Opinion ID: 2637139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Testimony relating to Rebecca Pauly's drug use

Text: [¶23] After the prosecution rested its case, Mr. Lawrence called Ms. Pauly in his defense. Mr. Lawrence's counsel began his direct examination of Ms. Pauly by asking a series of foundational questions that established that Ms. Pauly lived a block from Mr. Lawrence; she had known him for about three to four years and had visited his residence about ten times during that period; she was a separated mother of three children; she was a cancer survivor and a past victim of domestic violence and sexual assault. Ms. Pauly also testified that Jeff Mathson was her best friend and, over the prosecution's objection, that he was a very responsible and good person. Mr. Lawrence's counsel also elicited testimony from Ms. Pauly that despite her friendship with Mr. Lawrence she would not lie for him, she had not talked to any other witnesses in the case or tried to coordinate her testimony with theirs, and her testimony was the truth. Mr. Lawrence's counsel then proceeded to the heart of the defense, which was testimony from Ms. Pauly that she had not seen any drugs, scales, weapons, money, or anything else evidencing a drug transaction was taking place at Mr. Lawrence's home the day of his arrest. [¶24] The prosecutor began his cross-examination of Ms. Pauly by asking, Now, you've admitted that you have had a meth problem in the past, is that correct? Mr. Lawrence's counsel said, Objection, this is a  but was interrupted before stating the specific ground of the objection by the trial judge, who said, Overruled. You raised the subject. Go ahead, overruled. Ms. Pauly then indicated that she had not admitted such a problem in the past, and the following series of questions and answers ensued: Q: Okay. Are you sure? A: I'm positive. Q: Okay. Do you recall testifying on June 14 of this year? A: Yes. (Pause) Q: Okay. May I approach the witness? [The Court]: Yes. Tell counsel what pages you're referring to. . . . . Q: If you read that, do you think it will refresh your memory a little? (Pause) A: Yeah. I said it, everything's that's here. Q: Okay. So you admit that you had an issue with meth in the past? A: No. Q: Okay. A: I  that's not what I'm saying. Q: Okay. That you had used meth in the past? A: Yes. Q: And that as recently  you admit to as recently as November of 2004 using meth? A: One time. Q: Okay. But that's not a problem? A: No. Mr. Lawrence's counsel then on redirect examination had Ms. Pauly read the totality of her prior statement about her methamphetamine use, which was that she had used methamphetamine when she was nineteen (at the time of trial she was apparently thirty-six) and that she had relapsed once, when her husband had beaten her, in November of 2002. [¶25] In Mr. Lawrence's appellate argument on this issue, he makes the same argument as he made on the issue of Jeff Mathson's testimony. In response, the State counters with the same argument it made on that issue also, with the exception of the opening the door discussion. For the same reasons we held that the trial judge did not err in admitting Jeff Mathson's prior drug use testimony, we also hold that the trial judge did not err in admitting Ms. Pauly's prior drug use testimony. Her cross-examination testimony was not extrinsic evidence and W.R.E. 608(b) does not apply; rather, her testimony revealed evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that she was not an impartial witness, in contradiction to her testimony on direct examination. We reiterate that evidence of a witness's partiality is always relevant. [¶26] We affirm Mr. Lawrence's judgment and sentence.