Hall v. Commonwealth: Clarifying Invited-Error Waiver and Contextual 404(b) Evidence in Forcible-Compulsion Sodomy Cases

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Kentucky’s unpublished memorandum opinion in Cedrick Hall v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2024-SC-0397-MR, rendered 20 June 2025) addresses two pivotal trial-error questions that frequently surface in child-sexual-abuse prosecutions: (1) the admissibility of other-bad-acts evidence – here, the defendant’s physical violence against the victim and her mother – under Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 404(b); and (2) the validity of jury instructions said to violate the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when a single victim describes multiple, similar assaults.

Although marked “Not to Be Published,” the opinion is still citable for persuasive value in Kentucky when no published opinion adequately addresses the issue. The Court affirmed Mr Hall’s convictions for five counts of first-degree sodomy and his 70-year sentence, ruling that:

• Evidence of Hall’s physical abuse was properly admitted because it was relevant to prove “forcible compulsion” and to explain the victim’s delayed disclosure, and its probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice.
• Hall’s express approval of the jury instructions constituted invited error – a knowing waiver that bars even palpable-error review on appeal.
• Because no individual errors existed, the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply.

Summary of the Judgment

After detailing a disturbing course of sexual and physical abuse spanning four residences and several years, the Taylor Circuit Court allowed the Commonwealth to introduce testimony about Hall’s violent conduct toward both the victim (K.W.) and her mother. A jury convicted Hall on five of seven sodomy counts submitted. On appeal Hall alleged:

1. The 404(b) evidence of physical abuse was erroneously admitted.
2. The instructions lacked sufficient factual differentiation, undermining the unanimity requirement.
3. Even if neither issue alone warranted reversal, their cumulative effect did.

The Supreme Court rejected all three claims, emphasizing the three-pronged Bell test (relevance, probativeness, undue prejudice), the high deference accorded to trial judges’ 404(b) rulings, and the doctrine that a party who affirmatively assents to jury instructions cannot later claim palpable error.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882 (Ky 1994) – Originated the three-step inquiry for admitting other-bad-acts evidence; consistently recited in 404(b) analysis.
• Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 435 (Ky 2016) & Lampkins v. Commonwealth, 701 S.W.3d 99 (Ky 2024) – Stress that threats or violence toward the same victim are “almost always admissible” to show motive, forcible compulsion, or context.
• Gasaway v. Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 298 (Ky 2023) – Recent articulation of abuse-of-discretion review for 404(b) rulings.
• Johnson v. Commonwealth, 676 S.W.3d 405 (Ky 2023) – Overruled prior precedent treating jury unanimity defects as “structural”; now subject to ordinary preservation rules.
• Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky 2011) & Graves v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 144 (Ky 2012) – Draw the line between forfeiture (triggering palpable-error review) and waiver/invited-error (no review).

Collectively, these authorities provided the doctrinal scaffold for the Court’s twin holdings: other-bad-acts evidence was admissible, and instructional error was waived.

Legal Reasoning

1. 404(b) Physical-Abuse Evidence
   The Court methodically applied Bell:
   • Relevance – Physical violence directly explained K.W.’s fear and her delayed disclosure, and supported the statutory “forcible compulsion” element (Yarnell standard: subjective fear).
   • Probativeness – Mother and K.W. identified Hall as the perpetrator, satisfying the requirement that the uncharged acts be sufficiently probative of their commission by the accused.
   • Prejudice – Although naturally adverse, the prejudice was not undue; a limiting instruction cured any risk of impermissible propensity reasoning.
   The trial court’s “sound legal principles” shielded its ruling from being “arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair.”
2. Unanimous-Verdict Instruction
   Because the trial judge flagged potential unanimity pitfalls and defense counsel affirmatively stated “That’s fine, Judge” and “I think so” regarding the proposed instructions, the Court treated any defect as invited error, a deliberate relinquishment of a known right. Under Quisenberry, such waiver forecloses palpable-error review (RCr 10.26).
3. Cumulative Error
   Without any preserved or reviewable individual errors, the cumulative-error doctrine, which demands multiple substantial errors, was inapplicable (Brown v. Commonwealth).

Impact on Kentucky Law

While unpublished, the decision carries persuasive force and crystallizes two practice points likely to reverberate:

1. Scope of contextual 404(b) evidence in sexual-abuse cases.
   Hall underscores that evidence of a defendant’s violence toward the victim (and closely connected third parties) will almost invariably satisfy the Bell test when forcible compulsion or delayed reporting is at issue. Defense objections must therefore concentrate on undue prejudice and the sufficiency of limiting instructions, not broad admissibility.
2. Invited-Error versus Palpable-Error Distinction.
   Trial counsel’s express assent to jury instructions now definitively bars appellate rescue under palpable-error review. Practitioners must preserve specificity challenges at trial or risk complete forfeiture. The opinion is particularly salient after Johnson (2023), which removed the automatic-reversal shield for unanimity defects.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• KRE 404(b) Evidence – Proof of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Generally inadmissible to show a defendant’s bad character, but allowed for other purposes (motive, identity, context). Kentucky courts use the three-prong Bell test before admitting it.
• Forcible Compulsion – Under Kentucky’s sodomy statute, it means the victim was compelled by use or threat of physical force or violence. The focus is subjective: did this victim, under these circumstances, fear harm if she resisted?
• Invited Error vs. Forfeited Error
  • Invited (Waived) Error – The party actively agrees or “knowing relinquishes” a right. Appellate courts provide no review.
  • Forfeited Error – The party merely fails to object. Reviewable for “palpable error” if the defect is obvious and affects substantial rights.
• Limiting Instruction – A judge’s direction that the jury may consider certain evidence only for a specified purpose (here, to show forcible compulsion and delayed disclosure). Kentucky law presumes juries follow these instructions.
• Cumulative-Error Doctrine – Even if individual errors are harmless, their combined effect may so infect a trial with unfairness that reversal is required. Kentucky courts apply it only where the discrete errors are themselves substantial.

Conclusion

Hall v. Commonwealth serves as a concise yet instructive reaffirmation of two stalwart Kentucky evidentiary and procedural doctrines: (1) properly contextualized physical-abuse evidence is admissible under KRE 404(b) to prove forcible compulsion and explain reporting delays; and (2) a defendant who participates in crafting – or affirmatively approves – jury instructions cannot later invoke palpable-error review to remedy alleged unanimity flaws.

For trial lawyers, the case is a cautionary tale: object with specificity or risk absolute waiver, and recognize that contextual violence evidence will likely reach the jury in sexual-assault prosecutions. For appellate practitioners, Hall underscores the narrow lanes in which 404(b) and unanimity challenges can still succeed. Ultimately, the opinion fortifies the twin pillars of judicial discretion in evidence rulings and finality in jury instructions, shaping the strategic landscape for future Kentucky trials involving serial abuse allegations.