Court Opinion

ID: 9547284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:44:43.131433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:34.457260
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge, specially concurring. I concur in the result reached by my brother Sutin, but I find myself in disagreement with his reasoning under paragraph I, part (e), wherein he finds the challenged testimony admissible under Rule 404(b), to show intent. A review of the defendant’s testimony relating to his claim of self-defense is necessary to an understanding of this issue. On direct examination, the defendant testified in part as follows: “Q. Did you have a gun on you at that time? “A. Yes, I did. “Q. What kind of gun was it ? “A. A .22 caliber. “Q. When did you get it? “A. I got it that same day. It was a Friday. “Q. Why did you get it ? “A. To protect myself. “Q. Why? “A. From guys that were going to come after me. “Q. Which guys are you referring to? “A. Pardon? “Q. Which guys are you referring to ? “A. Gutierrez and Tafoya. “Q. Why did you think they were going to come after you ? “A. Because they said that I ratted on them for possession of marijuana and heroin, they were' selling, and that is why they were after me because they said I ratted on them, on both of them. . . . ” “Q. Why would you carry a gun? Why were you in fear of them at that time, just because you had ratted on them? What are you referring to there? “A. Protecting myself, and I was scared they were going to kill me because they told my brother they were going to kill me and everything. . . . ” “A. ... I know that Tony Gutierrez for a long time and we didn’t get along together that good. But, anyway, he’s done this before, you know. “Q. He’s done what? “A. Assaulting people. “Q. Like how? “A. Fights. “Q. What did he do it with ? “A. Knives, sticks, what he could find, you know, weapons. “Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Gutierrez’ reputation in that community? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. What sort of reputation does Mr. Gutierrez have? “A. It is not real nice to begin with, because once he gets kind of drunk he wants to fight everybody. I didn’t like it, you know. . . . ” On cross-examination by the prosecutor defendant responded as follows: “Q. And then'you really had no reason to believe that he wanted to fight you, did you, on the 29th of June? “A. Well, he came at me kicking so that is when I shot him. I got scared, you know, that they were going to kill me. Just, like I say, I wouldn’t have had a chance if they would have got me on the ground. “Q. You iadmit that you actually did shoot Tony Gutierrez? “A. Yes, sir, in self-defense, you know. Rule 608(b) provides in part: “Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking his credibility may ... if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness and not remote in time, be inquired into on cross-examination . . . ” In my opinion the State had the right under this section to probe the credibility of defendant’s position that he acted in self-defense by inquiring into his conduct only two nights before when he fired several shots from the same pistol at another person. The committee notes on this section recite in part: “Effective cross-examination demands that some allowance be made for going into matters of this kind, but the possibilities of abuse are substantial. Consequently safeguards are erected in the form of specific requirements that the instances inquired into be probative of truthfulness or its opposite and not remote in time.” The questions and answers about the prior incident were probative of the truthfulness of defendant’s claim of self-defense and were not remote in time.