Opinion ID: 1058543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Evidence to Discredit Testimony of Joseph Walker

Text: Leach asserts that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from presenting a witness to discredit the testimony of Joseph Walker. As noted above, Walker testified about incriminating statements made by Leach while they were incarcerated in the Davidson County Jail. Walker stated on cross-examination that while at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute (MTMHI) in December 1999 he had refused to answer certain questions. He denied telling evaluators at MTMHI that he had only been arrested for minor offenses, that he could not read, and that he had only a sixth-grade education. Leach sought permission from the trial court to call Dr. Joseph Mount, a psychologist at MTMHI, to impeach Walker with evidence that he had lied to evaluators about his criminal record and personal information. Leach also requested that Dr. Mount be permitted to testify that he diagnosed Walker as suffering from an adjustment disorder and concluded that Walker was malingering and attempting to manipulate the evaluation process. The trial court ruled that, under the plain language of Rule 608(b) [2] of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, Leach was precluded from presenting extrinsic evidence regarding Walker's alleged lies. Even if Dr. Mount's proffered testimony was admissible, the trial court ruled that it should be excluded under Rule 403 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence because it could confuse and mislead the jury and cause undue delay. On appeal, Leach has abandoned his argument that Dr. Mount's testimony was proper impeachment evidence under Rule 608 and now contends that the testimony was admissible under Rules 613 and 616 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. These theories were not presented to the trial court. In his motion for a new trial, Leach argued that the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Mount's testimony violated Leach's rights to confrontation, to a fair trial before an impartial jury, and to due process. As a general rule, a party may not litigate an issue on one ground, abandon that ground post-trial, and assert a new basis or ground on appeal. Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 60 n. 8 (Tenn.2001). We hold that the issue of whether Dr. Mount's testimony was admissible under Rules 613 and 616 is waived because Leach did not raise it in the trial court or in his motion for a new trial. See Tenn. R.App. P. 3(e), 36(a). Moreover, we conclude that Leach would not be entitled to relief even if the issue had been properly preserved. Leach argues that Dr. Mount's testimony was admissible under Rule 613(b) as evidence of prior inconsistent statements by Walker and under Rule 616 as evidence of Walker's prejudice against Leach. The State responds that the inconsistent statements were not admissible as extrinsic evidence under Rule 613 because they related to collateral facts and that Dr. Mount's testimony failed to establish bias or prejudice within the meaning of Rule 616. At the time of Leach's trial, Rule 613(b) provided: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. [3] Rule 616 states: A party may offer evidence by cross-examination, extrinsic evidence, or both, that a witness is biased in favor of or prejudiced against a party or another witness. We agree with the State's position. Under the collateral fact rule, the statement of a witness made during cross-examination as to a collateral fact may not be impeached by extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement as to that fact. See State v. Hill, 598 S.W.2d 815, 820 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980); see generally Neil P. Cohen, Sarah Y. Sheppeard & Donald F. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence § 6.13[6] (4th ed.2000). A collateral fact is one which affords no reasonable inference as to the principal matters in dispute. Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130, 41 S.W. 1031, 1034 (1897). A fact is collateral for purposes of the collateral fact rule if it is relevant only because it contradicts something said in court; it is not collateral if it is relevant independent of any contradiction. See Tennessee Law of Evidence at § 6.07[4][c]. Prior to the enactment of the Rules of Evidence, the collateral fact rule was an established part of the common law in Tennessee. See, e.g., State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tenn.Crim.App.1985); State v. Marlow, 665 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). This rule of evidence was founded upon the just conclusion that the introduction of such evidence tends to confuse the jury and uselessly to protract and increase the expense of judicial investigations. Decherd v. Morrison, 32 Tenn. 305, 306-07 (1852). Although the Rules of Evidence do not mention the collateral fact rule, it continues to be applied by courts in this state. See, e.g., State v. Perkinson, 867 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992). The collateral fact rule is essentially a rule of relevancy. Under Rule 402 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, [e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rules 402 and 403 embody the principles underlying the collateral fact rule. We conclude, therefore, that the collateral fact rule remains viable through Rules 402 and 403. As with any type of proof, admissibility of extrinsic evidence depends on relevancy. Impeachment by extrinsic evidence as contemplated by Rule 613 must relate to facts relevant to a material issue at trial. Allowing the introduction of extrinsic evidence for the purpose of contradicting a witness's testimony about merely trivial facts would not only waste time but could also confuse the jury. The motive of a witness, however, is always relevant to the main issue. See Creeping Bear v. State, 113 Tenn. 322, 87 S.W. 653, 654 (1905). Therefore, extrinsic evidence that is inadmissible for other purposes may be admissible to prove bias or prejudice under Rule 616. In this case, Walker's inconsistent statements involved collateral facts. Proof that Walker lied to mental health evaluators about his criminal record and personal information would not have been relevant to a material issue at trial. Walker was thoroughly cross-examined about his criminal record and motive for testifying. Proof that Walker was evasive and manipulative during his mental health evaluation would also have had little probative value in showing that he was biased in favor of the State or prejudiced against Leach. As the Court of Criminal Appeals observed, introduction of Dr. Mount's testimony would have resulted in a mini-trial concerning Walker's actions during his mental health evaluation and potentially confused the issues of Leach's capital murder trial. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly excluded the evidence under Rule 403, regardless of the theory of admissibility. Finally, we conclude that any error would be harmless because, assuming Dr. Mount had discredited Walker's testimony, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.