| Venue: | Ct. App. 4th Cir. |
| Facts: | Ling is arrested for making a drug I've never even heard of for a motorcycle gang. He didn't like the gang (they beat him and burglarized him), but he had sold them Nazi memorabilia. He claimed that he was going to sabotage the drug-making work, but the prosecution wants to impeach that claim. At trial, the prosecution introduces evidence of a prior arrest for drunk driving and a weapons violation. |
| Posture: | Convicted at trial. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Was it error to admit the evidence of the prior arrest? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | Rule 405, and Rule 608(b). When a defendant is cross-examined for impeachment purposes, the questioner must be content with the witness' answer about specific prior acts not the subject of a conviction. |
| Reasoning: | In the first place, arrest can happen to anybody. It might have some probative value, but it's overwhelmingly outweighed by the prejudicial value. |
| Dicta: | It is not our function to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant or to speculate upon the probably reconviction in the event of a new trial. |