Opinion ID: 2264062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Testimony of Patricia MacLeod

Text: The defendant's next argument on appeal is that the trial justice improperly prevented defendant from calling a witness to refute the testimony of Ayers, the jail-house informant. Ayers testified that he had volunteered at the Meeting Street School in East Providence. The defendant sought to impeach this testimony by calling Patricia MacLeod (MacLeod), an employee of the Meeting Street School, to testify that Ayers was, in fact, not a volunteer. The trial justice sustained the state's motion to exclude MacLeod because she would be testifying to collateral matters. Rule 608(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides, in relevant part, that [s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness'[s] credibility    may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Instead, these specific instances may    be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness. Id. We have interpreted this rule to prevent a party from impeaching a witness `on collateral matters by the introduction of extrinsic evidence.' State v. Tutt, 622 A.2d 459, 462 (R.I.1993); see also State v. Martinez, 824 A.2d 443, 449 (R.I.2003) (explaining `[t]he only bright-line test of collateralness is whether the fact could have been shown in evidence  for any purpose independently of the contradiction '). Therefore, should a party elect to inquire into specific instances of the conduct of a witness on cross-examination, then `the cross-examiner is restricted to the answers of the witness' and cannot introduce extrinsic evidence for impeachment purposes. Tutt, 622 A.2d at 462. The trial justice properly applied the law in this instance. MacLeod's testimony would have been extrinsic evidence offered to attack Ayers's credibility by impeaching him on the issue of whether he volunteered at the Meeting Street School. The trial justice did not err in preventing this witness from taking the stand. [6]