Opinion ID: 2159669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Finding Of Jeopardy

Text: [¶ 20] Contrary to the father's contentions, there is competent evidence to support the court's finding of jeopardy, see Hartwell v. Stanley, 2002 ME 29, ¶ 10, 790 A.2d 607, 611 (we uphold a court's findings of fact unless no evidence supports them), and the court was not obligated to accept the father's testimony over the testimony of the other witnesses, see Jenkins, Inc. v. Walsh Bros., Inc., 2001 ME 98, ¶ 22, 776 A.2d 1229, 1236-37 (stating that a fact-finder may accept, reject, or combine testimony in any way). The entry is: Judgment affirmed ALEXANDER, J., filed concurring opinion joined by SAUFLEY, C.J. and LEVY, J. ALEXANDER, J., with shom SAUFLEY, C.J. and LEVY, J. join, concurring. [¶ 21] I concur in the result, but I respectfully do not agree with the conclusion that the trial court erred in excluding the child's reputation testimony. The party offering reputation testimony has the burden of demonstrating to the court a proper foundation for the testimony indicating that the witness is sufficiently acquainted with (1) the person whose character is under attack, (2) the community in which that person has lived, and (3) the circles in which that person has moved, so that the witness can speak with authority of the manner in which that person generally is regarded. 4 JACK B. WEINSTEIN & MARGARET A. BERGER. WEINSEIN'S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 608.14(2) (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed.2001). We have stated that a group on which reputation testimony is based must be sufficiently large because [if] the group is too insular, its opinion of the witness' reputation for truthfulness may not be reliable because it may have been formed with the same set of biases. State v. Kalex, 2002 ME 26, ¶ 17, 789 A.2d 1286, 1291 (quoting State v. Ricker, 2001 ME 76, ¶ 6, 770 A.2d 1021, 1024). [¶ 22] The trial court could have reasonably viewed school bus and school hallway gossip among children as reflecting the communal biases of such a too insular group. The trial court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion or otherwise err in determining that the foundational requirements for admissibility of the reputation testimony had not been met and in excluding that testimony. See State v. Ricker, 2001 ME 76, ¶¶ 3, 8, 770 A.2d 1021, 1023, 1024.