Opinion ID: 1666085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Introduction of Inadmissible Hearsay was Cured by Trial Court's Admonition.

Text: In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant claims that certain inadmissible hearsay denied him his confrontation rights. We disagree, though such evidence should not be elicited upon retrial. During trial, the Commonwealth introduced testimony from Detective Jackson, concerning a statement by Debra Brown. Debra Brown was the mother of Tim Brown, an alleged drug dealer who had been briefly considered a suspect in the investigation. Michelle was a confidential informant who had given police information on Tim Brown. The substance of the first instance of hearsay testimony contained a statement where Jackson asked Ms. Brown whether she had heard anything about Michelle's murder, with Jackson indicating that he was able to charge Appellant based on statements given to him by Appellant's family. Appellant objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge overruled the motion, but sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the testimony on the basis that it was hearsay. The second instance of hearsay occurred during the Commonwealth's cross-examination of Jackson, where Jackson indicated that Ms. Brown had told him that Appellant had confessed to his family. Appellant again objected to the testimony and moved for a mistrial. The motion for a mistrial was again denied. However, after a bench conference, the trial judge gave the following admonishment: Alright, I want to admonish the jury that that's been let in for a specific purpose. Debra Brown is not here to be cross-examined by anyone, so we don't know if that's true or not. So you're not to consider it for whether Debra Brown was telling the truth or not. You can consider that statement only for the effect it had on the officer's investigation and for no other purpose. It is well-settled law within the Commonwealth that a jury is presumed to follow an admonition to disregard evidence; thus, the admonition cures any error. Combs v. Commonwealth, 198 S.W.3d 574, 581 (Ky.2006). Moreover, There are only two circumstances in which the presumptive efficacy of an admonition falters: (1) when there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's admonition and there is a strong likelihood that the effect of the inadmissible evidence would be devastating to the defendant; or (2) when the question was asked without a factual basis and was inflammatory or highly prejudicial. Id. at 581-582 ( quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 430, 441 (Ky.2003)) (emphasis in original). As neither exception applies here, we find the trial judge's admonition sufficient to cure any error as a matter of law. Combs, 198 S.W.3d at 581.