Opinion ID: 1768154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: avowal testimony.

Text: During the trial, the Appellants sought to impeach Jackson's credibility by eliciting testimony from him that he was a bookmaker. The judge prevented this line of questioning before the jury, but the Appellants moved that the testimony be heard by avowal. RCr 9.52. The trial court obliged and the Appellants cross-examined Jackson for several minutes over his alleged gambling practices. Now they claim error in that the trial court ended the avowal testimony prematurely and that the avowal testimony should have been heard by the jury. RCr 9.52 states: In an action tried by a jury, if an objection to a question propounded to a witness is sustained by the court, upon request of the examining attorney the witness may make a specific offer of his or her answer to the question. The court shall require the offer to be made out of the hearing of the jury. The court may add such other or further statement as clearly shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. See also KRE 103(a)(2). The rules do not provide time limits for testimony by avowal. However, the only purpose of an avowal is to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning which testimony has been suppressed. KRE 103(a)(2). Here, Appellants sought to prove that Jackson was engaged in illegal bookmaking activities. The avowal, which lasted several minutes, focused solely on that issue and was sufficient to preserve the error for review. Thus, Appellants could not have been prejudiced by the fact that the trial court ultimately terminated the avowal. In support of their claim that the evidence of Jackson's alleged bookmaking activities was relevant, the brothers argue that Michael's confession revealed that a third party instigated them to commit the crimes because of ill will between Jackson and the instigator from a gambling motive. If revenge motivated the crimes, Appellants argue, evidence of Jackson's gambling activities was relevant. Appellants also assert that information that Jackson engaged in illegal bookmaking activities affected his credibility as a witness. As to the first contention, KRE 401 defines relevant evidence as having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. KRE 403 excludes this evidence because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Jackson's alleged gambling activities were not on trial; and the third party's alleged motive for instigating the brothers to commit the crimes did not absolve the brothers of their guilt. The unnamed third party was not on trial. Thus, the probative value of the evidence of Jackson's alleged bookmaking activities was minimal as compared to its prejudicial effect. Obviously, the purpose of this testimony was to imply that criminals should not be punished for crimes perpetrated against other criminals. Since the status of a victim is no defense to a crime committed against him, the trial judge properly suppressed this evidence. Appellants state that KRE 611(b) allows cross-examination of a witness on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility and that evidence of Jackson's illegal gambling activities affected his credibility as a witness. However, the law in Kentucky has long been that [a] witness may be impeached by any party ... by contradictory evidence ... but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. CR 43.07; Tamme v. Commonwealth, Ky., 973 S.W.2d 13, 29 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1153, 119 S.Ct. 1056, 143 L.Ed.2d 61 (1999); Shirley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 378 S.W.2d 816, 818 (1964); Daugherty v. Kuhn's Big K Store, Ky.App., 663 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1983). Since cross-examination of Jackson about his alleged bookmaking activities would constitute impeachment by evidence of a particular wrongful act, the trial court did not err in excluding that evidence.