Court Opinion

ID: 9517712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:29:39.579016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:11.771193
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
with whom ROGERS, Chief Judge, FERREN, Associate Judge, and MACK, Associate Judge, Retired, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
It is with great pleasure that I join Part II of the opinion of the court which holds we “will henceforth apply the principle embodied in Federal Rule 405(a) and will permit lay character witnesses to testify as to *81their opinion of a party as well as their knowledge of his or her reputation.” Slip op. at 75. I have long urged that we abandon the discredited rule holding to the contrary. See, e.g., Morris v. United States, 469 A.2d 432, 438-39 (D.C.1983) (Newman, J., dissenting); Rogers v. United States, 534 A.2d 928, 933-36 (D.C.1987) (Newman, J., dissenting), vacated and reh’g en banc granted (Mar. 8, 1988).
However, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion at division in this case, Rogers, supra, 534 A.2d at 933-36, I dissent from the majority’s holding that a character witness may be interrogated concerning the party’s juvenile arrests.