Background
After her adoptive parents died, minor S.D. moved from Indiana to Kentucky to live with her half-sisters and their adoptive parents, Elizabeth and her husband. The McCracken Family Court first granted Elizabeth temporary custody in a dependency proceeding and then awarded her permanent custody in January 2023.
In April 2023, West drove from Indiana to Kentucky, parked away from the family’s home, and picked up S.D. after she climbed through her bedroom window around 1:00 a.m. He drove her into Illinois, where police eventually located them after West crashed his vehicle and continued driving it despite substantial damage. A jury convicted West of custodial interference, and a sentencing jury recommended three years in prison. After judgment was entered, West failed to report to a halfway-house program and remained wanted on a parole-board violation warrant.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals declined the Commonwealth’s request to dismiss the appeal under the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine. Although the doctrine permits dismissal when a defendant absconds during appellate proceedings, Kentucky’s Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant one direct appeal as a matter of right. Under controlling Kentucky precedent, West’s flight therefore did not prevent review of his initial appeal.
On the merits, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The family court had temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because S.D. was present in Kentucky and had been left without a legal custodian following her parents’ deaths. Its dependency findings also supported jurisdiction under Kentucky juvenile law, making Elizabeth’s custody lawful and effective when West took S.D.
The evidence also permitted the jury to find that West knew he lacked any legal right to take S.D. Elizabeth had not given permission, West had no custody or visitation rights, S.D. knew neither of them had permission, and West admitted to police that he lacked custody. His late-night pickup, concealed parking location, and continued flight in a badly damaged vehicle further supported an inference of knowledge. Finally, admitting evidence about the accident did not create palpable error or manifest injustice; any error was harmless given the other substantial evidence of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- Kentucky’s constitutional guarantee of one direct appeal prevented dismissal of West’s initial criminal appeal under the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine.
- A temporary emergency custody order may establish custody “by authority of law” for a custodial-interference prosecution when the issuing court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- Knowledge that the defendant lacked a legal right to take the child may be established through direct evidence and reasonable inferences from concealment and flight.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that absconding does not eliminate a Kentucky defendant’s constitutional right to one direct appeal, even though fugitive disentitlement may apply in other procedural settings. It also illustrates the limited scope of a collateral attack on a custody order during a criminal prosecution: unless the issuing court lacked jurisdiction, alleged defects or errors in the custody proceedings do not render the order void.
For custodial-interference cases, the opinion confirms that emergency jurisdiction can supply the necessary lawful-custody element and that circumstantial evidence surrounding a child’s removal can prove the defendant’s knowledge.