Opinion ID: 171619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Character witness cross-examination

Text: Parker next challenges the district court's decision to allow the government to ask certain hypothetical questions to three character witnesses. We review the district court's decision to allow cross-examination questions of character witnesses for abuse of discretion. See World Wide Ass'n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc., 450 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir.2006). We review how character evidence depend[s] on numerous and subtle considerations difficult to detect or appraise from a cold record, and therefore rarely and only on clear showing of prejudicial abuse of discretion will [we] disturb rulings of trial courts on this subject. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 480, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); see also SEC v. Peters, 978 F.2d 1162, 1172 (10th Cir.1992) (finding exclusion of cross-examination question to character witnesses to be an abuse of discretion). Under Rule 405, a defendant is entitled in limited circumstances to call witnesses to attest to the defendant's good character and the prosecution may conduct limited cross-examination. Our cases allow the prosecution in a criminal case to ask questions of the `have you heard' variety when a character witness testifies about personal opinion of the defendant's character, as opposed to offering testimony limited to the defendant's general reputation in the community. United States v. Polsinelli, 649 F.2d 793, 795-96 (10th Cir. 1981). The prosecution may ask a personal opinion witness whether he or she has heard the defendant had been sued for fraud and whether that information would have affected your opinion of good character. See Peters, 978 F.2d at 1168-70 (10th Cir.1992); see generally 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 48 (6th ed.2006). Parker called four witnesses to vouch for his character as a matter of personal opinion, and now challenges the prosecution's cross-examination of three of the witnesses. We analyze each witness separately. First, Mr. Buddy testified to Parker's community reputation and gave a personal opinion, stating, I think very highly of [Parker], because he's been a true friend to me, and I have seen nothing that would degrade from his position, and he has been honorable and upright and truthful in every dealing[] I've ever had with him. R., Vol. V, 1119. On cross-examination the government asked Buddy if it would change your opinion of Mr. Parker if you found out he had been selling aircraft engines through Trade-A-Plane that were unairworthy. R., Vol. V. at 1126. The government also asked if it became apparent to [Mr. Parker] through complaints from those purchasers that the engines were bad, would it change your opinion of him if you learned that he did not then go ahead and contact the other purchasers of the engines to warn them that they might have a defective engine? Id. Neither question assumed Parker's guilt. Parker objected to the government's cross-examination of Buddy. After extensive argument, the district court concluded that Buddy expressed a personal opinion of Mr. Parker's character, which did not prohibit the government's cross-examination about hypothetical instances of prior conduct. The rules of evidence did not prohibit the cross-examination as long as the questions did not assume Parker was convicted of the crimes alleged in this case. R., Vol. VI at 1126. Second, Mr. Way testified favorably about Parker's reputation. Without objection, the government asked limited cross-examination questions about Way's knowledge of Parker's reputation outside the local community. None of the questions suggest prior bad acts, and we see no reason to find the cross-examination improper or prejudicial. Third, Mr. Hudson testified about Parker's character saying, I do have an opinion. I admire him greatly, and [h]e's a great craftsman. R. Vol., V. at 1140. Without objection, the government cross-examined Hudson about his knowledge of co-defendant Good, as well as asking details about the people Hudson knew concerning Parker's reputation. None of these questions dealt with prior bad acts or assumed Parker's guilt. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the limited questioning by the government on cross-examination of Parker's character witnesses. Moreover, given the extensive evidence of guilt, even if the cross-examination was error, it would be harmless.