Opinion ID: 2463714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: witness seated at counsel table

Text: During the course of the trial, Detective Antle sat at the counsel table with the Commonwealth Attorney. Antle was the officer in charge of investigating the robbery. Both Hicks and Dillingham argue that Antle should have been separated from trial pursuant to KRE 615 because the Commonwealth failed to show that Antle's presence was essential to the Commonwealth's case as required by KRE 615(3). We disagree. The error alleged in this case is identical to that raised in Justice v. Commonwealth, Ky., 987 S.W.2d 306 (1999). In Justice , we held that it was proper to allow the lead investigator in that case to sit at counsel table pursuant to KRE 615(2), which states: At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses and it may make the order on its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of: .... (2) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney[.] Id. at 315 (emphasis added). There was no error.