Court Opinion

ID: 9660239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:08:26.285944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:27.128584
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting in part. The majority in its opinion concedes that the defendant was entitled to cross-examine the State’s main witness about her past misconduct which involved thefts over a period of six years. We do not know the exact nature of the activity because the trial judge concluded that unless there was actually a conviction a witness could not be questioned about misconduct. Of course, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 608 (b) (Repl. 1979) clearly authorizes such questions under some circumstances. When we first considered Rule 608 (b) en banc in Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278, 590 S.W.2d 853 (1979), we recognized that the rule permitting impeachment of a witness for prior misconduct had been restricted. That misconduct must relate to truthfulness or untruthfulness. We concluded that theft, as defined by the Arkansas Criminal Code, involved dishonesty and that in our judgment related to veracity. We relied on WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE, 608 [5] (1981), which related in detail the various authorities that had also concluded various types of similar dishonest acts had a bearing on veracity. That was our prerogative. We confirmed Gustafson in Divanovich v. State, 271 Ark. 104, 607 S.W.2d 383 (1980). The majority opinion expresses dissatisfaction with our conclusion in Gustafson and are overruling it sua sponte prospectively. If I understand it they are holding that theft has no bearing on the character trait of honesty and such misconduct may not be used to impeach a witness or defendant. The opinion states: Thus, in the future with the same set of facts before us, we would hold that while an absence of respect for the property rights of others is an undesirable trait, it does not directly indicate an impairment of the trait of truthfulness, and cross-examination would not be allowed on specific acts of shoplifting for which there was no conviction. There is, of course, no such crime as "shoplifting” in Arkansas. That is simply a nice word for a person who steals from a retail store, just as embezzlement is a fancy word for theft by a white collar worker. Our criminal code simply lumps all thefts together, categorizing thefts by the amount stolen, the way it was obtained, and perhaps the kind of property taken. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-2203 (Repl. 1977). The distinction between the categories lies in the punishment. The majority justifies its decision on the basis that no other jurisdiction has made such an interpretation of Rule 608 (b) like ours in Gustafson. To buttress the statement the majority opinion quotes parts of two pages from WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE par. 608 [5] (1981). The most lengthy quote is from a footnote which is not at all illuminating, as claimed, because Gustafson is not inconsistent with any of the decisions cited in the footnote. The conclusory quote from WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE reads: Since Rule 608 (b) is intended to be restrictive — and was amended to ensure that it would be restrictively interpreted by trial courts — the inquiry on cross-examination should be limited to these specific modes of conduct which are generally agreed to indicate a lack of truthfulness. The rule should not be broadened to allow questions about behavior which indicates ‘a disregard for the rights of others which might reasonably be expected to express itself in giving false testimony whenever it would be to the advantage of the witness.’ Such an approach paves the way to an exception which will swallow the rule. It is but a small step from there to the hypothesis that all bad people are liars, an unverifiable conclusion which runs counter to the doctrine that everyone is innocent of the particular crime charged until proven guilty. The majority opinion leaves out of its extensive quotation several statements from WEINSTEIN which were the basis of our decision in Gustafson. The majority quotes Professor McCormick’s 1954 work on evidence where he stated that misconduct relevant to truthfulness would include such acts as “false swearing, fraud and swindling.” The majority does not quote from WIGMORE which reads “robbery, assault and adultery do not ‘directly indicate an impairment of the trait of veracity’ while fraud, forgery and perjury do.” 3 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 982 (1940). In the original text Wigmore wrote: Now there is no doubt that conduct is relevant to character. An assault is relevant to indicate a violent character; a fraud is relevant to indicate a dishonest character. Wigmore goes on to discuss two approaches courts have made to the problem: (1) one is that any kind of misconduct, as indicating a bad character is admissible; thus, a robbery or an assault or an adultery may be used although no others directly indicates an impairment of the trait of veracity. (2) the other attitude is entirely logical, and admits only such misconduct as indicates a lack of veracity, fraud, forgery, perjury and the like. The majority opinion does not refer to WEINSTEIN’S quote of Dean Ladd’s list on offenses which related to veracity which reads as follows: The group of offenses including forgery, uttering forged instruments, bribery, suppression of evidence, false pretenses, cheating, embezzlement, roughly disclose a type of dishonesty and unreliability characteristic of those lacking veracity. Nor is the following paragraph referred to: In the federal courts, the most common kinds of convictions would include forgery, income tax frauds including bribery, bankruptcy fraud, making false statements of a variety of kinds such as those in obtaining guns or permits and perjury and false swearing. The usual variety of state crimes include forgery, bribery, false pretenses, cheating, embezzlement, swindling, false advertising, frauds on creditors, issuing bad checks or using another’s credit card without authority, criminal impersonation and unlawfully concealing a will. . . . WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE par. 608 [5]. Is the majority limiting its holding to the short statement from McCORMICK that such misconduct only includes “false swearing, fraud and swindling”? Does a swindler tend to lie and a thief not tend to lie? Or is the majority holding that all thievery is not relevant as evidence when it makes the broad statement, “...we would hold that while an absence of respect for the property rights of others is an undesirable trait, it does not directly indicate an impairment of the trait of truthfulness, ...” Evidently so. Dean Ladd in 89 U. Pa. L. Rev. 194 (1940), stated much better than I can why a jury should know a witness is a thief: Any classification of crimes on the basis of their relationship to credibility is difficult. Personal crimes of murder, assault, and mayhem, show a vicious disposition but not necessarily a dishonest one. On the other hand robbery, larceny and burglary, while not showing a propensity to falsify, do dislose a disregard for the rights of others which might reasonably be expected to express itself in giving false testimony whenever it would be to the advantage of the witness. If the witness had no compunctions against stealing another’s property or taking it away from him by physical threat or force, it is hard to see why he would hesitate to obtain an advantage for himself or friend in a trial by giving false testimony. Furthermore, such criminal acts, although evidenced by a single conviction, may represent such a marked breach from sanctioned conduct that it affords a reasonable basis of future prediction upon credibility. It is quite possible that with each other the robber class hold to some code of honor, but it is unlikely that it would express itself in court proceedings if there were a motive to falsify. The group of offenses including forgery, uttering forged instruments, bribery, suppression of evidence, false pretenses, cheating, embezzlement, roughly disclose a type of dishonest and unreliability characteristic of those lacking veracity. Not only would witnesses with such records tend to be conscience free in giving false testimony, but these crimes, being of the enlarged crimen falsi class might indicate the propensity to gain by false means and thus to falsify. Perjury has been regarded a sufficient indication of the probability of future perjury that some legislatures in removing incompetency of the common law retained it as to perjury. Whether perjury in one case would be a stronger indication that the witness would perjure in another than the commission of other crimes in the crimen falsi group is questionable. [Emphasis added.] After careful deliberation we decided in Gustafson that there was a relationship between stealing and a lack of veracity. We stated that burglary and robbery would not bear on veracity unless a theft was involved. See People v. Burdine, 99 Cal. 3rd 442, 160 Cal. Rep. 375 (1979). A jury should know if a witness or a defendant has stolen before. Evidently the majority does not believe thieves tend to lie. Trial lawyers and judges know that often a case rests upon the statement of only one witness. Sometimes that is a witness for the State, sometimes the defendant. Our rules exist to provide the jury or judge with all the relevant information available to decide if a witness or defendant is telling the truth. The majority is denying that tool to defense attorneys, and ultimately denying us all a valuable tool in the search for the truth. I find no good cause to overrule Gustafson which is a definative decision and replace it with a decision that leaves too many questions unanswered. Neither party asked us to overrule Gustafson; we have not had the benefit of argument on this issue and I am convinced the action is not only precipitous but it is wrong. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.