Id. at 195, (citing People v. Lopez, 129 P.3d 1061, 1066 (Colo.App.2005)). The court of appeals further concluded, as a matter of first impression, that the detectives' testimony regarding the investigative interviews was admissible because defense counsel's opening statement had opened the door to otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. Id. at 195. ' 1 12 Although we granted certiorari to examine two questions, our decision on the first question of whether a detective, when testifying about interrogating a witness, may comment on his or her assessment of the witness's credibility or truthfulness, renders the second-whether a party may open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence through its opening statement-moot. Because we conclude that p.2004) (<HOLDING>). 1 16 In this vein, Davis relies on Liggett v.
holding that sanctions were appropriate where the subpoena was served for the improper purpose of exerting pressure on the witnesses not to testify holding that an officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest for child abuse based on uncorroborated hearsay statements of a twoyearold when the officer could have interviewed witnesses and considered physical evidence and a medical diagnosis and failed to do so holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations holding that it was improper under cre 608a for an investigating officer to testify that witnesses he interviewed seemed sincere