Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Allow Cross-Examination of Gibbons Relating to His Termination

Text: ANI argues that the court erred when it granted the State's motion to prevent ANI from cross-examining Gibbons on the reasons ANI terminated his employment. ANI argues that this evidence was relevant to Gibbons's motive to lie as a witness at trial. [17] Evidence of bias or interest on the part of a witness is admissible for the purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility. Alaska R. Evid. 613(a). ANI claims that Gibbons was fired for lying to a customer. The jury should have been allowed to hear that evidence in order to evaluate his credibility. Nevertheless, we affirm the trial court's ruling for several reasons. First, ANI has not followed Alaska Appellate Rules 210 and 212. Appellate Rule 210(c) requires that the appellate excerpt of record contain other orders or rulings sought to be reviewed. Alaska R.App. P. 210(c)(2). ANI failed to include in the excerpt the court order preventing ANI from cross-examining Gibbons. ANI's briefs contain no citation to the record for the court order, and its opening brief notes that the motion, opposition, and order have been misplaced so are not part of the excerpt. ANI could have supplemented the excerpt when it realized the omission. Alaska R.App. P. 210(c)(3). It did not. The record is very large in this case, consisting of 3,300 numbered pages. The transcript consists of 1,939 pages. The appellate excerpts alone total 1,436 pages. ANI has also failed to comply with Appellate Rule 212(c)(8)[c], which states, Appellant's brief shall indicate the pages of the record where each point on appeal was raised in the trial court. Alaska R.App. P. 212(c)(8)[c]. Given the clarity of these rules, we are not willing to assume that the error was prejudicial. Second, ANI has not explained how it was prejudiced. Gibbons testified about transactions involving the 1985 S-10 Blazer. ANI simply asserts that [i]t became prejudicial error when the jury [verdict] was rendered. ANI has not identified what parts of Gibbons's testimony would have been less persuasive to the jury if ANI could have impeached his credibility by showing he had a motive to lie. Assuming there was any error, ANI has not demonstrated how it was prejudiced. [18]