Opinion ID: 853296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenging Ezell's Credibility

Text: Green next argues that the court erred in denying his trial counsel an opportunity to cross-examine Ezell about her truthfulness. (Appellant's Br. at 17.) Green's counsel sought to examine Ezell's truthfulness by saying, Now Malinda, your mother believes that you're a stone cold liar. ( Id., R. at 323.) The State objected to this statement. The court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard it. Green relies on Ind. Evidence Rules 607 and 608 to support his claimed error. Rule 607 allows Green to attack the credibility of Ezell, [1] and Rule 608(a) permits presenting opinion or reputation evidence to refer to character for truthfulness. This argument overlooks the fact that Green's lawyer did not pose an answerable question to the witness. Instead, the statement was an assertion of fact, and the trial court appropriately declined to permit Green's lawyer to testify in the guise of asking questions. Evidence Rule 608(a) states, The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but ... may refer only to character for truthfulness.... As Judge Surbeck correctly noted, proper assault on Ezell's truthfulness through opinion or reputation evidence required that Green call a witness (for example, Ezell's mother) to provide such testimony. Green's counsel could not supply it himself. The court actually invited Green's counsel to call Ezell's mother to testify as to her opinion, which counsel chose not to do. [2] Contrary to Green's assertion, he was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine Ezell. Both before and after the impermissible statement, Green's counsel questioned Ezell repeatedly about inconsistent statements. The trial court correctly sustained the State's objection to counsel's declaration.