Opinion ID: 688675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence of positive urinalysis and drug paraphernalia.

Text: 22 At the time of her arrest, Ms. Peet had tested positive for cocaine use and had drug paraphernalia in her purse. Prior to trial she filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence. The motion was granted subject to her testimony at trial. On direct examination at trial, Ms. Peet testified that she and the Fairchilds had used drugs together. On cross-examination, the government was permitted to ask Ms. Peet about her positive drug test and her possession of drug paraphernalia when arrested. The government asserted that this evidence was relevant to Ms. Peet's credibility. Ms. Peet contends that allowing these questions constituted error because Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) generally prohibits using prior bad acts to attack credibility. 23 Rule 404(b) states in pertinent part: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show an action in conformity therewith. This rule does not address using evidence of prior bad acts for purposes of impeachment. 4 24 Impeachment through evidence of prior bad acts is governed by Fed.R.Evid. 608. That rule provides that a witness may be cross-examined as to specific instances of prior conduct if the conduct is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. While drug use may be used to attack a witness's ability to perceive the underlying events and testify lucidly at trial, it may not be used to attack general credibility. Jarrett v. United States, 822 F.2d 1438, 1446 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Sellers, 906 F.2d 597, 602 (11th Cir.1990). Drug use is not probative of untruthfulness any more than other illegal conduct that does not involve deception. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Ms. Peet's prior drug use to impeach her credibility. Here, however, the error was harmless because the appellant admitted her drug use on direct examination. Harmless error does not require reversal. United States v. Wright, 826 F.2d 938, 943 (10th Cir.1987). 25 AFFIRMED.