Court Opinion

ID: 9771748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:52:24.451426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.998960
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which reverses the conviction because the trial judge admitted the testimony of a police detective concerning prior consistent statements of the alleged victim-witness pursuant to KRE 801A(a)(2). The trial judge did not commit reversible error in permitting the detective to testify about the statements made to him by the alleged victim.
It was an integral part of the defense theory that the story of the victim had grown from the time she was first questioned about the abuse and denied that anything occurred, to statements to her mother, to various social workers and finally to the police. The defense theory was that the victim was fabricating her story as she spoke of various details to different persons while being questioned about the abuse. Smith cross-examined the victim about the inconsistencies and the growing nature of her allegations and continued this theory in his closing argument.
The defense theory opened the door for the prosecution to rebut the allegations of a growing and therefore untruthful story in order that the jury would be properly provided with the best possible understanding of what was actually said and for no other *519purpose. Cf. Hendron v. Commonwealth, Ky., 487 S.W.2d 275 (1972).
The testimony of the police was not unfairly prejudicial and did not unnecessarily bolster the statement of the victim under the circumstances.
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.
REYNOLDS, J., joins in this dissent.