Opinion ID: 1860418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on the Lesser Included Offense of Attempted Sodomy in Third-Degree

Text: Appellant next argues that, in relation to his third-degree anal sodomy charge, he was entitled to a jury instruction on attempted sodomy in the third-degree. Appellant claims that the evidence at trial supports this instruction because C.O. never testified to penetration. For the following reasons, we disagree. The trial court is required to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses when requested and justified by evidence. Wombles, 831 S.W.2d at 175 ( quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 571 S.W.2d 613, 615 (Ky.1978)). Here, however, the evidence did not support a lesser included offense. At trial, CO. testified that Appellant, tried to stick it in her butt. A jury could reasonably infer that he attempted to penetrate her anus but she stopped him before that could happen. Appellant did not offer any evidence against this. In fact, he vehemently denies ever having any sexual contact with CO. However, [p]enetration is not a requirement under the sodomy statute. Bills v. Commonwealth, 851 S.W.2d 466, 470 (Ky.1993). The only requirement is contact. Id. Thus, our holding in Bills is dispositive. C.O. testified Appellant tried to have anal intercourse with her, but she told him to stop because it hurt. Appellant made no attempt to refute C.O.'s testimony, he simply denied ever having sexual contact with her. Thus, an instruction on attempted sodomy is unsupported by the evidence and no error occurred.