Court Opinion

ID: 9909916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:05:53.844973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:56.413470
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 14, 2023
                                                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                   Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                2022-SC-0385-MR

JOSE SANCHEZ                                                            APPELLANT

                    ON APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT
V.                 HONORABLE VERNON MINIARD, JR., JUDGE
                       NOS. 17-CR-00062 & 17-CR-00020

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                  APPELLEE

               OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE LAMBERT

        AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND VACATING

      Jose Sanchez (Sanchez) was convicted of five counts of first-degree rape

and four counts of third-degree rape. He now appeals his convictions and

resulting sentence of seventy years’ imprisonment as a matter of right.1 After

thorough review we affirm Sanchez’s convictions and sentence, but we reverse

and vacate the trial court’s imposition of public defender fees against him.

              I.    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      The victim in this case, Jane,2 alleged that Sanchez had repeatedly raped

her over the course of several years. Sanchez had been her mother’s live-in

      1 Ky. Const. § 110.

     2 The victim is this case was a minor when the crimes against her were

committed, and we therefore refer to her using a pseudonym to protect her privacy.
boyfriend since Jane was an infant, and although he was not Jane’s biological

father, he was the only father figure in her life and she called him “dad.”

      Jane, who was twenty years old at the time of the trial, testified that her

first memory of being sexually abused by Sanchez occurred when she was in

kindergarten. While in the family home, Sanchez made her get on a bed with

him, wrapped her in a blanket, and began touching her legs and vagina. As

Jane got older the abuse continued to escalate, and he raped her for the first

time when she was nine or ten years old. Jane explained that on that occasion

Sanchez had taken her with him on a day trip for work because he needed her

to translate; neither of Jane’s parents spoke English and she frequently

translated for both of them. At some point during the drive, he pulled the car

over and made her get out and lay down on the ground. He took off her clothes

and his pants and underwear and got on top of her. She tried to fight him off,

but he was able to put his penis in her vagina.

      Taking Jane on trips to abuse her became common practice. Jane

testified Sanchez would pull over in different areas, referred to respectively by

Sanchez as “the bridge,” “the woods,” “the river,” and “our secret hideout,” and

rape her. He would also assault her in the family home during the day when

no one was home or at night when everyone was asleep.

      Jane’s mother became very ill from chronic kidney disease sometime

around 2012. Her mother was unable to work or care for Jane’s younger

                                            2
brothers, Adam and Ben3. Adam was born sometime around 2006, and Ben

was born in 2014. Jane’s mother had a very difficult pregnancy with Ben due

to her illness, and he was born premature with numerous health issues,

including heart and lung complications that required surgical intervention.

Ben was also born with a cleft palate necessitating that he be fed with a feeding

tube. Jane stepped into a caregiving role for both her mother and her younger

brothers, in particular Ben, and missed so much school doing so that she

became homeschooled in the sixth grade.

      During this time, the rapes continued. Jane testified she never wanted

to comply with Sanchez’s demands, but if she refused him, he would withhold

things from the other members of the family. For example, he would withhold

medical care for her mother and Ben, or clothing and food. Jane was afraid to

report what Sanchez was doing to her because he was the family’s sole

breadwinner, and she did not know how they would survive if she reported

him. Sanchez would also frequently bribe Jane with money, clothing, or the

ability to go out with her friends in exchange for complying with his sexual

demands.

      At some point when Jane got older, Sanchez bought her a cellphone. He

would frequently text her demanding sex. Jane testified that when she was

younger, she would delete the messages he sent her because of their vile

nature. But, in 2016, fourteen-year-old Jane began to consider reporting the

      3 We use pseudonyms to refer to Jane’s brothers as they were also minors

during the events at issue.
                                            3
abuse. She therefore stopped deleting the messages and took photographs and

video recordings of Sanchez to use as evidence against him.

      Jane ultimately filed a police report against Sanchez on November 29,

2016, and he was arrested the same day. While at the police station, Jane took

screenshots of text messages Sanchez sent her and printed them directly to the

police station’s printer. Later, Jane was forensically interviewed and medically

examined at a local children’s advocacy center (CAC). During her forensic

interview, Jane used the text messages, which ranged from June 20, 2016, to

November 29, 2016, to write down the dates she believed rapes had occurred

based on the content of the texts. The sheets of paper Jane used to write these

dates and texts down were entered into evidence at trial. Of note, Jane stated

several times that during that time Sanchez would rape her up to three days

per week.

      Sanchez’s cellphone was confiscated by law enforcement upon his arrest,

and it was later forensically searched pursuant to a search warrant by

Detective Mike Littrell (Det. Littrell), a detective with the attorney general’s

digital forensics office. The messages extracted from Sanchez’s phone were

from November 19, 2016, to November 29, 2016. Of the forty-one messages

extracted from Sanchez’s phone exchanged between himself and Jane, twenty-

two matched the messages captured by the screenshots taken from Jane’s

phone. Det. Littrell explained that if a message appeared on Sanchez’s phone

but did not appear in the screenshots from Jane’s phone it could mean that

Sanchez either typed the message and never sent it or that Jane deleted it once

she received it.
                                             4
      Jane’s physical exam at the CAC was performed by a physician aided by

Judy Withers (Nurse Withers), a sexual assault nurse examiner. Jane’s

physical exam revealed she had genital warts, and the findings were

“consistent with sexual abuse,” although Nurse Withers explained during

cross-examination that any time a child reports sexual abuse, the CAC’s

medical staff will make a finding that the exam is consistent with sexual abuse.

      At trial, the Commonwealth presented both the original screenshots

taken from Jane’s phone and a translation of those texts by a Spanish-English

translator that was stipulated to by the parties. The translated text messages

spanned fifty-one pages, and Jane read from them extensively. For our

purposes, we limit the recitation of those texts to the dates corresponding to

the counts ultimately submitted to the jury. For each of the nine charges, the

jury was instructed on first-degree rape, third-degree rape, and two theories of

first-degree sexual abuse, one based on forcible compulsion and one based on

Jane’s and Sanchez’s respective ages.

      For Count 1, occurring on or about June 20, 2016, Jane identified June

20 at the CAC based on the following text exchange:

      At 2:25 pm:
            Sanchez: [Jane] what are you doing?
            Jane: Nothing, why?

      At 9:53 pm:
            Sanchez: [Jane] yes or no? Later on and if not I won’t pay
            for your cell phone minutes.4

      4 We use punctuation rather than spacing to indicate that a text was sent

separately.
                                             5
Jane testified that Sanchez would often use the phrase “yes or no” when he

wanted her to have sex with him, and that in this exchange he was threatening

to stop putting minutes on her phone if she refused him.

      Regarding Count 2, occurring on or about June 28, 2016, the following

exchange occurred at 11:19 pm:

      Sanchez: When do you get your period [Jane]?
      Jane: I don’t know.
      Sanchez: But it’s been over a month, right?
      Jane: Yes.
      Sanchez: But you’re usually late, aren’t you?
      Jane: No.
      Sanchez: What do you mean no? You’ve gone up to two months
      without getting it, haven’t you?
      Jane: No.
      Sanchez: You look fat to me.
      Jane: Why?
      Sanchez: I don’t know and what if you are? What are you going to
      do?
      Jane: I don’t know. This is your fault.
      Sanchez: But seriously, you don’t know when you got it?
      Jane: Yes.
      Sanchez: When?
      Jane: 25.
      Sanchez: 25th of which month?
      Jane: Last month.
      Sanchez: So you already got it?
      Jane: Not this month.
      Sanchez: You just need to get it for this month.
      Jane: Right.
      Sanchez: Ok because I’m scared.
      Jane: It’s your fault.
      Sanchez: It’s cause your ass is so tasty.

Jane identified this date at the CAC based on the text that translated to “it’s

cause your ass is so tasty.” She explained that he had raped her sometime

before the exchange and feared he had gotten her pregnant.

      Regarding Count 3, occurring on or about June 29, 2016, the following

text messages were exchanged at 5:33 pm:
                                       6
      Sanchez: Are you going?
      Jane: Where?
      Sanchez: To Somerset.
      Jane: I don’t know, you?
      Sanchez: There and then later in the woods. You’re gonna make
            me cum first and then I’ll give it to you.
      Jane: Give me what?

Jane explained that the translation was not quite right. She believed he was

saying that they would go get Ben’s milk and then they would go to “the

woods.” She could not remember why he was going to Somerset that day, but

she testified that taking her somewhere like Somerset and stopping on the way

to rape her was a frequent occurrence. She also identified this date while at

the CAC using the text that said they would go to “the woods,” which referred

to a wooded area near the park in Monticello.

      For Count 4, occurring on or about July 5, 2016, Jane accidentally wrote

down “July 5” at the CAC, but the text was actually sent on July 2, at 1:23 pm.

It read:

      Sanchez: If you send me another one I’ll give you your money so
           you can go to the fair again. Let’s go fuck later on. As soon
           as I get there. Put your elastic waisted shorts on to make it
           easy to pull down. Take a shower because you’re just going
           to go and pick up your mom. We’ll go fuck first and then
           after that on your way back you can go by and pick your
           mom up from the park.

Jane identified this occurrence at the CAC based on Sanchez’s reference to a

pair of shorts with an elastic waistband he would often tell her to wear because

they were easy to pull down. She further identified this as an instance of him

not letting her do something unless she agreed to have sex with him.

      For Count 5, occurring on or about July 22, 2016, the following texts

were exchanged:

                                          7
      At 7:09 am:

            Sanchez: Give it to me. She is sick you already know
                 to hurry up. Hurry up. Hurry up [Jane]. Hurry
                 up [Jane].

      At 9:59 am:

            Sanchez: [Jane] will you give it to me later on? We
                 can go pick up some McDonald’s. Yes or no?

Jane testified, and other text messages reflect, that Sanchez would often tell

Jane that her mother was too sick to have sex with him so Jane needed to

instead. Jane wrote down July 22 at the CAC as a date she believed a rape

had occurred.

      For Count 6, occurring on or about August 4, 2016, Jane again

accidentally wrote down the wrong date. At the CAC, she identified a text as

having occurred on “August 4” that referred to them going to “the woods.” The

full exchange, which took place on August 9 at 12:08 pm was as follows:

      Sanchez: Will you give me just a little bit later on or not? I’ll come
            by and pick you up a bit later.
      Jane: For what?
      Sanchez: For the woods.
      Jane: Why?
      Sanchez: Like you don’t know. . . our secret hideout. Yes or no?
            If your mom goes to the store you stay here. Stay. [Jane]
            please stay. And your mom. Give it to me. Yes or no? You
            call her and ask where she is because she is going to suspect
            something.
      Jane: No.
      Sanchez: Come here to the other bathroom. I promise I will go
            and pick you up later. What time is practice over?

Jane explained that Sanchez would often have her come to a bathroom on the

far end of the family home to assault her.

      For Count 7, occurring on or about September 17, 2016, the

Commonwealth entered a video into evidence that Jane alleged captured
                                       8
Sanchez coming into her bedroom and raping her. As previously noted, in

addition to saving text messages Jane took some pictures and videos of

Sanchez to potentially use against him. The exhibit itself was bodycam footage

of Jane’s phone recorded by the lead investigator, Detective Derek Lester (Det.

Lester). In other words, it is a recording of a recording. For the video captured

on September 17, Jane explained that she and Ben were sleeping in her bed

and Adam was sleeping in his bed in the same room when Sanchez unlocked

the bedroom door and came in. In the video, nothing can be seen, but a baby

can be heard cooing and then Jane says “why?” and tells Sanchez to stop

twice. Heavy breathing is then heard, which Jane attested was Sanchez raping

her. In addition, the following text messages were exchanged on September 17:

      At 8:40 pm:

      Sanchez: [Jane] be nice and give it to me again. Is [Adam] there
           with you? I’ll be there soon. Yes or no?

      At 11:35 pm:

      Sanchez: How do you order your clothes?
      Jane: Which clothes?
      Sanchez: The ones you order from California or wherever you
            order it from.
      Jane: I don’t know what you’re talking about because I don’t have
            any clothes like that.
      Sanchez: Don’t you order it with that guy or whatever?
      Jane: But those aren’t mine, they’re his.
      Sanchez: I’m saying if you know how to order them you can order
            some. I’ll pay for it.

The Commonwealth argued during closing arguments that Sanchez had raped

Jane that day prior to sending the 11:35 pm messages, in which he was trying

to bribe her to stay quiet by offering to buy her clothes.

                                            9
      Next, for Count 8, occurring on or about November 16, 2016, the

Commonwealth introduced a second video, again recorded on bodycam by Det.

Lester on the same date he recorded the video from September 17. Like the

first video, nothing can be seen, but Jane can be heard saying “stop” and heavy

breathing is again heard. Jane testified that Sanchez had come into her room

in the middle of the night and raped her. She further identified November 16

as one of two dates she specifically recalled a rape occurring.

      Finally, for Count 9, occurring on or about November 26, 2016, Jane

stated she remembered this date because it was the last time Sanchez raped

her, as she reported him three days later. She explained that her mom had left

to go to the store when the following exchange occurred at 1:58 pm:

      Sanchez: Where did your mom go?
      Jane: The store. Why?
      Sanchez: Come here. Hurry up. Give it to me quickly. Hurry up.
            Well hurry up then.

Jane testified he vaginally penetrated her on that date.

      Sanchez testified in his own defense that he had never sexually abused

Jane and had never sent her any text messages, even “normal” ones. He

further stated that because he has diabetes, he is unable to have sex due to a

lack of energy, and that he never took Jane anywhere in a car alone. The

defense also demonstrated through a non-expert witness that there is a

cellphone application called “Jalli” that allows someone to “plant” text

messages on someone else’s phone so that it looks as though a text was sent

from that phone when it was not. However, the witness acknowledged on

cross-examination that the application did not come out until 2018, two years

                                           10
after the text exchanges at issue here. Finally, the defense highlighted that a

forensic search of Jane’s phone was never performed. Det. Lester explained

that he did not want to take Jane’s phone because she needed it to see to the

family’s needs such as her mother’s and Ben’s doctor’s appointments.

      Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury found Sanchez guilty of five

counts of first-degree rape for Counts 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, and found him guilty of

four counts of third-degree rape for Counts 1, 2, 4, and 6. The jury

recommended a 10-year sentence for each of the first-degree rape convictions,

and a five year sentence for each of the third-degree rape convictions to run

consecutively for a total sentence of seventy years. He now appeals.

      Additional facts are discussed below as necessary.

                              II.   ANALYSIS

A. The trial court erred by allowing Nurse Withers to repeat Jane’s
   statement that “my dad made me have sex with him,” but the error
   was harmless.

      Nurse Withers testified that she examined Jane at the CAC in 2016, but

she did not remember seeing her specifically and would have to refer to the

medical exam report to provide any details regarding her exam. After being

given a copy of Jane’s report, she explained that it was her practice to write

whatever a child told her in the in the “reason for exam” section of the report.

The Commonwealth confirmed that her reason for doing this was “for medical

purposes only,” and then asked her to read the “reason for exam” section of

Jane’s report. Defense counsel objected and argued during a side bench that

Nurse Withers should be limited to simply saying that Jane was referred to the

CAC regarding potential sexual abuse and that using Jane’s exact words
                                        11
constituted impermissible hearsay and improper bolstering. The

Commonwealth responded that Jane’s statement could come in under the

“medical records exception” because the evidence went strictly to why the exam

was being performed. The trial court overruled the defense’s objection without

further discussion. Nurse Withers then read the “reason for exam” section of

the report verbatim, which stated: “[Patient] states ‘my dad made me have sex

with him.’ States last time was 11/26/16.”5 The unredacted report was later

submitted to the jury. None of the other witnesses repeated Jane’s

identification of Sanchez as her abuser, and Nurse Withers did not repeat any

details of the abuse.

      Sanchez argues before this Court that the trial court’s admission of the

identification testimony constituted reversible error under our precedents of

Colvard v. Commonwealth,6 Alford v. Commonwealth,7 and Hoff v.

Commonwealth.8 The Commonwealth responds that this case is more

comparable to Justice v. Commonwealth,9 and that any error was harmless.

For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Commonwealth.

      5 We accordingly disagree with the Commonwealth’s assertion that defense

counsel’s objection was not specific enough to preserve this issue, as it was very
apparent from context what counsel was objecting to. See Kentucky Rule of Evidence
(KRE) 103(a)(1).
      6 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2010).

      7 338 S.W.3d 240 (Ky. 2011).

      8 394 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2011).

    9 636 S.W.3d 407 (Ky. 2021) abrogated on other grounds by Sexton v.

Commonwealth, 647 S.W.3d 227 (Ky. 2022).
                                           12
      This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence for

an abuse of discretion.10 Under this standard, we determine whether the trial

court’s ruling was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound

legal principles.”11 Nevertheless, even if we conclude that a trial court abused

its discretion, RCr12 9.24 directs that we “must disregard any error or defect in

the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”

Stated differently,

      [a] non-constitutional evidentiary error may be deemed harmless if
      the reviewing court can say with fair assurance that the judgment
      was not substantially swayed by the error. The inquiry is not
      simply whether there was enough evidence to support the result,
      apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so,
      whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is
      left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.13

With this directive in mind, we now discuss the respective cases relied upon by

the parties.

      In Colvard, Fred Colvard was convicted, in relevant part, of one count of

first-degree sodomy and two counts of first-degree rape committed against two

victims, D.J. (six years old) and D.Y. (seven years old).14 Colvard, who had

previously lived in the children’s apartment building and had been engaged to

their grandmother for a time, assaulted the girls in their bedroom.15 When the

girls reported the abuse to their mother, she immediately reported it to law

      10 See, e.g., Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627, 645 (Ky. 2011).

      11 Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999).

      12 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure.

      13 Colvard, 309 S.W.3d at 249 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

      14 Id. at 242.

      15 Id.

                                            13
enforcement.16 At trial, over Colvard’s objection, three medical professionals

and three lay witnesses were permitted to repeat the children’s identification of

Colvard as their abuser as well as other inflammatory facts relayed to them by

the children.17

      The three medical professionals’ testimony was as follows. The EMT who

responded to the emergency call testified that one of the children said that

“Fred . . . stuck his ‘dick’ in her,” and that the other child “told her, in

substance, that Colvard had ‘hurt’ her anus.”18 A physician from the hospital

where the children were admitted for evaluation testified using notes compiled

by a triage nurse that D.J. said Colvard sexually abused her and that “Fred

has been f***ing her, putting his weenie in her private parts.”19 The physician

further testified that both children told him that they were sexually assaulted

that day “and over the past months.”20 Finally, a physician that performed

follow up examinations and treatment testified that she saw the children

because of sexual abuse allegations made against “a neighbor” named “Fred,”

and that one of the children told their mother that “Fred was f***ing us.”21

      The lay witness testimony included the children’s uncle, who testified

that D.Y. pointed to Colvard when he asked her “what happened, who touched

      16 Id.

      17 Id. at 242-49.

      18 Id. at 243.

      19 Id.

      20 Id.

      21 Id.

                                             14
her.”22 The victims’ mother also testified that D.Y. stated Colvard “took his

weenie out of his zipper and put it in her, but not all the way.”23 Finally, a

forensic interviewer repeated D.J.’s statement that Fred had put his penis in

her and had circled the genital area when asked to show where a penis was on

a drawing of a male.24

      The trial court admitted the medical personnel’s identification testimony

under a then-existing exception to the general rule “that the identity of the

perpetrator is not relevant to treatment or diagnosis. . . [except] in cases where

a family or household member is the perpetrator of sexual abuse against the

minor of that household.”25 On appeal, the Colvard Court abandoned that

exception based on its conclusion that it did not serve the purpose of KRE

803(4), the medical treatment exception, i.e., that “[t]here is no inherent

trustworthiness to be found in a hearsay statement identifying the perpetrator

when that statement did not arise from the patient’s desire for effective

treatment.”26 It further held that the lay witnesses’ testimony was likewise not

subject to any hearsay exceptions.27

      The Court held that the medical personnel testimony “in combination

with the other inadmissible hearsay statements let into trial” resulted in

      22 Id. at 247.

      23 Id. at 248.

      24 Id. at 249.

      25 Id. at 244.

        26 Id. at 246. The Court clarified that it was not holding that such statements

are always inadmissible, and that there could be a situation where a child victim’s
identification of an abuser did meet the requirements of KRE 803(4). Id. at 247.
      27 Id.

                                              15
reversible error.28 The Court reasoned that because both the medical and lay

testimony served to bolster the children’s testimony and the Commonwealth’s

theory of the case and was highly prejudicial.29 The Court concluded that this

“parade of witnesses vouching for the Commonwealth’s theory of the case,” in

conjunction with “the lack of DNA or other physical evidence linking [Colvard]

to the crimes,” rendered it unable to say with fair assurance that the judgment

was not substantially swayed by the improper identification testimony.30 It

accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial.31

      In Alford, William Alford was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-

degree sexual abuse committed against S.A., his live-in girlfriend’s daughter.32

S.A. reported the abuse at age thirteen to her stepsister and stepmother during

a visit with her biological father, though she alleged the abuse had been

happening for several years.33 At trial, S.A. testified extensively regarding the

abuse, and her allegations were “the only evidence linking [Alford] to the

evidence of sexual contact.”34

      Detective Bruce Slack, who interviewed S.A. on the same date she

reported the abuse, testified at length about S.A.’s statements during that

interview, including: that her statement was consistent with her testimony at

      28 Id.

      29 Id. at 247, 249.

      30 Id. at 250.

      31 Id.

      32 Alford, 338 S.W.3d at 243.

      33 Id.

      34 Id.

                                           16
trial; that she stated Alford never used condoms; that Alford told her mother he

would kill her if she ever left him; that he tricked her into drinking gin and

orange juice; that he told her she was “really good at it”; that she estimated he

had raped her 300-400 times; that he made her perform oral sex four days per

week; and that he hit, choked, and kicked both her and her little brother.35

The Court noted that there was “no hearsay exception for statements made by

an alleged victim of sexual abuse to a police detective[,]” and that it had

“consistently recognized that this type of hearsay testimony is highly

prejudicial.”36

      In addition, Dr. Patrick Hayden, who interviewed and examined S.A. two

months after she first reported Alford, read extensively from his interview with

S.A.37 In doing so, he identified Alford as the perpetrator and essentially

repeated the allegations to which S.A. had already testified.38 He stated that

S.A. told him that she had been repeatedly raped over a number of years by her

mother’s boyfriend; he testified at length as to various acts of oral, anal and

vaginal intercourse, and sexual touching that S.A. relayed to him; and he

stated that S.A. told him Alford would beat, kick, hit, and slap her, and that

she saw him hit and punch her mother and stepsister.39

      35 Id. at 245-46.

      36 Id. at 246.

      37 Id. at 247.

      38 Id.

      39 Id.

                                           17
      The Alford Court, reviewing for palpable error, characterized the

foregoing as “an egregious amount of inadmissible hearsay,”40 and held that

“the cumulative, if not individual, error in the admission of the extensive and

highly prejudicial hearsay by Dr. Hayden and Detective Slack unfairly bolstered

the credibility of S.A. to the extent as to rise to palpable error.”41 It reversed

and remanded for a new trial.42

      In Hoff, the final case Sanchez cites, David Hoff was convicted of eight

counts of first-degree rape and eight counts of incest perpetrated against his

then-twelve-year-old biological daughter, B.H.43 B.H. alleged that Hoff had

been repeatedly raping her since she was four years old.44 The

Commonwealth’s case against Hoff relied almost solely on B.H.’s credibility, “as

there was limited physical evidence of the crimes.”45

      Dr. Travis Calhoun performed B.H.’s physical examination sometime

during the month she disclosed.46 Dr. Calhoun testified at trial and his

forensic examination report was entered into evidence.47 Dr. Calhoun stated,

inter alia, that B.H. told him the only person she ever had sex with was her

father.48 That information was included in his report, as well as the following:

      40 Id. at 245.

      41 Id. at 248.

      42 Id.

      43 Hoff, 394 S.W.3d at 370.

      44 Id.

      45 Id. at 371.

      46 Id.

      47 Id.

      48 Id. at 372.

                                            18
that Hoff had recently taken her to Louisville to meet a man he met online and

made her undress and go into a bedroom with the man who then “rubbed her

private parts,” and that she had recently told her teacher and wrote in her

diary that her father had raped her.49 Dr. Calhoun further testified that he had

no reason not to believe what B.H. reported to him during the examination,

and his report stated that he believed “the child has in fact been sexually

abused.”50 The unredacted report was submitted to the jury.51

       The Hoff Court held that the physician repeating the child’s identification

of Hoff as the perpetrator was improper under Colvard and Alford, and that the

statements about Hoff taking her to be abused by another man in Louisville

and her statements that she both wrote in her diary and informed her teacher

that Hoff was raping her were likewise improper hearsay.52 Reviewing for

palpable error, the Court held that “the extensive use of inadmissible hearsay

and the impermissible bolstering of B.H.’s testimony was highly prejudicial to

[Hoff]” and rose to the level of manifest injustice, requiring reversal for a new

trial.53

       In the case relied upon by the Commonwealth, Justice, Charles Justice

was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, incest, attempted

first-degree rape, attempted promotion of a sexual performance by a minor,

       49 Id.

       50 Id. at 375.

       51 Id. at 372.

       52 Id. at 374.

       53 Id. at 379.

                                            19
distribution of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, and

promotion of a sexual performance by a minor.54 Two of Justice’s victims were

his biological daughters C.J. and E.W.55

      In addition to the children’s respective testimonies, the Commonwealth

presented evidence that an image that was flagged by the National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children had been traced back to the IP address of

Justice’s residence.56 The image depicted a very young child’s vagina being

spread open by two adult fingers.57 The children’s mother identified the hand

as Justice’s hand and identified the bedsheets that appeared in the image.58

C.J. testified Justice took photographs of her, and the website where the image

had been uploaded was bookmarked in Justice’s phone.59 In addition, C.J.

and E.W. both testified the sexual abuse included the use of sex toys, and DNA

samples taken from several sex toys found within Justice’s home matched both

Justice and E.W.60

      Dr. Anderson performed E.W.’s medical examination and, at trial, “[i]n a

single statement, as she was reading her office notes,” she stated that E.W.

identified her father as her abuser.61 Another physician, Dr. Segal, read from

      54 636 S.W.3d at 410.

      55 Id.

      56 Id.

      57 Id.

      58 Id.

      59 Id. at 410-11.

      60 Id. at 410.

      61 Id. at 414.

                                           20
his medical report “that identified Justice as C.J.’s abuser and that C.J. had

said Justice had tried to touch her vagina, play with sex toys, and cause oral-

penile contact.”62 At Justice’s request, both of the medical reports were

submitted to the jury in a redacted form that deleted the identification of

Justice as the abuser.63

      The Justice Court held that the admission of the physicians’ respective

testimonies was error under Colvard.64 However, it went on to hold that the

error, although it may have resulted in some prejudice, it was not so egregious

an error that it shocked the conscience and reversal was not required, i.e., the

error was not palpable.65

      Accordingly, in this case, we hold that the trial court abused its

discretion by allowing Nurse Withers to repeat Jane’s identification of Sanchez

as her abuser and by allowing the unredacted CAC medical report to be

entered into evidence. Under Colvard and its progeny, a child sex abuse

victim’s identification of his or her abuser is not generally admissible under

KRE 803(4), “[s]tatements for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis.”66

      62 Id.

      63 Id.

      64 Id. at 415.

      65 Id.

       66 KRE 803(4) provides that “[t]he following are not excluded by the hearsay

rules, even though the declarant is available as a witness . . . [s]tatements made for
purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis and describing medical history, or past or
present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the
cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment or
diagnosis.”
                                             21
      But that does not end the inquiry; we must next determine whether the

error was harmless. Here, a single witness repeated Jane’s statement that

Sanchez made her have sex with him, and that the last time the abuse

occurred was on November 26, 2016. Details of the abuse were not recounted

by Nurse Withers, and no other witnesses repeated Jane’s identification of

Sanchez. These facts are drastically dissimilar to Colvard, Alford, and Hoff. In

Colvard, six witnesses, both medical and lay, were permitted to repeat various

statements of identification, and were additionally permitted to repeat highly

inflammatory details of the abuse. In Alford, a member of law enforcement and

a medical expert similarly testified both to the child’s identification of her

abuser and to details of the abuse. In Hoff, a single medical expert testified to

the child’s identification of her abuser, to details of the abuse, and to an

uncharged bad act that the defendant had taken the child to be sexually

abused by another individual. Here, only one witness repeated Jane’s

identification of Sanchez and did not testify to any prejudicial details of the

abuse and an unredacted copy of her report was entered into evidence.

Accordingly, the complained-of testimony here is more akin to Justice. In that

case, the report was redacted to omit the identification before being submitted

to the jury, but two separate witnesses testified to the identification, and one

provided additional details.

      Significantly, this Court also noted in Colvard, Alford, and Hoff, that the

only evidence directly linking the respective defendants to the alleged crimes

was the testimony of the victims, rendering any bolstering of the victims’

testimonies highly prejudicial. Compare this with Justice, wherein Justice was
                                         22
linked to the charges against him by both a photograph of a child being

sexually exploited and by his DNA and one of the children’s DNA being found

on sex toys confiscated from the home where the abuse occurred. In this case,

as in Justice, the Commonwealth presented independent evidence of Sanchez’s

guilt in addition to Jane’s testimony. The litany of sexually explicit text

messages sent to Jane by Sanchez were highly probative of the fact that he

raped her repeatedly and frequently, as were the videos she recorded.

      The foregoing evidence, coupled with the fact that Nurse Withers simply

repeated Jane’s statement that Sanchez made her have sex with him without

any additional details of the abuse renders this Court unable to say it is in

“grave doubt” as to whether Nurse Withers’ testimony had a substantial

influence on the outcome of the case. We therefore hold that, while error

occurred, it was harmless, and we affirm.

B. The text messages and videos were properly authenticated.

      Sanchez next asserts that neither the screenshots of the text messages

nor the two videos that purportedly captured Sanchez raping Jane were

properly authenticated under KRE 901 in accordance with Brafman v.

Commonwealth.67 Defense counsel objected to the admission of both the

screenshots and the videos at trial based on a lack of proper authentication.68

We accordingly review the trial court’s admission of the evidence for abuse of

      67 612 S.W.3d 850 (Ky. 2020).

     68 To be clear, while defense counsel stipulated to the translation of the text

messages, it objected to their admission.
                                              23
discretion,69 and must uphold the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence

unless doing so was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound

legal principles.”70

      KRE 901 provides:

      (a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or
          identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is
          satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
          matter in question is what its proponent claims.

      (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of
          limitation, the following are examples of authentication or
          identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

             (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony
                 that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

             ....

             (4) Distinctive characteristics and the like.
                 Appearance, contents, substance, internal
                 patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken
                 in conjunction with circumstances.

“The Commonwealth's burden under KRE 901 to authenticate a writing is

slight, requiring only a prima facie showing.”71

      It must be shown that the material is a true and accurate
      reflection of what it is purported to be. Whether there is enough
      evidence of authenticity to admit evidence is within the discretion
      of the trial court. Typically, the foundational authenticity of a
      writing can be laid simply by the testimony of someone personally
      familiar with the writing or by the contents and characteristics of
      the writing itself.72

      69 Meece, 348 S.W.3d at 645.

      70 English, 993 S.W.2d at 945.

      71 Kays v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Ky. App. 2016) (citing Ordway

v. Commonwealth, 352 S.W.3d 584, 593 (Ky. 2011); Sanders v. Commonwealth, 301
S.W.3d 497, 501 (Ky. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
      72 Brafman, 612 S.W.3d at 866.

                                            24
      In Brafman, Karen Brafman was tried for first-degree and second-degree

arson and six counts of attempted murder after she set her neighbors’ trailer

on fire while it was occupied by Craig Calloway, Ashley Webster, and four of

their six children.73 Calloway and Webster were an interracial couple; three of

their children were biracial and the other three children were Webster’s, an

African American, from a previous relationship.74 Following Brafman’s

conviction, four of the attempted murder charges were enhanced to hate crimes

against each of the children present in the home on the night of the fire.75

      To support the hate crime enhancement, the Commonwealth presented

evidence that at some point in the past Brafman had called the children “oreos”

and had uttered racial slurs from her porch.76 As is relevant here, the

Commonwealth also produced what appeared to be “a screenshot of a short

series of text messages” sent to David Sova, Brafman’s ex-boyfriend and former

co-habitant that had introduced Brafman to Calloway and Webster.77 The

messages read:

      Why you’re up cooking f****** dope
      F****** whores
      I’m goin to kill the N***** and u
      I should of a long time ago
      David that is for u too
      Watch what happens David [cutoff].78

      73 Id. at 855-56.

      74 Id. at 856.

      75 Id. at 857.

      76 Id. at 863.

      77 Id. at 856.

      78 Id. at 866.

                                          25
The Brafman Court provided a number of reasons why the Commonwealth had

failed to properly authenticate the screenshot. In the first place, the messages

were introduced through Sova at trial, who “merely stated that Brafman sent

these messages to him.”79 “[N]othing about the screenshot [linked] the

messages to Brafman personally, such as a name at the top of the interface,”

although the Court noted that a contact name alone has little probative value

because it can be easily manipulated.80 And, significantly, “[t]he

Commonwealth laid no foundation as to Brafman’s ownership of the phone

number.”81 There was also

      no timestamp by which any time or date [could] even superficially
      associated with [the] messages, individually or as a series, making
      it unclear whether the statements [were] relevant to the case at
      hand. Nothing contextualized the messages linking them to
      Brafman’s charges, and there [was] no other evidence that
      [revealed] to whom, other than perhaps “David” himself, the
      messages purportedly refer.82

      This Court held that the trial court had abused its discretion by

admitting the screenshot “because the Commonwealth presented nothing to

authenticate the messages as being typed and sent by Brafman and presented

insufficient evidence of context.”83 It concluded by stating that “[w]hile the

threshold for authenticating writings is generally low, the susceptibility of

cellular messages and screenshots to quick fabrication and alteration requires

      79 Id.

      80 Id. at 867 n.63.

      81 Id. at 867.

      82 Id.

      83 Id.

                                           26
a more discerning eye from the trial court and more than mere assertions by a

lay witness that they were sent by the criminal defendant.”84

      In contrast to Brafman, Jane testified that when she began thinking

about reporting Sanchez’s abuse, she kept the text messages he sent her. She

explained that after she reported Sanchez, Det. Lester had her come to the

police station, screenshot the text messages, and print them directly to the

station’s printer. Det. Lester testified he was present at the police station when

Jane printed the messages and watched her unlock her phone, screenshot, and

print them. When Jane was shown the exhibit of the screenshots, she

identified them as the messages Sanchez sent her and the ones she printed at

the police station. The exhibit itself appears to be screenshots taken on an

iPhone from the contact “Dad.” The messages have corresponding dates and

times, frequently refer to Jane by name, and are clearly related to the sex

crimes for which Sanchez was charged. Moreover, Jane testified that Sanchez’s

phone number was (606-***-****) and that her phone number was (606-***-

****)85. Both phone numbers were also written on the sheet of paper Jane used

to pinpoint dates of the abuse while at the CAC. Both phone numbers were

later confirmed by the detective that performed a forensic search of Sanchez’s

phone, and several messages extracted from Sanchez’s phone matched

messages found within the screenshots.

      84 Id. at 867-68.

      85 As it is unknown whether the victim continues to use this cellphone number,

we have omitted it.
                                            27
      Obviously, the screenshots here do not suffer from the overt lack of

authentication that was present in Brafman. The trial court was presented

with more than enough evidence to conclude, through a discerning eye, that

the screenshots were what they were purported to be. We consequently hold

that the screenshots were properly authenticated, and the trial court did not

abuse its discretion.

      Next, regarding the videos, Jane testified that she recorded the videos on

her phone. The exhibit itself is footage from Det. Lester’s bodycam while he

and Jane are sitting in his cruiser. In the bodycam footage, Det. Lester takes

the phone from Jane and plays the videos. He then notes the dates the videos

were recorded based on the dates at the top of their respective interfaces. Det.

Lester testified the video was an accurate reflection of what he recorded on his

bodycam. Sanchez argues to this Court that the videos were not properly

authenticated because no forensic search was done of Jane’s phone, and he

was not given the opportunity to examine Jane’s phone. We disagree. KRE

901(a) provides that to authenticate a piece of evidence as a condition

precedent to admissibility “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a

finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.” Det. Lester’s

testimony that the recording accurately reflected the footage he captured using

his bodycam was sufficient to meet this low bar for admissibility. The trial

court did not abuse its discretion by admitting them.

C. Sanchez was not entitled to a missing evidence instruction.

      Sanchez next alleges he was entitled to a missing evidence jury

instruction for his cellphone.
                                           28
      Det. Littrell, the digital forensics expert that performed the forensic

search of Sanchez’s phone, testified that different kinds of data extractions can

be performed on a cellphone depending on its manufacturer and model. Det.

Littrell first attempted to perform a “physical extraction” on Sanchez’s phone, a

Samsung Galaxy S5. A physical extraction makes an exact copy of the memory

chip, including things that have been deleted, and can be performed by simply

plugging the phone into an “examination machine” via its USB port. Det.

Littrell attempted to plug Sanchez’s phone into several different examination

machines, all with different USB cords, and continued to get an error message

concerning the cellphone’s USB port. He concluded this meant that the USB

port was not functioning properly and therefore a physical extraction would not

be possible.

      Instead, Det. Littrell opted to perform a “chip-off extraction.” A chip-off

extraction involves removing a phone’s internal memory chip and placing it in a

“special reader.” Because the memory chip is soldered in place inside the

cellphone, a chip-off extraction requires that the cellphone itself be destroyed.

Det. Littrell explained that none of the data extracted from the cellphone is

affected, but the cellphone itself is rendered “useless.” Det. Littrell further

testified that any party to a criminal case can access the data file from a data

extraction unless it contains child exploitation material.

      While discussing jury instructions, the defense requested a missing

evidence instruction for Sanchez’s cellphone. It argued that it had filed a pre-

trial notice not to destroy evidence, and that it had not been given notice that

the phone would be destroyed. The Commonwealth responded that the defense
                                     29
had presented no evidence of bad faith by law enforcement and that the phone

itself contained no evidence after the chip-off extraction was performed. The

trial court declined to provide the jury with a missing evidence instruction. We

will accordingly review this issue for abuse of discretion86 and will reverse only

if the trial court’s omission of a missing evidence instruction was “arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”87

      A missing-evidence instruction is one way to cure an alleged
      violation of due process per Brady v. Maryland, [373 U.S. 83
      (1963)] other than dismissal of the charge altogether or exclusion
      of the Commonwealth's evidence outright, the latter two being the
      more drastic remedies. Entitlement to the instruction arises when
      purportedly exculpatory evidence was destroyed by the
      Commonwealth intentionally or inadvertently “outside of normal
      practices,” or when such evidence was so significant and forever
      lost that it compromises the defendant's due-process right to a fair
      trial.88

Before this Court, Sanchez does not allege any bad faith by the

Commonwealth, or that his phone would have contained exculpatory evidence.

Indeed, it was undisputed that a chip-off extraction destroys the phone itself

while preserving the data extracted from it. Instead, he urges this Court to

abandon the bad faith requirement for a missing evidence instruction in

criminal cases and adopt the standard applied in civil cases. To prove

entitlement to a missing evidence instruction in civil litigation, a litigant “only

[has] to show that the opposing party had exclusive control over the evidence

      86 See, e.g., Sutton v. Commonwealth, 627 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Ky. 2021).

      87 English, 993 S.W.2d at 945.

      88 Dooley v. Commonwealth, 626 S.W.3d 487, 502 (Ky. 2021).

                                            30
when it went missing and that the evidence is missing without explanation.”89

Sanchez points to this Court’s dicta in Dooley v. Commonwealth that “our

historical imposition of a higher burden on criminal defendants than civil

litigants is more than curious[,]” and urges us to join several of our sister

states in lowering that burden. However, while we stand by our statement in

Dooley that we may soon have to address those disparate standards,90 this is

simply not the case in which to do it. After the chip-off extraction was

performed, Sanchez’s cellphone contained no evidence whatsoever, exculpatory

or otherwise, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Sanchez’s request for a missing evidence instruction.

D. Sanchez waived his argument that each of the first-degree rape
   instructions contained a unanimous verdict violation.

      Sanchez next contends that each of the nine first-degree rape

instructions contained a unanimous verdict violation. Sanchez acknowledges

this alleged error is unpreserved, and requests review for palpable error under

RCr 10.26. The Commonwealth contends that Sanchez waived this argument

by agreeing to the jury instructions that were ultimately submitted to the jury,

and we agree.

      To begin, we note that although the video record indicates that Sanchez

tendered his own proposed jury instructions to the trial court, those proposed

instructions were not included in the record now before us. The absence of

Sanchez’s tendered jury instructions leaves this Court unable to say whether

      89 Id. at 502.

      90 Id. at 503.

                                           31
his tendered instructions contained the same alleged errors he now argues

require reversal.91 In addition, during the parties’ discussion of the jury

instructions with the trial court they agreed to separate each of the first-degree

sexual abuse counts into two separate instructions—one based on forcible

compulsion and one based on Sanchez’s and Jane’s respective ages—to avoid a

unanimous verdict violation. The defense then stated that its only other

objection to the jury instructions was a lack of a missing evidence instruction

as discussed supra. After the motion to include a missing evidence instruction

was denied, the following exchange occurred:

      Defense: Are we finished then?
      Court: I think we’ve agreed. The only thing you didn’t agree on
           was preservation of the evidence.
      Defense: Missing evidence, yes.
      Court: So, we just need to review it after it’s printed.
      Defense: Right.

By expressly agreeing to the jury instructions, apart from the absence of a

missing evidence instruction, Sanchez waived his ability to now challenge those

instructions on appeal.92

      At any rate, even if this Court were to review for palpable error as

Sanchez has requested, the challenged instructions do not contain a palpable

unanimous verdict violation. Section 7 of the Kentucky Constitution requires a

unanimous jury verdict.93 As is relevant here, “a general jury verdict based on

      91 See, e.g., Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014).

       92 Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 38 (Ky. 2011) (“[I]nvited errors

that amount to a waiver, i.e., invitations that reflect the party's knowing
relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review.”).
      93 See, e.g., Ruiz v. Commonwealth, 471 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Ky. 2015).

                                             32
an instruction including two or more separate instances of a criminal offense,

whether explicitly stated in the instruction or based on the proof—violates the

requirement of a unanimous verdict.”94

      This type of unanimous-verdict violation occurs when a jury
      instruction may be satisfied by multiple criminal acts by the
      defendant. When that is the case, and the instruction does not
      specify which specific act it is meant to cover, we cannot be sure
      that the jurors were unanimous in concluding the defendant
      committed a single act satisfying the instruction. Instead, the
      jury's verdict only reflects their unanimous view that the defendant
      committed the crime, without necessarily resulting in a unanimous
      conclusion that the defendant committed a single criminal act
      beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in those circumstances, the
      jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict.95

      Sanchez argues that the first-degree rape instructions suffered from the

same unanimity problem because, although each instruction contained a

specific date, Jane testified that she only believed she had been raped on those

respective dates because of the content of the text messages she reviewed at

the CAC. But, he argues, she also testified that the rapes would occur up to

three times a week and there is accordingly no way to know which criminal act

the jury found him guilty of. Sanchez further contends that the

Commonwealth compounded this problem by stating during its closing

argument that the precise dates did not matter because the instructions said

“on or about” and that “[i]t doesn’t matter if it’s on or about. It could be that

      94 Johnson v. Commonwealth, 405 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2013), overruled on other

grounds by Johnson v. Commonwealth, 2021-SC-0541-MR, - - - S.W.3d - - -, 2023 WL
4037845 (Ky. June 15, 2023).
      95 Martin v. Commonwealth, 456 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2015), overruled on other

grounds by Johnson v. Commonwealth, 2021-SC-0541-MR, - - - S.W.3d - - -, 2023 WL
4037845 (Ky. June 15, 2023), abrogated on other grounds by Sexton v. Commonwealth,
647 S.W.3d 227 (Ky. 2022).
                                            33
week. And she told you every single week he would rape her. Every single

week.”

      First, Sanchez’s misrepresentation of the Commonwealth’s closing

argument should be clarified. For each of the nine first-degree rape

instructions, the Commonwealth stated the specific date that rape was alleged

to have occurred. It then walked through all the evidence that was presented

in relation to a rape occurring on that date. The quote that Sanchez refers to

supra was specifically related to Count 6, concerning a rape occurring on or

about August 9. As noted, Jane had inadvertently identified August 4 while at

the CAC, but the text she identified had been sent on August 9. The

Commonwealth explained this and then argued, “But it’s August 9, she just

wrote down the wrong date on here. So, it’s the same exact message. It

doesn’t matter if it’s on or about, it could be that week. And she told you every

single week he would rape her. Every single week.” We further highlight that

Count 6 was the only count that alleged a rape had occurred in August.

      Moreover, as the Commonwealth correctly argues, “proof of the precise

dates on which the offenses were committed is not required of a child sexual

abuse victim where the evidence is ample to separately identify the various

offenses charged.”96 Here, for Counts 1-6, the dates of the rapes were

identified based on the dates and content of the messages exchanged between

Jane and Sanchez; for Count 7, the date was determined based on both a video

recording and text messages exchanged on the alleged date of the offense; and

      96 Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566, 576 (Ky. 2002) (internal

quotation marks omitted).
                                          34
Jane testified she specifically remembered rapes occurring on the dates

provided for in Counts 8 and 9, respectively. Moreover, one of the video

recordings of Jane being raped occurred on the date provided for Count 8, and

text messages were connected to the date for Count 9.

        At bottom, even if this Court were to find that any of the first-degree rape

instructions suffered from a unanimous verdict violation, based on the

foregoing we could not hold that “the error was so manifest, fundamental, and

unambiguous that it threatens the integrity of the judicial process,” or that the

error was “so egregious that it jumps off the page . . . and cries out for relief.”97

Sanchez would accordingly not be entitled to relief under palpable error review.

E. The trial court’s imposition of public defender fees against Sanchez
   was error and is hereby vacated.

        Sanchez next contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay a

$50 public defender fee in both 17-CR-00062 and 17-CR-00020, which were

later consolidated for the trial at issue herein. We agree. Kentucky Revised

Statute (KRS) 31.120 provides the process by which a trial court is to

determine whether a person meets the definition of “needy” for the purposes of,

inter alia, the appointment of a public defender. The statute states in relevant

part:

        (1) (a) The determination of whether a person covered by KRS
            31.110 is a needy person shall be deferred no later than his or
            her first appearance in court or in a suit for payment or
            reimbursement under KRS 31.211, whichever occurs earlier.

        97 Johnson, 2021-SC-0541-MR, - - -S.W.3d - - -, 2023 WL 4037845 at *8. We
note that Johnson became final on September 28, 2023, when the petition for
rehearing in that case was denied. See Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (RAP)
40(G)(3)(a).
                                             35
             (b) The court of competent jurisdiction in which the
             case is pending shall then determine, with respect to
             each step in the proceedings, whether he or she is a
             needy person. However, nothing shall prevent
             appointment of counsel at the earliest necessary
             proceeding at which the person is entitled to counsel,
             upon declaration by the person that he or she is needy
             under the terms of this chapter. In that event, the
             person involved shall be required to make
             reimbursement for the representation if he or she later
             is determined not a needy person under the terms of
             this chapter.

             (c) A person who, after conviction, is sentenced while
             being represented by a public defender shall continue
             to be presumed a needy person, and the court, at the
             time of sentencing, shall enter an Order In Forma
             Pauperis for purposes of appeal without having to
             show further proof of continued indigency, unless the
             court finds good cause after a hearing to determine
             that the defendant should not continue to be
             considered an indigent person.98

Sanchez was represented by a public defender throughout the proceedings

below as well as at the time of his sentencing and was granted in forma

pauperis status on appeal. No hearing occurred wherein the trial court

determined that Sanchez should not continue to be considered an indigent

person. Absent such a hearing and determination by the trial court, the

imposition of public defender fees was error and we now vacate the trial court’s

orders imposing a $50 public defender fee in 17-CR-00062 and 17-CR-00020,

respectively.99

      98 KRS 31.120(1)(a)-(c) (emphasis added).

      99 Accord Spicer v. Commonwealth, 442 S.W.3d 26, 34-35 (Ky. 2014).

                                            36
F. Cumulative error did not occur.

      In the event this Court were to hold that none of the foregoing alleged

errors were individually reversible, Sanchez requests that we reverse based on

cumulative error. Under the cumulative error doctrine “multiple errors,

although harmless individually, may be deemed reversible if their cumulative

effect is to render the trial fundamentally unfair. We have found cumulative

error only where the individual errors were themselves substantial, bordering,

at least, on the prejudicial.”100 Those circumstances are not present in this

case, and we accordingly hold that cumulative error did not occur.

                            III.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, we affirm Sanchez’s convictions and sentence

and reverse and vacate the trial court’s orders that he pay public defender fees.

      All sitting. All concur.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Robert Chung-Hua Yang
Assistant Public Advocate

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel J. Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky

Christopher Henry
Assistant Attorney General

      100 Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577, 631 (Ky. 2010).

                                          37