 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. State4/23/2003
meanor on relevancy grounds alone could not have a violation of Rule 609 claim considered on appeal. Because appellant is bound by the scope of her argument at trial, any claim that the State violated Rule 609 is barred from appellate review.
In addition, appellant contends that the question of whether she had ever been intoxicated was an improper question in violation of Arkansas Rule of Evidence 608(b) (2002). On appeal, appellant maintains that the question was improper as it was not relevant to the charge of DWI and that it is not a crime for a person over the age of twenty-one to be intoxicated. Appellant further argues that after she answered the State's question, the State should have been barred from proving with extrinsic evidence that her answer was false. Rule 608 (b) provides: Specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of a crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by another witness, does not operate as a waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility.
Appellant failed to object below to the State's question on this basis. An argument for reversal will not be considered in the absence of an appropriate objection to the trial court. Pharo v. State, 30 Ark. App. 94, 783 S.W.2d 64 (1990).
Stroud, C.J., and Robbins, J., agree.
|