Rule 608 A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

Maine Rule 608 is very similar to its federal counterpart, but does not allow opinion evidence of character for truthfulness, only reputation. The Maine restyled version changes references to “credibility” to “character for truthfulness” to follow the federal version.

Federal Restyling Committee Note

The language of Rule 608 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

The Committee is aware that the Rule’s limitation of bad-act impeachment to “cross-examination” is trumped by Rule 607, which allows a party to impeach a witness on direct examination. Courts have not relied on the term “on cross-examination” to limit impeachment that would otherwise be permissible under Rules 607 and 608. The Committee therefore concluded that no change to the language of the Rule was necessary in the context of a restyling project.

Advisers’ Note to former M.R. Evid. 608

(February 2, 1976)

In allowing reputation evidence of the character of a witness, this rule is consistent with Rule 405(a). The limitation confining this evidence to character for veracity instead of evidence of character generally is in accord with the weight of authority. It avoids surprise, waste of time, and confusion and makes the task of being a witness somewhat less unpleasant. Allowing character evidence in support of the credibility of a witness only after his character has been attacked is a limitation imposed at common law. It saves an enormous amount of time.

Subdivision (b) gives the court discretion to allow inquiry on cross- examination into specific instances of conduct bearing upon the credibility of a witness. It is in accord with Maine law. State v. Whitehead, 151 Me. 135, 116 A.2d 618 (1955).

It is unclear whether limiting cross-examination to matters probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness changes Maine law. It does not seem to be spelled out in Maine cases and the rule in other jurisdictions varies. In any event, the limitation seems a reasonable one.