Opinion ID: 1709949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impeachment of Expert Witness

Text: Tanzi asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to impeach the character of Dr. Vicary, a defense mental health expert, with a specific and unrelated act of misconduct. More specifically, the trial court allowed the prosecution to question Dr. Vicary regarding a 1998 suspension of his California medical license due to his involvement in the case of Eric Menendez as both a treating physician and a forensic scientist. At the direction of Menendez's attorney, Dr. Vicary had rewritten his notes and deleted passages that were damaging to the defense. A trial court's admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Brooks, 918 So.2d at 188; see also Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 448 (Fla.2002) ([T]he decision as to whether a particular question properly goes to interest, bias, or prejudice lies within the discretion of the trial judge.) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 608.5 (1997 ed.)). While impeachment of a witness's character by specific acts of misconduct is prohibited, Fernandez v. State, 730 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla.1999); Farinas v. State, 569 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1990), [o]ur evidence code liberally permits the introduction of evidence to show the bias or motive of a witness. Gibson v. State, 661 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla.1995). Included within the types of matters that demonstrate bias are those that relate to the interest of the witness, favoritism, and corruption. Morrison, 818 So.2d at 447 (alteration in original) (quoting Ehrhardt, supra § 608.5). Dr. Vicary's willingness to forge his interview notes at the request of a defense attorney could illustrate Dr. Vicary's corruption as a mental health expert. Therefore, because this line of impeachment could properly relate to the witness's bias, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting it.