Opinion ID: 2193901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts Underlying the Convictions and Defense Trial Motions

Text: The Commonwealth presented only two witnesses at Robinson's trial, S.M.H. and Detective Van Wright, with whom Robinson had a conversation about his marriage to S.M.H. S.M.H. testified that she, her mother, and her siblings have lived in Robinson's home since S.M.H. was eight or nine years old. S.M.H.'s date of birth is February 15, 1986. Robinson first had sexual intercourse with S.M.H. in October of 1998 when S.M.H. was 12 years old. On this occasion, Robinson picked up S.M.H. from a choral program at her middle school (where S.M.H. was in seventh grade). Instead of driving S.M.H. straight home, however, Robinson took S.M.H. off on a country road and had sexual intercourse with her in his vehicle. After that, Robinson had sexual intercourse with S.M.H. three to four times a week in his vehicle. In the late summer of 1999, S.M.H. conceived her first child with Robinson. At that point, S.M.H. was 13 years old. Six months later, on Saturday, March 18, 2000, S.M.H.'s mother, Robinson's mother, and Robinson took S.M.H. to Knox County, Tennessee. S.M.H.'s mother altered her birth certificate to appear that S.M.H. was 16 years old by changing her date of birth from February 15, 1986, to February 15, 1984. On the application for the marriage license, S.M.H. represented that she was 16 years old. She testified that she filled out the application as directed by the adults and did so because she thought that they would leave her in Tennessee if she did not do as instructed. The county clerk issued a Tennessee marriage license, and Robinson and S.M.H. were married in a church by a minister. They did not have a honeymoon and did not tell anyone they were married. Their living arrangements continued as they had been before the marriage S.M.H., her siblings and her mother remained in Robinson's home. S.M.H. had a separate room in the house and did not take Robinson's last name, although she admits that she did use his last name on hospital records when she had her children. S.M.H. gave birth to her first child, J.A.R., on June 9, 2000, when S.M.H. was 14 years old. No father is listed on J.A.R.'s birth certificate, but Robinson stipulated that DNA test results confirm that he is J.A.R.'s biological father. After J.A.R. was born, Robinson started coming in S.M.H.'s room to have sexual intercourse with her and would come in her room every night for that purpose. S.M.H. gave birth to her second child, A.J.R., on July 28, 2002, when S.M.H. was 16 years old. No father is listed on A.J.R.'s birth certificate, but Robinson stipulated that DNA test results confirm that he is A.J.R.'s biological father. After A.J.R. was born, Robinson continued to have sexual intercourse with S.M.H. He would threaten her and members of her family. If she would tell him No, he would push her down until she gave in to him. S.M.H. gave birth to her third child, C.M.R., on October 18, 2003, when S.M.H. was 17 years old. No father is listed on C.M.R.'s birth certificate, but Robinson stipulated that DNA test results confirm that he is C.M.R.'s biological father. S.M.H. obtained her driver's license when she was 17. Once she did, she drove her children to their doctor's appointments at the health clinic. While there, she requested birth control shots. The last time Robinson had sexual intercourse with S.M.H. was in November of 2004. On January 6, 2005, S.M.H. finally confided in social services after her children were removed from her home that Robinson had been having sexual intercourse with her since she was 12 years old. She stated the following on a domestic violence petition/motion: When I was 12 years old, Clarence forced himself on me and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with me, unwillingly, and has done so for the past six years. Throughout this time, I have also given birth to three children who belong to him. I am scared that he will harm my children, my siblings, and me. I feel this way because he said if I ever told anyone that I would regret it. In connection with the domestic violence order, Detective Van Wright spoke with Robinson in the judge's chambers in the Lincoln County Judicial Center. Detective Wright testified that Robinson told him that he and S.M.H. had gone to Tennessee to get married because that is what S.M.H. wanted. Detective Wright also spoke with S.M.H.'s mother, Lisa Robinson, regarding S.M.H.'s allegations. Lisa Robinson stated that S.M.H. and Robinson were married because they loved each other, yet Lisa Robinson stated that she had had sexual intercourse with Robinson since he and her daughter had been married. (Lisa Robinson was indicted and tried jointly with Robinson for three counts of complicity to commit second-degree rape, three counts of complicity to commit third-degree rape, and one count of complicity to commit first-degree rape.) At the close of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Robinson made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. He renewed his motion once he announced that he would not put on any proof. He also requested that the jury be instructed under KRS 510.035. The trial court, in response, denied his motion for a directed verdict and his request for an instruction under KRS 510.035. As to KRS 510.035, the trial court held that a valid marriage was a prerequisite to the defense under KRS 510.035 and Robinson's marriage to S.M.H. was invalid for three reasons. First, the trial court concluded that the marriage in Tennessee was in violation of at least three Tennessee statutes: (a) the county clerk did not wait the requisite three days under T.C.A. § 36-3-104(b)(1) before issuing the license; (b) under T.C.A. § 36-3-105(a), it is unlawful for a county clerk to issue a marriage license if one of the contracting parties is under the age of 16; and (c) T.C.A. § 36-3-106(a) requires the consent of the parent or guardian when either applicant is between the age of 16 and 18, yet the trial court found no consent in this case. Second, the trial court concluded that the marriage was in violation of KRS 402.020. KRS 402.020(1)(f) states that a marriage is prohibited and void when at the time of the marriage, either person is under the age of 16, unless the female is pregnant, in which case permission to marry must be granted by the district court upon application. Third, the trial court considered KRS 402.040, which states: [i]f any resident of this state marries in another state, the marriage shall be valid here if valid in the state where solemnized, unless the marriage is against Kentucky public policy. The trial court reasoned that the state of Kentucky has a public policy of protecting those of tender years who wish to marry and that public policy is not furthered by permitting individuals to use marriage as a defense to avoid what would otherwise be criminal sexual contact.