RUDY ISMAEL MANCHAME-GUERRA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, Jan. 23, 2018,
Impeachment – A defendant should have been allowed to question a witness with pending charges about his possible motivation to testify

Facts:
In 2012, a murder in PG County led to the arrest of Manchame-Guerra.
During the murder trial, the State called a witness who testified that he saw Manchame-Guerra shoot the victim. At the time, the witness was facing felony burglary and weapon charges.
Manchame-Guerra tried to question the witness about whether he expected to benefit from testifying for the State, but the judge did not allow the defendant to ask that question or any similar question.
Manchame-Guerra argued that the witness had an open warrant for felony burglary at the time that he was interrogated, but that detectives did not arrest him at that time despite knowing about the warrant. He argued that this was one example of evidence suggesting that the witness had received a benefit to testify.
A jury convicted Manchame-Guerra of second-degree murder.
Manchame-Guerra appealed, arguing that the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him”) allowed him to “confront” the witness about his possible bias or motivation to lie.

Held:
The Court of Appeals agreed. The trial judge should have allowed Manchame-Guerra to ask whether the witness hoped to receive anything in exchange for his testimony.

Impeachment – At trial, a witness may have their credibility attacked by questions related to:
(1) Prior inconsistent statements;
(2) Proving that the facts are not as testified to by the witness;
(3) Proving that an opinion expressed by the witness is not held by the witness or is otherwise not worthy of belief;
(4) Proving that the witness is biased, prejudiced, interested in the outcome of the proceeding, or has a motive to testify falsely;
(5) Proving lack of personal knowledge or weaknesses in the capacity of the witness to perceive, remember, or communicate; or
(6) Proving the character of the witness for untruthfulness.

Impeachment – Questioning to impeach is to be prohibited only if there is either no factual foundation for the question or the probative value derived from pursuing the “inquiry is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or confusion.”

“pending charges themselves are not admissible to attack credibility. What is admissible, however, in the case of a witness testifying for the State in a criminal case, is whether the witness expects some benefit with respect to pending charges as a result of testimony on
behalf of the prosecution.”