Opinion ID: 2448167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Christine Schambon.

Text: Finally, appellants claim that it was error to admit the testimony of Christine Schambon as to their nudity habits and punishment techniques on grounds that this constitutes inadmissible prior bad acts testimony. This claim is unpreserved but will be reviewed under the standard in RCr 10.26. Christine, appellants' emancipated eighteen-year-old daughter, was permitted to testify concerning the living conditions in the house, her domestic duties while residing there, appellants' discipline methods, and appellant Barbara's habit of walking around the house nude and touching her vaginal area. The general rule in Kentucky admits evidence that reveals an independent criminal act by an accused . . . if the independent crime is so interwoven with evidence of the crime charged that its mention is both necessary and appropriate. Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 793 S.W.2d 112 (1990). This rule further provides that all evidence which is pertinent to the issue and tends to prove the crime charged against the accused is admissible, although it may also prove or tend to prove commission of other crimes by him or to establish collateral facts. The fact that it may tend to prejudice the accused in the minds of the jurors is not a ground for its exclusion. Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 554 S.W.2d 363 (1977). In the instant case, Christine Schambon's testimony regarding the sanitary conditions of the house, nudity habits of appellant, and appellants' methods of discipline were interwoven with the Commonwealth's proof of the physical and sexual abuse charges and may have rendered the evidence admissible despite the fact that it tended to prove collateral uncharged criminal conduct. Stanford v. Commonwealth, supra 793 S.W.2d at 117. Christine's testimony may also have been pertinent to the physical and sexual abuse charges and established a course of conduct involving physical and sexual abuse of the children. Jones v. Commonwealth, supra, 554 S.W.2d at 367. As there was no objection, we need not determine whether every word or phrase from Christine was properly admitted. It is sufficient to conclude that her testimony did not constitute palpable error. RCr 10.26.