Opinion ID: 403387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: exclusion of extrinsic evidence

Text: 16 Cutler also challenges the court's ruling precluding extrinsic evidence concerning Levoff's alleged history of committing arson. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 613(b). Rule 613(b) requires that the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement and the opposite party must be afforded an opportunity to interrogate him thereon.... Cutler failed to lay the required foundation and the evidence was therefore properly excluded under Rule 613(b). See United States v. Williams, 668 F.2d 1064, 1068-69 & n.9 (9th Cir. 1981). No error was committed by the trial judge under Rule 613(b). 17 Cutler does not dispute that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit extrinsic evidence of specific acts of a witness' conduct to attack his credibility. Fed.R.Evid. 608(b); see United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 441 (9th Cir. 1976). Instead he argues that extrinsic evidence of Levoff's alleged involvement in prior instances of arson should properly have been admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) (evidence of specific acts admissible to prove, inter alia, motive, intent, or plan). Cutler's statement of the law is correct. See, e.g., United States v. Batts, 573 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1978) (vacating 558 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1977). Where, however, a trial judge has excluded evidence, (e)rror may not be predicated upon (such) a ruling ... unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ... the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a), 103(a)(2). Cutler contends that the following extrinsic evidence should have been admitted: (1) a witness' testimony about Levoff's prior arson activities; (2) a government report; and (3) evidence of other fires. 18 First, the entire offer of proof concerning a witness who would testify to Levoff's prior modus operandi is contained in the following colloquy: 19 THE COURT: ... One of the questions is, would you be able to show that this has been his (Levoff's) pattern, not only for burning buildings down, but then going and extorting money from people after that? 20 MR. SHERMAN (Defense Counsel): He did that with another person. 21 THE COURT: You are going to have a witness get up on the stand and say this exact thing that happened to him? 22 MR. SHERMAN: No, no, no. But that he extorts, but that he extorts money. 23 RT: at 248. 24 Cutler did not identify any witness nor state the anticipated substance of his testimony. 25 Second, Cutler argues that the trial judge refused to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a government report. In his opening brief he argues: 26 The Court ... refused to permit the defense to introduce any extrinsic evidence on the subject (of Levoff's previous experience with arson activity) under any circumstances. (RT: 287, 291-92). At this point both sides referred to a Government report wherein Foster told government agents that Levoff had admitted blowing up Levoff's motorcycle shop and burning somebody else's business down. (RT: 292). Foster, however, was going to take the Fifth Amendment. (RT: 292). 27 Brief for Appellant at 18. 28 The entire record concerning the report is as follows: 29 THE COURT: Anything else you were going to bring up here? 30 MR. SHERMAN: Let me think to myself for a second. In the statements of Mr. Levoff, your Honor, I didn't see any admissions to the agents-I'm sure not to Mrs. Stock-about his prior arson activity, but I only have one agent's report. Levoff says he spoke to him many times. I wonder if any of those other reports or if in any other conversations Levoff admitted that he started fires before. 31 The reason I am saying this, in Mr. Foster's statement which the Government gave me, Levoff admits blowing up his motorcycle shop that he had and burning somebody else's business down. I just wonder if the Government- 32 THE COURT: You are going to want to put that into evidence? 33 MR. SHERMAN: Foster's statement? How could I? Foster is not going to testify-Foster, as I understand it, is going to take refuge in the Fifth Amendment. 34 Is that right? 35 MS. STOCK: I think what Mr. Sherman is inquiring about is, to our knowledge has Walter Levoff ever come clean and admitted other arsons, and my answer is no other reports that I am aware of. 36 THE COURT: All right. Let's go out and try the case. We still have half an hour to go. 37 RT: at 292-93. 38 There was no response to Ms. Stock's statement. Cutler's attorney failed to pursue this inquiry and did not specify which document he had in mind, or explain the materiality or admissibility thereof. 39 Third, Cutler maintains an offer of proof was made that eight buildings at which Levoff had worked burned down. He states that Again, the defense offer of proof was that four buildings designed by Levoff, plus four others that Levoff had already denied working at all burned down or had fires. (RT: 500). The cited portion of the record relates to the proper scope of cross-examination of Levoff. 2 40 Cutler failed to make known to the court any records, documents, or witnesses to substantiate his offers of proof that Levoff had burned down other buildings and extorted money from the owners. His offers of proof were inadequate.