Opinion ID: 2103389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: G.W.(Victims' Mother)

Text: At trial, Appellant asked the children's mother on cross-examination whether she had asked the children Did he put his dick in you? The apparent purpose of the question was to impeach the mother by portraying her as vulgar. Appellant then had the mother read a report prepared by Polk that stated that the mother had, in fact, asked the children that question. On redirect, the Commonwealth attempted to ask the mother about a statement made by D.Y. to Polk to the effect that Appellant took his weenie out of his zipper and put it in her, but not all the way. The Commonwealth first attempted to argue that the statement was admissible as a statement made for medical diagnosis under KRE 804(a) as extended under Edwards . The trial court ultimately ruled that the question and answer could come in for the purpose of showing that the children used children's terminology as opposed to the vulgar terminology allegedly used by the mother. Appellant now claims that allowing the mother to so testify improperly bolstered the victims' testimony. We agree. While Appellant's inquiry of the mother about her question to the children opened the door to further inquiry regarding that event, and perhaps other conversations she had with the children, we fail to perceive how that would have opened the door for the mother to repeat D.Y.'s statement to Polk. Because D.Y. used children's terminology does not impeach the mother's denial that she asked the children a question using vulgar terminology. Moreover, the purported impeachment was impeachment on a collateral matter that permitted a hearsay statement not subject to an exception implicating Appellant as guilty of the charges to be heard by the jury. The mother's questioning of the children is too attenuated from D.Y.'s statement to Polk for questioning concerning the former to have opened the door to the latter. We discern no other hearsay exception which would have permitted the statement to be admitted, and accordingly conclude that it was admitted in error.