Can prosecutors impeach character witnesses with their belief in victim credibility? State v. Kamrowski Explained

In State v. Kamrowski, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether prosecutors can impeach a defendant’s character witness by eliciting testimony that the witness believes the victim’s allegations, even when such testimony would normally violate Rule 608 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

Background and Facts

Kenneth Kamrowski was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based primarily on the victim’s testimony. At trial, Kamrowski called his wife as a character witness who testified that she believed him to be honest and had never lied to her, and that the victim had never spoken to her about the abuse. On cross-examination, the State elicited testimony that the wife had received a letter from the victim about the allegations and had written back stating she believed the victim. The State then asked directly: “So you do believe [the victim] that this happened, correct?” The wife responded affirmatively.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether this impeachment testimony violated Rule 608, which permits testimony about a witness’s general character for truthfulness but prohibits testimony about truthfulness on a particular occasion. Kamrowski argued the trial court committed plain error in allowing this testimony and moved for a new trial.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the “opened the door” doctrine. When a defendant offers witnesses to testify about his reputation for truthfulness, he opens the door for the prosecution to impeach those character witnesses. The court emphasized that impeachment evidence is admissible if it goes to credibility, even if it would be otherwise inadmissible under Rule 608. Here, the State’s cross-examination was specifically designed to dispute or minimize the effect of the wife’s direct testimony about Kamrowski’s honesty.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the strategic risks of calling character witnesses in sexual abuse cases. Defense counsel must carefully weigh whether character testimony’s benefits outweigh the potential damage from cross-examination that may reveal the witness’s actual beliefs about the allegations. Practitioners should prepare character witnesses for aggressive cross-examination and consider limiting the scope of direct examination to minimize impeachment opportunities.