Background
Joshua Ward befriended Hank Strong, an elderly retired postal worker and veteran, after moving in next door around 2013–2014. As Hank’s health declined, Ward and his wife were paid to help around the house. The relationship continued even after Ward moved away. In January 2019, Hank fell outside during a winter storm and lay there for three to four hours, suffering severe frostbite and requiring emergency surgery and intensive care. He was subsequently discharged to a rehabilitation facility and, after insisting on returning home, entered hospice care in mid-April 2019 before dying in May 2019.
During and after Hank’s hospitalization, his adult children began monitoring his finances and discovered unauthorized charges on his credit cards—including charges made while Hank was on a ventilator—along with several cards opened in his name. Ward’s Facebook page and online marketplace listings showed him in possession of, or attempting to sell, items belonging to Hank or purchased with his credit cards. A detective testified that Ward admitted owing Hank approximately $6,000 to $10,000. Ward was indicted for knowing exploitation of an adult over $300, fraudulent use of a credit card over $10,000, and theft by unlawful taking over $1,000.
At the November 2021 jury trial, Ward testified that Hank had freely given him the credit cards as compensation for his help. Hank’s children contradicted this, presenting card statements and receipts showing Ward charged personal bills, rental storage units, candy, and cigarettes. Witnesses from local stores and video surveillance corroborated Ward’s unauthorized use of Hank’s accounts. The jury convicted Ward of knowing exploitation of an adult over $300 and theft by unlawful taking over $1,000. The parties then reached a sentencing agreement for five years, concurrent, with $6,000 restitution to Hank’s estate.
The Court’s Holding
The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Ward’s motion for a directed verdict on the exploitation charge. Ward argued the Commonwealth failed to prove that Hank qualified as an “adult” unable to manage his own affairs under KRS 209.020(4), and that there was no deception because Hank had previously permitted Ward to use his credit cards. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and affirmed.
Applying the standard from Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991)—that a directed verdict is warranted only where it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt—the court found the evidence more than sufficient. It relied on Roach v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 101 (Ky. 2010), which held that evidence of a need for assistance with daily activities is sufficient to submit the question of exploitation to a jury. The court noted that the exploitation statute reaches adults with either mental or physical limitations, and that Hank’s post-fall condition—multiple falls, 24-hour care, involvement of adult protective services, a VA social worker, and hospice—clearly created a jury question on his vulnerability.
As to the deception element, the court found it equally a jury question whether Ward had been given unlimited pre-illness permission to use the credit cards or had instead abused any such permission through deceit, noting that Ward’s own trial testimony was internally contradictory. The panel concurred unanimously in affirming the Jefferson Circuit Court judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Under Kentucky’s adult exploitation statute, KRS 209.020(4), physical limitations alone—such as those resulting from a serious fall, hospitalization, and hospice care—are sufficient to establish that a victim was unable to manage his own affairs; mental incapacity is not required.
- Evidence that an alleged exploiter made credit card charges while the victim was incapacitated on a ventilator, changed the locks to the victim’s home, and attempted to sell the victim’s belongings is sufficient to survive a directed-verdict motion on both the exploitation and deception elements.
- A defendant’s claim of prior permission to use a victim’s finances does not compel a directed verdict where the defendant’s own testimony is contradictory and the exploitation was alleged to have occurred during a distinct period of the victim’s incapacitation.
- Roach v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 101 (Ky. 2010), remains controlling authority on the sufficiency standard for adult-exploitation charges in Kentucky.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Kentucky’s adult exploitation statute casts a wide net: defendants cannot escape liability simply by claiming a pre-existing relationship of trust or asserting prior permission to access a victim’s finances. So long as there is evidence that the victim required assistance with daily activities during the relevant period, the question of exploitation is properly one for the jury, not for the court on a directed-verdict motion.
Practitioners defending exploitation charges should note that the temporal framing of the indictment matters: the court emphasized that Ward’s charged conduct was specifically tied to the period following Hank’s January 2019 fall, a period during which his vulnerability was acute and well-documented. Conversely, prosecutors should focus on establishing a clear timeline linking the onset of the victim’s physical or mental limitations to the defendant’s unauthorized financial activity.