Court Opinion

ID: 9390706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 14:05:00.552444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.364993
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 21, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2022-CA-0247-MR

JERRY BEASLEY                                                         APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM WOLFE CIRCUIT COURT
v.            HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 20-CR-00016

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: On February 7, 2022, Appellant, Jerry Beasley, entered a

conditional guilty plea in Wolfe Circuit Court to one count of first-degree sexual

abuse involving a victim under twelve years’ of age. Therein, he reserved the right

to appeal the court’s order denying his motion to exclude evidence that he exposed

his genitals to the victim, and also showed her pornography. After a hearing on the

matter, the circuit court denied the motion on the basis that this evidence was
admissible pursuant, in part, to KRE1 404(b). In its five-page order the court

concluded that:

               based on the case law cited above, the fact that the
               uncharged conduct involves the same alleged victim, and
               it being similar to the nature of the charged conduct, the
               Court finds that the uncharged acts of prior viewing of
               alleged pornography and prior exposure of genitals is
               relevant, probative and not substantially prejudicial.

Beasley was ultimately sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, probated for five

years. He now appeals to this court as a matter of right. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

                                  STANDARD OF REVIEW

               KRE 404(b) prohibits the introduction of evidence of any other crime,

wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that

on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Such

conduct is only admissible “[i]f offered for some other purpose, such as proof of

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of

mistake or accident[.]” Id.

                     The standard of review of an evidentiary ruling is
               abuse of discretion. The test for an abuse of discretion
               “is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,
               unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
               principles.” This Court will not disturb the trial court’s
               decision to admit evidence absent an abuse of discretion.

1
    Kentucky Rules of Evidence.

                                           -2-
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117, 119 (Ky. 2007) (footnotes and

citations omitted). With these standards in mind, we now turn to the merits of the

present case.

                                      ANALYSIS

                On June 8, 2020, Jerry Beasley was indicted by a Wolfe County grand

jury on one count of first-degree sexual abuse. In the bill of particulars, the

Commonwealth set out the acts serving as the basis for the offense as follows:

[The victim] alleged that sometime between 2013 and 2016, Beasley 1.) showed

her pornography ten to fifteen times; 2.) exposed himself to her four times – once

in the basement of his house, twice in the bathroom of his residence, and once in

his body shop/garage; and 3.) on one occasion, lifted her shirt and kissed her

breasts.

                “[P]rior acts committed against the same victim, similar to the

conduct on trial, will often if not usually, have relevance other than merely

establishing a propensity to commit the crime charged, thus falling within the KRE

404(b) exception.” Gullett v. Commonwealth, 514 S.W.3d 518, 530 (Ky. 2017)

(citing Driver v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Ky. 2012)). In addition to

this general admonition, both parties cite to additional authority in support of their

positions. Compare Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 740, 746 (Ky. 2005)

(reversing, in part due to the erroneous admission of evidence that defendant

                                           -3-
exposed himself and showed pornography to a different victim) with Gilbert v.

Commonwealth, 838 S.W.2d 376, 378 (Ky. 1991) (holding that evidence the

defendant gave his stepdaughters marijuana and alcohol and forced them to watch

sexually explicit movies was part of an “overall scheme” to engage in sexual

intercourse with them). Having considered the record and authority advanced by

the parties, we believe that the conduct at issue here is admissible pursuant to KRE

404(b). We certainly cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion

here.

                                 CONCLUSION

             For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the circuit court’s order

entered on November 16, 2021, and the court’s Judgment and Sentence entered on

February 8, 2022.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Darrell A. Herald                         Daniel Cameron
Jackson, Kentucky                         Attorney General of Kentucky

                                          Mark D. Barry
                                          Assistant Attorney General
                                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                                        -4-