Opinion ID: 1127469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impeachment of Detective Lent

Text: Defendants argue that the court improperly precluded them from impeaching Detective Lent with the alleged fact that he had previously admitted to having lied under oath. On cross-examination, Roger's counsel asked Lent, In at least one case you admitted that you lied under oath? Lent responded, Correct. The state objected. The offer of proof was that, in a prior case, Lent admitted that he had fabricated evidence in one instance and concealed evidence in another. Defense counsel had a transcript of the testimony and a witness who was present at the previous trial. The court precluded admission of the extrinsic evidence. This question is governed by Rule 608(b), Arizona Rules of Evidence, which covers impeachment of witnesses using evidence of specific instances of conduct. [2] The rule has three requirements: (1) the conduct may not be proved by extrinsic evidence, (2) the conduct must be probative of the character of the witness for truthfulness, and (3) the trial court must exercise discretion to determine whether the probative value of the conduct is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. State v. Lee, 151 Ariz. 428, 430, 728 P.2d 298, 300 (App. 1986). The trial court's determination is analyzed on an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 453, 687 P.2d 1201, 1208 (1984). This court dealt with a similar issue involving Detective Lent in State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 326, 848 P.2d 1375, 1388, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 268, 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993), concluding that the trial court properly refused to allow impeachment by using a transcript from another proceeding. The trial court here considered the arguments made by counsel in chambers and apparently concluded that Lent's admissions were not probative of truthfulness in that Lent never intentionally misled anyone, though he admitted to being mistaken as to things that occurred two years before. After studying the transcript, the trial court found that it was not extremely probative of the matters before this Court ... extremely confusing and ... [the] probative value does not outweigh its unfair prejudice or its confusing aspects. The court also stated, [Y]ou can impeach him with prior lies if you can prove them and if he admits them, but we are not going to ... [try] a collateral matter. Under the rules of evidence, such determinations are for the trial court to make. Lee, 151 Ariz. at 430, 728 P.2d at 300. There was no abuse of discretion.