## Facts

- General Jackson Tackett III was charged after returning to the United States in 2011 with multiple sex offenses allegedly committed about ten years earlier against two children: his son (“Nicholas”) and a family friend (“Sarah”).
- At trial, Nicholas was 20 and Sarah was 18; both testified describing sexual abuse and sodomy while they were minors.
- The Commonwealth introduced testimony from two experts (Dr. Drema Hunt and Dr. Gail Fineburg) that included references to the victims’ prior statements and opinions consistent with abuse.
- The Commonwealth also introduced testimony Tackett characterized as improper credibility bolstering and sympathy-generating “victim impact” evidence, including questions about Sarah’s academic achievements and Nicholas’s truthfulness.
- A drawing Nicholas made in elementary school was admitted into evidence.
- During voir dire, Tackett challenged a juror’s impartiality; the trial court did not excuse the juror.
- Tackett asserted that pretrial delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
- A jury convicted Tackett of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and three counts of first-degree sodomy; he received a 30-year sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether admission of expert and lay testimony repeating or reinforcing the victims’ accounts constituted impermissible hearsay or credibility bolstering requiring reversal, including under palpable-error review.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted other-acts evidence under KRE 404(b), and if so, whether it warranted relief on palpable-error review.
3. Whether alleged victim-impact and credibility-related questioning and testimony so prejudiced the defense as to deny a fair trial.
4. Whether admitting Nicholas’s elementary-school drawing was reversible error.
5. Whether the trial court’s refusal to excuse a challenged juror violated Tackett’s right to an impartial jury.
6. Whether the delay before trial violated the constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Barker v. Wingo factors.
7. Whether cumulative error required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions and 30-year sentence.
- Any error in admitting portions of the experts’ testimony was not palpable and did not cause manifest injustice, in part because the testimony was largely cumulative and subject to cross-examination.
- The court found no palpable error related to the challenged evidence under KRE 404(b).
- The court concluded the complained-of victim-impact and credibility-related testimony did not unduly prejudice Tackett or render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.
- Any error in admitting the childhood drawing did not rise to palpable error given its limited impact in the context of the trial.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to excuse the challenged juror, and the record did not establish inability to follow the law.
- Applying Barker v. Wingo, the court held Tackett was not denied a speedy trial because the delay, reasons for delay, timing of assertion, and lack of demonstrated prejudice did not establish a constitutional violation.
- The cumulative-error claim failed because the asserted errors were either nonexistent or insufficiently prejudicial to aggregate into reversible harm.

## Legal Principles

- Unpreserved claims are reviewed under RCr 10.26; relief requires a palpable error causing manifest injustice, reserved for errors that fundamentally threaten due process.
- Expert testimony that repeats victim statements may raise hearsay and bolstering concerns, but reversal requires a showing of substantial prejudice; cumulative evidence and effective cross-examination reduce the likelihood of manifest injustice on palpable-error review.
- KRE 404(b) bars propensity use of other-acts evidence but permits non-character purposes (e.g., motive, intent, absence of mistake) subject to KRE 403 balancing; unpreserved challenges rarely warrant relief absent clear, outcome-affecting prejudice.
- Credibility-related questioning and testimony do not necessarily constitute impermissible vouching; the jury remains the ultimate credibility decisionmaker, and minor excesses generally do not justify reversal without substantial prejudice.
- Evidentiary exhibits with limited probative value (such as a drawing) will not support reversal on palpable-error review absent a meaningful likelihood of affecting the verdict.
- Juror-qualification determinations receive substantial deference; reversal requires a clear showing that a juror could not be fair or follow instructions.
- Speedy-trial claims are analyzed under Barker v. Wingo (length of delay, reasons, assertion, and prejudice); a defendant must show prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld Tackett’s convictions, holding that the challenged evidentiary rulings, juror issue, and pretrial delay did not amount to reversible error, and that any unpreserved missteps fell short of palpable error causing manifest injustice.


Tackett v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2014)