Opinion ID: 2275253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of R.B.

Text: At trial, the State called as a witness R.B., the alleged victim of an earlier rape by Fells, who testified that Fells had threatened her during the incident. Fells's attorney attempted to cross-examine R.B. as follows: Q. Did you at any time tell Detective Massiet, At no time did Mr. Fells threaten her safety, [her] meaning you, in any way to have sex? A. Say that again, I'm sorry. Q. Did you tell Detective Massietand I'm going to read this verbatim. A. Uh-huh. Q. [R.B.] said at no time did Mr. Fells threaten her safety in any way to have sex. The State immediately objected that this line of questioning was based on inadmissible hearsay; Fells was attempting to use Detective Massiet's out-of-court statement to prove that R.B. had not been threatened by Fells. The trial court sustained the State's objection. Fells now argues that Detective Massiet's case notes should have been admitted under Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) (2004), because he was using them to impeach R.B.'s credibility. Rule 801(d)(1) excludes from the definition of hearsay a witness's prior inconsistent statement if the statement, when offered in a criminal proceeding, was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury. The proffered statement does not fall under the hearsay exception of Rule 801(d). It is a statement made by a police detective, not R.B., nor is it a statement that was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury. The trial court did not err in excluding this piece of testimony.