Opinion ID: 2541196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction of other crimes evidence

Text: B.C. testified that he complied with Appellant's demands because he was afraid of him. After B.C. stated that Appellant told him that if he told anyone, he would have his people in the courtroom when we went to court and they would pick out of my family which one that they would `f' up, the following exchange occurred. Commonwealth: Did he say anything about knowing where your grandma lives? B.C.: He said, I already know where your grandma lives. [PAUSE] B.C.: He said he did it to a little girl in Newport ... [interrupted by Commonwealth] Commonwealth: Uh, no. Just listen to my questions. You listen to my questions and quit. On appeal, Appellant contends that B.C.'s testimony that Appellant told him that he did it to a little girl in Newport was inadmissible evidence of prior crimes. KRE 404(b). Appellant concedes the alleged error was unpreserved, as defense counsel made no objection at trial, and requests review per RCr 10.26. The Commonwealth agrees the statement was inadmissible under KRE 404(b), but argues that the remark does not rise to the level of palpable error. A party claiming palpable error must show a probability of a different result or error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due process of law. Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky.2006). Under the circumstances of this case, the alleged prior bad act was not brought to light by a third-party witness, but was a statement by the alleged victim relating a threat by the defendant (Appellant) as a reason to comply with his demands. Even though the statement has aspects of KRE 404(b), it was used to show the defendant was trying to instill fear in the victim and overcome his resistance (whether it was true or not that he had done something to a child in Newport). Because the statement was used as proof of an element of the offense (i.e., to show forcible compulsion), it was not error.