 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hathcock v. Wood3/16/2001
er a vehicle that he reasonably could have discovered in time to avoid injury").
Hathcock also argues that the trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to cross-examine Dr. Thomas Conboy, one of the Woods' expert witnesses, as to the probationary status of his professional license. The trial court refused to admit this evidence, concluding that its prejudice outweighed its relevance. In Ayres v. Lakeshore Community Hospital, 689 So. 2d 39 (Ala. 1997), this Court stated the following general rule regarding the cross-examination of an expert witness:
" he trial judge has substantial discretion as to the questions a party is allowed to ask of an expert witness. The scope and extent of cross-examination vested in the trial court's sound discretion, and this court will not reverse on the basis of the trial court's rulings regarding cross-examination unless an abuse of discretion has occurred." 689 So. 2d at 41.
Thus, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by curtailing defense counsel's cross-examination as to matters involving Dr. Conboy's probation imposed by his governing professional association.
Hathcock argues in his brief that the evidence of Dr. Conboy's probation was relevant to show bias on the part of Dr. Conboy. The record, however, reveals that during a hearing on pretrial motions defense counsel repeatedly urged the trial court to allow this evidence on the basis that it was germane to the question of Dr. Conboy's veracity. The record also shows during the trial defense counsel made a similar argument during her offer of proof: "This is a serious case, and the defendant ought to be able, in fairness, to qualify [Dr. Conboy's] truthfulness ...." This Court's consideration of this issue is limited to the grounds raised before the trial court. See Lance, Inc. v. Ramanauskas, 731 So. 2d 1204, 1220 (Ala. 1999) (stating that "specific objections waive all other objections").
The Alabama Rules of Evidence clearly allow cross-examination as to "matters affecting the credibility of the witness." Rule 611(b), Ala R. Evid. Rule 608, however, requires the trial judge to keep a watchful eye on evidence concerning the character or conduct of a witness. Rule 608(b), which governs evidence of specific conduct by a witness, states:
"Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may be not be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness nor proved by extrinsic evidence."
The only kind of evidence that may be presented as to an expert's "character for truthfulness" is evidence regarding the expert's "general reputation in the community for untruthfulness," or opinion testimony from another competent witness. Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence ยง 142.01(3) (5th ed. 1996). The excluded evidence in this case, however, is rather specific in that it pertains to certain events that led to Dr. Conboy's being placed on probation by his licensing board. Because specific evidence bearing on a witness's reputation for veracity is forbidden by Rule 608(b), Ala. R. Evid, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by preventing defense counsel from exploring these matters. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Dr. Conboy's probation, which is inextricably intertwined with these previous acts.
Next, Hathcock argues that the trial court erred by allowing Mrs. Wood to comment on the Woods' poor financial condition. He contends that her comments were unfairly prejudicial and requires a rev
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|