Case Title: JAMES ALLEN LAGRAND V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2002-SC-000195-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONIS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BYTHE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHEDAND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED AS AUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANY COURTOF THIS STATE. JAMES ALLEN LAGRAND ,*upct Courf of Atut 2002-SC-0195-MR APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT V . HONORABLE DAVID H . JERNIGAN, JUDGE NO . 2001-CR-00178 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : MAY 22, 2003 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Appellant, James Allen LaGrand, was convicted of first-degree sodomy (KRS 510 .070) in the Muhlenberg Circuit Court, for engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with E.L., a female less than twelve years of age . Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in the state penitentiary . He appeals to this Court as a matter of right . Ky . Const . § 110(2)(b) . We affirm . E .L ., the victim herein, is the appellant's granddaughter . In the latter part of the year 2000, marital problems developed between E .L .'s parents . E .L.'s mother left the family home in Central City and moved to Madisonville . E .L . initially accompanied her mother, but returned to live with her father in Central City after only a few weeks . A short time later, E .L., her father, and her brother began living with Appellant . Beginning in March of 2001 and continuing through September of the same year, Appellant allegedly committed inappropriate acts of a sexual nature against E .L ., who was only ten years old at the time . E.L . informed her mother and a school counselor of the acts . On October 26, 2001, the Muhlenberg County Grand Jury charged Appellant with first-degree sodomy for engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with E.L . between March and September of 2001 . Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge . On February 11, 2002, Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in prison . error: (1) the trial court committed palpable error when it permitted E .L . to testify about other acts allegedly perpetrated by Appellant, but not charged against him ; (2) the trial court committed palpable error by (a) permitting two of the Commonwealth's witnesses (E .L.'s mother and E.L.'s pediatrician) to improperly bolster E .L.'s testimony and (b) permitting E.L. to testify with regard to whom she informed about the criminal offense at issue ; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant Appellant's motion for a directed verdict . two claims of error were not properly preserved for our review . Appellant concedes such, but, nonetheless, urges this Court to consider the issues, as both constitute instances of palpable error . Butcher v . Commonwealth , Ky ., 96 S.W.3d 3, 11 (2002) . Appellant now brings this matter of right appeal, asserting the following claims of We begin our consideration of the instant matter by noting that Appellant's first RCr 10.26 provides that an alleged error improperly preserved for appellate review may be revisited upon a demonstration that it resulted in manifest injustice . Palpable error affects the substantial rights of a party and, under Partin v . Commonwealth , Ky ., 918 S.W.2d 219, 224 (1996), relief will only be granted if the reviewing court concludes "that a substantial possibility exists that the result would have been different" absent the error . Appellant has simply not demonstrated that the trial court committed an error substantially affecting his rights . Moreover, even if we considered either of the aforementioned claims to be in error, the record does not suggest that a different result would have occurred . As such, we find no merit in Appellant's arguments regarding these unpreserved claims . At trial, Appellant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the Commonwealth's case and at the close of his case as well . Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by not granting the motion . An appellant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal only when, based on all of the evidence, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find him guilty . Commonwealth v . Benham , Ky ., 816 S.W .2d 186, 187 (1991) . "[T]he trial court is expressly authorized to direct a verdict for the defendant if the prosecution produces no more than a mere scintilla of evidence ." Id . at 187-88. Appellant contends that the only proffered evidence satisfying the elements of first-degree sodomy was E .L .'s testimony . He argues that no other evidence supports the charged offense ; and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to send this case to the jury . Having reviewed the record, we find that the Commonwealth produced ample evidence for this case to be put before the jury . In addition, E.L.'s testimony alone constituted adequate evidence upon which a jury could determine Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . "The testimony of even a single witness is sufficient to support a finding of guilt, even when other witnesses testified to the contrary if, after consideration of all of the evidence, the finder of fact assigns greater weight to that evidence ." Commonwealth v . Suttles , Ky., 80 S .W.3d 424, 426 (2002) . Consequently, it was not clearly unreasonable for the jury in this case to have concluded that Appellant -3- was guilty of first-degree sodomy . Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for a directed verdict . Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court is affirmed . All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Albert William Barber, III 225 St . Ann Street Owensboro, KY 42303 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : A . B . Chandler, III Attorney General Capitol Building Frankfort, KY 40601 Samuel J . Floyd, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204