Opinion ID: 1791789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: To rebut character evidence.

Text: The Commonwealth may introduce evidence of a pertinent trait of character or general moral character of the accused only in rebuttal of evidence of good character offered by the accused. KRE 404(a)(1). The Commonwealth asserts that Appellant's statement that he did not photograph A.B. in the nude to satisfy his own interest in [A.B.'s] sex was evidence of good moral character subject to rebuttal. Even if that were true, character evidence is admissible only in the form of reputation or opinion, not specific instances of conduct. KRE 405(a). By providing only for the use of reputation or opinion evidence in this situation, the rule plainly implies a prohibition on evidence of particular acts of conduct. Lawson, supra note 15, § 2.20[4], at 116. The trial court admitted the rebuttal evidence in the stated belief that Appellant had opened the door by denying that he told A.B. to dive nude into the reservoir to look for the fishing equipment spilled from the overturned boat, and by claiming that he did not photograph A.B. in the nude to satisfy his own interest in [A.B.'s] sex. Opening the door, sometimes referred to as curative admissibility, occurs when one party introduces inadmissible evidence that opens the door for the other party to introduce equally inadmissible evidence in rebuttal. Norris v. Commonwealth, Ky., 89 S.W.3d 411, 414-15 (2002). Of course, Appellant's evidence was not inadmissible. Further, it was the Commonwealth that injected the homosexual voyeurism issue into the case by playing the grand jury tape in which Appellant denied using the sunken boat/fishing gear ruse to lure A.B. into diving nude into the reservoir. The prosecutor obviously knew that A.B. would not testify to that fact; for why play the grand jury tape of Appellant's denial if the incident could be proved by A.B.'s direct testimony? As previously noted, the prosecutor never asked A.B. about this alleged incident at trial. It was the introduction of this irrelevant bad character evidence during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief that opened the door for Appellant's attempt to cure the resulting prejudice by rebuttal evidence that the sunken boat story was true and that he was not interested in [A.B.'s] sex. This brief rebuttal did not reopen the door for the Commonwealth to prove that Appellant was a homosexual voyeur by inadmissible specific instances of conduct. The open door doctrine is supposed to prevent prejudice (not to introduce or exacerbate it) .... Lawson, supra note 15, § 1.10[5], at 46 (quoting 1 Christopher C. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence, § 12 (2d ed.1994)). Certainly, Appellant's mere statement that he did not take the nude photograph of A.B. because of his interest in his sex did not open the door to the storm of evidence that followed. Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534, 548 (1988).