State v. Braswell

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s impeachment of the accusing witness through prior inconsistencies and alleged bias did not attack her general character for untruthfulness under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 608(a). The court concluded that the admission of testimony from five witnesses regarding the witness’s good character for truthfulness was prejudicial, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A party opens the door to rehabilitative evidence of a witness's good character for truthfulness under Rule 608(a) only when the impeachment attacks the witness's character for untruthfulness—suggesting that the witness is a liar in general. Impeachment directed at whether the witness was truthful or mistaken in the particular case, including pointing out inconsistencies, omissions, or possible bias, does not by itself trigger rehabilitative evidence.
2. The erroneous admission of testimony from five witnesses concerning Penny's general good character for truthfulness was prejudicial because her credibility was central to the case and there was a reasonable possibility of a different trial outcome without the testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's impeachment of the accusing witness through prior inconsistent statements, omissions, and alleged bias attacked her character for untruthfulness so as to permit rehabilitative evidence of her good character under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 608(a).
2. Whether the admission of the rehabilitative character evidence prejudiced Defendant and required a new trial.
3. Whether an officer's statements improperly vouched for the accusing witness's credibility.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded