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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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, RAP 40(D), 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OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE 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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, 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UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A 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: MARCH 23, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2021-SC-0311-MR

JUAN CHAIREZ APPELLANT 

V. 

ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JUDITH E. MCDONALD-BURKMAN, JUDGE

NO. 15-CR-003148

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

AFFIRMING

A Jefferson County jury found Appellant Juan Chairez guilty of sodomy 

in the first degree and four counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. In 

accordance with his agreement with the Commonwealth, Chairez was 

sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He appeals the conviction and 

sentence as a matter of right. We affirm the Jefferson Circuit Court’s 

judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2014, after confiding in a relative, J.C.1 reported to police that her 

father, Chairez, sexually assaulted her. According to J.C.’s testimony, the 

sexual assault occurred on two occasions, once between September 1, 2012,

1 We use initials to protect the identity of the victim. 
2

and March 13, 2013, when J.C. was ten years old and once between October 1, 

2013, and October 31, 2013, when J.C. was eleven years old. It was about 

seven months after the second incident that J.C. told the relative what 

happened. That disclosure led to an indictment against Chairez. After a threeday trial in May 2021,

2 and hearing testimony from Chairez on his own behalf, 

a jury found Chairez guilty of sodomy in the first degree and four counts of 

sexual abuse in the first degree. The jury found Chairez not guilty of rape in 

the first degree.

J.C. testified that on the first occasion of sexual abuse, she lived in a 

three-bedroom house with Chairez, her half-sister,

3 and a cousin. J.C.

described her father, her primary caretaker, as a hard worker, her best friend, 

and as loving and nurturing. J.C. also testified that Chairez was a heavy 

drinker, that he drank every day, and that he often invited friends over to drink 

and record music in his basement studio. One night J.C. could not sleep 

because of the noise. She had gone to bed in her own bedroom, but that room 

had a vent connected to the basement. She moved to Chairez’s room, got into 

bed, and went to sleep; according to J.C., she slept in Chairez’s bed often, 

probably at least once a week. J.C. testified that she woke up to Chairez 

pulling down her shorts and underwear and that he touched her breasts, 

rubbed her clitoris, performed oral sex, and inserted his finger inside of her. 

When she started crying, Chairez stopped, turned on the light, and explained 

2 Chairez first went to trial in 2019 but a mistrial was declared.

3 J.C. and her half-sister share a mother.
3

that he did not know it was J.C. in his bed. J.C. testified that Chairez cried 

and panicked and told J.C. not to tell anyone what happened or else he would 

go to prison.

On the second occasion, Chairez, J.C., and her half-sister were living at a 

friend’s house. The three of them slept in the basement. J.C., unlike the other 

two, did not have a bed and she primarily slept on the couch. On the night of 

the second incident, Chairez told J.C. to sleep in his bed and he would sleep on 

the couch. J.C. woke up in the middle of the night when Chairez touched her 

clitoris. J.C. got up and moved to the couch.

The Commonwealth called multiple witnesses. Those witnesses included 

Chairez’s cousin and two of his friends who testified in relation to J.C.’s 

allegations of abuse on the first night in question. The cousin testified that he 

heard noise coming from Chairez’s bedroom and assumed Chairez was with his 

girlfriend. When he went to the cracked door, the room was dark but he could 

see a female sitting on the bed, and the door then closed. The cousin also 

testified that the next day Chairez told him that he was really drunk, he woke 

up and realized he was kissing J.C., it was an accident, he had talked with J.C. 

and everything was fine, and that Chairez told him not to tell anyone.

Chairez’s two friends met with him after J.C. made her police report and 

asked Chairez about the allegations. According to their testimony, Chairez

explained that after band practice, drunk, he went to bed and thought his 

girlfriend was in bed with him and stopped the sexual conduct when he 

discovered it was not his girlfriend that he was kissing, but J.C. One friend 
4

testified that Chairez explained that he started kissing on J.C. Both friends 

testified that Chairez stated that he “went down” on J.C., which they 

interpreted as meaning he performed oral sex.

Chairez testified on his own behalf. He stated that at about ten o’clock 

he put J.C. in her bed. After band practice, drunk, he went to bed and passed 

out. The room was completely black, he rolled over, and thinking it was his 

girlfriend in bed with him, he began kissing on her, kissing her on the 

stomach. He testified that he did not engage in other sexual behavior because 

J.C. then stated, “Daddy, it’s me!” Chairez testified that his friends must have 

misinterpreted what he told them about the events of that night. According to 

Chairez, he described to his friends the circumstances and events the same as 

Chairez explained them in his testimony. He insisted the second allegation 

never occurred at all.

After the jury reached its verdict, in accordance with his agreement with 

the Commonwealth, Chairez was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. This 

appeal followed. Additional facts are presented below as necessary.

ANALYSIS

Chairez argues on appeal that (1) he was denied a public trial when his 

family and supporters were denied the opportunity to attend the trial but a 

supporter of the prosecuting witness’ choosing was permitted to attend during 

her testimony; (2) he was denied a fair trial and due process when the court 

allowed the jury deliberations to be broadcast on the court telephone line; (3) 

the trial court erred in admitting improper character evidence after the 
5

Commonwealth had not provided notice to Chairez as required by KRE4 404; 

(4) the trial court erred by allowing a supervisor to testify to the contents of a 

video of a forensic interview; and (5) the lead detective improperly commented 

on Chairez’s silence in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We address Chairez’s 

claims in turn.

I. Appellant’s right to a public trial was not violated when the 

public was provided live access via telephone.

Prior to trial, the circuit court ordered that no members of the public be 

permitted in the courtroom during trial. The three-day trial began May 25, 

2021. At that point, the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed jury trials, which 

had been halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic,5 to resume if the trial court in 

its discretion considered it advisable after considering local public health 

conditions and relevant health and safety requirements.

6 The circuit court 

implemented COVID-19 safety protocols.7 The circuit court placed physical 

4 Kentucky Rule of Evidence.

5 COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a coronavirus

discovered in 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 

2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/dotw/covid-19/index.html (last accessed Feb. 

20, 2023). 

6 Kentucky Supreme Court Administrative Order 2021-17 pertinently states: 

“Jury trials may resume if the trial judge determines in his or her 

discretion, after having considered local public health conditions and 

the health and safety requirements established by the Supreme Court in 

Administrative Order 2021-16, that it is advisable.”

7 Kentucky Supreme Court Administrative Order 2021-16 pertinently states:

Judges retain the discretion to require individuals in the courtroom to

use facial coverings generally or in specific cases, particularly cases

involving persons who are at an increased risk of severe illness from

COVID-19.
6

distance between the jurors, seating the jury members across the courtroom’s 

public gallery during the trial; the trial court also kept the jury in the secured 

courtroom during deliberation.

Before the trial began, the Commonwealth requested a support person’s 

presence in the courtroom when J.C. testified. The circuit court granted that 

request, even when it was clarified that J.C. was no longer a minor. Citing his 

right to a public trial, Chairez then objected to not being allowed a person in 

the courtroom like J.C. was being allowed. The circuit court denied Chairez’s 

request. Before closing arguments, Chairez renewed his request that some 

family members be allowed into the courtroom. The circuit court also denied 

that request.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution8 and Section 

Eleven of the Kentucky Constitution9 guarantee the criminal defendant a right 

to a “public trial.”10 “The central aim of a criminal proceeding must be to try 

the accused fairly . . . .”11 “The right to public trial is, of course, primarily for 

. . . 

Judges retain the discretion to limit the number of people or to enforce 

social distancing in a courtroom as health and safety conditions or 

circumstances necessitate.

8 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent 

part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and 

public trial . . . .”

9 Section Eleven of the Kentucky Constitution states in pertinent part: “[I]n 

prosecutions by indictment or information, [the accused] shall have a speedy public 

trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage.”

10 Crutcher v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Ky. 2016).

11 Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984).
7

the benefit of the accused, allowing the public to see that he is ‘fairly dealt with 

and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators 

may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the 

importance of their functions.’”

12 

The open trial . . . plays as important a role in the 

administration of justice today as it did for centuries before our 

separation from England. The value of openness lies in the fact 

that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that 

standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that 

anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established 

procedures are being followed and that deviations will become 

known. Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the 

criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public 

confidence in the system.13

In Crutcher v. Commonwealth14 this Court recognized the test articulated 

by the United States Supreme Court in Waller v. Georgia15 as the test for 

determining whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial is 

violated when the courtroom is closed over a defendant’s objection.

16 A public 

12 Crutcher, 500 S.W.3d at 813-14 (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 46). A threemember concurring opinion in Crutcher discusses a subtle difference between the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section Eleven of the 

Kentucky Constitution. The concurring opinion states that through its language, 

Section Eleven the Kentucky Constitution does not create a right that belongs 

exclusively to the defendant but “creates a right that belongs to the people, anyone of 

the general citizenry, to assure that no criminal adjudications take place behind 

closed doors regardless of the defendant’s preference on the subject.” Id. at 817.

13 Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 508 

(1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 569-71 (1980)).

14 Crutcher decided that a defendant may waive his right to public trial by failing 

to object to the closure of the courtroom and preserving the issue for appeal.

15 467 U.S. 39 (1984). 

16 Waller stated “there can be little doubt that the explicit Sixth Amendment 

right of the accused is no less protective of a public trial than the implicit First 

Amendment right of the press and public,” 467 U.S. at 46, and concluded that the 

tests set out in First Amendment precedent, Press–Enterprise and its predecessors, 
8

trial violation does not occur when (1) the party seeking to close the proceeding

advances an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced without the 

closure, (2) the closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest, (3) 

the trial court considers reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and 

(4) the trial court makes findings adequate to support the closure.17 

Chairez complains that the circuit court did not analyze the three Waller

factors and did not make findings to support its reason to close the courtroom 

to the public. Chairez argues that even if the COVID-19 pandemic was 

sufficient justification for some restrictions on courtroom attendance, the 

circuit court did not consider the narrowest method of protecting the health 

and safety of the jurors and others necessarily present for the trial. Chairez 

asserts that since the jury box was empty, a limited number of the public could 

have been permitted to watch the trial from there and those members could 

have been subject to reasonable restrictions such as masking, social 

distancing, and proof of vaccination. Chairez cites cases from other 

jurisdictions to show that such restrictions were used in courtrooms during 

this stage of the pandemic. Chairez also argues that allowing J.C.’s support 

person in the courtroom during her testimony showed that safe alternatives 

also apply to the Sixth Amendment. 467 U.S. at 44-47. Using that test,Waller

concluded that closure of the entire suppression hearing was unjustified.

17 Id. at 48.
9

existed for allowing the presence of other members of the public in the 

courtroom throughout the trial.18

The Commonwealth counters that Chairez’s contention that the circuit 

court did not follow Waller is without merit.19 Beginning with Chairez’s 

assertion that the circuit court did not make findings which support closing 

the courtroom to the public, the Commonwealth asserts that this Court’s 

COVID-19 administrative orders provided guidance to the trial court for 

addressing health and safety concerns in the courtroom and the administrative 

orders were sufficient to satisfy Waller’s requirement, and those findings only 

add to the circuit court’s explanation of the closure on the record before the 

18 We do not address Chairez’s unpreserved argument that the effect of the 

circuit court allowing a spectator in the courtroom during J.C.’s testimony alone was 

to send an improper message to the jury to value J.C.’s testimony above other 

witnesses. Chairez does not mention in his brief where the circuit court placed the 

support person and whether any attention was brought to the person.

19 The Commonwealth’s lead argument is that the facts of this case do not 

implicate a constitutional violation. The Commonwealth emphasizes the difference 

between a trial in which the public is denied total access to the proceedings, like in 

Waller, and a trial in which the public is only denied physical access to the 

proceedings. The Commonwealth contends that in this case, while the public was 

denied physical access, the public’s access and ability to check that the defendant was 

“fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned” was maintained by hearing the audio 

broadcast of the proceedings by telephone and by the opportunity to obtain the video 

recording of the proceedings afterward. The Commonwealth cites Press-Enterprise, 

464 U.S. 501 (stating that “[w]hen limited closure is ordered [for voir dire], the 

constitutional values sought to be protected by holding open proceedings may be 

satisfied later by making a transcript of the closed proceedings available within a 

reasonable time, if the judge determines that disclosure can be accomplished while 

safeguarding the juror’s valid privacy interests”), and this Court’s unpublished 

decision, Henson v. Commonwealth, 2020-SC-0343-MR, 2021 WL 5984690 (Ky. Dec. 

16, 2021), discussed below, as observing that the constitutional inquiry is not so 

much about whether spectators have unfettered physical access to the courtroom, but 

whether they can access the proceedings in a meaningful way. We refrain from 

addressing this argument concerning interpretation of the constitutional right to 

public trial in this case. As in Henson, we consider the Waller factors for determining 

whether a Sixth Amendment constitutional violation occurred.
10

trial began. The circuit court explained at the outset of the trial that the jury 

box did not provide enough space to distance the jurors properly so the jurors 

would be seated in the public gallery. The circuit court stated that for the 

safety of the jury, and counsel and the parties, spectators were not allowed in 

the courtroom during trial. Although the circuit court considered a larger room

in which to hold the trial, the court explained that its configuration did not 

allow quality preservation of the record because of poor audio recording and 

that the room still would not have been large enough for spectator attendance. 

The circuit court also explained that a public trial was being held as spectators 

had access to the trial, i.e., audio access was provided through a dedicated 

telephone line, and it would remain open so anyone could listen to the trial,

and the video recording of the trial would be available for anyone afterward.

In regard to Chairez’s argument that the circuit court did not consider 

whether closing the courtroom to spectators was the “narrowest method of 

protecting” against the health and safety risks of COVID-19, the 

Commonwealth states that Chairez ignores that the circuit court expressly 

considered the size of the courtroom and how the jury needed to spread out 

when deciding whether spectators could attend. The circuit court also 

considered moving to a larger courtroom but determined that doing so was not 

possible because the record would not be adequately preserved. The 

Commonwealth further argues that the fact other courts with different and 

unknown physical limitations could allow limited spectators during a trial has 

no bearing here as the trial court was required to consider local health 
11

conditions and make health and safety decisions based upon its facilities. 

Lastly, the Commonwealth argues that the fact that the circuit court allowed a 

single individual into the courtroom during a limited portion of the testimony to 

facilitate a vulnerable witness’s ability to testify does not undermine the court’s 

judgment that opening the door to spectators for the entire trial was not 

possible.

Henson v. Commonwealth,

20 deals with issues similar to those raised by 

Chairez and although unpublished, offers guidance in this case. In Henson,

the trial occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, and in compliance 

with this Court’s administrative order, the trial court prohibited spectators 

from coming into the courtroom.21 The Court acknowledged that the usual 

circumstance for application of the Waller test – judicial discretion – was not 

present because of the Court’s order that ongoing trials could only proceed to 

resolution without interruption by closure of the courtroom to spectators.

22

Thus, while faced with the imperfect application, the Court considered whether 

it fulfilled the Waller test when issuing Administrative Order No. 2020-08. The 

Court concluded the closure was constitutional.

In Henson, in terms of Waller’s second factor, whether the closure was 

narrowly tailored to the interest threatened, the trial court, as it saw fit, could 

reschedule the trial underway or restrict the public from the courtroom. When 

20 2020-SC-0343-MR, 2021 WL 5984690 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2021).

21 Id. at *2.

22 Id. at *3.
12

considering Waller’s third factor, whether there were reasonable alternatives to 

the closure of the proceeding, we stated that closure of the courtroom was the 

most feasible way to continue the work of the judiciary while protecting 

employees, officials, and litigants from the threat of COVID-19.23 We noted 

that when Henson was rendered in December 2021, technologies were available 

that provide live streaming of proceedings to any computer or phone with 

internet access, but Kentucky courts were not equipped with such technology 

at the beginning of the pandemic.24

In regard to Henson’s argument that the jury’s inability to see his family 

members’ and friends’ support for him unfairly prejudiced the jury against him, 

we found that argument to be unpersuasive.25 We considered that the 

guarantee of a public trial is intended to allow the public to “see for themselves 

how their laws are impartially applied”26 and concluded that purpose was 

adequately served by the availability of the digital recording of the trial to the 

public after the conclusion of the trial.27

In this case, Chairez’s focus in on the second Waller factor, which, while 

interrelated, is distinguished from the third factor. The question under the 

second factor is whether the circuit court abused its discretion by not allowing 

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Id. at *4.

26 Id. (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 46; Lexington Herald Leader Co., Inc. v. Tackett, 

601 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Ky. 1980)).

27 Id.
13

spectators into the courtroom throughout the whole trial.

28 While 

acknowledging the public health and safety risks associated with COVID-19, 

Chairez argues that the circuit court went too far and could have allowed a 

limited number of people to attend who met the health measures for mitigating 

COVID-19 spread, measures which could have been imposed by the circuit 

court.

At the time of Chairez’s trial Administrative Order 2021-17 allowed trial 

courts the discretion to resume jury trials after having considered local public 

health conditions and the health and safety requirements established in 

Administrative Order 2021-16.29 Administrative Order 2021-16 allowed trial 

courts discretion “to limit the number of people or to enforce social distancing 

in a courtroom as health and safety conditions or circumstances necessitate” 

and “to require individuals in the courtroom to use facial coverings.”30 Courts 

were also encouraged to continue hearing civil and criminal matters using 

available telephonic and video technology to conduct proceedings remotely.31

The circuit court’s goal was to balance the defendant’s public trial right 

and the objective of stemming the spread of COVID-19. Under the “narrow 

tailoring” requirement, the question is whether it was necessary to restrict the 

public from the entire trial. There were two constants which restricted the 

28 See Waller, 467 U.S. 48-50 (finding that the closure of the entire suppression 

hearing plainly was unjustified).

29 See note 6, supra.

30 See note 7, supra.

31 Kentucky Supreme Court Administrative Order 2021-16.
14

circuit court’s flexibility of allowing the public into the courtroom over the 

course of the trial - mitigation of the spread of the respiratory virus through 

public health best practices and courtroom space. As the Court’s 

administrative orders reflect, the trial court was given discretion to determine 

space available for public use after accounting for and allowing space for those 

required to be present in the courtroom during the trial, and if space remained 

available for the public, what introduction of the public meant for the public 

health interest of those required to be in the courtroom. Here, the circuit court 

explained on the record that after dedicating space to the jury in the public 

gallery, space did not remain for spectators and their attendance otherwise 

would impede the public health goal. Furthermore, given the knowledge that 

the risk of spreading COVID-19 increases as more people gather in a confined 

space there was a rationale recognized within the Court’s administrative orders 

and the circuit court’s explanation for public restriction which would allow 

J.C.’s support person be in the courtroom for a limited duration but still 

exclude others for the duration of the trial.

Thus, in accordance with this Court’s administrative orders, the circuit 

court exercised its discretion and limited the number of people in the 

courtroom by enforcing social distancing during the trial, a reasonable means 

of minimizing health risks from COVID-19. Furthermore, as required under 

the third Waller factor, the circuit court considered reasonable alternatives to 

closure and used an alternative which allowed the public to access the trial 

contemporaneously. Hence, the public was required to attend the trial
15

telephonically. While the public was not able to see the trial live, the public 

remained able to hear a live feed of the trial and judge whether standards of 

fairness were being observed.

We conclude the circuit court set forth on the record the reasons 

justifying the restriction of the public physically from the courtroom and the 

condition was no broader than necessary to accomplish its purpose of 

stemming the spread of COVID-19. Thus, we cannot conclude that the circuit 

court abused its discretion by ordering the courtroom closed to the public

during Chairez’s trial.

II. Appellant was not denied a fair trial when the telephone 

line dedicated for public access remained on for a short period after 

the jury began deliberating.

At the close of the case, the jury was secured in the courtroom to 

deliberate. After the jury began deliberating, the circuit court was made aware 

that the public telephone line remained open. The jury had deliberated 10-12 

minutes by the time the deputy instructed the jury to stop deliberations. The

circuit court then ensured that the telephone line was disconnected. The jury 

resumed deliberations.

Chairez moved the circuit court for a new trial on the basis that he had 

been denied due process and a fair trial because the jury deliberation was not 

secret. The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing during which three 

witnesses testified. Each witness testified to the statements heard distinctively 

and to hearing background voices. The witnesses estimated that they listened 
16

to the jury between 5-8 minutes. Chairez now argues that the open telephone 

line created pressure on the jury to find him guilty.

“[T]he primary if not exclusive purpose of jury privacy and secrecy is to 

protect the jury’s deliberations from improper influence.”

32 As we recognized in 

Sevier v. Commonwealth, “[t]he presence of a ‘stranger’ during deliberations is 

often viewed as a threat to the jury’s secrecy and ability to engage in free 

discussion as a cohesive group without worry of later dissemination.”

33 While 

an outside intrusion may occur in different ways,34 “the ultimate inquiry [is]: 

Did the intrusion affect the jury’s deliberations and thereby its verdict?”35

While it is clearly an error for the public to hear the jury’s initial 

deliberation, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude it was 

harmless error. A preserved, non-constitutional error is harmless “if one 

cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without 

stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not 

substantially swayed by the error . . . .”36

The jury did not know that the telephone line remained open during its 

initial deliberations. The circuit court then turned the telephone off without 

32 United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737–38 (1993).

33 434 S.W.3d 443, 463 (Ky. 2014).

34 See Olano, 507 U.S. at 738 (describing outside intrusion cases generally 

analyzed for prejudicial impact upon the jury).

35 Id. at 739; see Sevier, 434 S.W.3d at 463 (stating harmless-error rule applied 

for preserved issue of whether a fully participating thirteen-member jury contained a 

stranger to the proceedings during its deliberation).

36 Crossland v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 223, 233 (Ky. 2009) (quoting 

Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946)).
17

telling the jury members what happened. As the Commonwealth asserts, no 

harm or prejudice may be found by something which the jury was not aware.

III. Admission of J.C.’s testimony about her relationship with Appellant,

if error, was harmless error.

J.C. testified about her relationship with Chairez. She expressed that 

Chairez talked with her like a friend and as an example, explained that he told 

vulgar jokes to his friends in her presence. J.C. also testified about how she 

came to be in Chairez’s bed on the first occasion of the alleged abuse. When

asked if she had slept in her father’s bedroom before, J.C. answered, “very 

often.” J.C. described that she slept in Chairez’s bed at least once a week, that 

it was very common, and it was something that she viewed as love, nurturing, 

affection, which she craved, and it was another aspect that made their 

relationship so much closer. The circuit court overruled Chairez’s objections to 

J.C.’s testimony.

Chairez complains that the Commonwealth did not provide KRE 404(b) 

notice that it would introduce this evidence that had the tendency to 

demonstrate a character of the defendant consistent with committing the 

charged sex offenses. Chairez particularly argues that the testimony depicted 

Chairez as sexually inappropriate with his daughter at times other than those 

alleged in the indictment and the Commonwealth sought to use the evidence to 

make it believable that he would commit the charged sex offenses with J.C. 

Chairez also argues that the vulgar jokes and the other occasions J.C. slept in 

Chairez’s bed were not charged as crimes and were not relevant to any of the 

issues the jury decided at trial.
18

KRE 404 restricts the introduction of character evidence and evidence of 

other crimes, wrongs, or acts admitted for the purpose of “proving action in 

conformity therewith,” its purpose being “to prohibit unfair inferences against a 

defendant.”37 However, KRE 404 has exceptions.38 Under KRE 404(b), other 

crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible:

(1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, 

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or 

absence of mistake or accident; or

(2) If so inextricably intertwined with other evidence essential to

the case that separation of the two (2) could not be 

accomplished without serious adverse effect on the offering 

party.

While quoting parts of KRE 404 viewed to be pertinent, including its 

exceptions, Chairez states generally that the testimony by J.C. constituted 

improper character evidence and prior bad acts evidence which does not fall 

within any of the exceptions contained in the rule. In rebuttal, the 

Commonwealth argues that not all evidence which paints the defendant in a 

poor light amounts to bad-acts evidence under KRE 404(b). Citing Graham v. 

Commonwealth39 for the premise that in order to qualify as bad-acts evidence, 

37 Conrad v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Ky. 2017).

38 KRE 404(a)(1),(2),(3); KRE 404(b)(1),(2).

39 571 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Ky. 2019). In Graham, the defendant was convicted of 

sexually abusing several boys. The defendant objected, under KRE 404(b), to the 

prosecution admitting evidence that the defendant took children on fishing trips. The 

defendant argued that the evidence was irrelevant to the charges that he had 

sodomized and sexually abused two boys in bedrooms. He argued that the evidence 

about taking the boys on fishing trips was only to show his criminal disposition and 

was unduly prejudicial. This Court stated:

there is nothing inherently wrong about taking underprivileged children 

on fishing trips. It does not amount to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, 
19

the evidence must show that the defendant has done something “inherently 

wrong” in the past, the Commonwealth asserts that the testimony which 

Chairez complains about, the vulgar jokes and J.C. frequently sleeping in the 

same bed with her father, does not fall within the scope of KRE 404(b).

The Commonwealth further contends that the prosecution did not offer 

the vulgar joke testimony to prove that a person who makes vulgar jokes 

around kids is the same kind of person who might molest a child. Instead, the 

testimony arose from a line of questions aimed at proving that Chairez and J.C. 

were close prior to the abuse, which made it unlikely that J.C. would have 

made up lies about Chairez. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth argues that any 

error was harmless error, and we agree. Upon review of the evidence, we can 

say with fair assurance that the jury’s verdict was not substantially swayed by 

J.C.’s testimony that her father told vulgar jokes in her presence.

40

The Commonwealth, again citing Graham, also states that there is 

nothing inherently wrong about a child sleeping in a bed with her parent, that 

the Commonwealth did not introduce the testimony to prove Chairez’s 

character, but instead, the testimony established that Chairez would not have 

or acts as contemplated by KRE 404(b). This evidence was not presented 

to “prove the character of [Appellant] in order to show action in 

conformity therewith.” KRE 404(b). It was not presented to prove that 

Appellant’s character was that of a man who takes children fishing in 

order to prove that he took Joseph and Lonnie fishing. While it is true 

that Appellant was accused of sexually abusing other young boys on 

fishing trips, no testimony or evidence of those acts of abuse was 

presented; nor was an allegation that he had abused these or other boys 

while on fishing trips. Id.

40 Crossland, 291 S.W.3d at 233.
20

been surprised to find J.C. in his bed. The Commonwealth argues that 

nevertheless, this testimony, too, if erroneously admitted, would be harmless 

error.

The prosecution did not introduce any evidence that Chairez abused J.C. 

during any of the prior times that J.C. slept in his bed. J.C.’s testimony that 

she often slept in the same bed may have cast doubt on whether Chairez really 

believed that he was with his girlfriend on the first night in question. Given the 

testimony the jury heard from J.C. about the abuse and corroborating 

testimony from Chairez’s friends, whether J.C. regularly slept in Chairez’s bed 

before the alleged abuse occurred, that testimony could not have substantially 

swayed the jury’s verdict.41 We conclude that if it was error to admit the 

testimony, it was harmless error.

IV. The Confrontation Clause is not implicated by testimony regarding 

J.C.’s forensic interview.

A supervisor at the Family and Children’s Place testified on behalf of the 

Commonwealth. The supervisor described the Family and Children’s Place as a 

child advocacy center, a neutral entity, where medical exams and forensic 

interviews are conducted of alleged child abuse victims. J.C. made a disclosure 

to the forensic interviewer. J.C.’s interviewer was no longer employed by the 

center at the time of trial. Before her testimony, the supervisor watched the 

video of J.C.’s interview; the supervisor was employed at the center at the time 

J.C. was interviewed.

41 Id.
21

The supervisor described the forensic interview process generally and 

answered questions regarding the interview process with J.C. Chairez objected 

to the supervisor’s testimony on the basis that the supervisor did not have 

personal knowledge of the interview and to the supervisor improperly bolstering 

the veracity of J.C.’s forensic interview. On appeal, Chairez claims the forensic 

interview was testimonial in nature and therefore the interviewer’s statements, 

comments, and questions, relayed through the supervisor’s testimony, were

barred by the Confrontation Clause. The Commonwealth argues that Chairez’s 

Confrontation Clause claim is not preserved, and is subject to palpable error 

review, but under any standard of review, there is no violation of the 

Confrontation Clause here. 

“[T]he Confrontation Clause precludes admission of the statements of a 

witness unavailable to testify at trial if the witness’ out-of-court statements

were ‘testimonial,’ unless the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine 

the witness.”

42 As noted above, Chairez complains that the interviewer’s 

statements, comments, and questions, relayed through the supervisor’s 

testimony are barred by the Confrontation Clause. However, Chairez does not 

identify any specific testimony by the supervisor in which the supervisor 

mentioned any statements, comments, or questions made by the interviewer.

The Commonwealth points out that the supervisor never testified about 

the specific questions the interviewer asked, but the kinds of questions the 

interviewer asked, such as whether they were open-ended. Further, the 

42 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009).
22

supervisor did not testify about the interviewer’s statements, observations, or 

opinions. The supervisor explained, if an interviewer were to form an opinion 

about alleged abuse, that interviewer is never to reveal that opinion. 

Accordingly, the supervisor’s testimony related nothing about the interviewer’s 

opinions which may or may not have existed in regard to J.C.’s allegations. 

This Court’s review of the record also reveals no testimony by the 

supervisor which may be viewed as admitting the interviewer’s out of court 

statements, negating the usual accompanying question of whether the out-ofcourt statements were testimonial. We conclude there is no Confrontation 

Clause violation under these facts.

V. Appellant’s Fifth Amendment right was not violated.

The detective in this case testified at trial. The detective testified that she 

called Chairez and left a voice mail, but she never had actual physical or verbal 

contact with Chairez. Chairez objected to this testimony, arguing it implied 

that he did not make a statement, it was an implied comment on his silence,

and it violated Chairez’s Fifth Amendment right.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person . . . shall be 

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”43 In relation to 

that right, the Commonwealth is prohibited from introducing evidence or 

commenting in any manner on a defendant’s silence once that defendant has 

been informed of his rights and taken into custody.”44

43 U.S. Const. amend. V.

44 Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15, 35 (Ky. 2009).
23

We do not agree with Chairez that the detective’s testimony, testimony 

given in regard to whether the detective could identify Chairez in the 

courtroom,45 was an improper comment on Chairez’s silence. Nevertheless,

even if it were, “[n]ot every isolated instance referring to post-arrest silence will 

be reversible error.”46 Typically, reversal is warranted where the prosecutor 

has repeatedly mentioned and emphasized an accused’s post-arrest silence.47

In this case, any improper comment was transient and was not emphasized. 

Considering the evidence properly presented to establish Chairez’s guilt, we 

cannot conclude that Chairez was prejudiced by the detective’s testimony.48 

Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.49

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Jefferson Circuit Court’s judgment is 

affirmed.

All sitting. VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, Nickell, JJ.;

concur. Thompson, J.; concurs in result only. 

45 See Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 589-90 (Ky. 2006).

46 Wallen v. Commonwealth, 657 S.W.2d 232, 233 (Ky. 1983).

47 Id.

48 See Baumia v. Commonwealth, 402 S.W.3d 530, 539-40 (Ky. 2013) (citing 

factors in United States v. Velarde–Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001)).

49 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
24

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Joseph R. Eggert

Michael L. Goodwin

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel J. Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky 

Matthew F. Kuhn

Assistant Attorney General