Opinion ID: 2164543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attempted Impeachment of Mr. Richard

Text: During cross-examination of the prosecution witness Robert Richard, defense counsel attempted to show that on being arrested on an occasion unrelated to the shooting incident, Mr. Richard had been discovered to be in possession of an illegal drug, contrary to his statement under oath during a deposition in a civil action that he had never used or possessed drugs. The court sustained the State's objection and limited the scope of any questions regarding Mr. Richard's use of drugs to the effect they could have had on the clarity of his observations at the time of the alleged crimes. On appeal defendant claims that under M.R.Evid. 608(b), his counsel was entitled to cross-examine Mr. Richard about a specific instance of recent perjury because it was probative of Mr. Richard's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. There was no error in the Superior Court's ruling. As is stated in Field & Murray, supra § 608.2 at 143, the Superior Court justice should recognize the interests of justice in shedding light on the veracity of the witness but should exercise his discretion under Rule 403 to keep the inquiry within reasonable bounds. Evidence may be excluded under M.R.Evid. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Here, it was well within the Superior Court justice's discretion to limit the scope of Richard's cross-examination to matters directly bearing on his observations during the crimes allegedly committed by defendant.