Eric Henderson v. Commonwealth - KSC, 8/21/14,
to be published
KRE 404(c) requires notice to be provided only by the
Commonwealth, not the defense. However, the rule governing offers of proof— KRE
103(a)(2)— just got harder to meet.
In support of
her effort to cross-examine a witness regarding his bias based on prior
altercations with the defendant, counsel made the following offer of proof:
Your Honor, we're about to present a theory of defense. His
thing is that
this isn't a one night thing. This is something that
had been
leading up to what happened that night. We think he
has a right to
put on his theory of defense if the defense is that
they, in fact,
meant to set him up that night.
He just said
that they got into it earlier. It's not saying that
there's any
crimes committed or anything, just that they had an
altercation.
The Court
held that while this may have presented the grounds for admission, KRE
103(a)(2) also requires “the substance or content of the excluded testimony.”
The above offer of proof was not enough. Justice Noble dissenting.
Seleta
Griffith
represented Henderson at trial; Susan Balliet represented Mr. Henderson on
appeal.
Contributed by Julia Person
