Opinion ID: 1972567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impeachment Purposes

Text: A criminal defendant has the right to introduce evidence tending to impeach the credibility of a State's witness. State v. Warren, 312 A.2d 535, 544 (Me.1973). The extent and scope of impeachment testimony lies within the limits of judicial discretion. State v. Cedre, 314 A.2d 790, 799 (Me.1974). [D]iscretion is considered abused ... if the ruling arises from a failure to apply principles of law applicable to a situation resulting in prejudice. Warren, 312 A.2d at 544. Bennett and Maldonado argued at the trial that Toler's sexually explicit statement impeached both Deprez and Colello because both denied hearing it even though they were in positions to do so. The court excluded only the content of the statement. It permitted the defendants to impeach Donna Colello by presenting the fact that Toler had contact with the two women and made a statement to them that should have been heard by Colello. Bennett agreed that this ruling permitted impeachment of Colello. With respect to the impeachment of DePrez, there was no evidence that DePrez was in a position to have heard the statement. Accordingly, the court's ruling to exclude the content of the statement was not an abuse of discretion.