Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence Regarding R.S.'s Reputation in the Community

Text: ś 58 At trial, Gregory sought to present testimony from Eric Larson, R.S.'s ex-boyfriend and the father to one of her children. Larson sought to testify about R.S.'s poor reputation for truth and honesty within the community. The trial court ruled that Larson's testimony was inadmissible because R.S.'s family did not constitute a community that is both neutral and general, since the community consisted only of Larson and R.S.'s sister, and Larson's understanding of R.S.'s reputation was too remote from the time of the trial. ś 59 Evidence Rule 608 provides that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by evidence of the witness's reputation for untruthfulness in the community. To establish a valid community, the party seeking to admit the reputation evidence must show that the community is both neutral and general. State v. Land, 121 Wash.2d 494, 500, 851 P.2d 678 (1993). Relevant factors include the frequency of contact between members of the community, the amount of time a person is known in the community, the role a person plays in the community, and the number of people in the community. Id. Whether a party has established proper foundation for reputation testimony is within the trial court's discretion. Id. ś 60 The trial court found that R.S.'s family was neither neutral nor sufficiently generalized to constitute a community for the purposes of ER 608. [23] We agree. First, the inherent nature of familial relationships often precludes family members from providing an unbiased and reliable evaluation of one another. In addition, the community with which Larson had discussed R.S.'s reputation included only two people, Larson and R.S.'s sister. Any community comprised of two individuals is too small to constitute a community for purposes of ER 608. State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 874, 822 P.2d 177 (1991) (community must be general). Finally, the trial court found that any awareness that Larson had of R.S.'s reputation for truthfulness was too remote in time to be relevant. This court has previously held that information several months old is too remote. Lord, 117 Wash.2d at 874-75, 822 P.2d 177. A review of the record indicates that Larson was testifying based upon knowledge he obtained several years prior to the time of trial. Under the circumstances, the trial court properly ruled that Larson's testimony was inadmissible as reputation evidence under ER 608(a). The trial court did not abuse its discretion.