Background
A jury found Jereme Riley guilty of first-degree rape of a victim under 12, first-degree sodomy of a victim under 12, two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a victim under 12, intimidating a participant in the legal process, and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The victim testified that Riley sexually abused her repeatedly in 2016, when she was ten, while he was living in her family’s home and supplying her parents with methamphetamine. The jury recommended, and the trial court imposed, a life sentence with the possibility of parole.
Riley’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury reported that it remained divided and that further deliberations would not be fruitful. Following his convictions at a second trial, Riley appealed as a matter of right, challenging the mistrial and retrial on double-jeopardy grounds, the rejection of a Batson objection, several evidentiary rulings, the denial of mistrial motions arising from witness questioning and closing argument, and the cumulative effect of the asserted errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the first jury’s deadlock created manifest necessity for a mistrial and that Riley also consented to the mistrial through counsel’s statements and failure to object. His retrial therefore did not violate double-jeopardy protections. The Court also upheld the Commonwealth’s peremptory strike of Juror 170 because the prosecutor offered a case-related, race-neutral explanation—visible skepticism about delayed disclosure—and the trial court independently observed the juror’s reaction.
The Court further held that the trial court acted within its discretion by permitting limited redirect testimony about blood on a washcloth and by admitting evidence that Riley supplied the victim’s parents with methamphetamine. The drug evidence showed Riley’s opportunity and access to the child, explained the lack of parental supervision, and was inextricably intertwined with the circumstances of the alleged offenses. Although certain credibility questions and remarks attacking defense counsel were improper, objections and admonitions adequately addressed them, and any error was harmless. Because no prejudicial errors accumulated, the Court rejected Riley’s cumulative-error claim.
Key Takeaways
- A jury’s express statement that it is deadlocked and that further deliberations would not help can establish manifest necessity for a mistrial, with the appropriate deliberation time depending on the length and complexity of the trial.
- A juror’s demeanor may support a race-neutral peremptory strike when the prosecutor identifies a specific, case-related reaction and the trial judge independently observed it.
- Other-acts evidence may be admitted when it explains the defendant’s access and opportunity and supplies essential context for the charged offenses, rather than merely suggesting criminal propensity.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial discretion Kentucky trial courts retain in assessing a deadlocked jury, evaluating demeanor-based Batson explanations, controlling redirect examination, and admitting context necessary to present a coherent account of the charged crimes. It also emphasizes that improper credibility questions or attacks on counsel do not automatically require a mistrial when objections prevent answers, the court gives adequate admonitions, and the trial as a whole remains fair.
The memorandum opinion is designated “not to be published” under RAP 40(D) and may not be cited as binding precedent. Under RAP 41, it may be cited for consideration under the conditions stated in the opinion.