Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice MINTON.
The Court of Appeals vacated a judgment convicting Angella Prater of reckless homicide
Prater was the driver in a single-vehicle collision in which her truck left the road and hit a tree. Eyewitness testimony indicated that Prater may have been traveling too fast or inattentively. But other evidence suggested that a tire came off the truck causing it to leave the road. Prater's two-year-old son, who was a passenger in the truck at the time of the collision, died as a result of blunt-impact trauma to the head.
Soon after the accident, the Kentucky State Police laboratory tested Prater's blood for drugs and alcohol. The test results were positive for prescription painkillers Tramadol and Methadone at or below therapeutic levels. The test results were also positive for Zoloft, an antidepressant for which the laboratory did not have a standard for therapeutic levels at that time. Apparently, no alcohol or other drugs were found in her blood; and a laboratory official later testified that she could not determine whether Prater was impaired as a result of the prescription drugs.
Prater was indicted and tried on a charge of reckless homicide, a Class D felony. At trial, she testified to having taken the three prescription drugs the day before the accident. She further stated that a counselor had prescribed the Zoloft and that a doctor prescribed the painkillers following nasal surgery, which she alleged she underwent "three or four" days before the accident. Upon cross-examination, Prater admitted that she was uncertain about when the nasal surgery occurred. She allowed on cross-examination that perhaps the nasal surgery could have occurred more than the three or four days before the accident. The Commonwealth's attorney then suggested that perhaps Prater could have easily obtained her medical records in advance of trial to facilitate quick verification of the precise date of the nasal surgery.
At a bench conference that followed, the Commonwealth asked the trial court for an order to obtain Prater's medical records from the nasal surgery. Prater's counsel objected, based on relevancy; questioned what the Commonwealth expected to find in the records; and informed the court that the nasal surgery actually occurred after the accident. The trial court overruled the objection and issued an order permitting the Commonwealth to obtain Prater's medical records from the doctor whom Prater identified as having performed her nasal surgery and having prescribed the two painkillers.
After the jury returned from a break, the medical records custodian and nurse of the physician who performed the nasal surgery testified. The custodian's review of the records revealed that the nasal surgery occurred over two years after the accident and that the physician had prescribed one painkiller, Methadone; but he had not prescribed the other painkiller.
Prater later resumed the witness stand and explained that she had misremembered the nasal surgery as occurring a few days before the accident. She testified that she had had a number of medical problems, including a head injury from the accident, and had become confused. She testified then that she had suffered an
Upon further cross-examination, the Commonwealth attempted to cast doubt on Prater's claims that she was taking two prescription painkillers for the ankle injury by eliciting Prater's admission that there was no radiology report for the ankle injury. This suggested, of course, that no fracture had occurred or was even suspected. Prater also admitted that she had no direct record that a doctor had prescribed any painkillers for the ankle injury. She went on to state that she could not actually recall the medical condition for which she began taking the painkillers, and she was hesitant or unsure about identifying the name of the doctor who had prescribed them. And we are not aware of any request by Prater for further intervention by the trial court, such as a request for a continuance, in order to gather and present other medical records or other evidence concerning her treatment for her ankle injury or other medical conditions.
The jury found Prater guilty of the reckless homicide charge and recommended the maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and sentencing recommendation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings on the basis that the trial court had "erred to [Prater's] substantial prejudice in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that impeached her testimony that the pain medication in her system was the result of prescriptions connected to nasal surgery."
The Court of Appeals determined that the reason for Prater's admitted use of the prescription drugs in her system was irrelevant to determining her guilt or innocence on the reckless homicide charge and was, thus, a collateral issue. Noting that Prater's objection on relevancy grounds was closely related to the concept of collateral impeachment and, thus, determining the collateral impeachment issue adequately preserved for review, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erroneously allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence to impeach Prater on a collateral issue. The Court of Appeals vacated the conviction.
The Commonwealth contends that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the issue of collateral impeachment was adequately preserved by Prater's objection on grounds of relevancy.
Given the imprecise preservation of the issue, the issue should arguably only be reviewed under a palpable error standard under RCr 10.26. But even assuming that the issue is properly preserved, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence; and so we believe that the Court of Appeals incorrectly determined that Prater was entitled to relief.
We certainly agree that a more specific objection on collateral impeachment would have been more effective in bringing this issue to the trial court's attention;
This case forces us to apply the somewhat confusing rule against collateral impeachment. In fact, there is no particular rule in the Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) clearly addressing impeachment on collateral facts, matters, or issues.
Professor Lawson notes that rules concerning collateral impeachment "are easy to describe but very difficult to apply, because of the complexity involved in determining `collateralness.'"
Applying the proper abuse of discretion standard of review, we disagree with the Court of Appeals' determination that Prater's conviction must be vacated. We hold that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to permit impeachment on this issue because Prater created the issue by offering on direct examination a misleading explanation of why she was taking the painkillers. It is plausible to infer that she did so in an effort to present herself to the jury in a sympathetic light.
Perhaps the most hotly disputed issue in this case is whether the reason for Prater's admitted ingestion of the two prescription painkillers is truly a collateral matter. And we note that whether Prater had taken the prescription painkillers as a result of a particular surgery or injury or for other reasons was not necessarily the linchpin of her guilt or innocence on the reckless homicide charge. For example, it is possible that one might be held liable for reckless homicide for fatal injuries resulting from driving impaired
And Professor Lawson notes a split among Kentucky cases before adoption of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence. He cites Dixon v. Commonwealth
In light of the concerns raised in Professor Lawson's discussion—desire to avoid issue proliferation versus potential use of collateral impeachment rules as a "license to lie"
We believe the trial court is in the best position to decide whether the facts and circumstances of that case present a scenario in which the evil of allowing a party to offer voluntarily what may be knowingly false testimony with impunity outweighs the evil of having to devote trial time to impeachment on collateral matters. And we now clearly hold that the trial court has discretion to permit or deny impeachment by extrinsic evidence on a collateral issue raised by a party on direct examination.
Under the unique facts of this case, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of Prater's medical records to impeach her assertion on direct examination that she took the prescription painkillers because they had been prescribed to her following nasal surgery shortly before the accident. Prater chose to create the issue of the reason behind her taking the painkillers to the jury and was allowed to present other records— despite concerns over lack of authentication —in her efforts to show other medical reasons for taking the prescription painkillers once the Commonwealth effectively cast doubt on her initial assertion. Because she opened the door to inquiry on why she was taking the prescription drugs, we believe that the trial court had latitude to allow the Commonwealth to attack the veracity of her assertion or to require that the matter drop on grounds of issue proliferation, jury confusion, or waste of time.
Here, Prater's assertion on direct examination that she took the drugs as prescribed following surgery might cast her in a more sympathetic light than, for example, leaving the jury to guess whether she
Because Prater chose to raise the issue of why she had taken the prescription painkillers to the jury as part of her defense and because flatly foreclosing the Commonwealth from any opportunity to impeach this assertion through extrinsic evidence could have had the effect of condoning false testimony without consequences, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowing impeachment by extrinsic evidence under the facts here.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
All sitting. All concur.
Since the result in this case does not change whether the issue is preserved or not, this opinion should not be construed as a definitive holding that an objection based on relevancy will always suffice to preserve an appellate argument that evidence was inadmissible on collateral impeachment grounds.
