Opinion ID: 2549875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cross-examination of appellant on other witnesses' credibility

Text: On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant several times if other witnesses had lied or were mistaken. Defense counsel objected unsuccessfully. Appellant responded that some witnesses had lied, and in closing argument, the prosecutor attacked that response. Appellant asserts that the prosecutor's line of questioning was error. This court has never addressed this precise issue. However, we have held that it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to pass on the credibility of witnesses: Thus, a lay witness's opinion concerning the veracity of the statement of another is inadmissible. [42] Review of the cases cited by both appellant and the State reveals that courts generally disapprove of prosecutors asking defendants whether other witnesses have lied. Some consider it erroneous regardless of circumstance, while others permit it only under certain circumstances. Where erroneous questioning occurs, courts review to determine whether the error was prejudicial. For example, People v. Overlee, [43] an opinion by a New York appellate court, states: While this Court has cautioned prosecutors to avoid goading a testifying defendant into characterizing the People's witnesses as liars, especially when the defendant, by his testimony, has not impugned the truthfulness of those witnesses, such conduct does not always require reversal. [44] Overlee distinguishes between a defendant's testimony that conflicts with that of the People's witnesses and yet is susceptible to the suggestion that the witnesses spoke out of mistake or hazy recollection and the situation where... the defendant's testimony leaves open only the suggestion that the People's witnesses have lied. In the latter circumstance, the prosecution has the right to ask whether the witnesses are liars. [45] Other courts maintain an unconditional rule against asking a defendant whether other witnesses have lied. A New Mexico appellate court acknowledged that a prosecutor may engage in good-faith attempts ... to clarify a defendant's testimony on cross-examination by inquiring about apparent inconsistencies with testimony of another witness or to determine if the defendant ... has an explanation for apparent discrepancies between the testimony of the witness and the testimony of the defendant. [46] However, it imposed a strict prohibition upon asking the defendant if another witness is `mistaken' or `lying.' [47] In asking whether other witnesses were mistaken, the impression communicated to the jury may be that either the witness or the defendant is lying. This is especially true in a criminal case where the defendant is forced to characterize numerous witnesses, including police officers, as incorrect or mistaken in order for his or her testimony to be credible. [48] The court explained: One rationale behind this rule is that it is the role of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses. Whether the defendant believes the other witnesses were truthful or lying is simply irrelevant. In addition, such questions can constitute in effect a misleading argument to the jury that the only alternatives are that the defendant or the witnesses are liars. [49] The New Mexico court concluded that in the case before it the improper questions had not prejudiced the defendant because they did not amount to jury argument and did not coax the defendant into accusing other witnesses of lying. [50] Many courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have reasoned similarly and held that such questioning is improper but may be harmless error. [51] We adopt a rule prohibiting prosecutors from asking a defendant whether other witnesses have lied or from goading a defendant to accuse other witnesses of lying, except where the defendant during direct examination has directly challenged the truthfulness of those witnesses. Violations of the rule are subject to harmless-error review under NRS 178.598. [52] Because it can be difficult to say whether lying is the only possible explanation for inconsistent testimony, we reject an exception to the rule on that ground. Appellant did not directly challenge the veracity of other witnesses during his direct examination, so asking him whether other witnesses had lied was inappropriate. Since this court had not expressly ruled on this issue before, we recognize that the prosecutor did not act with wrongful intent. We conclude that this error, standing alone, was not prejudicial.