Opinion ID: 1630748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Marital Infidelity

Text: Ridling argues that the introduction of marital infidelity lacked a legitimate connection to the crime charged, amounted to an attack upon his character, and resulted in prejudicial error. In evidentiary determinations, a trial court has wide discretion, and we do not reverse a ruling on the admission of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Bullock v. State, 353 Ark. 577, 111 S.W.3d 380 (2003); Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (2002). The trial court did not abuse its discretion and should be affirmed. During cross-examination of Ridling, the State brought up the topic of marital infidelity. Ridling's counsel objected, but the trial court overruled. Ridling argues that the evidence introduced at trial had no relevance for the offense he was charged. Ridling admitted an affair, but the State inquired into specific aspects of the affair, and how his former wife found out about it. According to Ridling, this line of questioning had nothing to do with his credibility, but amounted to smearing his character. Barnett v. Commonwealth, 904 S.W.2d 220 (1995). Ridling asks this court to adopt the rulings from Barnett, a Kentucky case, and find this type of evidence, with limited exceptions, to be prejudicial. Ridling opened the door to the topic by discussing the matter on direct examination, and he cannot later object to being cross-examined on the subject. Newman v. State, 353 Ark. 258, 106 S.W.3d 438. During direct examination, Ridling testified that [o]n the afternoon of the 4th, Lisa was asking me where I'd been in a jealous way. Like a jealous wife thinking her husband was having an affair or something . . . Lisa was the other woman at one point. I felt like Lisa was suspicious of me all the time. Because Ridling brought up the issue of martial infidelity during direct examination, he cannot now complain about being cross-examined on it.