Opinion ID: 1890713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the sodomy instructions sufficiently differentiated between incidents except in two instances

Text: Citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690 (Ky.2009), Banks next contends that the jury instructions pertaining to the sodomy counts insufficiently distinguished the incidents so as to assure an unanimous verdict as to the convictions. [I]t is now settled that a trial court errs in a case involving multiple charges if its instructions to the jury fail to factually differentiate between the separate offenses according to the evidence. Id. at 695. If the jury instructions do not include factual differentiation between the charges, it is reversible error, even if the error is unpreserved. Id. See also Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky.2008), Bell v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Ky.2008) (overruled on other grounds by Harp, 266 S.W.3d 813); and Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566 (Ky.2002). In reviewing the sodomy instructions, we first list those relating to T.B., followed by those relating to C.B. In the caption of each instruction the indictment count no. and the instruction no. were listed; that information is indicated as the lead-in to each instruction presented below. Further, each jury instruction began with the preamble You will find the Defendant guilty of First-Degree Sodomy under this instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:; and concluded with the paragraph AND B. That at the time of such intercourse, [the child] was less than 12 years of age. We omit this repetitive language. Finally, language that is distinguishing in factual detail from the other sodomy instructions is emphasized.