Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 510
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110 (2026)

Sexual abuse in the first degree

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when:

(a) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or

(b) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she:

1. Is physically helpless;

2. Is less than twelve (12) years old;

3. Is mentally incapacitated; or

4. Is an individual with an intellectual disability; or

(c) Being twenty-one (21) years old or more, he or she:

1. Subjects another person who is less than sixteen (16) years old to sexual contact;

2. Engages in masturbation in the presence of another person who is less than sixteen (16) years old and knows or has reason to know the other person is present; or

3. Engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other electronic communication device while communicating with a minor who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor can see or hear the person masturbate; or

(d) Being a person in a position of authority or position of special trust, as defined in KRS 532.045, he or she, regardless of his or her age, subjects a minor who is less than eighteen (18) years old, with whom he or she comes into contact as a result of that position, to sexual contact or engages in masturbation in the presence of the minor and knows or has reason to know the minor is present or engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other electronic communication device while communicating with a minor who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor can see or hear the person masturbate.

(2) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless the victim is less than twelve (12) years old, in which case the offense shall be a Class C felony. Effective: July 14, 2018 History: Amended 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 109, sec. 5, effective July 14, 2018. -- Amended 2008 Ky. Acts ch. 72, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2008. -- Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 33, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 259, sec. 5, effective July 15, 2002. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 91, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013). · cites it 44× “Unlike the rest of KRS 510.110, subsection (l)(d) specifically avoids mentioning consent, and instead identifies a specific “trustful relationship,” KRS 510.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 844 (Ky. 2011). · cites it 7× “020 or KRS 510.110. Thus, the Commonwealth bore no burden to prove venue as an element of the offense.”
Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “[50] KRS 510.110, which governs sexual abuse in the first degree, requires a person to subject "another person" to sexual contact.”
Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 4× “[24] KRS 510.110. [25] KRS 510.010(2); see also Robert G.”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 2× “" [28] See, e.g., Buford, 197 S.W.3d at 71 ("We recount these arguments to demonstrate that given two factual scenarios, clever attorneys on each side can invariably muster long lists of facts and inferences supporting both similarities and differences between the prior bad acts…”
Mash v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 3× “Sexual abuse requires “sexual contact,” KRS 510.110, which means “touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person,” KRS 510.”
Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 3× “KRS 510.110(1) provides in pertinent part: A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: [[Image here]] (b) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he: [[Image here]] 2.”
Commonwealth v. Pridham, 394 S.W.3d 867 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 2× “To that end, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the 1999 sodomy indictment and to issue an information charging Cox with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, a class D felony (KRS 510.110 (2002)). 3 The recommended sentence would remain ten years (five years on each count)…”
Nery J. Ruiz v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 471 S.W.3d 675 (Ky. 2015). · cites it 2× “Based upon Linda's allegations, Appellant was indicted on three counts of sexual abuse (KRS 510.110) and three counts of first-degree sodomy (KRS 510.”
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999). “Appellee, Jesse James English, was convicted in the McCracken Circuit Court of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, KRS 510.110(l)(b)2, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count.”
Payne v. Commonwealth, 623 S.W.2d 867 (Ky. 1981). · cites it 2× “070), one count of first-degree sexual abuse (KRS 510.110), and twenty counts of using a minor in a sexual performance (KRS 531.”
Murphy v. Commonwealth, 509 S.W.3d 34 (Ky. 2017). “010(2) defines “forcible compulsion” as “physical force or threat of physical force, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death, physical injury to self or another person, fear of the immediate kidnap of self or another person, or fear of any offense…”
Show all 138 citing cases →
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1): 6 cases
Mash v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2012). “Sexual abuse requires “sexual contact,” KRS 510.110, which means “touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person,” KRS 510.”
Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2006). “[24] KRS 510.110. [25] KRS 510.010(2); see also Robert G.”
Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574 (Ky. 2006). “KRS 510.110(1) provides in pertinent part: A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: [[Image here]] (b) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he: [[Image here]] 2.”
Dever v. Commonwealth, 300 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
Joshua Turner v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 SC 0495 (Ky. Apr. 26, 2023).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(a): 6 cases
Gary Dean Adams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2024-CA-0709 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2025).
Alexander v. Univ. of Kentucky, No. 5:24-cv-00107 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 18, 2025).
Billy Drace, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2020 SC 0066 (Ky. Dec. 14, 2020).
Jason M. Bowles v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2019 CA 001803 (Ky. Ct. App. May 6, 2021).
Juan Berry v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2020 CA 000046 (Ky. Ct. App. June 17, 2021).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(b): 7 cases
Woodlee v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 461 (Ky. 2010).
Commonweath of Kentucky v. Brent Michael Watson, No. 2018 CA 001272 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2020).
Seeber v. Payton, No. 5:18-cv-00595 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2020).
Aaron M. Eastham, II v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2023 CA 000006 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2023).
William Kenneth Riggle, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 686 S.W.3d 105 (Ky. 2023).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(b)(1): 1 case
Randy Kipling v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2024-CA-0896 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2025).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(b)(2): 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Lucas, 195 S.W.3d 403 (Ky. 2006).
Cecil v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 12 (Ky. 2009).
Commonwealth v. Stambaugh, 327 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2010).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(b)(ii): 1 case
Aaron Basham v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 455 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2014).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(c): 3 cases
Adam Boone v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 CA 001067 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2022).
Daniel Staton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2022 CA 001249 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2024).
Newell Rector v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2024-CA-0199 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2025).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(c)(1): 2 cases
Clifford Howell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 SC 0354 (Ky. Feb. 13, 2023).
Clifford Howell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 SC 0354 (Ky. June 26, 2023).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(c)(2): 2 cases
Clifford Howell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 SC 0354 (Ky. Feb. 13, 2023).
Clifford Howell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2021 SC 0354 (Ky. June 26, 2023).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(1)(d): 5 cases
Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013). “Unlike the rest of KRS 510.110, subsection (l)(d) specifically avoids mentioning consent, and instead identifies a specific “trustful relationship,” KRS 510.”
Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 874 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
Katherine Barrett v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2022 CA 000218 (Ky. Ct. App. June 8, 2023).
Daniel Staton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2022 CA 001249 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2024).
Declan J McAuley v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2024-CA-0113 (Ky. Ct. App. July 3, 2025).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(2): 11 cases
Sanderson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2009).
Roark v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2002).
Commonwealth v. Stambaugh, 327 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2010).
Bowen v. Haney, 622 F. Supp. 2d 516 (W.D. Ky. 2008).
Williams v. Commonwealth, 233 S.W.3d 206 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(3)(c)(1): 1 case
Edwin Knox v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2022-SC-0384 (Ky. June 13, 2024).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(b): 1 case
Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90 (Ky. 2007). “" [28] See, e.g., Buford, 197 S.W.3d at 71 ("We recount these arguments to demonstrate that given two factual scenarios, clever attorneys on each side can invariably muster long lists of facts and inferences supporting both similarities and differences between the prior bad acts…”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(b)(2): 1 case
Lloyd Bandy v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2016 SC 000489 (Ky. Sept. 26, 2017).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(c): 1 case
John W. Cariel v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2023 CA 000212 (Ky. Ct. App. June 13, 2024).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(d): 1 case
Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013). “Unlike the rest of KRS 510.110, subsection (l)(d) specifically avoids mentioning consent, and instead identifies a specific “trustful relationship,” KRS 510.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(l)(a): 2 cases
Chames v. Commonwealth, 405 S.W.3d 519 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
Bowen v. Haney, 622 F. Supp. 2d 516 (W.D. Ky. 2008).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(l)(b): 7 cases
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999). “Appellee, Jesse James English, was convicted in the McCracken Circuit Court of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, KRS 510.110(l)(b)2, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count.”
Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574 (Ky. 2006). “KRS 510.110(1) provides in pertinent part: A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: [[Image here]] (b) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he: [[Image here]] 2.”
Noel v. Commonwealth, 76 S.W.3d 923 (Ky. 2002).
Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997).
Woodlee v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 461 (Ky. 2010).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(l)(b)(2): 5 cases
Payne v. Commonwealth, 623 S.W.2d 867 (Ky. 1981). “070), one count of first-degree sexual abuse (KRS 510.110), and twenty counts of using a minor in a sexual performance (KRS 531.”
Commonwealth v. Lucas, 195 S.W.3d 403 (Ky. 2006).
Cecil v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 12 (Ky. 2009).
Howard v. Commonwealth, 318 S.W.3d 607 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).
Wesley v. Rigney, 913 F. Supp. 2d 313 (E.D. Ky. 2012).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(l)(b)(ii): 1 case
Aaron Basham v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 455 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2014).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 510.110(l)(d): 4 cases
Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013). “Unlike the rest of KRS 510.110, subsection (l)(d) specifically avoids mentioning consent, and instead identifies a specific “trustful relationship,” KRS 510.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 844 (Ky. 2011). “020 or KRS 510.110. Thus, the Commonwealth bore no burden to prove venue as an element of the offense.”
Timothy Nolan v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2018 SC 000321 (Ky. Aug. 5, 2020).
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 916 (Ky. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.