Opinion ID: 1175474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: TT's Credibility

Text: Defense counsel conducted an extensive cross-examination of TT, one of appellant's victims. He tested her memory on almost every detail of the rape. Then, at the end of cross-examination, he changed subjects. He asked her, Do you know who Meg Anderson is? She replied, I do. Then he asked, Is she a relative of yours? and she answered, Yes she is. At that point the prosecutor objected on grounds of relevancy, and the court called a bench conference at which defense counsel made the following offer of proof: [Defense counsel]: This witness has had conversations with Meg Anderson and I want to lay a foundation for impeaching her on the grounds that Meg Anderson, back in July of 1984, asked this witness to send a tape recording to Dave Wilcock [the Lovell Chief of Police]. And that her whole involvement here today is simply a matter of solicitation by her friend, Meg Anderson. I think I should be allowed to  THE COURT: What is the relevancy? [Defense counsel]: Well, the relevancy is that many of these witnesses were contacted by Meg Anderson and then asked to testify and I think that that goes to establish the circumstances of why they are testifying. I mean, I will tell you right now, it isn't a major deal but I think that, you know, the jury is entitled to know in part why these girls are here.       THE COURT: Well, I fail to see the relevancy as outlined by our discussion at the Bench and, therefore, I am not going to permit further inquiry unless Counsel can show me what the relevancy is. At this point I don't see any. Appellant argues that Meg Anderson had a grudge against him and therefore any evidence linking her to TT would diminish TT's credibility. But defense counsel never told the court about the grudge and defense counsel never called Meg Anderson as an adverse witness. He simply said he wanted to show why these girls [the victims] are here, and admitted that it isn't a major deal. Given this insufficient offer of proof, we hold that the trial court did not violate either Rule 611(b), W.R.E., or the confrontation clause when it refused to admit the evidence. See 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 13 at 72-73 (1977) for a discussion of vague offers of proof.