MURRAY – The case against a Murray man who was arraigned in Calloway District Court last week on sexual abuse charges was dismissed yesterday after continued investigation revealed that the alleged abuse occurred in Marshall County, not Calloway County. Although the Calloway case was dismissed, Dennis Foust, Commonwealth’s attorney for the 42nd Judicial District, which covers both counties, said that charges in Marshall County are imminent.

Stephen Gray, 71, of Murray, made his second appearance before Calloway District Judge Randall Hutchens yesterday for his preliminary hearing. He was arraigned last Wednesday on two counts of first-degree sodomy, victim under 12 years of age, and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, victim under 12 years of age.

According to the complaint warrant, the investigation began after a Kentucky Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) case worker contacted Calloway County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) deputy Nicholas Dues about two boys that were possibly sexually assaulted. He accompanied the case worker to a local daycare center and a local elementary school to interview the respective victims.

The younger child did not speak to investigators about matters related to the case, but the older child did, sharing, among other things, he was five years old when the alleged abuse began, Dues wrote. He described sex acts that Gray allegedly performed on him and his brother and said that Gray made the boys perform similar acts on him and each other.

The alleged abuse occurred between March 1, 2022, and March 1, 2023, the complaint warrant stated. At the time, the children were living with Gray’s daughter. The older boy told investigators that the children would stay with Gray and his wife when their caregiver went to work. He also shared that the abuse mostly happened in Gray’s bedroom, but his wife was never in the room, adding that she “would always be in the living room or somewhere else.”  

Notably, court records from two separate Marshall Circuit Court cases filed in 2014 show that, approximately four months earlier, Gray was released from custody of the Kentucky Department of Corrections after serving five of a 10-year prison sentence.

In the first case, he pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12 and 79 counts of possession of matter portraying sexual performance by a minor. In the second case, he pleaded guilty to another count of third-degree sexual abuse, victim under 12 years old, and four counts of distribution of matter portraying sexual performance by a minor.

The details of the 2014 cases are reminiscent of the one dismissed in Calloway District Court yesterday in that all of the victims were young boys to whom Gray had access via his own children. According to court documents, over the course of the investigation, an elder sibling of the victim in the first case reported seeing pornographic photos of two younger cousins on Gray’s computer five or six years earlier.

The photos showed the boys, aged 4-8 at the time the photos were taken, in Gray’s computer room with a hand pulling down their underwear to expose their genitals. Although those specific photos were not found, a forensic interview with one of the boys resulted in additional charges.

Gray was originally charged with three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, victim under 12 years old – two in the first case and one in the second – but pursuant to the plea agreement, those charges were amended to two third-degree sexual abuse charges. He received two consecutive five-year sentences, one for each case, and was remanded into custody in February 2016; he was also ordered to register on the sex offender registry. Gray was released from prison on supervised probation on Nov. 26, 2021.

At yesterday’s preliminary hearing, Burkeen called Dues as his first witness. After verifying his name and employment and establishing that he was present for the interviews that prompted the charges, Burkeen attempted to establish venue for the proceedings by asking Dues if the alleged crimes occurred in Calloway County, but to his surprise, Dues said he believed the abuse took place in Benton. At that point, Hutchens paused the hearing to allow Burkeen time to confer with the witness.

“Based on the question that came out regarding venue, I spoke with the officer again,” Burkeen told the court after the recess. “Basically, there’s been some very late developments in the investigation, I think as of this morning, determining that these incidents actually took place at a different address, and that address is, in fact, in Marshall County. So, based on that, the Commonwealth is moving to dismiss without prejudice and likely be recharged in Marshall County.”

Hutchens asked if the Commonwealth would prefer to transfer the case, but Burkeen advised that he had spoken with Foust and his preference was to dismiss the Calloway case and recharge Gray in Marshall.

“Mr. Gray,” Hutchens said to the defendant, “if I, instead of transferring it, do what he’s asked me to do, are you going to be in contact with these alleged victims?”

Dominik Mikulcik, Gray’s attorney, stepped in and told the judge that the defense was not aware of who the alleged victims are, adding that the names were redacted on the complaint warrant.

“The original complaint he was served with had some names in it, so I assumed he knew the names,” Hutchens said. “I’ve redacted it for the record, but if counsel needs to get a copy of it unredacted, I can ask the Commonwealth or otherwise have the clerk provide it to you, but I’m not going to, on the record, name juveniles. … He needs to understand to stay away from them. For no other reason, that would be another crime; it would be tampering with witnesses. So, on motion of the Commonwealth, case dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Gray will be taken back to the detention center and released.”

In an interview after the hearing, Foust acknowledged that, in some ways, it might be easier to just transfer the case, but based on his experience with transferring cases between counties, that is not the best method for addressing the issue of improper venue.

Regarding potential complicity charges against the boys’ caregiver and/or Gray’s wife for the leaving the children alone with Gray, knowing he was a registered sex offender, Foust advised that, because the case is still being actively investigated, he was not at liberty to speak on that matter, specifically. He did, however, explain that investigating and addressing the alleged criminal acts themselves take priority.

“I really think it’s a matter of looking and seeing where the investigation takes everybody,” he said. “But I understand (the sentiment), ‘If somebody left somebody with a registered sex offender, how can that not be a crime?’ At this point, with not knowing more of the facts about what somebody did or didn’t do, I’ll just have to let the investigation take its course; but if there’s culpability on the part of others, then we’re going to see to it that anybody who may have culpability in anything is going to be charged.”

As for charges being filed against Gray in Marshall County, Foust said he had spoken with the Marshall County Sheriff’s Office and was told they are trying to get it done as quickly as possible.

“If it hasn’t already been done, I would expect it to be done by the end of the day,” he added.

As of 9:30 a.m., charges in Marshall County against Gray were still pending; however, CCSO rearrested him yesterday, and he was lodged in the Calloway County Detention Center.

The Sentinel reached out to Mikulcik for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

Individuals charged with crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.