Opinion ID: 6110206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cross-Examination of David Hall

Text: Finally, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting his cross-examination of the lead investigator David Hall about the circumstances of his departure from a previous law-enforcement job. During cross-examination, defense counsel started to ask Hall why he had left a job at the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The prosecution objected, and a bench conference ensued: [ DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Judge, the anticipated testimony is that he was - that he lied on a document that he signed regarding a vehicle incident. And it goes to his credibility as a witness and his ability to tell the truth. THE COURT : Do you have a good faith basis for asking that? [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Yes, I mean, -- [ PROSECUTION ]: I'd like to see it, because I've looked at the same documents and I don't see it. I'd like to see what his good faith, you know --. I'd like the court to take a look at it outside the presence of the jury. Sorry. THE COURT : Do you have a good faith --? Just tell me. Do you have a good faith basis - [ DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Your Honor, I've got the document that he signed. And I think it is the same document that you probably --. That what we're talking about. [ PROSECUTION ]: It's an accident report that said, I hit a tree. THE COURT : Well, just ask him then, but you're stuck with his answer. [ DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Okay. THE COURT : Go ahead.  Hall then testified that he left the commission because he had a disagreement with a supervisor; he resigned his position and left in good standing. When defense counsel attempted to inquire further into the circumstances surrounding the disagreement, the prosecution objected: [ PROSECUTION ]: This is not relevant and it violates 404, 403, 401, and 103. THE COURT : I gave --. I made a ruling and gave you direction. You're kind of veering off from what I allowed you to do. [ DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Yes, Your Honor. I'll move on. There was no further objection from the defense, and there was no proffer of testimony or of the document that allegedly provided the basis for the untruthful statement. On appeal, appellant argues that he was entitled to have the jury consider the circumstances of key State witness David Hall's departure from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in determining his credibility under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 608(b). 2 As this court recently stated, a proffer permit[s] the trial judge to make an informed evidentiary ruling and create[s] a clear record that an appellate court can review to determine whether there was reversible error in excluding the [evidence]. Sharp v. State , 2018 Ark. 274 , at 5, 555 S.W.3d 878 , 881 (quoting Perkins v. Silver Mountain Sports Club & Spa, LLC , 557 F.3d 1141 , 1147 (10th Cir. 2009) ). Generally, a party must make a proffer to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning the erroneous exclusion of evidence at trial. Id. A proffer is unnecessary, however, when the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context within which it was offered. Id. Here, appellant attempts to overcome the lack of a proffer by arguing that the substance of Hall's specific instance of misconduct is apparent from the context. We disagree. The record contains only defense counsel's assertion that Hall lied in a document he signed about a vehicle accident, and the prosecution disputed that the document provided a good faith-basis for asking Hall if he had been untruthful in the report. Because appellant failed to proffer either the excluded testimony or the document upon which defense counsel relied, and because the substance of that testimony is not clearly apparent from the record on appeal, his Rule 608(b) argument is unpreserved. Therefore, we affirm on this point.