Kreps v. Commonwealth

286 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. 2009) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · June 25, 2009 · No. 2007-SC-000814-MR

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that Raymond Kreps's taped police statement was made during plea discussions with a prosecuting authority and was therefore inadmissible under KRE 410. Because the statement was an important and damaging part of the Commonwealth's case, the court reversed Kreps's convictions for four counts of rape and remanded for a new trial. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the victim's prior allegation of abuse.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Justice Abramson
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
June 25, 2009
Docket number
2007-SC-000814-MR
Procedural posture
Kreps appealed as a matter of right from his Graves Circuit Court convictions for two counts of second-degree rape and two counts of third-degree rape and his twenty-year consecutive sentence.
Standard of review
The admissibility of the taped statement under KRE 410 was reviewed under the applicable legal standard for determining whether a statement was made during plea discussions. The exclusion of evidence concerning the victim's prior abuse allegation was reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Raymond Kreps v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

plea bargainingevidencecriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Criminal procedureEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kreps's recorded police statement was made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority and therefore was inadmissible under KRE 410.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Kreps's prior felony convictions and pending charges through the recorded statement.
  3. Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of A.S.'s prior allegation of sexual abuse by another person without conducting a separate admissibility hearing.

Holdings

  1. Kreps's recorded statement was made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority and should have been excluded under KRE 410.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of A.S.'s allegation, made when she was approximately six years old, that another child had abused her, and by declining to conduct a separate admissibility hearing.

Key quotations

KRE 410(4) prohibits the admission at trial of "any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn." (218)
Based on "the totality of the objective circumstances," it was reasonable for Kreps to expect that he was participating in a plea negotiation and that he would be charged with Class D felonies that would run concurrently if he confessed. (220)

Factual background

Thirteen-year-old A.S. moved into the home of Raymond and Renee Kreps in July 2004. After allegations arose that Kreps had engaged in sexual intercourse with A.S., Kreps voluntarily went to the sheriff's office and was interviewed by police. During the interview, an officer communicated that the prosecutor would reduce the charges to Class D felonies and run them concurrently, after which Kreps confessed to having sex with A.S. and the recorded statement was played for the jury.

Procedural history

A Graves County grand jury indicted Kreps on four rape counts. Following a jury trial, the Graves Circuit Court entered judgment on October 16, 2007, imposing five years on each count to run consecutively. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that Kreps's taped police statement was inadmissible under KRE 410, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Remand instructions

The October 16, 2007 judgment of the Graves Circuit Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial and subsequent proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…