Anx.l Rtos u. Srerr phrases alone such as ,'reliable confidential ilml.or.n to be very reliable in the lve reverse the order of the court hold the affidavit was sulllcient, and trial court. Reversed and rernanded. Bvno, J., .tot particiPating. Tommy RIOS a. STATE cR 77-163 Oo ' inion delivered November (Division I) 1. CntutNer LAw EvIDENCE oF orHER -* iuia..,.. of o ther crimes, wrongs o*u.',fr. .naracter of a person in Jrder ;;;i;;i,y therewith; iimay be admissible, Durposes, such as proof of motive, iio.,, plut,, knowledge' identity'-or ;;;;.iA;k. stat. Ain. $ 28-f001, Rules of Evidence (Noncum' Supp' ) CnrutNer. LAw EVIDENCE oF orHER ;;;. Where a defendant was charged of m a riiuana5 it was error for the of other" sales or deliveries of drugs' EVTOTNCS CHARACTER EVIDENCE . - TESTIMOI,iY CONCERNING REPU'TATION Testimony concerning " ;; o ; * ;; ,r u*r h . i r s t. a s sociat", o. it the .ir."I,.t evidence. [Ark. Stat' Ann' Uniform Rules of Evidence (Noncum' Supp' EVIOTNCC CHARACTER EVTDENCE cHARACTER ATTACKED' A delendant stand cannot support h is testimony shows his charaiier for truthfulness 401 informant, who Past," carry no weight' ordering disclosure, remand the case to the of Arkansas 557 S.W. 2d 198 7, 1977 cRIMEs ADMISSIBILITY' or acts is n ot admissible to to show that he acted in however' for other opportunity-, intent' prePara-mistake or accl-1 R b y s9 l: n c 4 .e 0 ^ 4 o f (3) (b), unirorm 1976)'] cRIMES wHEN INADMISSI-- with only one delivery trial court to admit evidence _ ADMISSIBILITY OF AMONC ASSOCIATES OR IN a person's repu-tation community is admis:lb]t.:t $ 28-1001, Rule 803 (2)' 1976)'l TNADMISSIBLE UNLESS - who takes the witness by offering evidence that unless his character has
408 Rros been attacked. [Ark. Stat. Ann. Rules of Evidence (Noncum. Appeal from Garland Judge; reversed and remanded. Clark (l Miller, for Bill Clinlon, Atty. Gen., by: Gen., for appellee. Dennpu HrcxueN, in the Garland County delivery of marijuana and sentenced state penitentiary. He alleges two errors admitting evidence of other crimes charged; and, the trial Rios' reputation for truthfulness. We agree with Rios that the trial court improperly mitted evidence of other The state's main testimony of Randy Wayne Brookman, policeman. Brookman worth of marijuana from was charged only with this ed to testify, over the objections day he had purchased Rios. The state called a then rested its case. Rios in his behalf. After Rios had presented Brookman back to the witness stand in that on May the 5th, the back to Rios and purchased also permitted to testify sample delivered to him by Brookman and found PCP. u. Srnrr \262 g 28-100], Rule 608, Llniform Supp. 1976).1 Circuit Court, Henry M. Britt, appellant. Jweph H. ktrais, Asst. Atty. Justice. Tommy Rios was convicted Circuit Court of a single charge of to three years in the on appeal: the trial court erred in for which he was not court refused to admit evidence of adcrimes and, therefore, reverse. evidence against Rios was the an Arkansas State testilied that he purchased $15.00 Rios on the 4th of May, 1976. Rios offense. Brookman was also allowof Rios, that later that same some phencyclidine, or PCP, from chemist to identify the marijuana and presented his defense, and testilied his case the state called rebuttal. He related date after the original sale, he went some more PCP. A chemist was on rebuttal that he had examined a it to be {
Rtos u. Srern Anx.l Rios was only charged with making ,,u,.'ofiJr.J,*o 6ther iistances of ;;t;;e;i u iut., time under the pretext ;il';i;;'_*ir., t.Lr"t"ag. or'absence crimes, wrongs o. ltit arJ admissible cumstancesl Evidence of other crimes, wrongs' ;;l;;;; tt. ttturucter of-a"person ,t in conformity theiewith' be " if a , d J m "o is e s d ib le'for other purposes' motive, oppo.iunity, intent, i.".*i.ag.,' id;i,;; ; a^bsence'of A;[ S*t.'Ann' $-28-1001' SuPP. 1976)' However, we see no reason why .rimes-sho,rld hau.-been admitted poses referred to in the rule' Our basic rule regarding the or ** "tit wronss offenses rorih ;#l};di.w. za Io+ iiqsil, ;"a iil';;k.;sd; ;it5.\n-. ia'itt (1e71)' In Proof that Sweatt had sold marijuana had no .elrraiy t*ttpt to sholw.that il;;;;t befoie'and hence aqain. fnrt it pl"ittiv tnt eicluded. Swealt, suPra' at 65'2' It was clearly error for the evidence of other ldtt ot delivery Rios made a d.ri,lry-; M;.y -the ;;;;; ;h. judgmeni'of the trial I I I for new trial. I Because the issue as to the I evidence may come up again during I must address it also' i After Rios testified, he called l409 one delivery fh.' crim-inal conduct.*lt:h of showing Rios'.in-of mistake. other under certain cir-admissi-or acts is not in order to show [t may' however' of such as proof preparation' Pfan' miitake or accident' Rule 404(3)(b) (Noncum' evidence of these other io prove any of the puradmissibility of^other in A-lford v' Slatc' 223 Ark' confiimed in swcatt v. state, the latter we said: on other occasions Sweatt had dealt was likelv to have done so of proof that must be -tyPe the trial court to admit of. drugs to simply prove we will 4th' therefore' court and remand this case admissibility- of character a retrial of this matter we his employer purportedly
410 Rros u. Srers to testify that Rios was truthful. mit this evidence because testify that he knew of Rios'reputation but only as his employer. understanding of the rules by Arkansas Uniform Rules somewhat the law concerning evidence. For example, limited to the "community. character among his associates Ann. $ 28-1001, Rule 803(21) also Haraq v. State,26l A defendant who takes his testimony by offering for truthfulness unless his character Ark. Stat. Ann. $ 28-1001, Rule We cannot say from this had been attacked simply Certainly if the rebuttal evidence offenses was admitted, it could attacked; but we have excluded come up on retrial. We cannot take thi stand on retrial, examination will develop. admissible during a new trial. court and counsel that the issue are set forth in the Evidence. Ark. Stat. Ann. (Noncum. Supp. 1976). Reversed and remanded. We agree. HenRts, Rov, JJ.[262 The rial court did not perapParently the employer could not in the "community" Obviously, there was a misthe court and counsel. The o[ Evidence have changed admissibility of character no longer is a person's reputation " Reputation may be of a person's or in the community. Ark. Stat. (Noncum. Srpp. 1976); see Ark. 47,545 S.W. 2d 913 (1977). the witness stand cannot support evidence that shows his character has been attacked. See 608 (Noncum. Supp. 1976). record that Rios'truthfulness because he took the witness stand. of the state regarding other be said that his credibility was that evidence so it will not anticipate whether Rios will nor can we predict how his cross-The evidence may or may not be We simply point out to the rules of evidence which control this Arkansas Uniform Rules of $ 28-1001, Rules 4O4;6O9;802(21) CJ., and Groncr Ross SumH and
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.