Opinion ID: 3008638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: T he Trial Court Did Abuse its Discretion When

Text: it Deemed the Two Photos in Question to be Admissible,_ but that Error is Harmless. Mackin contends that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence two photographs, which appear to depict female children engaging in sexual intercourse . We agree that the pictures should not have been introduced because the Commonwealth failed to link the photos to Mackin's sexual relationship with M .M ., but we find the introduction of the photos to be harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence against Mackin . M.M . testified that she did not discuss the photos in question with Mackin and that she was not sure if she saw the photos at the same time as Mackin . M.M . testified that she saw the photos lying near the computer while she was playing a game. Notably, M.M. testified that she saw the photo marked as Commonwealth's exhibit 5 after she saw the photo marked as Commonwealth's exhibit 4 . Commonwealth's exhibit 4 is dated August 17, 2000. But M.M . testified that her sexual activity with Mackin ceased on July 31, 2000, shortly before M .M. began eighth grade . So it logically follows that M .M. did not see either photograph until after such time as her sexual activity with Mackin had stopped. In a somewhat analogous case from nearly twenty years ago, we forcefully declare[d], unqualifiedly, that citizens and residents of Kentucky are not subject to criminal conviction based upon the contents of their bookcase unless and until there is evidence linking it to the crime charged. We recently reaffirmed our commitment to that principle in Jones v. Commonwealth . Although the Commonwealth generically argu es that these two photos are inextricably intertwined with the other evidence of the charges against Mackin, that argument fails because the Commonwealth failed to link them to Mackin's sexual relationship with M.M . The photos are disturbing. But M.M. testified that she merely found them near a computer in her home and did not even discuss them with Mackin . So the photos are different from the books because M.M. testified about Mackin's use of the books to escalate their sexual relationship . It appears, therefore, that the photos in question failed the linkage test set forth in Dyer and reinforced in Jones. This conclusion is reinforced by the Commonwealth's failure to refute Mackin's convincing contention that the photos could not have played any role in the sexual relationship he had with M.M . because, under the terms of her own testimony, she did not see the photos until she had ceased having sexual relations with Mackin . So we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the Commonwealth to introduce the two photographs in question into evidence. 13 Because RCr 9.24 constrains us to Dyer v. Commonwealth , 816 S.W.2d 647, 652 (Ky. 1991) overruled on other grounds by Baker v. Commonwealth , 973 S .W .2d 54, 55 (Ky. 1998). 12 237 S .W.3d 153,160-61 (Ky. 2007). 13 Mackin was originally indicted for one count of possession of child pornography. The photos may have been admissible in furtherance of that charge . However, that child disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties[,] we must then decide whether the introduction of the photographs was a harmless error. The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence in question may have contributed to the jury's verdict. 14 In light of M.M.'s strong, specific, and damning testimony, we do not find that there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of two photographs (even though the photos were displayed by the Commonwealth during closing argument) contributed to the jury's verdict. Essentially, the Commonwealth's case centered upon M.M .'s testimony; and the presence of these two extraneous photographs did not make her testimony that Mackin repeatedly engaged in sexual activity with her any more or less believable because M.M . candidly testified that the photos were not shown to her by Mackin . The status of the photographs stands in stark contrast to the pornographic books. Therefore, we find that the erroneous introduction of the photos was a harmless error. IV . CONCLUSION . For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence imposed by the Nelson Circuit Court are affirmed . All sitting, except Venters, J. All concur. pornography charge was severed from the incest charges and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice following Mackin's incest convictions. 14 Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Ky . 2007) (An error is reversible if the erroneously admitted evidence has a reasonable possibility of contributing to the conviction ; it is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction .). COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Charles Thomas Hectus Hectus & Strause PLLC 804 Stone Creek Parkway Suite One Louisville, Kentucky 40223 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentucky Kenneth Wayne Riggs Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, Kentucky 40601