Gustafson v. State
590 S.W.2d 853 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Uniform Rule of Evidence 608(b), a defendant who testifies in their own behalf does not waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when cross-examined about specific instances of prior misconduct that relate only to credibility.
Facts:
- While Jack L. Gustafson, Sr. was in the Independence County Jail on unrelated charges, law enforcement learned he claimed to have automatic weapons for sale and planned to burglarize a National Guard Armory.
- Officials placed a wired undercover federal agent in the cell with Gustafson, who provided Gustafson with a phone number to arrange a sale of weapons and a murder-for-hire.
- After being released on bond, Gustafson called the number and met the undercover agent at a truck stop.
- During the meeting, which was secretly recorded, Gustafson discussed burglarizing the armory and soliciting the murder of Ray Seeley.
- The night following the meeting, Gustafson was shot by law enforcement outside the National Guard Armory in Batesville.
- At the time he was shot, Gustafson was in possession of a gun and a pry bar.
- Evidence indicated that the armory had been forcibly entered using the pry bar found with Gustafson.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack L. Gustafson, Sr. was prosecuted by the State in the Independence County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- A jury convicted Gustafson of burglary, attempted theft, and soliciting capital murder.
- Gustafson, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, with the State as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by compelling a defendant, who has taken the witness stand, to answer questions about prior criminal misconduct after the defendant has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as protected under Uniform Rule of Evidence 608(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Hickman, J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by compelling a defendant to answer questions about prior misconduct after he has invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. The last paragraph of Uniform Rule of Evidence 608(b) explicitly provides that the act of testifying does not waive a witness's privilege against self-incrimination for matters relating only to credibility. The trial court's order forcing Gustafson to answer a question about possessing a stolen truck, after he claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege, was a clear violation of this rule and constituted prejudicial error requiring a new trial. The court further clarified that for such questions about prior misconduct to be permissible at all, they must be asked in good faith, their probative value must outweigh their prejudicial effect, and the misconduct must be probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Dissenting - Holt, J.
No. The dissent disagrees with the majority's interpretation of Rule 608(b) and its decision to overrule the precedent set in Cox v. State. The dissenting justice believes the majority's approach creates an exception for questioning about prior dishonest acts that is so broad it will 'swallow the rule.' The dissent argues that Rule 608(b) was intended to be more restrictive, applying only to acts that directly pertain to the witness's veracity, not every act that could be broadly defined as dishonest.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical framework for impeaching a defendant-witness with prior misconduct under Uniform Rule of Evidence 608(b). The court sets forth a three-part test for admissibility, requiring that questions be asked in good faith, relate to truthfulness, and have a probative value that outweighs their prejudicial effect. Most significantly, the ruling solidifies the defendant's Fifth Amendment protections during such cross-examination, clarifying that testifying on the merits of a case does not waive the privilege against self-incrimination for questions solely attacking credibility. This precedent compels prosecutors to exercise caution and seek pre-approval from the trial judge before engaging in this line of questioning, thereby safeguarding defendants' rights and reducing the likelihood of reversible error.
Unlock the full brief for Gustafson v. State