Background
A Butler County jury convicted Clyde Martin of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a victim under 12 and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Nine-year-old I.A. testified that, while staying overnight at the home Martin shared with her aunt, Martin touched her breasts, buttocks, and vagina through her clothing. She disclosed the conduct to family members about a week later.
Martin denied touching I.A. His accounts differed, however, as to whether she joined him in the living room: family members testified that Martin initially acknowledged she had watched part of a movie with him, while he later told a state trooper that she never sat with him. The jury recommended a 20-year sentence, which the Butler Circuit Court imposed.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed. At trial, Martin sought a directed verdict on the ground that the Commonwealth had not proved the touching was for sexual gratification. On appeal, he instead argued that I.A.’s uncorroborated testimony was so incredible or inherently improbable that it could not support his convictions. Because his directed-verdict motion had not raised that specific theory, the Court held that the appellate argument was unpreserved. Martin also did not request palpable-error review.
The Court nevertheless concluded that Martin could not prevail under either ordinary directed-verdict review or palpable-error review. A sexual-abuse victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain a conviction unless it is contradictory, incredible, or inherently improbable. I.A.’s failure to call 911 or immediately report the abuse did not make her account inherently improbable, particularly because she testified that she had left the cellphone in the bedroom. Any conflict between her testimony and Martin’s account presented a credibility question for the jury. Lambert, C.J., and Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, Keller, and Nickell, JJ., concurred; Thompson, J., concurred in the result only.
Key Takeaways
- A directed-verdict motion must identify the specific evidentiary deficiency asserted; a defendant ordinarily cannot preserve one theory at trial and substitute another on appeal.
- Uncorroborated testimony from a child sexual-abuse victim may support a conviction when it is not contradictory, incredible, or inherently improbable.
- A child victim’s failure to call 911 or disclose abuse immediately does not, by itself, make the child’s testimony inherently improbable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Kentucky practitioners must state each specific ground for a directed verdict to preserve it for appellate review. A general sufficiency objection, or an objection directed to a different element, will not preserve a later challenge to the reliability or corroboration of a witness’s testimony.
The opinion also reinforces the jury’s role in resolving conflicting accounts and assessing a child victim’s conduct following alleged abuse. The opinion is designated not to be published and is not binding precedent under Kentucky RAP 40(D), although a final unpublished opinion may be cited under the limited conditions stated in RAP 41.