Court Opinion

ID: 9775401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:57:01.836995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.760180
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the Majority Opinion because I do not believe that the admission into evidence of the police detective’s statement was inadmissible hearsay or reversible error.
The defendant received a fundamentally fair trial. The admission of this evidence did not violate the defendant’s right to confront or cross-examine witnesses or deny his right to be tried only for the crime charged.
The testimony in question did not come within the type of investigative hearsay denounced by Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534 (1988). Here, the testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain the officer’s conduct in arranging a controlled drug buy between Gordon and a confidential informant. Obviously, in hindsight, it may have *181been more cautious for the trial judge to have admonished the jury that the statement could not be used as evidence but only to show why the police sent the informant to make the deal. However, the failure of the trial judge to go this extra step should not be considered reversible error. In any event, the failure to give this additional precautionary admonition was at the very most nonprejudicial, if any error at all. The statements of the police witness were based on his surveillance of the defendant.
In addition, I do not believe it was reversible error for the trial judge to permit an eye witness to the drug transaction to describe how that event occurred. The witness did not improperly interpret the audio tape. I agree with the Federal procedure in such cases which indicates that live testimony from an informant is the best evidence which may be supported by a recording. Where a witness has heard the statements and also testifies, the tapes give independent support to his testimony. Cf. United States v. Davis, 780 F.2d 838 (10th Cir.1985). In this case, Mason was available for cross-examination about any distortions in the audio tape, and there was no reversible error.
In any event, upon consideration of the entire case, there is no substantial possibility that the result would have been any different if the irregularities claimed by the Majority Opinion did occur. The errors, if any, were nonprejudicial. RCr 9.24; Abernathy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 949 (1969).
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.
REYNOLDS, J., joins in this dissent.