she made to Mason. Detective Judah referenced the interview and the fact that he watched the interview take place via closed circuit television. He also mentioned that the interview was recorded absent defense objection. Mason likewise testified that the interview was recorded, again without defense objection, and was asked questions based on a transcript of the interview. In light of the repeated reference to the recording of the interview, we discern no manifest injustice resulting from the Commonwealth’s statement to the jury that the recording was excluded because it contained hearsay. We emphasize that the Commonwealth did not reference any of the recording’s content, simply the fact that the interview was recorded. Cf. Parker v. Commonwealth, 241 S.W.3d 805, 808-09 (Ky.2007) (<HOLDING>). Even if this reference was absent from the
holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony holding that a statement implying that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial was inadmissible hearsay holding that a later statement was admissible despite illegal detention at home holding error where re cording which was later deemed inadmissible was played during opening statement holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel