Del. R. Evid. 608

As amended through December 15, 2023

Rule 608 - A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

(a)Reputation or Opinion Evidence. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a witness's credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.

(b)Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609 or evidence of bias under Rule 616, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

(1) the witness; or

(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.

(3) By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness's character for truthfulness.

Del. R. Evid. 608

Amended November 28, 2017, effective 1/1/2018.

Comment

D.R.E. 608(a) differs from F.R.E. 608. The words "Except as otherwise provided by statute appear at the beginning of D.R.E. 608(a). Sections 3508 and 3509 of Title 11 relate to the evidence as to the sexual conduct of the complaining witness in prosecutions for rape or rape-related offenses. The references in F.R.E. 608 to opinion evidence were originally omitted from D.R.E. 608(a)

but were added in 2001 to conform this rule to existing Delaware practice. See D.R.E. 405.

For prior Delaware cases illustrating the areas of law covered by D.R.E. 608(a), see Woods v. State, Del. Supr., 315 A.2d 589 (1973) (guidelines in rape cases) and State v. Cox, Del. Gen. Sess., 181 A. 654 (1935).

A witness's bias is never a collateral issue within the meaning of D.R.E. 608(b), and extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish that the witness has a motive to testify falsely. Weber v. State, Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 674 (1983). See D.RE. 616.

A party who intends to introduce evidence on cross-examination pursuant to D.R.E. 608(b) should first seek a ruling from the trial judge as to the admissibility of the evidence.

D.R.E. 608(b) modified prior Delaware case law. See Williams v. State, Del. Supr., 301 A.2d 88 (1973) and Steigler v. State, Del. Supr., 277 A.2d 662 (1971).

See D.RE. 404(a)(2) and 412.

D.R.E. 608 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. The pre-2017 "Comment" to D.R.E. 608 was revised only as necessary to reflect the 2017 amendments. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility.