Childers v. Commonwealth, 332 S.W.3d 64

Debbie Childers was convicted of complicity to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree in Lawrence County on an April 14, 2009 judgment; the jury, finding her a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO 2), enhanced her sentence from 10 to 20 years.
Detectives Wireman and Adams of Operation UNITE used confidential informant Thomas Osborne to conduct a buy of oxycodone in Louisa, Kentucky on September 3, 2008.
Osborne testified he called Childers to obtain oxycodone for $20 per 15 mg tablet; Childers arranged, drove to the car wash, and supplied the pills via Johnson after receiving $100 buy money.
Police recovered the $100 buy money from Childers and five oxycodone pills from Osborne; the pills were confirmed as oxycodone by the state lab.
Childers challenged the trial court’s ruling barring inquiry into Osborne’s prior felony convictions under KRE 608(b); she also challenged the tape interpretation and argued the evidence was insufficient to support conviction.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed, holding (a) the trial court did not abuse its discretion under KRE 608(b) and Fields v. Commonwealth to allow inquiry into bare existence of convictions but not their details; (b) the Commonwealth’s comments on the tape were permissible but Detective Wireman’s interpretation was improper yet not palpable error; and (c) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examination about Osborne's prior felonies was permissible under KRE 608(b).	Childers argues 608(b) allows inquiry into the nature of convictions.	Commonwealth contends 608(b) limits inquiry to credibility, not details; 609 governs convictions.	No abuse of discretion; 608(b) does not permit convictions’ details; 609 governs convictions.
Whether the Commonwealth’s Attorney and Detective Wireman improperly interpreted the drug buy tape.	Prosecutor’s and Wireman’s comments on tape misstate evidence.	Attorney comments were proper; Wireman’s interpretation was improper.	Prosecutor’s comments permissible; Wireman’s interpretation was improper but not palpable error.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for complicity to trafficking in a first-degree controlled substance.	Evidence insufficient to prove elements of complicity.	Record shows Childers took calls, arranged, drove to meet, and obtained pills.	Sufficient evidence; no reversal for insufficiency.

Fields v. Commonwealth, 274 S.W.3d 375 (Ky. 2008) (limits on cross-examining misdemeanor convictions but discusses 608/609 interaction)
Gordon v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. 1995) (witness may testify about tape, but not interpret it)
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 674 S.W.2d 515 (Ky. 1984) (prohibits identifying prior offenses when a witness admits conviction)
Woolum v. Hillman, 329 S.W.3d 283 (Ky. 2010) (discusses balancing under KRE 403; rejection of bright-line rule)
Osborne v. United States (non-Kentucky citation used in analysis), 564 F.3d 1169 (1st Cir. 2009) (federal rule interpretation context for 608/609 interplay)