Danny Guy Hayes v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Danny Guy Hayes's convictions for first-degree sodomy and second-degree persistent felony offender. The court held that Hayes could not preserve an objection to the potential use of a prior conviction for impeachment because he did not testify, and it overruled contrary language in Mathews v. Commonwealth concerning avowal testimony. The court also rejected claims based on a prosecutor's voir dire comment and the sufficiency of the evidence of forcible compulsion.

Holdings

1. To raise and preserve for appellate review a claim that the prosecution improperly could impeach the defendant with a prior conviction, the defendant must testify.
2. Under RCr 9.52, avowal testimony is proper only when the trial court expressly prevents a witness from testifying in some respect; an alleged denial of the right to testify by implication cannot be preserved through avowal testimony.
3. The trial court did not err in allowing the trial to proceed where the prosecutor made a disputed comment during voir dire, defense counsel obtained the relief requested, and counsel did not request an admonition or other curative action.
4. The evidence was sufficient to establish forcible compulsion and support submission of the case to the jury; therefore, the trial court properly denied the directed-verdict motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hayes preserved for appellate review his challenge to the trial court's ruling that a prior sexual-assault conviction could be used to impeach him if he testified.
2. Whether the prosecutor's comment during voir dire about when Hayes admitted sexual contact was so prejudicial that it required reversal despite Hayes's failure to request an admonition or other curative relief.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish forcible compulsion and support denial of Hayes's motion for a directed verdict.
4. Whether avowal testimony under RCr 9.52 may preserve an alleged denial of the right to testify by implication when the trial court did not expressly prevent the defendant from testifying.

Disposition

affirmed