Opinion ID: 2373555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Reputation Evidence

Text: Mazerolle next contends that the court erred in determining that there was an insufficient foundation for the proffered testimony as to Richard Carrion's reputation for truthfulness. M.R.Evid. 608(a) provides: The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence of reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence or otherwise. Reputation testimony must embody the collective judgment of the community. Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 608.1 at 212 (1987), and be derived from a group whose size constitutes an indicium of inherent reliability. State v. Doherty, 437 A.2d 876, 879 (Me.1981). An opinion on reputation is considered sufficiently reliable only when that opinion is held widely in a community of significant size. Id. We review the exclusion of such evidence for an abuse of discretion. Id. The proffered testimony in this case was that six individuals in Carrion's town of residence had told the witness Carrion was someone to stay away from and several others had told the witness that Carrion was not really very honest, you've really got to watch out for him. We cannot say on this record that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that Mazerolle had failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the proffered testimony. Mazerolle also contends that the court should have allowed her to present evidence of her own reputation in the community for truthfulness. M.R.Evid. 608(a)(2) states that a witness's reputation for truthful character can only be shown after the witness's character has been attacked by reputation evidence or otherwise. Even vigorous cross-examination of a witness on the consistency of her story is not enough to allow rehabilitation. See Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 608.3 at 216 (1987); see also State v. Wells, 423 A.2d 221, 226 (Me.1980) (where defendant-witness's credibility is not attacked directly by character evidence but is merely placed in jeopardy by contradiction from other witnesses, evidence of reputation for truth and veracity not admissible). Here, the State subjected Mazerolle to a limited cross-examination. It offered no evidence relating to or attacking Mazerolle's character for truthfulness. On this record the court properly excluded the evidence proffered by Mazerolle.