🦅
Federal Evidence • Witness Impeachment
EVID#091
Legal Definition
In civil cases, specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts evidence that bears on the witness' character for truthfulness is inadmissible through both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence.
In criminal cases, Proposition 8 makes acts of moral turpitude admissible by both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence.
In criminal cases, Proposition 8 makes acts of moral turpitude admissible by both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence.
Plain English Explanation
In California, when it comes to questioning a witness's honesty in court, the rules are different depending on the type of case. In civil cases, where people or companies are in a legal dispute, you can't use evidence about a witness's past wrongdoings or questionable behavior to question their truthfulness (unless, as you'll learn in card EVID#097, the past wrongdoing is a felony conviction involving dishonesty, like fraud). This is true both when directly asking the witness during the trial (cross-examination) and when trying to introduce other evidence about their past. However, in criminal cases, where someone is accused of a crime, California's Proposition 8 allows such evidence about the witness's past bad behavior, as long as it's relevant to their honesty, to be used in both questioning them and bringing in additional evidence.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is on trial for theft. During the trial, the defense wants to question the credibility of Sam, a witness who saw Bob stealing. In a previous incident unrelated to the trial, Sam had lied to the police during an investigation. Result: Since this is a criminal case, under Proposition 8, the defense can bring up Sam's past lie to the police during cross-examination and can use other evidence or witnesses to support this claim.
Hypo 2: In a civil lawsuit, Bob sues his neighbor Sam for damaging his car. Bob's lawyer learns that Sam previously shoplifted a few years ago and wants to use this information to question Sam's honesty in court. Result: In this civil case, the lawyer cannot bring up Sam's past shoplifting incident, either by asking Sam directly or by presenting other evidence about it, as it's not permissible to use past bad acts to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness in civil cases.
Hypo 3: In a criminal case where Bob is accused of assault, Sam testifies that he saw Bob commit the assault. The defense discovers that Sam was previously fired from a job for lying to his employer. Result: The defense can question Sam's credibility based on his past dishonesty at work, as Proposition 8 allows the introduction of evidence of prior bad acts related to truthfulness in a criminal case. They can ask Sam about this during cross-examination and can also present evidence or other witnesses to support this claim.
Hypo 2: In a civil lawsuit, Bob sues his neighbor Sam for damaging his car. Bob's lawyer learns that Sam previously shoplifted a few years ago and wants to use this information to question Sam's honesty in court. Result: In this civil case, the lawyer cannot bring up Sam's past shoplifting incident, either by asking Sam directly or by presenting other evidence about it, as it's not permissible to use past bad acts to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness in civil cases.
Hypo 3: In a criminal case where Bob is accused of assault, Sam testifies that he saw Bob commit the assault. The defense discovers that Sam was previously fired from a job for lying to his employer. Result: The defense can question Sam's credibility based on his past dishonesty at work, as Proposition 8 allows the introduction of evidence of prior bad acts related to truthfulness in a criminal case. They can ask Sam about this during cross-examination and can also present evidence or other witnesses to support this claim.
Related Concepts
How may a witness be <impeached>?
In California, how may a witness be impeached?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to evidence of character for untruthfulness?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence under Proposition 8?
