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. |
|