Stinson v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in a first-degree sexual abuse case involving KRS 510.110(1)(d). The court held that lack of consent is satisfied when a minor under eighteen is subjected to sexual contact by a person in a position of authority or special trust, without requiring additional proof of lack of consent. The court also rejected the appellant’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges to the statute.

Holdings

1. Lack of consent remains an element of the sexual-abuse offense, but under KRS 510.110(1)(d) it is established by proof that the victim was under eighteen and was subjected to sexual contact by a person in a position of authority or special trust with whom the victim came into contact as a result of that position; the prosecution need not prove an additional, separate lack of consent.
2. The appellant lacked standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge because the statute did not implicate First Amendment freedoms and was plainly applicable to his conduct. In any event, the statute and KRS 532.045 provide sufficient definiteness to give ordinary people fair notice and to discourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
3. The appellant lacked standing to bring an overbreadth challenge because the statute did not implicate the First Amendment. Even if he had standing, the challenge would fail because the statute regulates sexual conduct involving a minor under eighteen and a person in a position of authority or special trust, rather than constitutionally protected conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether lack of consent is an element of first-degree sexual abuse under KRS 510.110(1)(d).
2. Whether KRS 510.110(1)(d), including its references to a position of authority or special trust, is unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether KRS 510.110(1)(d) is unconstitutionally overbroad because it allegedly reaches consensual sexual conduct involving persons between sixteen and eighteen years of age.

Disposition

affirmed