Title: JASON A. WATTS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4){C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: OCTOBER 31, 2019 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000409-MR JASON A. WATTS APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE CLARENCE A. WOODALL III, JUDGE NOS. 16-CR-00097, 16-CR-00098, 16-CR-00099, 16-CR-00100, 16-CR-00101 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING A Lyo n Co unt y jur y c o nv ic t e d Jaso n A. Wat t s o f o ne c o unt e ac h o f se c o nd -d e gr e e unlaw ful t r ansac t io n w it h a mino r , t hir d -d e gr e e so d o my; se c o nd -d e gr e e so d o my, and fir st -d e gr e e r ape (v ic t im und e r t w e lv e ), and t w o c o unt s o f t hir d -d e gr e e r ape . Wat t s r e c e iv e d a se nt e nc e o f life impr iso nme nt o n t he fir st -d e gr e e r ape c o nv ic t io n, t e n (10) ye ar s o n t he se c o nd -d e gr e e r ape c o nv ic t io n, and fiv e (5) ye ar s e ac h o n t he r e maining c har ge s. This appe al fo llo w e d as a mat t e r o f r ight . See Ky. Co nst . Se c t io n 110(2)(b). Hav ing r e v ie w e d t he r e c o r d and t he ar gume nt s o f t he par t ie s, w e affir m t he Lyo n Cir c uit Co ur t . I. BACKGROUND In 2013 o r 2014, Wat t s d iv o r c e d his w ife and t o o k his d aught e r , K.W.,1 and his t w o so ns t o liv e in Lyo n Co unt y. Dur ing t hat t ime , Wat t s and his c hild r e n r e sid e d in a ho use o n Wat t s ’s par e nt s ’ pr o pe r t y. The ho me w as r e fe r r e d t o as t he “r e c ho use ” be c ause t he r e w as a po o l t able in o ne o f t he r o o ms. While liv ing at t he r e c ho use in Apr il o f 2014, K.W., appr o ximat e ly e le v e n ye ar s o ld ,2 had he r fir st pe r io d . A fe w w e e ks lat e r , he r fat he r had se x w it h he r fo r t he fir st t ime . While r e sid ing in t he r e c ho use , K.W. be fr ie nd e d an o ld e r gir l, M.W. M.W. w as appr o ximat e ly t w o ye ar s o ld e r t han K.W. and w o uld so me t ime s babysit t he Wat t s c hild r e n. She w o uld also spe nd t he night at t he r e c ho use . The fir st t ime t hat M.W. spe nt t he night at t he r e c ho use , M.W. aske d K.W. t o “ho o k [he r ] up” w it h Wat t s. That night , Wat t s gav e t he gir ls mar ijuana t o smo ke . Lat e r t hat same night , aft e r t he gir ls had go ne t o be d , K.W. w o ke up and r e alize d t hat M.W. and Wat t s w e r e in t he bat hr o o m. K.W. c o uld he ar he av y br e at hing and v o ic e s c o ming fr o m t he bat hr o o m. The ne xt mo r ning, M.W. r e v e ale d t o K.W. t hat she and Wat t s had had se x t he night be fo r e . In o r ar o und August 2014, w he n K.W. w as appr o ximat e ly t w e lv e ye ar s o ld , Wat t s mo v e d t he c hild r e n t o Pad uc ah, Ke nt uc ky, w he r e he had a gir lfr ie nd . 1 The juv e nile v ic t ims w ill be id e nt ifie d by t he ir init ials. 2 K.W.’s t e st imo ny as t o t he e xac t d at e s o f t he se e v e nt s is unc le ar . She t e st ifie d t hat she had he r fir st pe r io d jus t be fo r e she t ur ne d e le v e n ye ar s o ld but lat e r ac kno w le d ge s t hat t he fir st inst anc e o f r ape o c c ur r e d in Apr il 2014, w he n she w o uld hav e alr e ad y t ur ne d e le v e n ye ar s o ld . 2 Dur ing t hat t ime , Wat t s d id no t se xually abuse K.W. K.W. t e st ifie d at t r ial t hat he “w o uld no t t o uc h [he r ] w he n he had a gir lfr ie nd .” Ho w e v e r , M.W. v isit e d t he Wat t s family in Pad uc ah o n at le ast t w o o c c asio ns and had se x w it h Wat t s o n at le ast o ne o f t ho se v isit s. Aft e r a fe w mo nt hs,3 Wat t s and his gir lfr ie nd e nd e d t he ir r e lat io nship, and Wat t s mo v e d t he family bac k t o Lyo n Co unt y. This t ime , t he y mo v e d t o a t r aile r o n Je nkins Ro ad . Upo n r e t ur ning t o Lyo n Co unt y, M.W. and K.W. r e kind le d t he ir fr ie nd ship. M.W., appr o ximat e ly fo ur t e e n ye ar s o ld , v isit e d t he t r aile r almo st e v e r y d ay. At t r ial, M.W. t e st ifie d t hat she had se x w it h Wat t s at t he Je nkins Ro ad t r aile r “quit e a fe w t ime s.” K.W. also t e st ifie d t hat she w it ne sse d M.W. in Wat t s ’s be d hav ing se x w it h Wat t s o n at le ast o ne o c c asio n. On ano t he r d ay, Wat t s, K.W., and M.W. w e r e in Wat t s ’s r o o m w he n Wat t s had K.W. “mast ur bat e him” and giv e him o r al se x. K.W. be lie v e d t hat M.W., w ho w as se at e d ne ar by, saw K.W. mast ur bat ing Wat t s. In fac t , M.W. t e st ifie d at t r ial t hat she w it ne sse d K.W. sit t ing w it h Wat t s w it h a blanke t o v e r t he m. M.W. t e st ifie d t hat she saw K.W.’s hand und e r t he blanke t mo v ing up and d o w n. On ano t he r o c c asio n, K.W. r e c alle d lying o n he r bac k in Wat t s ’s be d r o o m w hile Wat t s had se x w it h he r w he n he r gr and mo t he r , Fo nd a Wat t s, w alke d in. K.W. d id no t spe ak w it h he r gr and mo t he r abo ut t he inc id e nt . Abo ut t w o w e e ks aft e r t his inc id e nt , in De c e mbe r 2015, t he se xual abuse w as r e po r t e d t o law e nfo r c e me nt . The mat t e r w as r e po r t e d aft e r a st ud e nt 3 The e xac t d at e t hat t he family mo v e d bac k t o Lyo n Co unt y is unc le ar . Ho w e v e r , K.W. t e st ifie d t hat it w as so me t ime d ur ing he r se v e nt h-gr ad e ye ar . 3 he ar d t hat M.W. and K.W. w e r e in se xual r e lat io nships w it h Wat t s and r e po r t e d t his t o a t e ac he r . The mat t e r w as init ially inv e st igat e d by Ke nt uc ky St at e Po lic e Tr o o pe r Chr ist o phe r Smit h, but t hat inv e st igat io n w as e v e nt ually c lo se d be c ause Tr o o pe r Smit h t ho ught t hat it might be po ssible Wat t s w as t e lling t he t r ut h w he n he d e nie d t he alle gat io ns. Me anw hile , in De c e mbe r 2015, Ke nt uc ky St at e Po lic e Offic e r (no w De t e c t iv e ) Er ic Fie ld s be gan inv e st igat ing t he alle gat io ns c o nc e r ning M.W. Upo n le ar ning abo ut t he alle gat io ns c o nc e r ning K.W., he r e o pe ne d t hat c ase and t o o k o v e r bo t h inv e st igat io ns. As a r e sult o f t he se inv e st igat io ns, K.W. and he r br o t he r s w e r e r e mo v e d fr o m Wat t s ’s ho me . Se v e r al mo nt hs lat e r , o n May 22, 2016, De t e c t iv e Fie ld s int e r v ie w e d Wat t s. Unfo r t unat e ly, ac c o r d ing t o De t e c t iv e Fie ld s ’s t e st imo ny at t r ial, he d id no t se e k a se ar c h w ar r ant alle ge d ly be c ause se v e r al mo nt hs had passe d sinc e t he c hild r e n’s r e mo v al and Wat t s c laime d he had alr e ad y r e mo v e d all o f t he c hild r e n’s be lo ngings fr o m his ho me , inc lud ing a mat t r e ss. Thr o ugho ut t he pe r io d o f abuse , K.W. ke pt se v e r al jo ur nals, inc lud ing o ne fo r he r d r e ams, o ne fo r he r fe e lings, and o ne fo r he r po e t r y. She also had a c e ll pho ne , w hic h alle ge d ly c o nt aine d r e c o r d ings o f Wat t s “saying se xual t hings ” as w e ll as r e c o r d ings o f Wat t s physic ally abusing his so n. K.W. w as unable t o r e t r ie v e t he se it e ms be fo r e she w as r e mo v e d fr o m he r fat he r ’s ho me . At t r ial, Wat t s ad mit t e d int o e v id e nc e so me but no t all o f t he jo ur nal e nt r ie s d ur ing his c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. Wat t s himse lf t e st ifie d t hat he had lo o ke d fo r but c o uld no t find t he c e ll pho ne . 4 A Lyo n Co unt y jur y fo und Wat t s guilt y o f se c o nd -d e gr e e unlaw ful t r ansac t io n w it h a mino r , t hir d -d e gr e e so d o my, se c o nd -d e gr e e so d o my, fir st - d e gr e e r ape (v ic t im und e r t w e lv e ), and t w o c o unt s o f t hir d -d e gr e e r ape . This appe al fo llo w e d as a mat t e r o f r ight . II. ANALYSIS In his appe al, Wat t s asse r t s v ar io us e r r o r s. Fir st , he ar gue s t hat it w as e r r o r t o allo w e v id e nc e o f his pr io r d r ug and alc o ho l use , e v id e nc e r e lat e d t o payme nt o f his bo nd and le gal fe e s, and t e st imo ny sugge st ing t hat he hid o r d e st r o ye d e v id e nc e . Ne xt , he ar gue s t hat he w as d e nie d t he r ight t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse be c ause (1) he w as unable t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e o f t he v ic t ims ’ alle ge d use o f a se x t o y and M.W.’s se xually t r ansmit t e d d ise ase (“STD”) und e r Ke nt uc ky Rule o f Ev id e nc e (“KRE”) 412 and (2) his c r o ss- e xaminat io n o f K.W. w as limit e d in sc o pe . Last ly, he ar gue s t hat t he e xhibit s int r o d uc e d d ur ing t he pe nalt y phase o f his t r ial e xc e e d e d t he sc o pe o f Ke nt uc ky Re v ise d St at ut e (“KRS”) 532.055. If no ne o f t he se alle ge d e r r o r s alo ne me r it r e lie f, Wat t s ar gue s t hat , t ake n t o ge t he r , t he y c o nst it ut e c umulat iv e e r r o r and w ar r ant r e v e r sal o f his c o nv ic t io n and se nt e nc e . We ad d r e ss e ac h o f his ar gume nt s in t ur n. A. Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial Evidence Re le v ant e v id e nc e is d e fine d as “e v id e nc e hav ing any t e nd e nc y t o make t he e xist e nc e o f any fac t t hat is o f c o nse que nc e t o t he d e t e r minat io n o f t he ac t io n mo r e pr o bable o r le ss pr o bable t han it w o uld be w it ho ut t he e v id e nc e .” KRE 401. Und e r KRE 402, “[a]ll r e le v ant e v id e nc e is ad missible ” unle ss 5 o t he r w ise e xc lud e d by t he law o r o ur r ule s o f e v id e nc e . “Ev id e nc e w hic h is no t r e le v ant is no t ad missible .” KRE 401. Ho w e v e r , e v e n r e le v ant e v id e nc e may be e xc lud e d “if it s pr o bat iv e v alue is subst ant ially o ut w e ighe d by t he d ange r o f und ue pr e jud ic e , c o nfusio n o f t he issue s, o r misle ad ing t he jur y, o r by c o nsid e r at io ns o f und ue d e lay, o r ne e d le ss pr e se nt at io n o f c umulat iv e e v id e nc e .” KRE 403. Und uly pr e jud ic ial e v id e nc e has be e n d e fine d as e v id e nc e t hat “appe als t o t he jur y’s sympat hie s, ar o use s it s se nse o f ho r r o r , pr o v o ke s it s inst inc t t o punish, o r o t he r w ise may c ause a jur y t o base it s d e c isio n o n so me t hing o t he r t han t he e st ablishe d pr o po sit io ns in t he c ase .” Richmond v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Ky. 2017) (quo t ing Butler v. Commonwealth, 367 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Ky. App. 2012)) (int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ). Co nt r ast e d w it h t he se ge ne r al r ule s o f r e le v anc e is “t he e qually v e ne r able r ule t hat a d e fe nd ant may no t be c o nv ic t e d o n t he basis o f lo w c har ac t e r o r c r iminal pr e d ispo sit io n, even though suc h c har ac t e r o r pr e d ispo sit io n make s it appe ar mo r e like ly t hat t he d e fe nd ant is guilt y o f t he c har ge d o ffe nse .” Billings v. Commonwealth, 843 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Ky. 1992). Thus, und e r KRE 404(b), “e v id e nc e o f o t he r c r ime s, w r o ngs, o r ac t s is no t ad missible t o pr o v e t he c har ac t e r o f a pe r so n in o r d e r t o sho w ac t io n in c o nfo r mit y t he r e w it h.” Suc h e v id e nc e may be ad missible , ho w e v e r , “[i]f o ffe r e d fo r so me o t he r pur po se , suc h as pr o o f o f mo t iv e , o ppo r t unit y, int e nt , pr e par at io n, plan, kno w le d ge , id e nt it y, o r abse nc e o f mist ake o r ac c id e nt .” KRE 404(b)(1). It may also be ad missible if it is “so ine xt r ic ably int e r t w ine d w it h o t he r e v id e nc e e sse nt ial t o t he c ase t hat 6 se par at io n o f t he t w o (2) c o uld no t be ac c o mplishe d w it ho ut se r io us ad v e r se e ffe c t o n t he o ffe r ing par t y.” KRE 404(b)(2). On appe al, w e r e v ie w t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d e c isio n t o ad mit suc h e v id e nc e fo r abuse o f d isc r e t io n. Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813, 922 (Ky. 2008). Wit h t he se e v id e nt iar y r ule s in mind , w e ad d r e ss Wat t s ’s ar gume nt t hat c e r t ain e v id e nc e w as ir r e le v ant and und uly pr e jud ic ial. 1. References to Drug and Alcohol Use Se v e r al w it ne sse s t e st ifie d r e gar d ing Wat t s ’s d r ug and alc o ho l use . Fo r e xample , K.W. t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s had giv e n he r and M.W. mar ijuana at t he r e c ho use and t hat he st o r e d his mar ijuana in a safe in his c lo se t at t he Je nkins Ro ad t r aile r . M.W. similar ly t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s w o uld smo ke mar ijuana w it h t he t w o gir ls at t he r e c ho use and ke e p his mar ijuana in a kit c he n c abine t at t hat r e sid e nc e . She also t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s t aught he r ho w t o smo ke mar ijuana fr o m a light bulb at t he r e c ho use . M.W. also st at e d t hat she and Wat t s w o uld smo ke mar ijuana t o ge t he r at t he Je nkins Ro ad t r aile r pr io r t o hav ing se x. While t e st ifying abo ut t he mar ijuana use , M.W. also v o lunt e e r e d t hat Wat t s be c ame a he av y d r inke r w hile liv ing at t he Je nkins Ro ad t r aile r , he d r ank v o d ka, and he o c c asio nally gav e t he m sho t s t o d r ink aft e r giv ing t he m mar ijuana. Re fe r r ing t o t he mar ijuana and alc o ho l use , M.W. c o nt inue d , “Aft e r all t hat st uff happe ne d , [K.W.] w o uld go t o be d , [Wat t s w o uld ] lo c k t he d o o r ,” and Wat t s and M.W. w o uld hav e se x. Fo nd a Wat t s, Wat t s ’s mo t he r , also t e st ifie d abo ut Wat t s ’s alc o ho l use . Whe n aske d o n c r o ss-e xaminat io n if Wat t s had an alc o ho l pr o ble m, she r e plie d 7 t hat she no t ic e d Wat t s d r inking v o d ka aft e r his d iv o r c e , but she d id no t c o nsid e r him an alc o ho lic . The r e le v anc e o f t his t e st imo ny is que st io nable , as e xplaine d be lo w . In ad d it io n, d ur ing his o w n t e st imo ny, Wat t s ad mit t e d t hat he gav e M.W. mar ijuana o n o ne o c c asio n, t ho ugh he d e nie d ke e ping mar ijuana in t he ho use o n a r e gular basis. He w as also aske d d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n if he “had an alc o ho l pr o ble m.” He ad mit t e d t o d r inking v o d ka but d e nie d hav ing an alc o ho l pr o ble m. As no t e d abo v e , “[e ] v id e nc e o f o t he r c r ime s, w r o ngs, o r ac t s ” may be ad missible “[i]f o ffe r e d fo r so me o t he r pur po se , suc h as pr o o f o f mo t iv e , o ppo r t unit y, int e nt , pr e par at io n, plan, kno w le d ge , id e nt it y, o r abse nc e o f mist ake o r ac c id e nt ” o r if “ine xt r ic ably int e r t w ine d ” w it h o t he r mat e r ial e v id e nc e . KRE 404(b). We hav e pr e v io usly fo und similar e v id e nc e ad missible in o t he r c hild se xual abuse c ase s. In Richardson v. Commonwealth, 161 S.W.3d 327 (Ky. 2005), e v id e nc e t hat t he d e fe nd ant pr o v id e d c igar e t t e s and alc o ho l t o t he mino r v ic t im t e nd e d t o sho w his mo d us o pe r and ii in c o nt r o lling t he v ic t im. Similar ly, in Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 838 S.W.2d 376 (Ky. 1991), w e he ld t hat it w as appr o pr iat e t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat a st e pfat he r pr o v id e d mar ijuana and alc o ho l t o his st e pd aught e r s w hile fo r c ing t he m t o w at c h se xually e xplic it mo v ie s be c ause it “ind ic at e [d ] a pat t e r n o f c o nd uc t and mo t iv e fo r fo r c ing t he yo ung w o me n int o ad ult se xual ac t iv it y.” Id. at 379. We e xplaine d t hat “[j]ur ie s d o no t hav e t o pe r fo r m t he ir func t io ns o f fac t -find ing in a v ac uum.” Id. Rat he r , “[i]n o r d e r t o d e t e r mine e xac t ly w hat d id o r d id no t happe n at any par t ic ular st age in t he se que nc e , it w as ne c e ssar y t hat t he jur y se e t he e nt ir e 8 pic t ur e .” Id. (quo t ing Ware v. Commonwealth, 537 S.W.2d 174, 179 (Ky. 1976), o v e r r ule d o n o t he r gr o und s in Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2016)) (int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ); see also Whaley v. Commonwealth, 567 S.W.3d 576, 584-85 (Ky. 2019); Alford v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Ky. 2011). He r e , bo t h v ic t ims t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s w o uld giv e t he m mar ijuana pr io r t o se xually abusing t he m, and M.W. also t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s w o uld so me t ime s giv e t he m sho t s o f alc o ho l pr io r t o t he abuse , as w e ll. This e v id e nc e ind ic at e s a pat t e r n o f c o nd uc t in c o nt r o lling t he yo ung v ic t ims. It w as t hus highly r e le v ant and allo w e d t he jur y t o v ie w “t he e nt ir e pic t ur e ” o r r at he r , t he e nt ir e t y o f t he c ir c umst anc e s le ad ing t o t he se xual abuse . The highly pr o bat iv e v alue is no t o ut w e ighe d by any pr e jud ic ial affe c t . Fur t he r mo r e , Wat t s had be e n c har ge d w it h se c o nd -d e gr e e unlaw ful t r ansac t io n w it h a mino r , w hic h r e quir e s t hat “he kno w ingly ind uc e [], assist [], o r c ause )] a mino r t o e ngage in ille gal c o nt r o lle d subst anc e s ac t iv it y inv o lv ing mar ijuana, ille gal gambling ac t iv it y, o r any o t he r c r iminal ac t iv it y c o nst it ut ing a fe lo ny.” KRS 530.065. Wat t s ad mit t e d t o pr o v id ing mar ijuana t o M.W. o n o ne o c c asio n. Ho w e v e r , t he fac t t hat Wat t s ad mit t e d t o o ne inc id e nt d o e s no t d e pr iv e t he Co mmo nw e alt h o f t he abilit y t o pr o v e it s c ase , inc lud ing pr o v id ing c o r r o bo r at ing e v id e nc e . See Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Ky. 1998) (“Ge ne r ally, . . . t he pr o se c ut io n is pe r mit t e d t o pr o v e it s c ase by c o mpe t e nt e v id e nc e o f it s o w n c ho o sing, and t he d e fe nd ant may no t st ipulat e aw ay t he par t s o f t he c ase t hat he d o e s no t w ant t he jur y t o se e .”) 9 (c it ing Chumbler v. Commonwealth, 905 S.W.2d 488, 492 (1995)). Ev id e nc e t hat Wat t s pr o v id e d mar ijuana t o M.W. and K.W. o n ad d it io nal o c c asio ns t han t he o ne fo r w hic h he w as ind ic t e d w as r e le v ant t o d e mo nst r at e int e nt , plan, o r abse nc e o f mist ake o r ac c id e nt . The e v id e nc e ’s pr o bat iv e v alue fo r t he se pur po se s w as no t subst ant ially o ut w e ighe d by it s pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t . Ho w e v e r , t he e v id e nc e t e nd ing t o sho w t hat Wat t s himse lf w as a fr e que nt use r o f d r ugs o r alc o ho l pr o v id e d lit t le pr o bat iv e v alue and w as und uly pr e jud ic ial. That info r mat io n w as unr e lat e d t o t he se xual abuse o f K.W. and M.W. and t hus d id no t t e nd t o sho w a c o mmo n sc he me o r plan, no r w as it ne c e ssar y fo r a full pr e se nt at io n o f t he c ase . Rat he r , it t e nd e d t o sho w c o llat e r al bad ac t s, name ly, subst anc e abuse , in v io lat io n o f KRE 404. Giv e n t he lo w pr o bat iv e v alue o f t his info r mat io n and it s pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t , it w as e r r o r t o e lic it suc h t e st imo ny. Se e Chavies v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 313, 317-21 (Ky. 2012). Ho w e v e r , Wat t s d id no t pr e se r v e t his e r r o r . While no KRE 404(c ) no t ic e w as pr o v id e d o f t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s int e nt t o o ffe r e v id e nc e o f Wat t s ’s subst anc e use ,4 Wat t s d id no t o bje c t w he n t his e v id e nc e w as int r o d uc e d at t r ial. As a r e sult , Wat t s faile d t o pr e se r v e t his e r r o r fo r o r d inar y appe llat e r e v ie w . 4 The Co mmo nw e alt h d id pr o v id e KRE 404(c ) no t ic e o f it s int e nt t o o ffe r e v id e nc e t hat Wat t s pr o v id e d alc o ho l and mar ijuana t o K.W. and M.W. in it s Pr o ffe r o f Te st imo ny Pur suant t o 404(b). Ho w e v e r , be c ause w e fo und no e r r o r in t he ad missio n o f t hat e v id e nc e , pr e se r v at io n is no t an issue . 10 Ne v e r t he le ss, und e r Ke nt uc ky Rule o f Cr iminal Pr o c e d ur e (“RCr ”) 10.26, an appe llat e c o ur t may c o nsid e r “[a] palpable e r r o r w hic h affe c t s t he subst ant ial r ight s o f a par t y . . . e v e n t ho ugh insuffic ie nt ly r aise d o r pr e se r v e d fo r r e v ie w ” and gr ant r e lie f “upo n a d e t e r minat io n t hat manife st injust ic e has r e sult e d fr o m t he e r r o r .” Thus, t o o bt ain t he r e que st e d r e lie f, t he d e fe nd ant must be able t o sho w t hat an e r r o r o c c ur r e d and , as a r e sult o f t hat e r r o r , t hat he o r she w as subst ant ially pr e jud ic e d o r w as o t he r w ise subje c t e d t o manife st injust ic e . Parker v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.3d 394, 407 (Ky. 2016). Ho w e v e r , “[t ]he me r e po ssibilit y o f pr e jud ic e ... is no t e no ugh.” Inst e ad , t he d e fe nd ant must d e mo nst r at e “a like liho o d —‘a r e aso nable po ssibilit y’—t hat , but fo r t he e r r o r , a d iffe r e nt se nt e nc e w o uld hav e be e n impo se d .” Id. at 407-08 (c it ing Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Ky. 2013)). The t hr e sho ld fo r palpable e r r o r is a high o ne , and t he e r r o r must be “so e gr e gio us t hat it jumps o ff t he page ” and “c r ie s o ut fo r r e lie f.” Alford, 338 S.W.3d at 251 (Cunningham, J., c o nc ur r ing). On t his po int , Wat t s c it e s t o Chavies fo r suppo r t . In t hat c ase , t he d e fe nd ant ’s use o f mar ijuana, po sse ssio n o f po r no gr aphy, and une mplo yme nt w as c o mple t e ly unr e lat e d t o t he und e r lying c har ge s o f se xual abuse . It w as t hus e r r o r und e r KRE 404 t o ad mit t hat e v id e nc e . Se v e r al o t he r e r r o r s plague d t hat t r ial, inc lud ing impr o pe r bo lst e r ing o f t he v ic t im’s t e st imo ny and gr o ss pr o se c ut o r ial misc o nd uc t . The Co ur t e xplaine d , To r o use t he jur y’s e mo t io ns against t he Appe llant , t he pr o se c ut o r , in v io lat io n o f KRE 404(a) and (b),. o bse ssiv e ly fo c use d o n at t ac king his c har ac t e r (t hr o ugh pr ac t ic ally e v e r y w it ne ss) t o sho w t hat he 11 w as a lo w -life and a lo se r —so me o ne w ho smo ke d “d o pe ,” c o uld no t ho ld a jo b, r e lie d o n his w ife t o suppo r t t he family, and e njo ye d po r no gr aphy. 374 S.W.3d at 323. While ac kno w le d ging t hat “t he t hr e sho ld fo r palpable e r r o r is high,” t he Co ur t fo und t hat it c o uld no t “igno r e t he she e r v o lume o f int e nt io nal e r r o r s in t his c ase me ant t o pr e jud ic e t he jur y against t he Appe llant base d o n his c har ac t e r and no t t he e v id e nc e o f t he c r ime s.” Id. Unlike t he Chavies c ase , ho w e v e r , t his c ase d o e s no t inv o lv e an “o bse ssiv e [] fo c us[] o n at t ac king his c har ac t e r ” t hat w as “me ant t o pr e jud ic e t he jur y against ” Wat t s. Fur t he r mo r e , in similar c ase s inv o lv ing t he impr o pe r int r o d uc t io n o f c o llat e r al bad ac t s e v id e nc e , w e hav e d e c line d t o find palpable e r r o r w he r e t he ad missible e v id e nc e against t he d e fe nd ant w as signific ant . See, e.g., Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. 2012). In t he pr e se nt c ase , t he t e st imo ny r e lat e d t o Wat t s ’s alle ge d he av y d r inking and fr e que nt mar ijuana use w as minimal. He w as able t o ad d r e ss t he se alle gat io ns d ur ing his o w n t e st imo ny, in w hic h he d e nie d hav ing an alc o ho l pr o ble m and d e nie d ke e ping mar ijuana in his ho me . His mo t he r also t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s d r ank, but he d id no t hav e an alc o ho l pr o ble m. In light o f all o f t he e v id e nc e pr e se nt e d at t r ial, inc lud ing t he v ic t ims ’ t e st imo ny abo ut t he se xual abuse , t he r e is no t a r e aso nable pr o babilit y t hat e xc lusio n o f t his limit e d t e st imo ny w o uld hav e r e sult e d in a d iffe r e nt o ut c o me . Thus, w hile it w as e r r o r t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e o f Wat t s ’s alle ge d subst anc e abuse , it w as no t palpable e r r o r w ar r ant ing r e v e r sal und e r RCr 10.26. 12 2. References to Bond and Legal Fees Fo nd a Wat t s, Wat t s ’s mo t he r , t e st ifie d o n his be half at t r ial. Dur ing he r t e st imo ny, she d e nie d w it ne ssing Wat t s hav ing se xual int e r c o ur se w it h K.W. He r t e st imo ny, t he r e fo r e , w as, at le ast in par t , e lic it e d t o r e but K.W.’s alle gat io ns. Dur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n, t he Co mmo nw e alt h, in an appar e nt at t e mpt t o d e mo nst r at e t he w it ne ss ’s bias, aske d Mr s. Wat t s w he t he r she had “a t e nd e nc y t o t ake c ar e o f t hings ” fo r Wat t s. Mr s. Wat t s r e plie d , “No , he t ake s c ar e o f his o w n mat t e r s.” The Co mmo nw e alt h t he n aske d , “So ar e yo u t e lling t he jur y t hat yo u hav e n’t t ake n c ar e o f him financ ially?” Mr s. Wat t s r e plie d , “No , he ’s be e n w o r king.” The Co mmo nw e alt h t he n aske d if Mr s. Wat t s and he r husband pur c hase d a ho me fo r Wat t s, w hic h Mr s. Wat t s c o nfir me d and ac kno w le d ge d t hat “o kay, ye s,” she d id t ake c ar e o f Wat t s financ ially. Lat e r , t he Co mmo nw e alt h aske d Mr s. Wat t s if she paid Wat t s ’s bo nd and le gal fe e s, t o w hic h she r e plie d in t he affir mat iv e . The Co mmo nw e alt h t he n aske d again, “So yo u d o hav e a t e nd e nc y t o w ant t o t ake c ar e o f t hings fo r yo ur so n?” Mr s. Wat t s r e plie d , “Fo r all my family.” Wat t s no w ar gue s t hat t he que st io ns r e lat e d t o his bo nd and le gal fe e s w e r e ir r e le v ant and allo w e d t he jur y t o infe r t hat Wat t s had be e n inc ar c e r at e d pr io r t o t r ial, t he r e by und e r mining t he pr e sumpt io n o f inno c e nc e . The Co mmo nw e alt h, o n t he o t he r hand , ar gue s t hat t his line o f que st io ning w as r e le v ant t o at t ac k t he c r e d ibilit y o f Fo nd a Wat t s. We agr e e t hat t his line o f que st io ning w as r e le v ant fo r impe ac hme nt pur po se s and no t und uly pr e jud ic ial. KRE 607 allo w s any par t y t o at t ac k t he 13 c r e d ibilit y o f a w it ne ss. Ac c o r d ingly, a par t y may que st io n a w it ne ss o n his o r he r bias, int e r e st , o r ho st ilit y, inc lud ing t he w it ne ss ’s r e lat io nships and pe r so nal and mo ne t ar y int e r e st s in t he o ut c o me o f t he c ase , amo ng o t he r t hings.5 In t he pr e se nt c ase , Fo nd a Wat t s d e nie d “t aking c ar e o f" mat t e r s fo r he r so n, w hic h w o uld hav e sho w n he r bias t o w ar d s he r so n, and d e nie d pr o v id ing him w it h financ ial assist anc e . The Co mmo nw e alt h t he n aske d abo ut v ar io us w ays t hat Mr s. Wat t s had pr o v id e d assist anc e t o Wat t s, inc lud ing pur c hasing a ho me and paying fo r his bo nd and le gal fe e s. Aft e r e lic it ing t his info r mat io n, t he Co mmo nw e alt h again aske d Mr s. Wat t s if she had “a t e nd e nc y t o w ant t o t ake c ar e o f t hings ” fo r Wat t s, and Mr s. Wat t s ad mit t e d t hat she d id , in fac t , hav e a t e nd e nc y t o t ake c ar e o f t hings fo r he r family, inc lud ing he r c hild r e n. Thus, t he Co mmo nw e alt h use d t his line o f que st io ning t o c halle nge Mr s. Wat t s ’s o w n st at e me nt t hat she d id no t “t ake c ar e o f t hings ” fo r he r so n. We t he r e fo r e c o nc lud e t hat t his e v id e nc e w as r e le v ant fo r impe ac hme nt pur po se s, and t his r e le v anc e w as no t o ut w e ighe d by any pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t . Wat t s fur t he r ar gue s t hat que st io ns r e lat e d t o his bo nd and le gal fe e s allo w e d t he jur y t o infe r t hat he had be e n inc ar c e r at e d pr io r t o t r ial, t he r e by und e r mining t he pr e sumpt io n o f inno c e nc e . We find t his ar gume nt unpe r suasiv e . No t e st imo ny w as e lic it e d spe c ific ally as t o Wat t s ’s inc ar c e r at io n o r le ngt h t he r e o f. De t e c t iv e Fie ld s had alr e ad y t e st ifie d t hat Wat t s had be e n ar r e st e d fo r unlaw ful t r ansac t io n w it h a mino r . Ev id e nc e t hat Wat t s ’s bo nd had 5 See Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 4.10 (5t h e d . 2013). 14 be e n paid implie d t hat he w as no t c ur r e nt ly inc ar c e r at e d . This e v id e nc e , as pr e se nt e d in t his c ase , d id no t e r o d e Wat t s ’s pr e sumpt io n o f inno c e nc e . 3. Testimony Regarding K.W.’s Missing Cell Phone and Journals As no t e d abo v e , K.W. ke pt se v e r al jo ur nals and a c e ll pho ne , but she w as r e mo v e d fr o m Wat t s ’s ho me be fo r e she c o uld r e t r ie v e t he se it e ms. Pr io r t o t r ial, Wat t s mad e a mo t io n in limine t o e xc lud e any r e fe r e nc e t o t he c e ll pho ne r e c o r d ings but d id no t r e que st t hat e v id e nc e o f t he jo ur nals be e xc lud e d . The t r ial c o ur t gr ant e d Wat t s ’s mo t io n, pr o hibit ing t he Co mmo nw e alt h fr o m r e fe r e nc ing t he c e ll pho ne r e c o r d ings d ur ing it s c ase -in-c hie f. The Co mmo nw e alt h abid e d by t his o r d e r and fur t he r c ho se no t t o me nt io n t he jo ur nals d ur ing it s c ase -in-c hie f. Ho w e v e r , d e fe nse c o unse l r aise d bo t h o f t he se issue s se v e r al t ime s d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s w it ne sse s. Fo r e xample , d e fe nse c o unse l e lic it e d t e st imo ny abo ut t he se it e ms fr o m K.W. d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n, e v e n int r o d uc ing so me o f t he jo ur nal e nt r ie s int o e v id e nc e . De fe nse c o unse l st at e d t hat t he jo ur nal e nt r ie s w e r e r e le v ant be c ause K.W. use d t he jo ur nals t o e xpr e ss he r fe e lings and r e c o unt t hings t hat had happe ne d t o he r but d id no t w r it e abo ut he r fat he r se xually abusing he r . De t e c t iv e Fie ld s lat e r t e st ifie d fo r t he Co mmo nw e alt h abo ut his d e c isio n no t t o se ar c h t he ho me base d o n Wat t s ’s st at e me nt s t hat t he c hild r e n’s be lo ngings and mat t r e ss had alr e ad y be e n r e mo v e d . Dur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n and r e -c r o ss o f De t e c t iv e Fie ld s, d e fe nse c o unse l r e pe at e d ly c halle nge d him abo ut t his d e c isio n. De fe nse c o unse l also pr e se nt e d De t e c t iv e Fie ld s w it h so me 15 o f t he jo ur nal e nt r ie s, and De t e c t iv e Fie ld s r e spo nd e d t hat he w o uld like t o se e “t he full jo ur nals.” De fe nse c o unse l e v e nt ually fo llo w e d up by saying, “Yo u say yo u’d like t o se e t he m but , again, I gue ss yo u’r e just o pe r at ing o n t he t he o ry t hat t he y’v e be e n d e st r o ye d alo ng w it h t he mat t r e sse s.” De t e c t iv e Fie ld s r e spo nd e d , “I t hink yo u all hav e go t mo r e info r mat io n t han w e d o .” De fe nse c o unse l t he n said , “We ll, I d o n’t kno w if t hat ’s t r ue o r no t ” and e nd e d his que st io ning o f De t e c t iv e Fie ld s. Wat t s lat e r t e st ifie d t hat he fo und t he jo ur nal page s w hile lo o king fo r t he c e ll pho ne but d id no t r e ad t he m be fo r e he gav e t he m t o his at t o r ne y, as he c o uld no t r e ad . He fur t he r t e st ifie d t hat he d id no t d e st r o y any jo ur nals o r t he c e ll pho ne ; r at he r , he had bo xe d up all o f K.W.’s be lo ngings be fo r e he mo v e d and d id no t kno w w he r e t he c e ll pho ne w as. Dur ing c lo sing ar gume nt s, t he Co mmo nw e alt h r e fe r e nc e d t he missing jo ur nals and c e ll pho ne , no t ing t hat Wat t s faile d t o pr o d uc e t he se it e ms. The pr o se c ut o r st at e d , “It ’s go t t o make yo u t hink, w hy d o n’t w e hav e all o f t he m and w hy d o n’t w e hav e t he pho ne ? Why? He ’s t he o ne t hat c an pr o d uc e t he m, t hat ’s w he r e t he y w e r e le ft , at his r e sid e nc e .” De fe nse c o unse l d id no t o bje c t . Wat t s no w ar gue s t hat t he t e st imo ny o f De t e c t iv e Fie ld s and t he ar gume nt o f t he Co mmo nw e alt h v io lat e s KRE 404 and impr o pe r ly shift e d t he bur d e n t o Wat t s t o pr o d uc e t he c e ll pho ne and jo ur nals. We d isagr e e . Fir st , it must be no t e d t hat t he Co mmo nw e alt h abid e d by t he t r ial c o ur t ’s o r d e r and r e fr aine d fr o m r e fe r e nc ing t he c e ll pho ne and jo ur nals d ur ing it s c ase -in-c hie f. The se mat t e r s w e r e r aise d by the defense d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. and De t e c t iv e Fie ld s. In fac t , t he c o mme nt t hat Wat t s find s so t r o ubling— 16 name ly, De t e c t iv e Fie ld s ’s st at e me nt , “I t hink yo u all hav e go t mo r e info r mat io n t han w e d o ”—w as in r e spo nse t o d e fe nse c o unse l’s o w n sugge st io n t hat De t e c t iv e Fie ld s w as “o pe r at ing o n t he t he o r y t hat [t he jo ur nals had ] be e n d e st r o ye d alo ng w it h t he mat t r e sse s.” De fe nse c o unse l, t he n, is t he o ne w ho init ially sugge st e d t hat t he e v id e nc e had be e n d e st r o ye d . De t e c t iv e Fie ld s w as me r e ly r e spo nd ing t o t hat sugge st io n. Fur t he r mo r e , t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s st at e me nt s d ur ing c lo sing ar gume nt d id no t impr o pe r ly shift t he bur d e n t o Wat t s. To be c le ar , Wat t s, as t he d e fe nd ant , w as ne v e r und e r any d ut y t o pr o d uc e t he c e ll pho ne o r jo ur nals. St at e me nt s by t he Co mmo nw e alt h sugge st ing t hat he sho uld hav e pr o d uc e d t he se it e ms w e r e inar t ful at be st , and w e st r o ngly c aut io n t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o r e fr ain fr o m making similar st at e me nt s in t he fut ur e w hic h c o uld sugge st an impr o pe r bur d e n shift ing. Ho w e v e r , in t he se limit e d c ir c umst anc e s, t he st at e me nt s d id no t impr o pe r ly shift t he bur d e n t o t he d e fe nd ant . The Co mmo nw e alt h ’s st at e me nt s w e r e in r e spo nse t o d e fe nse c o unse l’s at t ac k o n De t e c t iv e Fie ld s ’s d e c isio n no t t o se e k a se ar c h w ar r ant . See Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 346 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Ky. 1961) (“It se e ms t o us appar e nt t hat w he n t he que st io nable st at e me nt s o f t he pr o se c ut ing at t o r ne y, w it h t he ir at t e nd ant c ir c umst anc e s, ar e c o nsid e r e d , t he y w e r e pr o v o ke d by and mad e in r e spo nse t o pr e v io us st at e me nt s o f t he d e fe nd ant ’s at t o r ne y be fo r e t he ju r y.”). Ac c o r d ingly, w e find no e r r o r in t he ad missio n o f t he se st at e me nt s.6 6 Wat t s also ar gue s t hat “t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s po sit io n t hat Wat t s had e it he r hid [sic ] o r d e st r o ye d t he jo ur nals and c e ll pho ne , w e r e e sse nt ially alle gat io ns Wat t s t ampe r e d w it h physic al e v id e nc e , a c r ime t hat Wat t s w as ne v e r c har ge d w it h .” Hav ing 17 B. Right to Present a Complete Defense Und e r bo t h t he Unit e d St at e s Co nst it ut io n and t he Ke nt uc ky Co nst it ut io n, a d e fe nd ant has a r ight t o “a me aningful o ppo r t unit y t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse .” Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 28, 41 (Ky. 2010) (quo t ing Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ). This inc lud e s t he r ight t o t e st ify o n his o w n be half and t he r ight t o c r o ss-e xamine w it ne sse s. Id. (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). Ho w e v e r , t he r ight t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse must be balanc e d against bo t h t he w id e lat it ud e t r ial jud ge s r e t ain t o “impo se r e aso nable limit s o n c r o ss-e xaminat io n base d o n c o nc e r ns abo ut , amo ng o t he r t hings, har assme nt , pr e jud ic e , c o nfusio n o f t he issue s, t he w it ne ss ’ safe t y, o r int e r r o gat io n t hat is r e pe t it iv e o r o nly mar ginally r e le v ant ,” and t he br o ad lat it ud e st at e r ule make r s hav e “t o e st ablish r ule s e xc lud ing e v id e nc e fr o m c r iminal t r ials.” Id. (c it at io ns o mit t e d ); see also McPherson v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 207 (Ky. 2012) (e xplaining t hat a “d e fe nd ant ’s int e r e st in t he c halle nge d e v id e nc e must be w e ighe d against t he int e r e st t he e v id e nt iar y r ule is me ant t o se r v e , and o nly if applic at io n o f t he r ule w o uld be ar bit r ar y in t he par t ic ular c ase o r d ispr o po r t io nat e t o t he st at e ’s le git imat e int e r e st must t he r ule bo w t o t he d e fe nd ant ’s r ight ”) (c it at io n o mit t e d ). In t he pr e se nt c ase , Wat t s c laims t hat his inabilit y t o int r o d uc e c e r t ain e v id e nc e and his limit e d c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. d e pr iv e d him o f a r e v ie w e d t he r e c o r d , w e d o no t be lie v e t hat t he Co mmo nw e alt h implic at e d Wat t s in t he c r ime o f t ampe r ing w it h physic al e v id e nc e . As no t e d abo v e , t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s c o mme nt s w e r e in r e spo nse t o t he d e fe nse at t o r ne y ’s o w n c o mme nt s abo ut t he d e st r uc t io n o f t he c e ll pho ne and jo ur nals. The r e fo r e , w e ac kno w le d ge but r e je c t t his ar gume nt . 18 me aningful o ppo r t unit y t o d e fe nd his c ase . We ad d r e ss e ac h o f t he se c o nc e r ns in t ur n. 1. Evidence of Victims’ Discussion About a Sex Toy Wat t s fir st ar gue s t hat he w as d e nie d t he “me aningful o ppo r t unit y t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse ” be c ause he w as unable t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat K.W. and M.W. had d isc usse d using a se x t o y. He ac kno w le d ge s t hat , und e r KRE 412(a), “[e ]v id e nc e o ffe r e d t o pr o v e t hat any alle ge d v ic t im e ngage d in o t he r se xual be hav io r ” is ge ne r ally inad missible “in any c iv il o r c r iminal pr o c e e d ing inv o lv ing alle ge d se xual misc o nd uc t .” Ho w e v e r , t he r ule allo w s fo r c e r t ain e xc e pt io ns in c r iminal c ase s. Fo r e xample , a c r iminal d e fe nd ant may int r o d uc e “e v id e nc e o f spe c ific inst anc e s o f se xual be hav io r by t he alle ge d v ic t im [if] o ffe r e d t o pr o v e t hat a pe r so n o t he r t han t he ac c use d w as t he so ur c e o f se me n, injur y, o r o t he r physic al e v id e nc e .” KRE 412(b)(1)(A). To int r o d uc e suc h e v id e nc e , t he r e que st ing par t y must fo llo w t he pr o c e d ur e o ut line d in KRE 412(c ). This r e quir e s t he r e que st ing par t y t o “file a w r it t e n mo t io n at le ast fo ur t e e n (14) d ays be fo r e t r ial . . . unle ss t he c o ur t , fo r go o d c ause r e quir e s a d iffe r e nt t ime fo r filing o r pe r mit s filing d ur ing t r ial.” KRE 412(c ). Whe n a par t y se e ks t o file t his mo t io n o ut sid e o f t he fo ur t e e n-d ay d e ad line , it is w it hin t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine w he t he r t he “go o d c ause ” e le me nt has be e n sat isfie d . On t he se c o nd d ay o f t r ial, Wat t s ’s c o unse l no t ifie d t he c o ur t o f his int e nt t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat K.W. shar e d a se x t o y w it h M.W. He ar gue d t hat t he Co mmo nw e alt h had “o pe ne d t he d o o r ” t o t his e v id e nc e be c ause o ne o f it s 19 w it ne sse s, Dr . Calho un, w o uld t e st ify t hat d ay t o t he e xist e nc e o f a t e ar in K.W.’s hyme n. K.W. had t e st ifie d o n t he fir st d ay o f t r ial t hat she had no t had se x w it h anyo ne o t he r t han Wat t s. Thus, ac c o r d ing t o d e fe nse c o unse l, t his e v id e nc e pr o v e s t hat t he t e ar in K.W.’s hyme n c o uld hav e be e n c ause d by so me t hing o t he r t han int e r c o ur se w it h Wat t s. De fe nse c o unse l c o nc e d e d , ho w e v e r , t hat his no t ic e w as unt ime ly und e r KRE 412(c )(1)(A). He pr o v id e d no e xplanat io n fo r t he lat e no t ic e , alt ho ugh it appe ar s as t ho ugh it w as a st r at e gy e mplo ye d t o pr e v e nt t he Co mmo nw e alt h fr o m kno w ing t he d e t ails o f his t he o r y o f d e fe nse . The t r ial c o ur t ult imat e ly pr o hibit e d int r o d uc t io n o f t his e v id e nc e , e xplaining t hat it w o uld v io lat e t he “int e nt if no t t he blac k le t t e r o f KRE 412” t o int r o d uc e t his e v id e nc e w he n Wat t s had faile d t o sat isfy t he r ule ’s no t ic e r e quir e me nt s. As no t e d abo v e , it is w it hin t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine w he t he r t he mo v ant ’s e xplanat io n qualifie s as go o d c ause . He r e , d e fe nse c o unse l had ac c e ss t o K.W.’s me d ic al r e c o r d s (inc lud ing a “r e po r t t hat said t he r e w as a t e ar in he r hyme n”), t he Fac e bo o k me ssage s, and o t he r d isc o v e r y mat e r ials fo r se v e r al mo nt hs pr io r t o t r ial. The r e fo r e , d e fe nse c o unse l c o uld hav e t ime ly c o mplie d w it h KRE 412’s no t ic e r e quir e me nt s in ant ic ipat io n o f Dr . Calho un’s t e st imo ny, ye t he w ait e d unt il t he se c o nd d ay o f t r ial t o no t ify t he c o ur t o f it s int e nt io n t o use t his e v id e nc e . De fe nse c o unse l d id no t pr o v id e an e xc use fo r failing t o d o so . Und e r t he se c ir c umst anc e s, w e c anno t ho ld t hat t he t r ial c o ur t abuse d it s d isc r e t io n in pr o hibit ing t he int r o d uc t io n o f t his e v id e nc e . 20 2. Evidence of M.W.’s Sexually Transmitted Disease Wat t s also ar gue s t hat he w as d e nie d an o ppo r t unit y t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse be c ause t he t r ial c o ur t d e nie d his KRE 4127 mo t io n t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e o f M.W.’s se xually t r ansmit t e d d ise ase . Mo r e spe c ific ally, o n t he fir st d ay o f t r ial, May 29, 2018, Wat t s ’s c o unse l so ught t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat M.W. had be e n d iagno se d w it h c hlamyd ia w hile Wat t s had t e st e d ne gat iv e fo r any STDs. The Co mmo nw e alt h o bje c t e d o n t he basis t hat t he mo t io n w as unt ime ly. The Co mmo nw e alt h po int e d o ut t hat t he c o ur t he ar d ar gume nt o n t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s mo t io n t o pr e c lud e e v id e nc e o f M.W.’s se xual hist o r y o n May 7, 2018 and e v id e nc e o f he r c hlamyd ia w as ne v e r d isc usse d . The t r ial c o ur t ult imat e ly d e nie d Wat t s ’s mo t io n but allo w e d d e fe nse c o unse l t o ask M.W. abo ut he r c hlamyd ia d iagno sis by av o w al. We again no t e t hat it r e mains w it hin t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine w he t he r t he go o d c ause e le me nt o f KRE 412(c )(1)(A) has be e n sat isfie d . In t his c ase , Wat t s ’s c o unse l d id no t fully e xplain w hy he faile d t o r aise t he issue d ur ing t he May 7, 2018 he ar ing o n t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s mo t io n. He st at e d t hat he w as filing t he no t ic e be c ause t he c ase s had be e n jo ine d fo r t r ial and t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s o w n pr o ffe r o f e v id e nc e “c hange [d ] t hings a lit t le bit .” He d id no t e labo r at e fur t he r . Ho w e v e r , t he pr o ffe r w as pr o v id e d by t he Co mmo nw e alt h o n May 11, 2018, and t he t r ial c o ur t gr ant e d 7 While it is no t e nt ir e ly c le ar t hat e v id e nc e o f M.W.’s STD (c o uple d w it h Wat t s ’s lac k o f any STD) falls squar e ly w it hin t he sc o pe o f KRE 412, t his is t he r ule c it e d by t he d e fe nse and r e lie d upo n by t he par t ie s d ur ing t he ir ar gume nt s t o t he t r ial c o ur t and in t he ir br ie fs t o t his Co ur t . 21 t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s mo t io n t o jo in t he c ase s fo r t r ial o n May 22, 2018. While d e fe nse c o unse l st at e d , and bo t h t he Co mmo nw e alt h and t r ial c o ur t ac kno w le d ge d , t hat he file d t he no t ic e imme d iat e ly aft e r t he c o ur t e nt e r e d it s May 22, 2018 o r d e r , t he r e c o r d c o nt ains no suc h filing. We c anno t find t hat t he t r ial c o ur t abuse d it s d isc r e t io n in d e nying Wat t s ’s unt ime ly mo t io n. 3. Limited Cross-Examination of K.W. Wat t s also ar gue s t hat he w as unable t o pr e se nt a c o mple t e d e fe nse be c ause t he t r ial c o ur t limit e d his abilit y t o c r o ss-e xamine K.W. und e r KRE 611. KRE 611(b) st at e s, in full, “A w it ne ss may be c r o ss-e xamine d o n any mat t e r r e le v ant t o any issue in t he c ase , inc lud ing c r e d ibilit y. In t he int e r e st s o f just ic e , t he t r ial c o ur t may limit c r o ss-e xaminat io n w it h r e spe c t t o mat t e r s no t t e st ifie d t o o n d ir e c t e xaminat io n.” We hav e pr e v io usly e xplaine d , “Whe ne v e r limit at io ns o n t he r ight o f c r o ss-e xaminat io n ar e analyze d , it sho uld be r e me mbe r e d t hat t he r ight implic at e d is a fund ame nt al c o nst it ut io nal r ight and t hat suc h limit at io ns sho uld be c aut io usly applie d .... Ho w e v e r , it sho uld also be no t e d t hat t r ial c o ur t s r e t ain br o ad d isc r e t io n t o r e gulat e c r o ss- e xaminat io n.” Commonwealth v. Maddox, 955 S.W.2d 718, 720-21 (Ky. 1997) (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). Thus, “(s]o lo ng as a r e aso nably c o mple t e pic t ur e o f t he w it ne ss ’ [sic ] v e r ac it y, bias and mo t iv at io n is d e v e lo pe d , t he jud ge e njo ys po w e r and d isc r e t io n t o se t appr o pr iat e bo und ar ie s.” Id. at 721 (quo t ing U.S. v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 254 (1st Cir .1990)) (int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ). In t he pr e se nt c ase , K.W. w as aske d d ur ing d ir e c t e xaminat io n if she had e v e r had se x w it h anyo ne be sid e s Wat t s. She r e plie d in t he ne gat iv e but 22 e xplaine d t hat she o nc e had a se xual e nc o unt e r w it h he r c o usin, w ho had at t e mpt e d t o “push himse lf o n t o ” he r . She e xplaine d t hat she o nly had o r al se x w it h t his c o usin. On c r o ss, Wat t s ’s c o unse l aske d K.W. if she had r e c e iv e d c o unse ling as a r e sult o f t he inc id e nt w it h he r c o usin. The Co mmo nw e alt h o bje c t e d as t o r e le v anc e . Wat t s ’s c o unse l e xplaine d t hat t he c o unse ling se ssio ns had giv e n K.W. an o ppo r t unit y t o d isc lo se t he abuse . Dur ing he r t e st imo ny, ho w e v e r , she had st at e d t hat she w as sc ar e d o f he r fat he r , w hic h, d e fe nse c o unse l ar gue d , implie d t hat she c o uld no t t e ll anyo ne . De fe nse c o unse l also que st io ne d “w hat so r t o f, e sse nt ially, maniac w o uld t ake so me bo d y t hat t he y ar e r aping t o a r ape c o unse lo r .” The t r ial c o ur t sust aine d t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s o bje c t io n but pe r mit t e d d e fe nse c o unse l t o ask if Wat t s d r o ppe d K.W. o ff at he r c o unse ling se ssio ns. Wat t s no w ar gue s t hat he w as d e nie d t he r ight t o pr e se nt his d e fe nse be c ause his c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. w as limit e d in sc o pe . Esse nt ially, t he n, Wat t s ar gue s t hat t he t r ial jud ge abuse d his d isc r e t io n in r e st r ic t ing d e fe nse c o unse l’s c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. We d isagr e e . While Wat t s ’s c o unse l c o uld no t inquir e int o t he subst anc e o f t he c o unse ling se ssio ns, he w as able t o c r o ss-e xamine K.W. abo ut t he fac t t hat he r fat he r d r o ppe d he r o ff at Fo ur Riv e r s Be hav io r al He alt h t o “se e so me o ne .” This w as t he v e r y info r mat io n t hat d e fe nse c o unse l c laime d t o be r e le v ant . He also st r e sse d t he se fac t s d ur ing c lo sing ar gume nt s. We t he r e fo r e fail t o se e ho w Wat t s ’s r ight t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse w as impe d e d by t he r e aso nable limit at io n plac e d o n t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f K.W. 23 C. Prior Conviction Evidence KRS 532.055(2) allo w s t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o o ffe r e v id e nc e “r e le v ant t o se nt e nc ing,” inc lud ing, amo ng o t he r t hings, info r mat io n r e lat e d t o pr io r o ffe nse s. Fo r e xample , t he Co mmo nw e alt h c an int r o d uc e e v id e nc e o f “[t ]he nat ur e o f pr io r o ffe nse s fo r w hic h [t he d e fe nd ant ] w as c o nv ic t e d .” Ho w e v e r , in Robinson v. Commonwealth, 926 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1996), w e e xplaine d “all t hat is ad missible as t o t he nat ur e o f a pr io r c o nv ic t io n is a ge ne r al d e sc r ipt io n o f t he c r ime .” Id. at 855. We lat e r c lar ifie d t his r ule in Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2011), ho ld ing t hat “t he e v id e nc e o f pr io r c o nv ic t io ns is limit e d t o c o nv e ying t o t he jur y t he e le me nt s o f t he c r ime s pr e v io usly c o mmit t e d .” Id. at 109. We also w ar ne d t hat “[t ]he t r ial c o ur t sho uld av o id id e nt ifie r s, suc h as naming o f v ic t ims, w hic h might t r igge r me mo r ie s o f jur o r s w ho may—e spe c ially in r ur al ar e as—hav e pr io r kno w le d ge abo ut t he c r ime s.” Id. Thus, Mullikan mad e c le ar t hat t he Co mmo nw e alt h sho uld no t id e nt ify t he v ic t ims o f a d e fe nd ant ’s pr io r c r ime s w he n int r o d uc ing pr io r c o nv ic t io n e v id e nc e . In t he pr e se nt c ase , t he Co mmo nw e alt h submit t e d c e r t ifie d c o pie s o f Wat t s ’s pr io r c o nv ic t io ns d ur ing t he se nt e nc ing phase o f Wat t s ’s t r ial. A pr o bat io n and par o le o ffic e r t e st ifie d and r e ad fr o m t he se d o c ume nt s, r e c it ing t he lo c at io n and d at e o f t he c o nv ic t io ns, t he c ase numbe r s, and t he spe c ific c har ge s and se nt e nc e fo r e ac h c o nv ic t io n. She d id no t r e ad t he name s o f any o f t he v ic t ims t o t he jur y. Ho w e v e r , o n o ne o f t he se d o c ume nt s, w hic h w as r e lat e d t o Wat t s ’s 1998 c o nv ic t io n fo r t he ft by unlaw ful t aking, t he v ic t im’s 24 name had no t be e n r e d ac t e d . The unr e d ac t e d d o c ume nt w as e nt e r e d int o e v id e nc e and pr o v id e d t o t he jur y d ur ing d e libe r at io ns. Wat t s d id no t o bje c t at t he t ime , but no w ar gue s t hat t he v ic t im’s name w as inad missible und e r KRS 532.055 and t he abo v e -c it e d c ase law .8 Hav ing r e v ie w e d t he c e r t ifie d c o nv ic t io n e xhibit at issue , w e c o nc lud e t hat t he v ic t im’s name w as impr o pe r ly inc lud e d , and t he Co mmo nw e alt h ac kno w le d ge s t hat inc lusio n o f t he v ic t im’s name w as e r r o r . Ho w e v e r , d e fe nse c o unse l d id no t o bje c t t o t he int r o d uc t io n o f t his e xhibit , and as a r e sult , w e r e v ie w t his e r r o r fo r palpable e r r o r und e r RCr 10.26.9 We hav e pr e v io usly he ld t hat similar pr io r c o nv ic t io n e r r o r s fail t o w ar r ant r e lie f und e r RCr 10.26 w he n t he pr o se c ut o r make s no r e fe r e nc e t o t he inad missible e v id e nc e d ur ing que st io ning o r ar gume nt and t he d e fe nd ant ’s se nt e nc e is o t he r w ise “r e ad ily and r e aso nably ac c o unt e d fo r by pr o pe r ly ad mit t e d e v id e nc e .” Parker, 482 S.W.3d at 407; see also Martin, 409 S.W.3d at 349. He r e , e v e n if w e pr e sume t hat t he jur y e xamine d t he pr io r c o nv ic t io n e xhibit s and no t ic e d t he v ic t im’s name , w e hav e no r e aso n t o be lie v e t hat t his influe nc e d t he ir se nt e nc ing r e c o mme nd at io n. Fir st , t he pr o se c ut o r d id no t e lic it any t e st imo ny abo ut t he v ic t im o r o t he r w ise id e nt ify t hat v ic t im d ur ing que st io ning o r c lo sing ar gume nt . Fur t he r mo r e , t he c ir c umst anc e s o f t his 8 The pr io r c o nv ic t io n e xhibit at issue also impr o pe r ly list e d a d ismisse d c har ge fo r t e r r o r ist ic t hr e at e ning, w it h t he v ic t im o f t hat c har ge also list e d . Ho w e v e r , t hat par t ic ular d e fe c t w as no t r aise d o n appe al. 9 In ge ne r al, c o unse l fo r bo t h t he Co mmo nw e alt h and d e fe nse sho uld c ar e fully r e v ie w suc h e xhibit s fo r similar e r r o r s pr io r t o t he ir ad missio n int o e v id e nc e . 25 c ase —w hic h inv o lv e t he r ape and se xual abuse o f Wat t s ’s bio lo gic al c hild and he r yo ung fr ie nd —st r o ngly sugge st t hat Wat t s ’s se nt e nc e r e sult e d fr o m t he nat ur e o f t he se c r ime s, r at he r t han t he jur y’s aw ar e ne ss o f t he v ic t im’s name in t he pr io r t he ft by unlaw ful t aking c o nv ic t io n. Simply put , Wat t s has faile d t o d e mo nst r at e “a like liho o d —‘a r e aso nable po ssibilit y’—t hat , but fo r t he e r r o r , a d iffe r e nt se nt e nc e w o uld hav e be e n impo se d .” Parker, 482 S.W.3d at 407-08 (c it ing Martin, 409 S.W.3d at 349). Ac c o r d ingly, w hile it w as e r r o r t o inc lud e t he v ic t im’s name o n t he pr io r c o nv ic t io n e xhibit , Wat t s d id no t suffe r t he subst ant ial pr e jud ic e o r manife st injust ic e ne c e ssar y t o w ar r ant r e lie f und e r RCr 10.26. D. Cumulative Error If no single e r r o r w ar r ant s r e lie f, Wat t s ar gue s t hat t he e r r o r s, t ake n as a w ho le , w ar r ant r e v e r sal und e r t he c umulat iv e e r r o r d o c t r ine . Und e r t his d o c t r ine , “mult iple e r r o r s, alt ho ugh har mle ss ind iv id ually, may be d e e me d r e v e r sible if t he ir c umulat iv e e ffe c t is t o r e nd e r t he t r ial fund ame nt ally unfair .” Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577, 631 (Ky. 2010). Ho w e v e r , “[w ]e hav e fo und c umulat iv e e r r o r o nly w he r e t he ind iv id ual e r r o r s w e r e t he mse lv e s subst ant ial, bo r d e r ing, at le ast , o n t he pr e jud ic ial.” Id. (c it ing Funk v. Commonwealth, 842 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1992)). In c ase s w he r e “no ne o f t he e r r o r s ind iv id ually r aise d any r e al que st io n o f pr e jud ic e , w e hav e d e c line d t o ho ld t hat t he abse nc e o f pr e jud ic e plus t he abse nc e o f pr e jud ic e so me ho w ad d s up t o pr e jud ic e .” Id. (c it ing Furnish v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 34 (Ky.2002)). 26 In t his c ase , w e hav e id e nt ifie d t w o e r r o r s, bo t h unpr e se r v e d , and c o nc lud e d t hat ne it he r w ar r ant s r e lie f und e r RCr 10.26. As e xplaine d abo v e , any pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t o f t he se e r r o r s w as minimal, at mo st . Thus, t he se t w o e r r o r s, e it he r ind iv id ually o r c umulat iv e ly, d o no t r e nd e r Wat t s ’s t r ial fund ame nt ally unfair . Ac c o r d ingly, t he d o c t r ine o f c umulat iv e e r r o r d o e s no t w ar r ant r e v e r sal in t his c ase . III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he r e aso ns se t fo r t h abo v e , w e he r e by affir m t he jud gme nt o f t he Lyo n Cir c uit Co ur t . All sit t ing. All c o nc ur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Ad am Me ye r De par t me nt o f Public Ad v o c ac y COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: And y Be she ar At t o r ne y Ge ne r al o f Ke nt uc ky Mar k Bar r y Assist ant At t o r ne y Ge ne r al 27