Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness — Rule 608

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness — Rule 608

SUMMARY OF RULE 608

• The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by opinion or reputation.
• Evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
• Evidence of truthful character is only admissible after character for truthfulness has been attacked.
• A party may not use extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack or support credibility (other than conviction of a crime as provided in C.R.S. § 13-90-101).
• At the discretion of the court, on cross-examination an attorney may inquire about specific instances of conduct if that conduct is probative of (1) the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

• Attacking a witness's general character is not permissible for impeachment purposes. People v. Taylor, 545 P.2d 703 (Colo. 1976).

• It is not proper to ask questions regarding the purported use of alcohol or drugs merely for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the witness, as the use of alcohol or drugs is not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. People v. Saldana, 670 P.2d 14 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. Roberts, 553 P.2d 93 (Colo. App. 1976).

• A prior felony conviction may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. People v. Silva, 987 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1999).

• A misdemeanor charge or conviction is not admissible to impeach the general credibility of a witness. People v. Silva, 987 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1999).

• Asking witnesses if they took seriously their oath to testify truthfully (although of limited probative value) is not improper bolstering. People v. Lee, 989 P.2d 777 (Colo. App. 1999).

• It is "categorically improper" to ask a witness a direct question concerning whether another witness is either telling the truth or lying. Liggett v. People, 135 P.3d 725, 732 (Colo. 2006).

• In a criminal action for violation of a custody order and kidnapping charges, the judge (from a former divorce proceeding) may be subpoenaed to testify to the character of the defendant for truthfulness, although the practice of judges appearing as character witnesses should be discouraged. People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).

• An expert may not generally provide testimony as to specific instances of truthfulness. People v. Jensen, 747 P.2d 1247 (Colo. 1987)...