Opinion ID: 1574801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admissibility of interview tapes

Text: When the trial court would not allow Dr. Campbell to testify, the defense sought to introduce the tape recordings of Detective Quails' interviews with J.S., through Detective Quails on cross-examination. The Commonwealth objected on hearsay grounds. The defense explained that it was not offering the recordings for the truth of the matter asserted therein (that the statements made by Quails and J.S. on the tapes were true) but for the non-hearsay purpose of showing the suggestive and coercive manner in which the interviews were conducted, and as proof of the unreliability of the allegations by showing that they arose not from J.S., but as a result of suggestions and prompting by the detective. The trial court erred in not allowing the tape recordings to be introduced. The taped interviews were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, nor to impeach J.S. The tapes were offered as proof that the investigation was flawed from the very beginning, by showing the coercive and suggestive manner in which the interviews were conducted and the allegations obtained. This is a proper, non-hearsay use. See Norton v. Commonwealth, 890 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Ky.App.1994). On retrial, the recorded interviews would be admissible.