## Facts

- Police arranged an undercover drug buy at an informant’s apartment for a quarter-ounce of crack cocaine.
- An undercover detective met the informant, a female, and Clifford, who came out of a bedroom and stated he had only $75 worth of cocaine but could complete the order later.
- The informant went into the bedroom with Clifford and returned with crack cocaine, which he handed to the undercover detective in exchange for $75.
- The undercover detective was wearing an audio transmitter; another officer monitored the live feed and later testified about what he heard.
- A recording was made but excluded as inaudible; the monitoring officer nevertheless testified to hearing the undercover detective, a female, another male, and a “Black male” voice, identifying the latter based on his police experience.
- At trial, the informant testified that the drugs were his and that he alone made the sale; Clifford did not testify.
- Clifford was convicted of first-degree trafficking; he then pleaded guilty to first-degree persistent felony offender and received an enhanced 20-year sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting lay testimony that one of the voices heard during the wired transaction was that of a “Black male,” given reliability and unfair-prejudice concerns.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree trafficking conviction where the informant testified that he alone conducted the sale.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the conviction and enhanced sentence.
- The court held the monitoring officer’s “Black male voice” testimony was admissible lay opinion based on perception and experience; any weaknesses were for the jury to assess through cross-examination.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient, viewing proof in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth; the jury could credit the undercover detective’s account and disbelieve the informant’s exculpatory testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Lay voice-identification testimony is admissible when based on the witness’s perceptions and a foundation connecting the voice to the alleged speaker; deficiencies generally affect weight, not admissibility.
- Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, but admissibility decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Sufficiency review requires considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution; a conviction stands if a reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and credibility conflicts are for the jury.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a trafficking conviction and persistent-felony-offender enhancement, ruling that an officer could offer lay opinion identifying a monitored speaker as a “Black male” voice and that the undercover detective’s testimony provided sufficient evidence despite the informant’s claim that Clifford was uninvolved.


Clifford v. Commonwealth, 7 S.W.3d 371 (Ky. 1999)