Court Opinion

ID: 9408952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 14:06:52.981457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.005005
License: Public Domain

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                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-0625-MR

DONALD HOSKINS                                                        APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM TRIMBLE CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE JERRY D. CROSBY, II, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 19-CR-00032

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: In this criminal case, the Appellant, Donald Hoskins (Hoskins),

appeals his conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and his

sentence of 15-years’ imprisonment.

             Hoskins was indicted for three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a

victim under 12 years of age. In 2009, Hoskins’s longtime friend, Jeana, was

divorced and needed a place to stay. Hoskins allowed Jeana; her two sons; and her

then ten-year-old daughter, H.L., to move in with him. Jeana and her three
children lived with Hoskins from January 2009 until April 2010. After they moved

out, Jeana remarried. Her husband, Mickey Gonterman, is a Kentucky State Police

(KSP) Trooper.

             Some ten years later, in 2019, H.L. disclosed to her mother, Jeana,

that Hoskins had sexually assaulted her on three occasions beginning in January

2009. The next day, March 30, 2019, Jeana confronted Hoskins about the

allegations, which he denied. Later that day, Hoskins texted Jeana’s husband,

Mickey. The two men met in a school parking lot to talk.

             Mickey was in his personal vehicle and recorded the conversation on

his cell phone. In that recording, Hoskins admitted to being drunk and thought that

maybe his penis fell out of his boxer shorts when he reached over to get the

television remote from H.L. Ultimately, Hoskins admitted having put H.L.’s hand

on his penis -- once. Hoskins did not think that it could have happened more than

twice or three times “at the most.” Hoskins knew that it was wrong. Hoskins and

Mickey met again in the parking lot on April 1, 2019, and that conversation was

also recorded. Hoskins said he thought that it happened “at the most three” times.

Both recordings were played for the jury.

             On April 3, 2019, Jeana and Mickey met with Hoskins in the parking

lot. That conversation was also recorded and was played for the jury. Hoskins

said that the first time was inadvertent -- that he was reaching for the television

                                          -2-
remote while in his underwear. Hoskins admitted to putting H.L.’s hand on his

penis twice. That day, Hoskins sent Mickey a text message apologizing to H.L.

and Jeana. That message was shown and was also read to the jury during Mickey’s

testimony.

              KSP Detective Dave Roberts investigated the case. Detective Roberts

conducted a recorded interview of Hoskins in which he admitted that he made H.L.

touch his penis. That audio recording was also played for the jury.

              At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Hoskins’s attorney

advised that Hoskins would testify. The trial court asked Hoskins if he understood

his right to remain silent. Hoskins affirmed that he did but that he had made the

decision to testify after consulting with his attorney. The Commonwealth stated

that it believed Hoskins could open the door to what the court had redacted from

the recorded statements.1 However, the trial court did not agree that it would allow

the Commonwealth to ask questions concerning evidence of other crimes. The

trial court took a break so that defense counsel could speak with Hoskins.

              The parties reconvened in chambers about 14 minutes later. The court

said it wanted to make sure of the status. The court stated that if Hoskins took the

1
  By Orders entered January 24, 2022, the trial court noted that the Commonwealth had not made
a motion pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 404(b) for introduction of prior bad
acts or uncharged acts. The trial court excluded/redacted any references in the recorded
statements to allegations regarding uncharged acts of oral sodomy and to victim impact evidence.

                                              -3-
stand, he would potentially open the door “for a lot of stuff to come in that was not

coming in.” The court explained that it was “still reluctant to give the

Commonwealth leeway” to ask about uncharged acts, but that “if the defendant

puts his character into play, the Commonwealth’s cross-examination can go down

a lot of different ways.” Defense counsel stated he had tried to explain it to his

client. The trial court stated as follows:

                    the best I can do to advise you to and create a level
             playing field for everybody, but please understand the
             Commonwealth does get to cross and if your character is
             put into question the Commonwealth does get to into
             different areas that they may not have explored before.

The court again allowed defense counsel time to discuss the matter with Hoskins.

             Approximately 12 minutes later, defense counsel advised the court

that after further consideration, Hoskins had decided not to testify. The trial court

reiterated that if the defendant put his good character in issue, the Commonwealth

would have the right to rebut that with evidence of bad character.

             The jury convicted Hoskins of two counts of first-degree sexual

abuse, victim under 12, and acquitted him of the third count. He was sentenced to

15-years’ imprisonment.

             In his appeal, Hoskins argues that the trial court “improperly coerced

him” into relinquishing his right to testify. The “denial of a defendant’s right to

testify on his or her own behalf is a constitutional ‘trial-type’ error that is amenable

                                             -4-
to the harmless error analysis . . . .” Quarels v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 73, 82

(Ky. 2004). Hoskins concedes that the issue was not preserved2 and requests

palpable error review under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26.3

               For an error to be palpable, it must be easily perceptible,
               plain, obvious and readily noticeable. A palpable error
               must involve prejudice more egregious than that
               occurring in reversible error[.] A palpable error must be
               so grave in nature that if it were uncorrected, it would
               seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings. Thus,
               what a palpable error analysis boils down to is whether
               the reviewing court believes there is a substantial
               possibility that the result in the case would have been
               different without the error. If not, the error cannot be
               palpable.

Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006) (internal quotation

marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).

               Hoskins contends that the trial court incorrectly warned him that if he

testified, “it could open the door to all kinds of things that the court ha[d]

previously excluded from trial.” Hoskins explains that the “only things the court

had previously excluded” were in its orders regarding the recorded conversations

2
  As our Supreme Court explained in Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Ky. 2006), the
concepts of palpable error and harmless error are distinct. “A claim of palpable error
presupposes a lack of preservation . . . . Harmless error, on the other hand, presupposes
preservation . . . .” Id.

3
  In relevant part RCr 10.26 provides that “[a] palpable error which affects the substantial rights
of a party may be considered . . . by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently
raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that
manifest injustice has resulted from the error.”

                                                -5-
as noted above. Hoskins contends that his testimony could not have opened the

door to admission of hearsay allegations of uncharged offenses or victim impact

evidence “as these type[s] of evidence are inadmissible regardless of whether the

defendant testified.” Hoskins also claims that instead of preserving the issue,

defense counsel “joined in coercing the defendant into not testifying[.]”

                Hoskins relies upon Woolfolk v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 411, 418

(Ky. 2011), which holds that “the trial court’s inaccurate warning to a criminal

defendant that a perjury charge is a likely consequence of his election to testify,

when in fact it is not, is always error.” Hoskins also draws our attention to an

unpublished decision of this Court, Doe v. Ramey, No. 2018-CA-001154-DG, 2020

WL 1898418, at *8 (Ky. App. Apr. 17, 2020), for the proposition that “[a] waiver

of [the defendant’s] right to present his own testimony as evidence could not be

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made where he was given inaccurate

advice by the district court.” We have reviewed these cases, and we conclude that

they are distinguishable from the case before us and offer no basis for us to reverse

in this case.

                There is no evidence to support Hoskins’s claim that he was coerced

by the trial court. Nor is there any error. As the Commonwealth observes, the trial

court cautioned Hoskins about the “possibility” of the admissibility of rebuttal

character evidence -- if he opened the door. “The prosecutor may introduce

                                          -6-
evidence of the accused’s bad character only to rebut evidence of the accused’s

good character[.]” Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 740, 745 (Ky. 2005).

             Even were we to assume, arguendo, that the trial court’s cautioning

Hoskins was error, it would not rise to the level of palpable error. The evidence

against Hoskins was overwhelming. The jury heard the recordings. They heard

Hoskins admit -- several times -- that he put H.L.’s hand on his penis. We do not

believe that “there is a substantial possibility that the result in the case would have

been different without the error.” Brewer, supra (internal quotation marks

omitted).

             Accordingly, we affirm.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Michael L. Goodwin                         Daniel Cameron
 Rob Eggert                                 Attorney General of Kentucky
 Louisville, Kentucky
                                            Melissa A. Pile
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                            Frankfort, Kentucky

                                          -7-