Opinion ID: 1708112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: calling county attorney to impeach other witnesses

Text: Trackwell also complains that he was not permitted to put the county attorney on the witness stand to testify to prior inconsistent statements made by the alleged victim and her 16-year-old female companion about their conduct while sitting in the car at Trackwell's office earlier in the evening. Both the alleged victim and the 16-year-old female had testified on cross-examination that they had talked only to members of their own party that evening. Each specifically denied talking to anyone else. A man who worked at a business next to Trackwell's testified for the defense that he and two other people arrived in the parking lot while Trackwell was talking with another man. The witness testified that when he got out of his car he heard some whistling and stuff like that. He testified that there were two female voices screaming and hollering and that somebody said, [N]ice ass. The witness further testified that when he discussed his testimony with the county attorney, she told him that we've already talked to her and she's already admitted to that. After the witness was excused, Trackwell attempted to call the county attorney as a witness to see if there is a prior inconsistent statement which would impeach either [the alleged victim] or [her companion]. The court overruled the request. Trackwell argues in his reply brief that he was entitled to call the county attorney to impeach the alleged victim and her companion because [i]f [the alleged victim] sexually heckles men she does not know and lies about it, the jury should have known this. If she could lie about her flirtatious conduct while waiting for Appellant and [her male companion], she could have also lied about her conduct later that evening. Reply brief for appellant at 7-8. Neb.Evid.R. 608(2), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-608(2) (Reissue 1989), provides: Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in section 27-609, 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 (a) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.... Therefore, it was impermissible for Trackwell to attack the credibility of the alleged victim and her female companion by presenting extrinsic evidence of their behavior through the testimony of the county attorney. Trackwell had the opportunity to attack the credibility of each of these witnesses through cross-examination. The trial court correctly denied Trackwell's request to call the county attorney as a witness.