Opinion ID: 878254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: improper cross-examination of a witness for defendant

Text: White, in his case-in-chief, called as a defense witness, Dan Phillips, one of his companions at the event in question. Phillips testified, as did White, that Pippin struck at White with an overhand fist which missed White and that White then lifted the cue stick and hit Pippin on the side of the head. On cross-examination by the deputy county attorney, the following colloquy between witness, the court and counsel occurred: Q. You go to Cutone's quite frequently; isn't that true? A. I used to quite frequently, yes. Q. And isn't it true  Do you know Tom Cutone, the owner? A. I sure do. Q. And isn't it true that he told you he didn't want you at his bar? MR. JACQUES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. If there's going to be argument, I'd like to argue it outside the presence of the jury. It's improper impeachment. THE COURT: I think that's right. What's the point of that question? I think I'll sustain the objection. THE WITNESS: I am allowed in Cutone's now and have been. BY MR. MEEK: Q. What kind of drink did you buy the defendant and his girlfriend for a birthday drink? A. I believe a can of Rainier for Shane, and I think a glass of wine for Cindy, but I'm not sure. Q. Were you drinking beer out of a can? A. Yes, I was. Q. And what was Joe Harris drinking beer out of? A. Can of Rainier. THE COURT: I'll reverse that decision. You may inquire as to whether Mr. Cutone asked him to stay out of the bar. BY MR. MEEK: Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Phillips, that the owner of Cutone's instructed you that you were never to attend his bar prior to this incident? Isn't that true? A. A long time ago he `eighty-sixed' me from the bar. Q. And what does `eighty-sixed' mean? A. Do not come back, but then I have talked to him, and he said, `Maybe it's not your fault,' and I was allowed in there, and I still am. Q. Maybe what wasn't your fault? A. My girlfriend's brother beat me up in Cutone's, broke five of my ribs, blacked both of my eyes, broke my nose, and since my girlfriend's sister was working there, he thought it probably was a good idea that I didn't show up. Q. Isn't it true that the reason that you were banned from Cutone's is because you constantly caused trouble there? A. No, that's not true. At the time set for the beginning of trial, court, counsel and the defendant met, and the District Court made a ruling on defendant's motion in limine that any bad acts or specific instances of conduct of the defendant or other witnesses not arising with the facts giving rise to the instant charge be not questioned or referred to. The court granted the motion in limine at the outset of trial. Notwithstanding the court's order in limine, the deputy county attorney asked the questions relating to specific instances of misconduct of the witness Phillips as we have set forth above. The deputy county attorney admitted during oral argument that he purposely asked the questions so as to later impeach the witness on his instances of misconduct through the owner of the bar. The State thereafter, in its rebuttal case, called the owner of the bar as a witness, who testified that Phillips had indeed been banned from the bar for incidents which had occurred three weeks to a month before the event which was the subject of the case at bar. The District Court erred in permitting the interrogation of a witness, not a party to the suit, as to past instances of misconduct for the purpose of impeaching the witness. This issue is controlled by Rule 608, M.R.Evid., relating to evidence of the character and conduct of a witness. That section provides in pertinent part: (b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purposes of attacking or supporting his credibility, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness is being cross-examined has testified... . The testimony elicited by the State in this case against the witness Phillips, that he had been guilty of misconduct at bars, does not fit within the exception of Rule 608(b), quoted above that specific instances of conduct may be inquired into if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. As Professor Moore states with respect to the similar rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence: The exception is narrowly drawn in recognition of the opportunities for abuse when evidence of specific instances of conduct is offered. Thus the rule admits such evidence only on cross-examination and only if probative as to a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness ... 10 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 608.21, at VI-89 (Oct. 1976). The testimony as to Phillips' previous misconduct was wholly unrelated to the ability of Phillips to observe, recall or testify as to any relevant occurrences in the altercation between White and Pippin. It served only to create unfair prejudice against White, and confusion of the issues for the jury, and as such should have been barred under Rule 403, M.R.Evid.: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, ... waste of time ... The result here as to this issue would be the same even before the adoption of the Montana Rules of Evidence. Former section 93-1901-11, R.C.M. 1947, used substantially the same language. Specific wrongful acts used in cross-examination of witnesses to degrade their characters were condemned in State v. Rogers (1904), 31 Mont. 1, 6, 77 P. 293; State v. Crowe (1909), 39 Mont. 174, 177, 102 P. 579; State v. Kanakarias (1917), 54 Mont. 180, 184, 169 P. 42; State v. Shannon (1933), 95 Mont. 280, 288, 26 P.2d 360. In State v. Rivers (1958), 133 Mont. 129, 320 P.2d 1004, this Court said: States differ on the rule of proper impeachment. Montana's view is clear. Its violation is an invasion of a substantial right. Our applicable section is section 93-1901-11, R.C.M. 1947: `A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence or by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity, is bad, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of a felony.' We cannot accept respondent's explanation that this was to test the credibility of the defendant on statements made, and not for their truth or veracity, or again that it was to show that defendant knew from the death of the child in Idaho that insufficient food would result in the child's death. And finally, respondent State and the lower court's view that even though this be error, it was waived by the defendant in her redirect. It was error. (citing cases) Great damage had been done; a substantial right of the defendant had been invaded ... (Emphasis added.) 133 Mont. at 134, 135, 320 P.2d at 1007.