Opinion ID: 1298321
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: evidence of anthony sarivola's character

Text: Prior to trial, the trial court ruled that the defendant would be allowed to impeach Anthony Sarivola with a specific instance in which he had lied to an FBI agent. As a matter of trial strategy, the prosecutor disclosed the incident during his direct examination of the FBI agent. The prosecutor then asked the agent his opinion as to Sarivola's credibility. Defendant unsuccessfully objected. On review, defendant asserts the admission of the testimony violated the Arizona Rules of Evidence which state: The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or 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 opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. Ariz.R.Evid. 608(a) We do not agree. Under Rule 608(a), a witness may testify as to his opinion of another party's truthfulness if the party's truthful character has been attacked. United States v. Hilton, 772 F.2d 783, 786 (11th Cir.1985). In the instant case, the trial court had ruled that Sarivola's truthful character could be attacked by defendant. It was not error for the state to draw the sting by not only introducing on direct examination the evidence of instances in which Sarivola had lied to the FBI agent, but of the agent's opinion of Sarivola's character. We find no error.