Commonwealth v. Brown: Kentucky Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Third-Party Database Records under KRE 803(17)

1. Introduction

Isaiah Brown’s appeal required the Supreme Court of Kentucky to evaluate multiple evidentiary rulings made during his 2024 Jefferson Circuit Court trial for murder and first-degree robbery. The heart of the controversy centred on the Commonwealth’s use of an Accurint telephone-number “work-up” obtained through the Louisville Metro Police Department’s Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC). Detective O’Daniel relied on that work-up to tell jurors that a particular “356” phone number belonged to Brown.

Brown argued that:

the detective’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay,
foundation for authenticating “356” text messages was insufficient,
the detective impermissibly vouched for witness Fatima Alabusalim,
co-conspirator text messages from Rayshawn Tucker were wrongly admitted, and
cumulative error mandated reversal.

Justice Keller, writing for the Court, affirmed the convictions but in so doing produced the Court’s first comprehensive construction of Kentucky Rule of Evidence 803(17) (“market reports” exception) as applied to modern, privately-compiled digital databases like Accurint.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

Detective O’Daniel’s testimony tying the “356” phone number to Brown—based solely on the RTCC/Accurint work-up—was hearsay and erroneously admitted because the Commonwealth failed to lay a reliability foundation or introduce the underlying report. The error, however, was “harmless” given overwhelming circumstantial evidence connecting Brown to that number.
Testimony connecting other phone numbers to Brown’s relatives was likewise hearsay but, being unpreserved and de minimis, did not constitute palpable error.
The text messages sent from the “356” number were properly authenticated under KRE 901(b)(4) through circumstantial evidence (location data, timing, relationship to Brown).
Detective O’Daniel’s vouching for Alabusalim’s credibility was improper, yet not so prejudicial as to create manifest injustice.
Tucker’s text messages were admissible under the co-conspirator exemption (KRE 801A(b)(5)) because they furthered the robbery conspiracy.
The cumulative-error doctrine did not warrant reversal.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Simpson v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 781 (Ky. 1994) & Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) – reaffirmed the “abuse-of-discretion” review of evidentiary rulings.
Saxton v. Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2022); Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2010); and federal case Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) – framed Kentucky’s harmless-error analysis.
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 301 S.W.3d 497 (Ky. 2010) & Ordway v. Commonwealth, 352 S.W.3d 584 (Ky. 2011) – used for the “slight burden” required to authenticate evidence under KRE 901(b)(4).
Gerlaugh v. Commonwealth, 156 S.W.3d 747 (Ky. 2005) & Monroe v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2008) – guided application of the co-conspirator hearsay exception.
Hoff v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2011) – addressed improper vouching.
Scholarly authorities: Wigmore, Weinstein, Mueller & Kirkpatrick, McCormick—adopted to interpret KRE 803(17).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Market Reports Exception – first application to digital databases

KRE 803(17) mirrors FRE 803(17) and removes hearsay barriers for “lists, directories, or other published compilations generally relied on by the public.” Justice Keller emphasised two implied requirements:

Necessity – summoning every compiler is impracticable;
Reliability – courts must assess whether compilers “stake their public or business reputations on accuracy.”

Because the Commonwealth never introduced the Accurint report itself, the trial court lacked any basis to evaluate reliability; testimony that officers “routinely rely” on Accurint was insufficient. Hence, the detective’s assertion was inadmissible hearsay.

B. Authentication of Text Messages (KRE 901(b)(4))

The Court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence—location data, a number registered next-door to Brown, simultaneous travel of both phones, and Brown’s documented presence in Pensacola—met the “slight” prima-facie burden to attribute authorship of the “356” messages to Brown.

C. Co-Conspirator Statements (KRE 801A(b)(5))

Text messages exchanged immediately before the robbery plainly “assisted or advanced” the conspiracy; even a post-crime request to see a news article could reasonably be viewed as part of ongoing concealment of the broader plan to keep “setting people up.”

D. Improper Vouching & Harmless Error

Detective O’Daniel’s repeated confirmations that Fatima’s story was “corroborated” crossed the line into vouching but, against an evidentiary backdrop including cell-site data, pawn records, and Google searches, did not create manifest injustice.

E. Cumulative Error

Because none of the individual errors were “substantial,” their combined effect failed to render the trial fundamentally unfair.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Evidentiary Gatekeeping in the Digital Age. Kentucky trial courts must now require the actual third-party report (or comparable evidence) before admitting database-derived conclusions under KRE 803(17). Law-enforcement “habitual reliance” alone is insufficient.
Guidance for Practitioners. Prosecutors must be prepared either to (i) call a sponsoring witness to establish reliability of databases like Accurint, or (ii) bypass hearsay issues by authenticating authorship directly (subscriptions, contracts, subscriber admissions, etc.). Defence counsel, conversely, gained a new avenue to challenge digital-data shortcuts.
Harmonisation with Federal Law. The opinion aligns Kentucky with federal caselaw restricting FRE 803(17) to objective compilations devoid of evaluative conclusions.
Reaffirmation of Low Authentication Threshold. Despite excluding the Accurint hearsay, the Court underscored how cell-site and contextual evidence can still authenticate electronic communications.
Limitation on Detective Vouching. Although deemed non-prejudicial here, the decision signals continued intolerance of opinion testimony regarding witness credibility.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Hearsay – An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it asserts; generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.
KRE 803(17) “Market Reports” Exception – Allows objective compilations (price lists, directories) relied upon by the public or a trade. Reliability of the compilation itself must be shown.
Authentication (KRE 901) – Showing a document or message is what its proponent claims. Circumstantial indicators (time, place, pattern) may suffice.
Co-Conspirator Statement (KRE 801A(b)(5)) – One conspirator’s statement is admissible against another if made during, and advancing, the conspiracy.
Harmless Error vs. Palpable Error – Preserved errors are reviewed for harmlessness; unpreserved errors must be “palpable” and cause “manifest injustice” to warrant reversal.
Cumulative-Error Doctrine – Even small errors can demand reversal if, in totality, they undermine a trial’s fundamental fairness.

5. Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Brown cements two key propositions in Kentucky evidence law. First, the “market reports” exception cannot be a back-door for unverifiable digital dossiers; courts must see and assess the underlying compilation for reliability. Second, even without such compilations, modern investigative by-products—location data, digital images, and interlocking text communications—can still satisfy authentication and conspiracy requirements. While the ruling left Brown’s conviction intact, it delivers a cautionary roadmap for litigants and trial judges navigating the ever-expanding universe of electronic evidence.

Prepared by: [Your Name], J.D.
Date: [generate date]