The defendant seeks to attack the credibility of a prosecution witness by showing through cross- examination possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate directly to issues or personalities in the case. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. O.C.G.A. § 24-9-81; O.C.G.A. § 24-6-607; Pate v. State, 315 Ga. App. 205 (2012).
To impeach a witness is to prove the witness is unworthy of belief. A witness may be impeached by:
(1) Disproving the facts to which the witness testified; (2) Proof of general bad character; (3) Proof that the witness has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; and (4) Proof of contradictory statements, previously made by the witness, as to matters relevant to the witness' testimony and to the case. Whether a witness has been impeached is for the jury to decide. Jefferson v. State, 309 Ga. App. 861 (2011); Warner v. State, 281 Ga. 763 (2007); O.C.G.A. §§ 24-6-608; 24-6-609; 24-6-613; 24-6-621.
(2)
Bias
The bias of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony. The exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination. Hewitt v. State, 277 Ga. 327 (2003).
O.C.G.A. § 24-9-68 provides that the state of a witness' feelings toward the parties ... may always be proved for the consideration of the jury. Edwards v. State, 308 Ga. App. 569 (2011); O.C.G.A. § 24-6-622. Before a witness is impeached to prove bias, a foundation "must first be laid by cross-examining the witness sought to be impeached as to his feelings toward the party." Walker v. State 308 Ga. App. 176 (2011); Beam v. State, 265 Ga. 853 (1995).
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to show the possible bias of a witness by cross-examining a witness concerning pending criminal charges against the witness for purposes of exposing a witness' motivation in testifying, e.g., bias, partiality, or agreement between the government and the witness.” Mays v. State, 279 Ga. 372 (2005). Whether or not such a deal existed is not crucial. What counts is whether the witness may be shading his testimony in an effort to please the prosecution. Douglas v. State,327 Ga. App. 792 (2014).
A witness currently on probation for a juvenile offense, or with an open or pending case in juvenile court can be impeached to show bias, prejudice or ulterior motives that may influence his testimony. Pate v. State, 315 Ga. App. 205 (2012).
Bad Character
Prior to the January 1, 2013, any party may impeach the credibility of a witness by offering evidence of the witness' bad character in the form of reputation, but subject to the following limitations:
1. The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness;
2. Evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence or otherwise;
3. In a criminal case, the character for untruthfulness of the defendant may be introduced in evidence only if the defendant testifies and offers evidence of his or her truthful character; and
4. The character witness should first be questioned as to his or her knowledge of the general character of the witness, next as to what that character is, and lastly the character witness may be asked if from that character he would believe the other witness under oath. Specific instances demonstrating the character should not be brought out except during cross- examination in order to show the extent and basis of the witness' knowledge.
The new evidence code will make changes to the use of character evidence for impeachment. O.C.G.A. §§ 24-6-608; 24-6- 609; 24-4-404; 24-4-405; 24-4-406.