR-00005 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING 2 Ky . Const. § 110(2)(b) . Initials will be used to protect the anonymity of the victim . 3 Rhonda had remarried before trial and assumed the name Buchanan . RENDERED : DECEMBER 21, 2006 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ~~~~ ~=~ o~-~ rcart APPELLANT COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE Appellant, Ronald Gene Wagers, was convicted of first degree sodomy and sentenced to twenty (20) years in prison . This appeal is as a matter of right.' The victim K.L.W.,2 who was eight years old at the time of the charged offense, lived in a trailer court in Bedford with her mother Rhonda Wagers, her stepfather, Appellant, and Appellant's bedridden mother Velma Wagers . Rhonda and Appellant had married each other after dating for a week, and Appellant adopted K.L.W . during the marriage . During the time the family lived in Bedford, Rhonda held jobs that kept her out of the house during varying shifts. Appellant collected an SSI check, and did maintenance work in the trailer court along with seasonal tobacco work . K.L.W . was frequently left in Appellant's and Velma's care when Rhonda was away . Velma and K.L.W . each had their own bedrooms, with Appellant and Rhonda sharing another . Rhonda claimed that the relationship with Appellant was not good while they lived in Bedford. There was frequent arguing and physical abuse, however the couple never separated . The relationship became worse when Appellant's nephew, John Gentry, moved in with them in early September 2002, ostensibly to help with paying bills . Soon after John moved in, Rhonda lost her job . Rhonda, Appellant, and John were all then unemployed . On November 26, 2002, a dispute between Rhonda and John over the use of the bathroom led to an argument between Rhonda and Appellant . The argument became physical, and Rhonda left the residence . Rhonda then picked up K.L.W . from school, and drove to the house of her mother, Rosalie Means, in Hanover, Indiana to stay . Later that afternoon Rhonda went to visit her father who lived nearby and left K.L.W . with her mother. While Rosalee was watching K.L.W., she asked her if she was glad to be "living with Mamaw now?" K.L.W . said yes, and she responded negatively when asked whether she missed being at home . According to Rosalee, K.L.W . said that Appellant "sexually harassed" her and she elaborated by describing how he made her perform oral sex on him . K.L.W . told her grandmother that Appellant threatened her that if she didn't do it, or if she told anyone about it, he would "whip her hard ." The next day Rosalee informed the police in Madison, Indiana . When Kentucky State Police Detective Brady Lineman asked Appellant about the allegation, Appellant denied that he did anything . He claimed that Rhonda's parents had money, that she was deeply in debt, and they were trying to get rid of him . He then terminated the interview. Appellant was subsequently indicted in March 2003, for one count of first degree sodomy . At trial, K.L.W . testified that many times4 Appellant made her suck "his thing." She stated that the last time it happened was four or five days before Appellant's nephew John moved into the residence . K.L.W . testified that Appellant was on the couch leaning over a car part he was working on while she played with blocks on the floor . Appellant took her into his and Rhonda's bedroom and made her perform oral sex on him . Appellant ejaculated . K.L .W . said that it looked like soap and water, and that it tasted like soap . Afterward Appellant told her not to tell anyone and he threatened to come after her and whip her if she did . She testified that she did not report what he did because she was afraid that when she returned to the trailer Appellant would indeed whip her hard and beat her up. She was also concerned about what Appellant would do to her mother . According to K.L.W., although Velma was in the house whenever Appellant sodomized her, she was never in a position to see what was going on . It was uncontroverted that Velma was confined to her bed . She was unable to walk because of damage to her knees and her corpulence . She could only be removed from the bed through the use of a Hoyer lift. Velma testified that from the bed she could see the entrance to every room in the house, that her door remained open at all times, and that she never saw 4 Appellant was charged only with the last incident . Based upon a pretrial ruling, the Commonwealth was allowed to produce testimony that Appellant had done this same act numerous times but was not permitted to elicit details about the other events . Appellant and K.L.W . go into a room together . However, Appellant himself conceded at trial that there were parts of the trailer that Velma could not see, and that there were times when he was there with K.L.W . that she could not see where they were or what they were doing . At trial, Appellant denied guilt, and he called Rhonda, Rosalee, and K.L.W . liars . He said that after the separation Rhonda and Rosalee "filled that kid's head full of crap." Appellant denied having exposed K.L.W . to sexual matters . He testified that the walls of the trailer were thin, and that K.L.W . would have heard him using sexually explicit words with his wife in their room . Because Appellant had claimed that K.L.W.'s story was a recent fabrication, the Commonwealth called her brother, Tommy Freeman, to testify . Tommy was slightly older than K.L.W . and had lived with Rosalee for most of his life . He said that six to twelve months before Detective Lineman interviewed him K.L.W . confided in him that Appellant had made her "suck his thing ." He didn't tell anyone because she told him not to, and he also didn't believe her at the time "because [he] didn't think anybody would do anything that nasty." The jury convicted Appellant of sodomy in the first degree and recommended a sentence of twenty years . Judgment of conviction was entered March 8, 2005 . Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to amend the indictment during trial . This issue is properly preserved by an objection to the amendment of the indictment and to an instruction based on that amendment. Appellant was indicted for one count of first degree sodomy against his stepdaughter who was under the age of 12 at the time of the offense . The indictment charged that the offense occurred "[i]n or about September, 2002 ." When the Commonwealth rested its case it asked the court to amend the indictment to say that the charged offense took place in either August or September 2002 . The Commonwealth pointed to the testimony of K.L.W . who said that the incident occurred a few days before Wager's nephew, John Gentry, came to live with her, her mother, and Appellant. Rhonda testified that she and Appellant traveled to Florida during the first week of September to pick up Gentry and bring him back to Kentucky. Appellant objected to the amendment on the ground that the Commonwealth had access to the witnesses and thus possessed sufficient information to amend the indictment prior to trial . Appellant's counsel acknowledged that the prosecutor had said in his opening statement that the offense occurred in August or September, and conceded that Appellant was not prejudiced inasmuch as he would not have had an alibi for either period of time . Appellant argued to the trial judge that if he sustained the motion to amend, he must inform the jury that what he told them at the beginning of trial had changed . The Commonwealth replied that counsel was free to argue that in his closing argument . The trial judge allowed the amendment, because no different offense had been charged and because Appellant was not prejudiced . This was buttressed by the fact that the original indictment alleged that the offense occurred "in or about September." After the close of evidence, as the attorneys discussed jury instructions with the judge, Appellant's counsel objected to the drafting of the instruction consistent with the amendment. He argued that by allowing the amendment the court had acknowledged that the Commonwealth had changed its story, but he was left with no way to bring that to the jury's attention . The Commonwealth responded that the witnesses' story was consistent and that the amended indictment was within the time period that K.L.W . originally said the offense occurred . RCr 6 .16, our criminal rule regarding amendments, states as follows : The court may permit an indictment, information, complaint or citation to be amended any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced . If justice requires, however, the court shall grant the defendant a continuance when such an amendment is permitted . "Our case law provides that an indictment may be amended at any time to conform to the proof providing the substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced and no additional evidence is required to amend the offense."5 Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the amendment of the indictment, because his defense was that the claims of abuse were fabricated . He posits that he should have been able to argue to the jury that the events as stated by the witnesses did not conform to the indictment . However, our review of the record finds no such prejudice . During closing arguments, counsel for Appellant did reference the amendment to the indictment. He stated as follows : "Remember back when they told you at the beginning of the case - said September of '02? Look at your instruction . Whoops . After the trial, suddenly it's August or September . Might want to wonder what came out of the witness stand that caused that change." Furthermore, the record reflects that Appellant was aware from the discovery provided that K.L.W . told Detective 5 Wolbrecht v. Commonwealth, 955 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Ky . 1997) . Lineman on November 30, 2002, that the charged offense occurred three to four months ago, when it was warm outside . K.L.W.'s statement to her mother Rhonda that it occurred before Appellant and Rhonda went to Florida to pick up his nephew John was also provided in the discovery. Even during his opening statement counsel for Appellant referred to the allegation that purportedly happened "around August or September of 2002." This Court has held that the amendment of the offense date in an indictment was not error where, as here, the defendant was not surprised and did not base his defense upon the dates in the original indictment. In Anderson v. Commonwealth7 the amendment of dates of an indictment was deemed proper because the defendant did not rely on an alibi for a particular period . The amended dates in Gilbert and in Anderson deviated one and two years, respectively, from the original dates. In the case at bar there was no substantial deviation, given that the wording of the original indictment was "in or about September, 2002" and thus included the possibility that the offense occurred in August . Appellant was not prejudiced by the amendment to the indictment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment. For the foregoing reasons Appellant's conviction is affirmed . Lambert, C.J., and Graves, McAnulty, Minton, Noble, Scott, and Wintersheimer, JJ ., concur. 6 Gilbert v. Commonwealth , 838 S.W.2d 376, 377-78 (Ky. 1991); see also Stephens v. Commonwealth , 397 S.W.2d 157 (Ky. 1965). 63 S.W.3d 135,140-41 (Ky. 1991). COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Randall L . Wheeler Assistant Public Advocate Department of Public Advocacy Suite 302, 100 Fair Oaks Lane' Frankfort, KY 40601 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Gregory D . Stumbo Attorney General of Kentucky Room 118, Capitol Building Frankfort, KY 40601 James Havey Assistant Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division Office of the Attorney General 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204