In a larceny trial, after the defendant calls a character witness to testify about his honesty, the prosecutor seeks to introduce the defendant's former employer's testimony that the defendant lied on a job application. How should the court rule?

In a larceny trial, after the defendant calls a character witness to testify about his honesty, the prosecutor seeks to introduce the defendant's former employer's testimony that the defendant lied on a job application. How should the court rule?

• A. Prosecution may offer extrinsic evidence from the employer to prove the misconduct.
• B. The defense opened the door; the prosecution may rebut only by cross-examining about specific acts, not by extrinsic evidence.
• C. The evidence is inadmissible entirely.
• D. The prosecution may offer any evidence of prior bad acts.

Answer: (B)

When a defendant puts forward character evidence about honesty, the opposing side may respond to that credibility claim, but only in a restricted way. The proper rebuttal is to cross-examine the credibility witness about specific acts of dishonesty. Extrinsic evidence of those acts is not admissible to prove the acts themselves. Applying this here, the employer’s testimony that the defendant lied on a job application is a specific act of dishonesty. The court should not permit that employer’s testimony as extrinsic evidence. Instead, the prosecutor may question the defense character witness about that specific act on cross-examination to challenge credibility. The rule prevents introducing separate, witnesses’ testimony about the past act and limits the rebuttal to cross-examination about the acts.

When a defendant puts forward character evidence about honesty, the opposing side may respond to that credibility claim, but only in a restricted way. The proper rebuttal is to cross-examine the credibility witness about specific acts of dishonesty. Extrinsic evidence of those acts is not admissible to prove the acts themselves.

Applying this here, the employer’s testimony that the defendant lied on a job application is a specific act of dishonesty. The court should not permit that employer’s testimony as extrinsic evidence. Instead, the prosecutor may question the defense character witness about that specific act on cross-examination to challenge credibility. The rule prevents introducing separate, witnesses’ testimony about the past act and limits the rebuttal to cross-examination about the acts.