Background
During a November 2022 riot at the Adair Youth Development Center, detained juveniles escaped their cells, assaulted staff members and other residents, and released additional inmates. Demaurion Moore, who was a juvenile but was certified for trial as an adult, admitted participating in two group assaults on other inmates.
According to the prosecution’s evidence, Moore and M.P. led seventeen-year-old A.L. into an unoccupied cell. M.P. forced A.L. to perform oral sex, Moore raped her, and other inmates sexually assaulted her while participants restrained her. A jury convicted Moore of first-degree rape, complicity to first-degree sodomy, promoting a sexual performance by a minor, first-degree riot, and two counts of fourth-degree assault. He received a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Moore guilty of complicity to first-degree sodomy because testimony showed that he helped lead A.L. into the cell and participated in restraining or assaulting her while others committed forcible sexual acts. The trial court also properly instructed the jury that it had to find Moore intentionally aided M.P. or D.P. in committing forcible sodomy; the instruction did not improperly conflate complicity with facilitation.
The Court further held that the nurse’s testimony recounting A.L.’s statement that she had been anally penetrated was admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after a prospective juror briefly referred to Moore’s “past” and named another person. The court promptly stopped the juror, excused him for cause, and admonished the remaining venire to disregard the comment.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that a defendant intentionally led a victim to the scene of an assault and helped restrain or assault her can support accomplice liability for a sexual offense committed by another person.
- A complicity instruction properly distinguishes complicity from facilitation when it requires the jury to find that the defendant intended the principal offender to commit the charged crime.
- A sexual-assault victim’s statements to a treating nurse about the nature of penetration may be admissible as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
- A prospective juror’s fleeting reference to a defendant’s past does not necessarily require a mistrial when the juror is excused and a prompt admonition cures potential prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the breadth of accomplice liability under Kentucky law and confirms that the particular manner of assistance is secondary when the evidence establishes intentional participation in another person’s crime. It also reinforces that an out-of-court statement may be admitted under any applicable hearsay exception even if the proponent did not establish the foundation for admission as a prior inconsistent statement.
The opinion is designated “Not to Be Published” under Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(D), so it is not binding precedent. Subject to RAP 41, however, a final unpublished Kentucky appellate opinion rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration when no published opinion adequately addresses the disputed point of law.