ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

MATTHEW SIKES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-236

October 10, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-99-699]

HON. DAVID L. REYNOLDS,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant in this criminal case, age sixteen at the time of the offense, was charged as an adult with the rape of his fourteen-year-old stepsister. At appellant's jury trial, the victim testified that appellant had sexual intercourse with her by forcible compulsion. Appellant's attorney sought to cross-examine the victim about a notebook she kept at the time of the rape. The trial court refused to permit cross-examination of this point. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found appellant guilty and sentenced appellant to ten years' imprisonment. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the victim to be cross-examined about the notebook she had kept. The notebook is not in the record before us. It appears, however, from the proffered testimony, that the victim's

notebook contained a list of male names, including acquaintances and television celebrities. Next to those names was written a number and a sentence to a term of years. In her proffered testimony, the victim stated that the names were those of people she liked or admired, and that her notebook was an imaginative exercise prompted by her desire to become a police officer. Appellant argues that this cross-examination should have been permitted because it bore on the victim's credibility by showing that she made false allegations in order to punish people for acts that they never committed. We disagree.

A trial court has wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based upon concerns about confusion of issues or interrogation that is only marginally relevant, and we will not reverse the trial court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Newman v. State, 327 Ark. 339, 939 S.W.2d 811 (1997); Gordon v. State, 326 Ark. 90, 931 S.W.2d 91 (1996). Arkansas Rule of Evidence 608(b) bans, in general terms, proof of "[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness" by extrinsic evidence, and leaves to the court's discretion the decision whether to permit inquiry concerning those instances that concern a witness's "character for truthfulness or untruthfulness." Dillon v. State, 311 Ark. 529, 844 S.W.2d 944 (1993). The credibility of a witness may be attacked, under Rule 608, where the following conditions are met: (1) the question is asked in good faith, (2) the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, and (3) the prior conduct relates to the witness's truthfulness. Id.

Applying these principles to the circumstances of the present case, we think that the proffered cross-examination was marginally relevant at best. Despite appellant's argumentto the contrary, we are hesitant to equate an exercise in imagination and fiction with untruthfulness in the absence of evidence that the victim represented her fictions to be true. There is no indication in the proffered testimony that the victim made any false allegations whatsoever. The victim testified that the notebook was private, and there was no evidence that she shared the contents of the notebook with anyone, much less that she asserted that the writings in the notebook were based on factual events. Likewise, there was no evidence that any allegations or charges were made against the persons listed in her notebook. The only evidence of allegations or charges were those made against appellant, and no one suggests that appellant's name was listed in the notebook. Under these circumstances, where the relevance was marginal and the potential for the confusion of issues was plain, and where the relation between the prior conduct and the witness's truthfulness was dubious, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to permit appellant to cross-examine the victim regarding the contents of her notebook.

Affirmed.

Neal and Vaught, JJ., agree.