Court Opinion

ID: 9673163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:28.925348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.463686
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the prosecution cannot ask “have you heard” questions of a witness after the witness has testified to good character traits of a defendant. In this case, appellant’s mother testified to specific acts of good conduct by appellant, no doubt for the purpose of showing good character. .Usually the way to prove good character is by proving good reputation. Here the defense has made a short cut by offering proof of good character instead of reputation.
“Have you heard” questions have been allowed in such instances in all previous cases. Now the Court overrules those cases for no good reason. If “have you heard” questions may be. asked when proof of good reputation has been offered, such questions should be allowed when proof of the ultimate issue of character has been admitted. Again: reputation evidence is offered to prove character.
Since a defendant can now offer proof of specific acts of good conduct to show good character, it follows that the prosecution should be able to rebut a false impression by proving specific acts of misconduct. Otherwise, juries will be misled by proof that one is angelic without the chance of it being contradicted. It logically follows from the majority opinion that when witnesses testify to specific acts of good conduct on the part of a defendant, the State *323should be able to ask if the witness knows about the defendant’s specific acts of misconduct. False impressions should not be allowed before a jury without the opportunity to rebut them.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing should be overruled.