Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Sexton Testimony

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court improperly prohibited him from impeaching Cindy Sexton with a prior inconsistent statement. Following Horton's murder, Sexton was interviewed by Detective Stevens and revealed a conversation she once had with Appellant and Burton. During this conversation, Appellant and Burton discussed robbing Horton and even invited Sexton to participate. Later, Sexton was interviewed by Gary Sparks, an investigator for the defense. According to Sparks' notes, Sexton stated that Appellant and Burton also discussed physically harming or killing Horton during the conversation. At trial, Sexton testified that the conversation related only to robbing Horton. She further testified that she had given pretty much the same story to both Sparks and Detective Stevens. Defense counsel sought to impeach Sexton's testimony that she had given the same statement to both Sparks and Detective Stevens. The trial court overruled defense counsel's motion to introduce Sparks' investigative report, determining that the report contained inadmissible hearsay. However, defense counsel was permitted to recall Sexton during its case-in-chief to refresh her memory of the conversation she had with Sparks. She testified that she did not recall telling him that Appellant and Burton discussed harming Horton. Defense counsel then called Sparks. Upon questioning, he testified: [Sexton] stated that Minnie stated to her that onnot on one occasion, but on several occasions, that the old lady ought to be killed. Assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in excluding Sparks' investigative report as substantive evidence, the error was undoubtedly harmless. An error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Ky.2007). Here, the jury was aware that Sexton gave slightly differing statements to Sparks and Detective Stevens. The jury also learned the substance of Sexton's conversation with Sparks and her allegation that Appellant and Burton discussed harming Horton in addition to robbing her. As the substance of Sparks' report was fully revealed through his testimony, we discern no possibility that the result would have been different had the report itself been admitted. The error, if any, was harmless.