Ohio R. Evid. 608

As amended through March 13, 2024

Rule 608 - Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness

(A) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations:

(1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.

(B) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in Evid. R. 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

The giving of testimony by any witness, including an accused, does not operate as a waiver of the witness's privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to the witness's character for truthfulness.

Ohio. R. Evid. 608

Effective:7/1/1980;7/1/1992.

Staff Note (July 1, 1992 Amendment)

Rule 608 Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness

Rule 608(B) Specific instances of conduct

The amendment substitutes the phrase "character for truthfulness" for the term "credibility." The latter term is too broad and, therefore, may cause confusion.

Evid. R 608, along with Evid. R. 609 (prior convictions), concerns impeachment by means of character evidence. The rule does not deal with other methods of impeachment, such as bias, which is governed by Evid. R. 616, or prior inconsistent statements, which are governed by Evid. R. 613. Thus, the limitation on the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in Evid. R. 608(B) concerns only specific acts of conduct reflecting upon untruthful character, and not on "credibility" in general. Extrinsic evidence may be admissible under some other theory of impeachment. Indeed, Evid. R. 616 explicitly provides for the admissibility of extrinsic evidence of bias.

Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible under Evid. R. 613(B), provided a foundation is laid on cross-examination. In addition, extrinsic evidence offered to show contradiction, an impeachment method not specifically covered by any rule, may be admissible under certain circumstances. State v. Williams (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 484, 477 N.E. 2d 221 (testimony that rape complainant had engaged in sex with males in the course of prostitution admitted after complainant voluntarily testified that she had not consented to intercourse with defendant because she was a lesbian); G. Joseph & S. Saltzburg, Evidence in America: The Federal Rules in the States. ch. 42, at 9-10 (1987).

Commentators on the Federal Rules have recognized this problem. See A.B.A. Criminal Justice Section, Federal Rules of Evidence: A Fresh Review and Evaluation, 120 F.R.D. 299, 355 (1987) ("The root of the trouble seems to be the Rule's obscure wording. Perhaps foremost of the troubles .. is confusion concerning whether wrongdoing offered to show bias .. rather than to show credibility character, is covered by Rule 608(B).") The Federal Rules do not contain a rule on impeachment by bias. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court resolved the issue in United States v. Abel (1984), 469 U.S. 45, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed. 2d 450, holding extrinsic evidence of bias admissible notwithstanding Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).

See also La.Code Evid. art. 608(B) (phrase "character for truthfulness" used in lieu of "credibility").

In addition, masculine references are replaced by gender-neutral language, the style used for rule references is revised, and grammatical changes are made. No substantive change is intended.