Opinion ID: 1657445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: portions of the appellant's recorded statement to the police erroneously excluded

Text: Over objection of defense counsel, the court allowed the Commonwealth to play a portion of an audio-taped statement to the police given by the appellant on the night of the occurrence with important portions excised in which the appellant told the officers about the decedent's previous solicitations of other persons to murder the appellant. At page fifteen of the Commonwealth's Brief the Commonwealth concedes that it was error to exclude this evidence. The Commonwealth quotes from Lawson, Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook (2d ed. 1984), § 8.00, Subpart D, wherein Lawson explains why evidence of this nature is admissible. The Brief states: [T]he Commonwealth believes the portion of appellant's statement concerning threats and solicitations made by victim and Donna Janes should not have been excised from appellant's taped statement. The Commonwealth then argues harmless error. How harmless? A significant portion of the Commonwealth's case was given over to showing that the appellant did not believe he was in danger from Joe Biggerstaff on the night this incident occurred, and to proving that the appellant concocted this story about the solicitation of his murder together with friends and family after the shooting occurred. Yes, these witnesses testified as to the same evidence that was excised from the tape, but the playing of the entire tape as given to the police officers only a few hours after the shooting incident and while in custody, would have served to prove appellant's claims were not concocted later but were very much upon his mind at the time of the shooting incident. Further, the tape in its entirety would have materially changed the jury's perception of the police interview. It has been a long-standing principle of evidence law, now codified in Rule 106 of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. This case provides a prime example of the violation of this rule, wherein the trial court unfairly permitted the Commonwealth to use in evidence the inculpatory portions of the appellant's recorded statement while excising the exculpatory portions.