Court Opinion

ID: 9386983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 14:04:43.802164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.383765
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 7, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2022-CA-0155-MR

WILLIAM CONNER                                                         APPELLANT

                   APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE JOHN F. VINCENT, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 19-CR-00075

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                 APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: The Appellant (“Conner”) contends the Boyd Circuit Court

erred by not directing a verdict in his favor in this flagrant non-support case. As

the circuit court did not err based on the evidence presented to the jury, we

affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             Conner had a child with Alberta Conner (now Henderson). Conner

was required to pay child support by an order entered by a West Virginia court,

where the child lived after the divorce. Conner eventually resettled to the Rush

community in Boyd County, Kentucky. In February 2001, Conner stopped making

child support payments when a court order discontinued his visitation. Conner told

his ex-wife he would make no further payments, and he made no further voluntary

payments. At the time of the trial, Conner owed over $85,000. This is all

arrearage for past payments owed. The child was 24 years old at the time of the

trial.

             The Commonwealth presented evidence at the jury trial of the

preceding circumstances. In addition, the child support case worker for Boyd

County further explained the history of payments received over the years which

resulted from tax refund intercepts, attachment, and wage garnishments. At the

conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Conner moved for a directed verdict

because the Commonwealth presented no evidence to show Conner could

“reasonably provide” support. The circuit court denied the motion.

             In his case, Conner presented evidence about a medical condition

resulting from a tick bite. Specifically, Conner referred to ehrlichiosis, a tick-

borne bacterial infection which may result in severe symptoms, especially if not

                                          -2-
treated early enough when milder symptoms first present. Testimony about these

symptoms was provided by a treatment provider who was not a physician. This

provider noted improvement in Conner’s condition. This condition was a

relatively recent development. The treatment provider witness admitted she had no

information about Conner’s abilities in the decades prior to this condition.

                Conner testified about his condition which resulted from a tick bite in

July of 2018. He told of the continuing effects, including memory problems,

which he did not have prior to the illness. Conner has not worked since

contracting his illness. Conner talked about his prior telecommunications work all

over the country for years and other work he had in the months prior to the tick

bite. Conner’s sister testified Conner not only did telecommunications (fiber

optics) work in the past but also did work as an independent contractor and odd

jobs. Conner applied for disability, but according to Conner, that did not “turn

out.”1

                  Collection of the child support was first attempted by a civil action

filed in 2016. Conner managed financially to retain counsel to represent him in

that case. In November of 2018, after a delay of two and half years, Conner signed

an agreed order to make payments of $300 per month. He made none. There was

1
    Trial Record 11-8-2021 at 11:10:35-11:10:45.

                                               -3-
no explanation for the lack of payments while the civil case was pending prior to

the unfortunate tick bite.

             At the close of all evidence, Conner renewed his motion for a directed

verdict. The trial court again denied the motion. The jury convicted Conner, and

the circuit court sentenced him to serve four years in prison.

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

             The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the circuit court erred

in denying Conner’s motion for a directed verdict.

             On motion for directed verdict, the trial court must draw
             all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in
             favor of the Commonwealth. If the evidence is sufficient
             to induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a
             reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed
             verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on
             the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence
             for the Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury
             questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to
             such testimony.

Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky. 1991). “On appellate

review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would

be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled

to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Id.

                                     ANALYSIS

             To evaluate the directed verdict decision, we should review the

elements of the offense of flagrant non-support. The Commonwealth must prove

                                           -4-
Conner knew of the obligation and that he persistently failed to provide support

which he “can reasonably provide.” Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”)

530.050(2). Conner’s failure to make payments which he could reasonably have

made must result in an arrearage of at least $2,500 or six consecutive months

without payment of support or leaving the child in destitute circumstances. KRS

530.050(2)(a)-(c).

             In its case in chief, the Commonwealth presented some circumstantial

evidence about Conner’s ability to work and thus to provide some support.

Payments had been made from earnings Conner was able to make as indicated by

repeated wage garnishments and tax intercepts and one attachment of a bank

account (which Conner later confirmed was for $9,000). The case worker had

received no indication of an inability to work. The testimony presented for Conner

before the renewed motion for directed verdict was made after the close of

Conner’s case added to the evidence of his work history.

             Conner correctly cites Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d

830 (Ky. 2003), for the proposition the Commonwealth has the burden to prove the

element of a defendant being able to reasonably provide support. It is not an

affirmative defense. Schoenbachler also explains the effort of a defendant to be

considered. The jury may consider “times when he had the money to pay his child

support, but paid other expenses instead.” Id. at 838. In the present case, there

                                         -5-
were clearly many times when Conner could have paid support and chose not to

resulting in the huge arrearage of more than $85,000.

             Conner relies greatly on the impact of his illness beginning in 2018.

The payment inactivity after 2018 is not really the main point, because the child

was emancipated by then and the arrearage was no longer growing. The jury was

entitled to consider the whole history and decide if, even with some periods of not

being able to reasonably provide support, there were other periods where the

failure to provide support resulted in an arrearage of at least $2,500 or satisfaction

of the other statutory factors. When we consider all the evidence, we hold the

circuit court did not err in denying the directed verdict motion.

                Conner makes another argument basically to the effect the inability to

make the payments under the agreed order in the related civil collection case

somehow implicates that body of law governing when a court may revoke

probation in child support cases. See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 345 S.W.3d 822

(Ky. 2011). The specific due process requirements of revoking probation have no

applicability to the initial determination of guilt to flagrant non-support. Again,

the determination was not limited to considering only the period after the 2018

illness, which included Conner’s complete failure to make payments under the

agreed order.

                                          -6-
                               CONCLUSION

            The Boyd Circuit Court did not err in denying Conner’s motion for a

directed verdict. The judgment based upon the jury verdict is AFFIRMED.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                   BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Karen Shuff Maurer                      Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky                     Attorney General of Kentucky

                                        Stephanie L. McKeehan
                                        Assistant Attorney General
                                        Frankfort, Kentucky

                                      -7-