Opinion ID: 2274894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidence of out-of-court identifications

Text: Detective Charles Mann testified for the Commonwealth regarding his investigation of the October 23, 2006, National City Bank robbery. On direct, Mann testified that fingerprints matching Demond Tunstull were found on the vehicle used in the robbery (the Chevy Cobalt rented by Sharonda Sloss). On cross-examination, defense counsel clarified with Detective Mann that no fingerprints matching Appellant's were found on the vehicle. Defense counsel then asked Mann about a call police had received from a woman named Marie Pulford who indicated that she had information concerning the robberies. In response to defense counsel's questions, Mann testified that he met with Pulford and another woman, at the other woman's home. The other woman wanted to remain anonymous because she was in a relationship with Demond Tunstull. Mann testified that he took a statement from Pulford and conducted a consensual search of the anonymous woman's home. Mann went on to testify (in response to defense counsel's questions) that, pursuant to the search, he collected clothing which he believed at the time might have significance as to the robberies, and a letter which indicated Demond Tunstull lived at that (the anonymous woman's) address. On re-direct, the Commonwealth asked Detective Mann if the anonymous woman was shown a surveillance photo from the October 23, 2006, National City Bank robbery. Mann responded that he showed both Pulford and the anonymous woman several surveillance photos. When the Commonwealth began to ask if either woman made an identification, defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The trial court sustained the objection, but agreed to allow the prosecutor to rephrase the question. The prosecutor thereafter showed Mann a particular photo, which Mann identified as having come from the October 23, 2006 surveillance video from the National City Bank. The prosecutor elicited from Mann that he had shown the photo to the two women, that he had asked them if they could identify anyone in the photo, that he had asked them to write on the photo if they could identify someone in it, and that there was, indeed, writing on the photo. Detective Mann was not permitted to say what was written on the photo. The Commonwealth moved to admit the photo into evidence. The defense objected on hearsay grounds due to the writing on the photo (which identified Appellant as the person in the photo). The trial court sustained the objection. The trial court agreed with the Commonwealth, however, that the defense had opened the door (with its questions to Detective Mann designed to show Demond Tunstull was the actual perpetrator) with respect as to the question of why the police pursued Appellant rather than Demond Tunstull. Therefore, the court ruled that to the extent that the Commonwealth could answer this question with Detective Mann, the court would permit the Commonwealth to do this. The Commonwealth then asked Mann if he pursued the investigation further after meeting with the two women. Mann testified, over defense counsel's objection, that after talking to the women, everything pointed to Appellant being the primary suspect. On appeal, Appellant contends that implicit in Detective Mann's testimony was the fact that Pulford and the anonymous woman identified him as the man in the bank surveillance video. Neither Pulford nor the anonymous woman testified at trial. Appellant argues that Detective Mann's testimony concerning the identification thereby violated his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. We agree with Appellant that Detective Mann's testimony clearly implied that the women identified him as the person in the bank surveillance photo. Had the Commonwealth attempted to introduce this identification in its case-in-chief, it would have been inadmissible as a violation of the Confrontation Clause, as neither woman testified at trial. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). However, in this case, the evidence was brought up in rebuttal to the defense's initial use of the existence of, and hearsay statements of, these two women to suggest that Demond Tunstull was the person who committed the robberies, and that the police inexplicably went after the wrong manAppellant. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court erred in ruling that the defense opened the door with regard to this witness as to why the police pursued Appellant, rather than Demond. See Norris v. Commonwealth, 89 S.W.3d 411, 414-15 (Ky.2002). Appellant also assigns as error hearsay testimony by Detective Larry Duncan that Sharonda Sloss had identified Appellant in a photo taken from a bank surveillance video. Sharonda Sloss was called as a witness by the Commonwealth. Sloss testified that she rented the Chevy Cobalt (identified as the vehicle used in the October 23, 2006 robbery) to use to get to work because her car was not running. She testified that she had never loaned the car to Appellant or anyone else, nor had he, or anyone, ever taken it without her permission. She denied having told police in her interview following the October 23, 2006, robbery that Appellant and Demond had taken her car and used it to commit the robbery while she was at a healthcare clinic. Following Sloss's testimony, the prosecutor informed defense counsel and the court that it intended to call Detective Larry Duncan for impeachment purposes, who would testify that Sloss had made the above statement. The prosecution indicated that it further intended to elicit from Detective Duncan that, in the same interview, Sloss had identified Appellant in a photograph made from a bank surveillance video. Defense counsel objected to the hearsay regarding the alleged identification of Appellant by Sloss, on grounds that the Commonwealth had not asked Sloss during her testimony whether she had identified Appellant in a surveillance photograph, and, hence, had not laid the required foundation for impeachment on that issue pursuant to KRE 801. The trial court overruled the objection, believing that Sloss had been so asked. Duncan subsequently testified that he showed a photograph to Sloss, which was made from the October 23, 2006 National City Bank surveillance video, and that she identified the man in the photograph as Appellant. On appeal, Appellant contends that this testimony by Duncan was inadmissible under KRE 801A(a)(1) because Sloss had not first been asked about having made the identification during her testimony. We agree. KRE 801A(a)(1) allows admission of a prior inconsistent statement of a witness provided the witness testifies at trial and is examined about the statement, subject to a proper foundation pursuant to KRE 613. KRE 613(a) requires, before the prior inconsistent statement of a witness can be offered, that the witness must be inquired of concerning it, with the circumstances of time, place, and persons present, as correctly as the examining party can present them. A review of the record confirms that Sloss was not asked during her testimony if she had identified Appellant in a surveillance photograph, or anything remotely similar thereto. The prosecutor and trial court were simply mistaken in their belief that she had been so asked. Because no foundation was laid, the hearsay was inadmissible under KRE 801A(a)(1). However, in light of the evidence in this case, we conclude the error was harmless. Appellant confessed to all of the robberies. Further, the jury heard evidence by way of the recorded confession, and testimony by a detective who was present for the interview, that Appellant was shown photographs made from the bank surveillance videos, including both National City robberies, and that Appellant confirmed that it was, in fact him, in the photographs. Appellant wrote this is me on the photographs, and signed his name. These photographs were shown to the jury, as was the photo from which Sloss allegedly made the identification. In light of the aforementioned evidence, we see no likelihood that the verdict was substantially swayed by the error, and hence deem the error harmless. Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678, 688-89 (Ky.2009).