Opinion ID: 1210792
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: widow's testimony

Text: ¶ 9 Greene claims the trial court erred by failing to limit Johnson's widow's testimony to the specific character trait of heterosexuality. The state recalled Mrs. Johnson to rebut the testimony of Greene's former girlfriend who testified that Greene had told her that he killed Johnson in response to a homosexual advance. Mrs. Johnson testified that Greene's claim was preposterous....[Johnson] was a man of great honor and integrity, of great moral principle, of deep, abiding faith. And most importantly, he was devoted to me as I was to him. Tr. of Mar. 12, 1996, at 92. ¶ 10 Greene agrees that once a victim's sexual preference is put in issue, the state may offer rebuttal evidence regarding the victim's heterosexuality. See State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 518, 733 P.2d 1090, 1101 (1987); see also Rule 404(a)(2), Ariz. R. Evid. But accusing a married person of making a nonspousal sexual advance places far more than sexual preference in issue. All sorts of character issues are implicated, such as fidelity, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and loyalty. Thus, for purposes of rebuttal, Greene's accusation implicated all of these. ¶ 11 Mrs. Johnson's testimony that her husband was devoted and faithful to her tends to show that the victim would not have made sexual advances toward Greene. Her testimony that he was a man of honor, integrity, and good moral character directly rebuts Greene's accusations of Johnson's infidelity. [1] Admission of the testimony in question was proper rebuttal evidence. Rule 404(a)(2), Ariz. R. Evid. There was no error.