Opinion ID: 2541196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: moss violations during commonwealth's cross-examination

Text: The prosecutor began his cross-examination of Appellant by confirming with Appellant that the story he had just given in his testimony had not been told to the sheriff on the night he was arrested. Appellant agreed that he had not told the story to the sheriff, but that this was because he wanted to speak with an attorney first. Shortly thereafter, referring to B.C.'s testimony, the prosecutor asked, You're telling this jury when [B.C.] says he was in your apartment on May the fourteenth of 2009, that he's lying to this jury, is that right? Appellant responded affirmatively. Referring then to J.M.'s testimony, the prosecutor asked, When [J.M.] tells this jury under oath that you stuck your hand down his pants toward his penis, he's lying? Appellant responded affirmatively. On appeal, Appellant contends, and the Commonwealth concedes, that the prosecutor's questions were improper. It is well settled that [a] witness should not be required to characterize the testimony of another witness ... as lying. Such a characterization places the witness in such an unflattering light as to potentially undermine his entire testimony. Moss v. Commonwealth, 949 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Ky. 1997). Appellant argues that by requiring him to essentially call B.C. and J.M. liars, the Commonwealth cast him in such an unflattering light that it completely undermined his entire testimony. Appellant concedes the error is unpreserved, as defense counsel offered no objection to the questions at issue, and requests review per RCr 10.26. This case involved two completely opposing versions of events. The defense theory was that the boys were lying, not, for example, that they were mistaken, coerced, or that their memories were the product of suggestion. Therefore, the accusation was, in a sense, already before the jury. Accordingly, we conclude the mere verbalization of the defense theory by the prosecutor, although improper, did not rise to the level of palpable error under the facts of this case. Martin, 207 S.W.3d at 3.