dissent">KELLER, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because Appellant did not properly preserve for appellate review his allegation that the trial court erred when it sustained the Commonwealth’s objections and thereby prevented Appellant from questioning witnesses regarding his wife’s acquittal of incest charges. In my view, this case is indistinguishable from Commonwealth v. Ferrell,1where the Appellee alleged error in the trial court’s ruling sustaining the Commonwealth’s objection to a question posed to him by his trial counsel, but did “not suppl[y] us with the answer to that question by means of avowal.”2 In Ferrell, we unequivocally stated that “a party must offer an avowal by the witness in order to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning the exclusion of evidence,” 3 and, in so doing, we merely reaffirmed existing precedent interpreting the KRE 103 preservation rule.4 As the record before us does not contain avowal testimony from either Detective Goode or Appellant’s wife, this allegation of error is not properly preserved for our review. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court.

WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins.

. Ky., 17 S.W.3d 520 (2000).

. Id. at 525.

. Id. at 525 (emphasis in original).

.See Partin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 918 S.W.2d 219, 223 (1996) ("Counsel’s version of the evidence is not enough. A reviewing court must have the words of the witness.”).

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress