Opinion ID: 2361084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Course of Conduct Instruction

Text: Next, Holloman contends that the trial judge erred when it instructed the jury on a definition of course of conduct which did not apply to the charged offenses and which invited the jury to convict based upon uncharged offenses. The jury was instructed in the definitions instruction that: Course of Conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of two (2) or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. In each of the instructions defining the four offenses, the jury was told that it could find Holloman guilty if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had raped/sodomized/sexually abused the victim in a continuing course of conduct. The statute in which the statutory definition of course of conduct is found is KRS 508.130 and relates to the crime of stalking. It states that the definitions in that statute, including course of conduct, are definitions as used in KRS 508.130 to 508.150. Clearly, course of conduct as defined in KRS 508.130 applies only to the crime of stalking and was improperly included in these instructions. The use of course of conduct as it relates to these charges should not be repeated in the instructions on retrial.