Opinion ID: 7265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Specific Instance Testimony

Text: 39 Massey argues on appeal that the district court erred when it ruled that the government could cross-examine the character witnesses that Massey intended to call with have you heard questions regarding Massey's indictment on state charges similar to the federal charges that are the basis of his conviction. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a), cross-examination of a witness offering character evidence can include questions regarding relevant, specific instances of conduct by the defendant. Thus, [o]nce a witness has testified concerning a defendant's good character, it is permissible during cross-examination to attempt to undermine his credibility by asking him whether he has heard of prior misconduct of the defendant which is inconsistent with the witness' direct testimony. 37 40 There are two limits on this type of cross-examination. First, the government must have a good faith factual basis for the alleged prior misconduct. 38 Second, the incidents must be relevant to the trial. 39 Massey concedes that the government had more than a good faith factual basis but argues that the state charges are not relevant to his veracity, the character trait about which his character witnesses were to testify. This argument is without merit. An indictment alleging intentional evasion of state gasoline taxes is relevant to an inquiry into Massey's capacity for honesty. The district court was not in error when it stated that the government would be allowed to cross-examine character witnesses regarding the pending state charges as is specifically allowed by Rule 405(a). In addition, the district court's refusal to hold a separate hearing on this issue was not an abuse of its discretion in matters of the admission of evidence. We affirm. 41