Opinion ID: 708068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Other Fires

Text: 11 We next address Riggio's challenge to the admission of evidence concerning specific instances of conduct. During cross-examination he was questioned about four separate fires for which no charges had been made. Riggio maintains that the district court should have granted a mistrial because references to these fires violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The trial court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 14 It cannot be gainsaid that evidence of past crimes or bad acts is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) when it is used to prove a defendant's bad character. 15 Similarly, Rule 608(b) provides that [s]pecific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than conviction ..., may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. 16 At the discretion of the trial court, however, prior conduct may be inquired into on cross-examination of a witness if the evidence tends to test the truthfulness of testimony given on direct examination. 17 Rule 608(b) clearly applies to evidence introduced to impeach the testimony of a witness. 12 The evidence in this case was introduced to rebut the testimony of the defendant, and thus the appropriate analysis is under Rule 608(b). Evidence of Riggio's credibility was highly probative. He testified at length about his lack of involvement in the charged offense, making his credibility a central issue in the case. He specifically testified, I've never burned anything down in my life, and I never been involved in criminal activity. The cross-examination into certain specific instances of conduct, or misconduct, was appropriate. The district court's decision to admit this impeachment evidence was neither erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.