Opinion ID: 1988785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Drug Arrest Irrelevant

Text: At trial, defense counsel sought to impeach James' testimony by introducing his recent arrest as a juvenile for Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, and several weapons offenses related to a 9-millimeter handgun. This arrest occurred six months after the shooting and three weeks before trial. The Superior Court judge ruled that James' arrest for drug possession was irrelevant, but allowed the defense to question James regarding his possession of the 9mm handgun, because the police had found 9mm shell casings near the scene of the shooting. [2] It was undisputed, however, that James was shot with a .25 caliber bullet, and five .25 caliber bullet casings were found at the scene. Coverdale argues that he should have been allowed to cross-examine James about the fact the he was a drug dealer and in reality, that was the reason [James] was stating outside in a known drug area after dark. It is within the discretion of the trial court to admit specific instances of conduct of a witness into evidence for the purpose of impeaching the witness' character for truthfulness. [3] In exercising its discretion, a trial judge should consider: whether the testimony of the witness being impeached is crucial; the logical relevance of the specific impeachment evidence to the question of bias; the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and undue delay; and whether the evidence of bias is cumulative. [4] The record reflects that the trial court considered these factors and properly determined that the danger of unfair prejudice to the State outweighed any logical relevance that James' drug arrest might have to the charges against Coverdale. While James' testimony was crucial in that he was the sole witness in the case, evidence of his recent drug arrest as a juvenile does not, by itself, tend to demonstrate any bias toward Coverdale or lack of credibility. Drug offenses are generally not crimes of dishonesty. [5] Accordingly, even if James had been convicted of a drug offense as an adult, evidence of that conviction would only be admissible in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion. [6] The trial judge acted appropriately within her discretion by excluding evidence that James, a juvenile, was arrested on drug charges several months after he had been shot. [7]