Nunley v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Charles W. Nunley II’s convictions for three counts of sodomy against his stepdaughter. The court held that the mid-trial disclosure of the victim’s prior counseling did not warrant a mistrial under Brady v. Maryland, particularly because the prosecution did not possess or know of the information and the defense had addressed it at trial. The court also upheld the trial court’s decision to excuse a juror who had interacted with the defendant’s supporters.

Holdings

1. No. Brady did not apply because the record did not establish that the Commonwealth possessed, knew of, controlled, or had access to the information about the victim's 2006 counseling. In addition, the defense learned of and cross-examined the victim about the evidence during trial, and the late discovery did not create a manifest necessity for a mistrial.
2. No. Although the juror was not properly designated as an alternate under the ordinary agreement-or-random-selection procedure, the substance of the trial court's action was a for-cause strike. The court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror whose impartiality was reasonably in doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth's failure to disclose before trial that the victim had attended counseling in 2006 violated Brady v. Maryland and required a mistrial.
2. Whether the trial court improperly removed a seated juror by designating him as an alternate after concerns arose about his communications with persons associated with the defendant's supporters.

Disposition

affirmed