¶1I. AUDIOTAPED INTERROGATION
¶2At approximately 7:00 p.m. on October II, 2001, the evening of the day Appellant claims to have found his wife’s dead body on the floor of their residence, Appellant consented to an audiotaped interview with Detective Robert Stephens of the Kentucky State Police. Stephens played the audiotape of the interview for the jury during his direct examination. The interview lasted twenty-four minutes. The first five minutes and thirty seconds consisted of Appellant telling Stephens his version of the day’s events, viz: He awakened that morning to find his wife dead on the floor; he placed her in the bed and cleaned up the house; the only blood he saw was coming from his wife’s nose; he sustained a cut on his head when he slipped in the bathtub and struck his head on the commode; and after cleaning up the house and taking a bath, he called the police to report the death of his wife. The remaining eighteen minutes and thirty seconds of the interview consisted of Detective Stephens stating his opinion as to what actually happened, accusing Appellant of killing his wife and lying about it, and telling Appellant that no jury would believe his story. During the interrogation, Appellant never changed his story or agreed with Stephens’s repeated allegations that he had killed his wife and was lying about it. At *34his trial, Appellant objected to playing the tape without redacting Stephens’s accusations that he was lying and that no jury would believe him.
¶3No witness, lay or expert, may express an opinion as to the truth or falsity of the testimony of another witness.
A witness’s opinion about the truth of the testimony of another witness is not permitted. Neither expert nor lay witnesses may testify that another witness or a defendant is lying or faking. That determination is within the exclusive province of the jury.
¶4Moss v. Commonwealth, 949 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Ky.1997) (quoting State v. James, 557 A.2d 471, 473 (R.I.1989)). This proposition is almost universally accepted.
¶5Yet, the majority holds it was proper for Stephens to play for the jury an audiotape of his interrogation of Appellant in which Stephens repeatedly opined that Appellant was guilty, that Appellant was lying, and that no jury would believe him. I agree with the Supreme Court of Kansas that permitting the jury to hear the audiotape is no different than permitting the witness to render the same inadmissible opinions from the witness stand. State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 105 P.3d 1222, 1229 (2005). See also Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 730 A.2d 513, 521-22 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999); State v. Jones, 117 Wash.App. 89, 68 P.3d 1153, 1155 (2003) (“We find no meaningful difference between allowing an officer to testify directly that he does not believe the defendant and allowing the officer to testify that he told the defendant during questioning that he did not believe him. In either case, the jury learns the police officer’s opinion about the defendant’s credibility.”).
¶6Dubria v. Smith, 224 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.2000), upon which the majority opinion primarily relies, was a federal habeas review of a state court conviction in which “[f]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law,” id.at 1001 (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 112 S.Ct. 475, 480, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991)), unless they are of constitutional magnitude. Id.Thus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the admission of the un-redacted tape only for a violation of the Due Process Clause, i.e., whether its admission “so fatally infected the proceedings as to render them fundamentally unfair.” Id.(quoting Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991)). That is a substantially higher standard of review than that which we apply to direct review of properly preserved evidentiary errors. Finally, the majority opinion concludes that the officer’s opinions and accusations were necessary to place Appellant’s answers in “context.” As the following transcript of the final eighteen minutes and thirty seconds of the audiotape shows, that portion of the interrogation consisted almost entirely of Detective Stephens haranguing Appellant with his opinions and accusations and Appellant’s denials of the same. Appellant’s answers were almost always a simple “yes” or “no,” or “uh-huh” or “uh-uh;” thus, there were no meaningful answers to place in “context.”
Q: Phillip, I’m going to tell you something. Have you ever heard an old statement that the truth will set you free? You better start telling the truth because you’re in big trouble. I know that you’ve been beat up. I can tell that by looking at your body. Don’t look at me like you’re surprised. I know that we had police officers here yesterday and you wouldn’t let them talk to your wife. You all was fighting and you said something about if anybody came in you *36would have a shoot-out or something. Nobody wanted to talk. I understand that you all were drunk yesterday, that you all were fighting yesterday, and it got out of hand. Tell me the truth.
A. No (interrupted).
Q. I know there’s blood in the washing machine where you’ve cleaned up. There’s blood on the towels in the washing machine. We’ve seen those. You tried to clean it up. You’re going to go the way — you better start helping yourself. The only person that can help you is you. I’m going to listen to you and you better give me a statement that makes sense. That makes no sense.
A. I can’t (interrupted).
Q. You’re going to prison for a long time if you don’t start helping yourself. Now, if you were fighting last night and she pushed you and you hit each other, I understand that. You all got in a fight. You’d been drinking all day. You got into a fight. She ain’t been dead that long. And you all had been fighting, hadn’t you?
A. No.
Q. Oh, come on now, Phillip, don’t give me that. You all had been fighting. That’s why you had to clean the house up, because you had knocked everything around. And you hit her a little too hard and you killed her. And that’s exactly what’s happened. It don’t take no brain scientist. I ain’t no brain man. I’m just a poor old man that can look around and see the facts of life. And unless you want to help yourself, Phillip, you’re going to go down the road a long time. Now you better tell me the truth.
A. I’m telling you all I can remember (interrupted).
Q. You ain’t telling me nothing. You remember every bit of it. You can remember that you all were drunk and fighting. Are you telling me you weren’t drunk and fighting?
A. No.
Q. Where’s your shoes at, Phillip?
A. They’re inside.
Q. I bet you they got blood on them, probably. If I go find them, I’m probably going to find her blood on them. Phillip, you’re in a big world of trouble.
A. (Unintelligible).
Q. The only way out is to tell the truth.
A. I am.
Q. No you’re not. You’re not. You want me to believe that stuff but that ain’t the truth. The truth is that you know that you all got in a fight, that she smacks you, I’d say she put a couple of marks on you. She may have even put that mark on your head. And at that point in time, you defended yourself and you had to hit her. And you hit her a little too hard. I know what took place. And you do, too. You’re wanting to tell me but you’re afraid to.
A. No, sir.
Q. Yes, you are. You might as well start talking, buddy. You’re in big trouble and the only way you’re going to get out is to tell the truth. The truth will help you; it won’t hurt you. These lies mil hurt you. When I start showing the blood all over the house — there’s blood everywhere in that house. All over the doors, in the washing machine, in the bedroom.
A. That’s because she fell down a couple of times.
Q. I’m sure she did.
A. Then she used different rags to wipe her face.
Q. Come on. You better think of something better than that, buddy. A jury ain’t gonna buy that. You’re going to the penitentiary for a long time unless *37you start talking. You better tell the truth.
A. I am, the best I can remember.
Q. You can’t remember nothing, can you?
A. Not much.
Q. Why?
A. I was asleep.
Q. Oh, you’d been drunk. You weren’t asleep. You weren’t asleep when you hit her, were you? Were you asleep when you hit her?
A. No.
Q. You were awake when you hit her, weren’t you?
A. She fell asleep (interrupted).
Q. Okay, come on. I don’t want to hear lies. I want to hear truth. If I’m gonna hear lies, we can just stop talking. Do you want to help yourself or do you want to go to the penitentiary forever?
A. I want to help myself.
Q Then this is your time. I can either help you, or I can hurt you. Not me. You, yourself. You can help yourself or you can hurt yourself. That’s up to you. If you want to tell me the truth, you’ll help yourself. If you don’t want to tell the truth, then you can go to prison forever. I mean, you’ll be gone for a long time, buddy. Murder’s a big crime in this county.
A. I didn’t (interrupted).
Q. You didn’t mean to kill her?
A. I didn’t kill her.
Q. Yes, you did. The facts speak for themselves. You didn’t mean to kill her, I’m sure of that. You all got to fighting. Is that the truth, did you all get to fighting?
A. No.
Q. You don’t want to talk anymore. You just want me to write it up that you weren’t fighting, you just killed her. Is that how you want me to put it in?
A. No.
Q. It’s easy for me. We’ll take a statement that you weren’t fighting.
A. I was drinking and (interrupted).
Q. Were you fighting? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Then you weren’t fighting. You just hit her for no reason at all.
A. No.
Q. She wasn’t fighting with you. You just murdered her, is that what you’re telling me? flow’d she die? She’s been murdered. Somebody beat her to death. So, evidently, you didn’t hit her, she didn’t hit you, did she? Did she hit you? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. So you just beat the fire out of her, didn’t you? You just killed her. Is that how it is? Somebody killed her. You’ve got the blood all over you, all over your house, in your washing machine. Do you want me to take you in and let you see the washing machine? Do you want to go in there? Shut the door. I can tell you what’s in the washing machine — towels full of blood. You had to put them there. You said you cleaned up. So you knew you’d beat her. Evidently, she didn’t beat you because you told me she didn’t hit you. I know you’re sorry about it and I understand that. You got drunk and you beat your wife to death.
A. No, sir.
Q. Sure you did. She didn’t beat herself to death. Who put her in the bed? You did after you beat her up — after you’d beat her to death.
A. I woke up and she was that way.
Q. You done beat her to death. And you knew she was dead. You said you *38looked in her eyes. Yon sat there and said, “I looked in her eyes and she was dead, so I put her in bed.” You knew you had beat her to death. And you were scared so you cleaned the house up. That’s pretty much how it happened, isn’t it?
A. No.
Q. Then how did it happen?
A. Be honest with you, everything was a blackout.
Q. You mean you blacked out and beat her to death?
A. No.
Q. Then bow’d it happen? Row’d she get beat to death? Who cleaned the place up? Why did you clean up all the blood?
A. That’s my responsibility.
Q. And you knew you’d beat her to death.
A. No.
Q. You were very sorry that this happened, weren’t you?
A. Of course.
Q. You didn’t mean to kill her. I don’t think you did.
A. I couldn’t believe that she froze to death.
Q. Who froze to death?
A. My wife.
Q. She didn’t freeze to death. She’s been beat to death. There ain’t no freezing to it. That house is ninety degrees inside. There ain’t no freezing in there. She’s been beat to death. That’s the only thing that happened. She’s been beat to death. And you got drunk and she was drunk and she got beat to death. You all got in a fight. You got in a fight yesterday afternoon. We had troopers here yesterday afternoon. You all were fighting.
A. What happens, I mean, how many years will I get?
Q. I don’t know. It’s kind of how you help yourself. Right now you’re going for the big time. You’re not trying to help yourself. You don’t want to tell the truth.
A. I am telling the truth. To be honest, it’s a blur.
Q. I can’t believe that. It may be a little of a blur but you knew that you all were fighting and you remember you all hitting each other. You think a jury’s going to believe that? Honestly? Is a jury going to believe that you don’t remember you all fighting and you beating her? Do you think a jury’s going to believe that? Now we sent the body to autopsy and they’re going to come back and tell us how she was beat. Maybe she was shot, I don’t know. Did you shoot her? Have you got a gun?
A. Yeah, but it’s unloaded.
Q. So you didn’t shoot her?
A. No.
Q. So you didn’t shoot her?
A. No.
Q. You’re sure?
A. I’m positive.
Q. You’re positive you didn’t shoot her?
A. Yeah. It’s not loaded.
Q. So that’s not a blur. But all of a sudden it is a blur when you can’t remember how you beat her. That don’t make sense. If I can remember one fact, I can remember another fact. Well, you better help yourself now.
A. I’m telling you all I can remember. Everything’s fuzzed up on me.
Q. You can’t remember you all fighting?
A. No.
*39Q. You don’t remember you all fighting? You don’t remember? When you got up this morning, what kind of clothes did you have on?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you have these pants on? Now you took a shower, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. You washed yourself up, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Because you had blood all over you.
A. Nothing but from handling the rags.
Q. Oh, come on, Phillip. You know you had blood all over you from where you got in a fight and you beat her up. You killed her and you passed out. That’s pretty much what probably took place. I don’t see any marks on you where she hit you. That mark up there, you told me the commode hit you. That was the first thing you told me was that the commode hit you. Now, are you telling me that didn’t happen?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. The commode hit you there. So she didn’t make that mark on your head, are you telling me?
A. Yeah.
Q. So she made no marks on you. She didn’t hit you. You got mad and beat her up, beat her to death.
A. No, I (interrupted).
Q. She didn’t hit herself. She didn’t make those marks on herself. She didn’t bust her mouth herself. You did. Let me see your hands there. What did you do, use Clorox on your hands to get the blood off of it? You’ve washed your hands almost (interrupted).
A. No, that’s a skin condition.
Q. Let me see your knuckles. Put your knuckles together. Look at the marks on your knuckles. What caused the marks on your knuckles? See the marks? Do you see a mark there? See the marks? See the skin off your knuckles? What caused that? Hitting her?
A. No.
Q. Yeah. That’s what caused it. Nobody else lives in this house, do they? A. Uh-uh.
Q. There’s only two people in the house. You and her, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You’re alive. She’s dead. Am I right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. She’s beat to death. Somebody’s beat her to death — I guess. I don’t know if she’s been shot or not. I don’t know, but I don’t think she’s been shot. You picked the body up and put it back on the bed.
A. No, what I (interrupted).
Q. You just told me you did.
A. I picked it up off the floor and put it in the bed.
Q. And I see one mark on you and it’s on the forehead on, I guess you say your right side, or your left side. And you tell me that the commode made it. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about that. How did that commode make that mark?
A. Well, I slipped in the tub and fell forward. I was trying to pries [sic] up the commode.
Q. Okay. Have you got any other marks on you?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. No other place. Any on your chest?
A. Marks?
Q. Yeah. What’s that?
A. That’s an old knife wound when I was (interrupted).
*40Q. What about new ones? You got anything?
A. No.
Q. Nothing? You have got some marks on your knuckles, some places on your knuckles, am I right? Am I right?
A. Yeah.
Q, And I would say they come from hitting her.
A. Uh-uh.
Q. Well, how did they get there? Phillip, don’t lie to me. Phillip, you’re wanting to tell me the truth but you’re scared. Are you scared? What are you scared of? What’s gonna happen to you?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Well, I can tell you right now that what’s gonna happen to you is not good because you’re lying. When you lie you always get in more trouble. I mean, that’s just the way life is. Everytime I lie, I get in more trouble.
A. No. I didn’t, I didn’t.
Q. You didn’t what?
A. I didn’t murder her.
Q. Who did? There was only the two of you there. She didn’t murder herself.
A. She was stone-blind drunk.
Q. She may be, but you didn’t have to beat her to death. You whipped her, you beat her, and she died from the beating. That’s what the autopsy’s going to show. The autopsy’s going to show that you beat her and she died. All that blood in that house. Come on now. That’s why you had to clean it up. You cleaned it up this morning where she was laying, where you found her.
A. No, sir.
Q. We’re going tear that house apart. We’re going to get everything. We’re going to find blood on your clothes, probably. We know we found blood in the washing machine where you put stuff down in the washing machine to be washed. We know we found blood on the doors. There’s blood in the bedroom. There’s blood all over that house. And she’s been beat to death. Now what’s it look like? Don’t take a mountain scientist, brain scientist, to figure out that somebody’s not telling the truth here, does it? I mean I come in and look around and can see pretty much what happened. I’m trying to give you a chance to tell your side. If there was a fight, if she did anything to provoke you, I just want to hear it. If she didn’t do anything to provoke you, if there was no fight, and you didn’t beat the tar out of her, so be it. What was it? Did she ever hit you?
A. No.
Q. She never hit you. You just hit her.
A. No.
Q. You wanted to say ‘Yes” that time. You stood there and shook your head ‘Yes.” You’re wanting to tell me the truth, but you’re scared to tell me the truth. I understand this is bad times; but let me tell you, this is your only time. This ball game comes around one time. You better speak now. We’re going to the grand jury. You don’t want to be locked up for a murder one. If there’s any circumstances of why you beat her up, we need to know it.
A. No. Everything’s sort of blurred.
Q. You all were just “hunky-dory.” Just good buds, huh? You hadn’t been fighting. You didn’t fight yesterday afternoon.
A. Uh-uh.
Q. You didn’t fight last night. Did you?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. Did you fight this morning (interrupted).
*41A. No.
Q. When you got up? You just beat the tar out of her (unintelligible)?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. I know you did.
A. Uh-uh.
Q. Why did you shake your head “yes”? Now who beat her up? Did she beat herself up? Did she hit herself in the mouth? Is that what she did? Did she beat herself up and kill herself?
A. No. She kept getting up and trying to walk and (interrupted).
Q. You were fighting and that’s why you had to clean the house up. That place was probably tore all to pieces where you all were fighting.
A. I swear.
Q. There’s not a mark on you except that one on your head and your knuckles. That’s all the marks I’ve seen. And I understand the marks on your knuckles. I don’t understand the one on the head. It looks pretty fresh, but I don’t know when you hit the commode. You said she didn’t do it. So if she didn’t do it and she didn’t make any marks on you, then you just did them, to her, I guess.
A. No.
Q. Phillip, okay.
A. I really can’t remember it.
Q. I’m going to put you in a car back here and let you sit. Maybe you’ll think in a few minutes. I’m going to stop the tape. It’s now about twenty-five minutes after seven. Okay.
¶7(Emphasis added.)
¶8Even if there might be an occasion when an interrogating officer’s opinion that the defendant is guilty, is lying, or that the jury will not believe him is necessary to put the defendant’s answers “in context,” such was obviously not the case here. The opinions expressed by Stephens, coming from a respected officer of the law, were clearly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.
¶9II. DIARY.
¶10During the trial, numerous entries from the victim’s diary were cumulatively introduced into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 19. Most of those entries characterized Appellant as a lazy, drug-addicted, unemployed person who used his wife’s earnings to support himself and his drug habit. Other portions of the diary were not admitted. The entries presented to the jury were as follows:
January 10, 2001 — Wednesday
Every day I’m reminded again of how much of a slug I’m married to.... He [is] simply a drug addicted bum.
January 23, 2001 — Tuesday
Maybe he’ll fall dead today. I hope so. I HATE him passionately.
January 2k, 2001
He’ll expect me somehow to afford to buy him 15 more tomorrow plus pot [presumably referring to marijuana]. He’s the most inconsiderate son-of-a-bitch I’ve ever encountered. Of course, if I don’t buy what he wants he’ll pout all weekend.
January 25, 2001
The bum is still laying in there asleep. He’s mad because I don’t make enough money to keep him up — with dope & all.
January 31, 2001
He blackmails me. Says he’ll make me lose my house & my job. It scares me so I do what he wants.
February 7, 2001
He doesn’t have anything to do, no license, no job, no pot. That’s the kicker — no pot. When he has pot he’s happy, if not he’s depressed. We’ll *42probably end up in a fight tonight cause he blames me for all his woes.
February 9, 2001 — Friday ■
It’s the one variable that changes & can change my life. Problem is — I can’t afford $150 pot a week. Phillip would rather sleep for 6 months than to get a job so no help there. Phillip is a giant leach [sic] — slowly sucking the life out of me. I have to get rid of him some way. But 1st I have to get off the V’s [presumably referring to Valium]. That’s how he’s holding me.
February 9, 2001 — Friday night
Without pot, he’s a horrid little man. It lets his real personality shine through ... a nasty, horrid little man. He won’t work, he won’t act like a human being w/o pot. God Help Me. I’ve got to detox quick & get rid of him.
February 10, 2001 — Saturday
I dread today. We have no pot so Phillip will either hide in his bedroom all weekend or come stomping out with that mean, disgusting look on his face. He’s gonna run out of V’s & so am I. I’m preparing to go to St. Joe to get detoxed. I don’t really give a damn what he does. He thinks he’s entitled to be high all the time. He can’t <f> without being high. I HAVE TO GET RID of him even if it means losing my house. W/o him I can buy another house. He’ll try to fight w/me today but God help me keep my cool. There’s no need arguing with an idiot.
February 22, 2001 — Thursday
Now I see what that piece of s— does all day — he sleeps. He accomplishes nothing. He’s not worth the 10 cents for a bullet to blow his brains out. I WISH HE WOULD DIE.
March k, 2001
He can’t seem to stand the girls [apparently referring to grandchildren] anymore. He wants to cut back the x’s I see them .... I gotta do something.
March 6, 2001
We only have 80 V’s left to last a month & 1/2. I’m going to just stop taking them & see what happens. I hope I die. I’d rather be dead & gone than live with that SOB another day. I hate him. I despise him. I hope he dies.
March 12, 2001
Bad days are coming. We have 40 V’s. We have 37 days left. I’m going to go into withdrawal & so will Phillip. We’re in trouble. Tommy the great can’t or won’t get any. We’re just screwed. If I’m careful I’ll have about 25 days to work. Then — I don’t know.
March 12, 2001
I HATE HIS GUTS. As soon as I get off these V’s — good buy [sic],
March 18, 2001
Another day, another fight.
March 20, 2001 — Tuesday
I have to take the slug up to Tokiko to get a $50 check. That means I’m late for work. Phillip thinks every little thing he wants should be granted immediately. I really hate him .... He’s a horrid person. I wish that he would FALL DEAD.
April 11, 2001
I’m going crazy, can’t sleep. He’s driving me insane. I WISH HE WOULD FALL DEAD!
April 16, 2001
He’s just a big fat piece of s— that won’t work. I HATE HIM. DEAR GOD let him FALL DEAD!
April 28, 2001- — Saturday
I can’t support his habit much longer. I’m going to quit everything. That w$y he won’t have anything to blackmail me with. I hate Him. I wish he would FALL DEAD.
*43May 27, 2001
I still wish that SOB would die. He’s out in the ear now. I hope he gets caught & put in jail for 20 years. God only knows how much I HATE HIM.
May 28, 2001 — Memorial Day
Phillip wants to buy $50.00 of pot A DAY. I just can’t swing it, don’t know what to do. He thinks the inheritance he’s gonna get from his grandpa is gonna make up for 3 yrs of not working. I’ll be surprised if we get $1000.00.
June 9, 2001
I pray to God that son of a bitch will die. Just fall dead. I hate him with every fiber of my being. He’s a pathetic leech. He’s already drained me dry. I’m in so much debt I’ll never pay it off because HE wants dope ... he’s still pouting this morning. Maybe he’ll pout himself to death. I hope so. Maybe he’ll get hit by lightening [sic] — I hope so. I just wish he’d disappear from my life.
June 21, 2001 — Thursday
He just “can’t deal” with anything. A weak, pathetic human being. God let him fall dead!
June 28, 2001 — Thursday
Phillip is ... guess where — in bed.... The real reason he’s in bed is because I won’t buy pot again today. He wants a $25 bag everyday. As of now I am no longer a pot smoker. But that won’t help. He will still smoke $25 a day. But he wouldn’t work for anything. He just won’t work but expects anything he wants. I wish he would FALL Dead. It’s like he blames me because we don’t have enough money to buy a bag a day. I think I hold up my part of this deal. I pay every bill, buy every bite of food, and all the pot I can. But simple addition & subtraction should be enough proof that we just don’t have the money to buy a bag every day. Then he starts eating nerve pills to keep himself zoned out or asleep cause he’d rather be asleep if he’s not stoned.
July 10, 2001
He says soon as he gets his money from his Papaw he’s leaving. He promised me he’d pay all the credit card bills I ran up since he’s not worked in 2 yr. & smoked pot every day. Loser.
July 19, 2001
There’s no getting around it. Phillip’s a big fat loser. He can’t make a living. He does nothing but mow the yard, yet he wants $25 worth of dope a day. He’s always cold like a Pussy. Won’t let me turn the air conditioner on. I HATE HIM.
July 28, 2001
Well today’s the day we’re supposed to start painting the 1. room & guess who’s still in bed. You guessed it ... the big lazy loser. He’ll probably stay in bed until 10:00 & hope I’ll say it’s too late to start. But I won’t. He’s a big, pussy, lazy, loser. He’s completely worthless.
August 7, 2001
Still things are OK. I’ve still got a few hundred dollars. But that will be gone this week & I don’t get paid till the 20th. Even after that there’s no money ... it’s all owed in bills. That’s when the fighting will start again.
August 13, 2001
My life is out of control. I feel like I’m losing it ... fighting with Phillip about money all the time .... I really don’t feel like I can hold it together at work tomorrow. I think the end is near.
August lk, 2001
Even the $ mom sends me he wants. But work! NO WAY. He would sit & starve to death rather than work. I wish someone had warned me about men who look for mothers.... If I could get away from the nerve pills I could escape *44this situation. I wish I’d never heard of or seen Phillip Lanham.
August 15, 2001
Phillip is a leech. He preys off stupid people like me. I pray to God I can get off these V’s so I can Kick His Ass out. He’s worthless as a pile of s — .
August 21, 2001
Phillip & I will never have anything— God will make sure of that. Both Phillip & I are addicts & we will never have but the bare minimum. I can forget about new furniture, cologne, anything extra. As for the so called inheritance, I would bet my life that will not come to be. We will etch along, scraping & doing without until we die. So much fun.
September 1, 2001 — Saturday
We’re living on credit & I’m going crazy. Phillip will never bring in another cent the rest of his pathetic life. All he does is take, TAKE TAKE. I know I’d be better off w/o him. Wish I could get rid of him. He’s pathetic.
¶11The Commonwealth gave pretrial notice pursuant to KRE 404(c) of its intent to introduce: (1) the diary entries; (2) evidence that the police had been called to the residence within days of the murder, responding to the victim’s calls that Appellant was trying to put her out of the house; (8) that police performed a “welfare check” on the victim in response to her family’s claims that Appellant would not let her out of the house; and (4) that on September 27, 1993, eight years prior to the victim’s death, Appellant was charged, but not convicted, of assault in the fourth degree based on an allegation that he had “slammed the victim’s head,” causing a knot on her head, during a domestic disturbance.
¶12During an in limine hearing held on these issues on January 28, 2003, defense counsel (1) objected to the diary entries except those in which the victim admitted she was addicted to Valium, which tended to support Appellant’s theory that the victim fell and killed herself while intoxicated by drugs and alcohol; (2) agreed to the admission of the evidence of the incident that occurred within days of the victim’s death; (3) denied any knowledge of the “welfare check” incident; and (4) objected to any evidence pertaining to the eight-year-old assault charge. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a handwritten order holding the diary entries “admissible in that they are offered to prove the state of mind of the victim,” then noting that the parties were negotiating over which entries would be used and that “[djefense may renew objections on portions not agreed.” The court did not rule on the admissibility of the other three incidents, and their only relevance to this appeal is to identify which evidence in the KRE 404(c) notice defense counsel agreed to admit and which evidence she did not agree to admit. Specifically, she did not agree to the admission of all of the proffered diary entries.
¶13The diary entries, along with other evidence issues, were again discussed during a lengthy in limine hearing on the morning of trial. The majority opinion interprets statements made by defense counsel during this hearing as an agreement to the admission of all of the entries that were introduced into evidence, except the entries dated March 4, 2001, and May 27, 2001. However, the accurate interpretation of these events is that the trial court ruled on January 28, 2003, that all the diary entries were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, KRE 803(3), and that the parties then attempted to agree on which entries would be introduced in accordance with that ruling. Because the parties could not agree on the introduction of the entries dated March 4 and May 27, 2001, defense *45counsel renewed her objection to those entries. Thus viewed, defense counsel’s objections on the morning of trial to specific entries did not waive her previous objection to the admission of the other entries.
¶14Statements relating to the declarant’s present emotional state, e.g., fear, sorrow, excitement, fall within the so-called “state-of-mind” exception to the hearsay rule, KRE 803(3). Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744, 753 (Ky.2005); Bray v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Ky.2002); Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky.1996). However, such evidence is only admissible if the de-clarant’s state of mind is relevant. Ernst, 160 S.W.3d at 753-54; Blair v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Ky.2004); Bray, 68 S.W.3d at 381; Partin, 918 S.W.2d at 222. Since Appellant did not claim self-defense, the declarant’s feelings of hatred and disgust toward him were irrelevant. Bray, 68 S.W.3d at 381-82; Partin, 918 S.W.2d at 222. In fact, most of the diary entries consist only of inadmissible evidence of Appellant’s bad character. KRE 404(a); Jarvis v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d 466, 471 (Ky.1998) (evidence used only to paint defendant in a bad light should have been excluded); Chumbler v. Commonwealth, 905 S.W.2d 488, 494 (Ky.1995).
¶15Hearsay statements pertaining to specific events, as opposed to emotions, are also admitted under KRE 803(3), but only if they relate to the declarant’s future intentions, not to events that have already occurred. Ernst, 160 S.W.3d at 753; Blair, 144 S.W.3d at 805; Crowe v. Commonwealth, 38 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Ky.2001); Moseley v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Ky.1997).
¶16The only diary entries admissible under these legal principles were those dated February 7, 2001 (“We’ll probably end up in a fight tonight cause he blames me for all his woes.”); February 10, 2001 (“I dread today. We have no pot so Phillip will either hide in his bedroom all weekend or come stomping out with that mean, disgusting look on his face.... He’ll try to fight w/me today but God help me keep my cool.”); and August 7, 2001 (“Still things are OK. I’ve still got a few hundred dollars. But that will be gone this week & I don’t get paid till the 20th. Even after that there’s no money ... its all owed in bills. That’s when the fighting will start again.”). These are the only entries that relate to future events and tend to prove Appellant’s motive to kill the declarant.
¶17For these reasons, I respectfully dissent and would reverse Appellant’s convictions and sentences and remand this case to the Garrard Circuit Court for a new trial.
¶18LAMBERT, C.J.; and SCOTT, J., join this dissenting opinion.
¶19. See United States v. Adams, 271 F.3d 1236, 1245 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518, 1528 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 131 (1st Cir. 1995) (expert's opinion that another witness is lying or telling the truth is ordinarily inadmissible because opinion exceeds scope of expert's knowledge and merely informs the jury that it should reach a particular conclusion); Bachman v. Leapley, 953 F.2d 440, 441 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 604 (7th Cir.1991) ("jury does not need an expert to tell it whom to believe"), as modified by United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337, 1343-45 (7th Cir.1996) (evidence of psychiatric disorder that causes persons to make false confessions); United States v. Ravel, 930 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1991) (expert testimony inappropriate to bolster defendant’s credibility); United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 142 (2d Cir.1988); State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73, 75-76 (1986); Hinkston v. State, 340 Ark. 530, 10 S.W.3d 906, 910 (2000); People v. Coffman, 34 Cal.4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30, 93 (2004); People v. Koon, 713 P.2d 410, 412 (Colo.Ct.App.1985); State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739, 769 (1997) (excluding polygraph evidence); Tingle v. State, 536 So.2d 202, 204-05 (Fla.1988); State v. Oliver, 188 Ga.App. 47, 372 S.E.2d 256, 260 (1988); People v. Williams, 332 Ill.App.3d 693, 266 Ill.Dec. 168, 773 N.E.2d 1238, 1242-43 (2002); Shepherd v. State, 538 N.E.2d 242, 243 (Ind.1989); State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91, 95 (Iowa 1986); State v. Jackson, 239 Kan. 463, 721 P.2d 232, 238 (1986), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by State v. Rome, 269 Kan. 47, 5 P.3d 515, 519 (2000); State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1127-29 (La.1993); Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 539 A.2d 657, 662 (1988) (error to allow witness to express statement, belief, or opinion that another witness is telling the truth or lying); Commonwealth v. Ianello, 401 Mass. 197, 515 N.E.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1987); People v. Smith, 158 Mich.App. 220, 405 N.W.2d 156, 161 (1987); Beishir v. State, 522 S.W.2d 761, 764-65 (Mo.1975) ("Assuming that such a statement indicates an opinion that Warren was not truthful it would not have been admissible even if Dr. Guhleman had appeared as a witness.”); State v. Brodniak, 221 Mont. 212, 718 P.2d 322, 329 (1986); State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. 318, 708 A.2d 1183, 1195 (1998); State v. Kim, 318 N.C. 614, 350 S.E.2d 347, 350-51 (1986); State v. Willard, 144 Ohio App.3d 767, 761 N.E.2d 688, 693 (2001) ("[T]he effect of the statement was to bolster the complainant's version by suggesting that social workers and detectives, trained to investigate cases of abuse, believed the witness. No such testimony was presented, nor would it be proper for such a witness to render an opinion whether a victim was being truthful as to claims of sexual abuse.”); State v. Milbradt, 305 Or. 621, 756 P.2d 620, 624 (1988); Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, 541 A.2d 315, 317(1988); State v. Corey, 624 N.W.2d 841, 845 (S.D.2001); Heidelberg v. State, 36 S.W.3d 668, 676 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001); Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 557 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2002); State v. Romero, 147 Wis.2d 264, 432 N.W.2d 899, 904-05 (1988); McCone v. State, 866 P.2d 740, 751 (Wyo.1993) ("[Wjitness credibility 'is the exclusive province of the jury'; and neither expert nor lay witnesses should be permitted to testify that another witness is or is not telling the truth.”).