Court Opinion

ID: 9683928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:40:37.647647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:51.408993
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with so much of the majority opinion that upholds the validity of the statute in question. However, I disagree with the result achieved by the majority insofar as it reverses the conviction and remands for a new trial. I also disagree with the analysis and result found in the portions of the opinion labeled jury instructions and “other bad acts.”
The evidence presented at trial against the defendant was sufficient to withstand his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. The trial judge properly denied the motion, and the defendant’s conviction does not violate his first amendment rights. The jury instructions did not violate the due process rights of the defendant nor did it criminalize “simple nudity.” KRS 531.320 is constitutional. This is not a case of simple nudity.
In this case, the defendant testified in his own defense and admitted taking the photographs, but he maintained that he did so, not for his own sexual gratification, but instead, to entice two neighborhood girls into having sex with him. When the defendant testified that he did not experience sexual gratification when he took the nude photograph, he opened the door for rebuttal testimony by the prosecution which was to the effect that his motive was sexual gratification. Here, the prior bad acts involved were not too remote in time to be inadmissible. The evidence was properly admitted pursuant to KRE 404(b)(1) because it was intended to show the motive or intent in committing the crime.
Under all the circumstances, any possible error was harmless because the defendant testified that he took the picture of the boy for the sexual gratification of others. I would affirm the conviction in all respects.
GRAVES, J., joins this opinion.