context: Finally, we have held that where a party seeks to impeach a witness with evidence of prior juvenile, delinquency findings, a general challenge to the witness's character, without more, is not enough.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 501 N.E.2d 1034, 1037
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that although the trial court improperly permitted reference to the witness's juvenile adjudication based on theft for impeachment purposes, there was no prejudicial effect requiring reversal
citation_a.sentence: Engle v. State, 506 N.E.2d 3, 5 (Ind.1987) (holding that the trial court properly excluded inquiry into a witness’s juvenile record where the defendant “attempted to impeach the general credibility of the witness with the finding of delinquency for particular acts,” in this case, theft) (emphasis added); Roland v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (Ind.1986) (holding that although the trial court improperly permitted reference to the witness’s juvenile adjudication based on theft for impeachment purposes, there was no prejudicial effect requiring reversal); cf. Terrell v. State, 507 N.E.2d 633, 635 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had “no record” when, in actuality, the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 507 N.E.2d 633, 635
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had "no record" when, in actuality, the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary
citation_b.sentence: Engle v. State, 506 N.E.2d 3, 5 (Ind.1987) (holding that the trial court properly excluded inquiry into a witness’s juvenile record where the defendant “attempted to impeach the general credibility of the witness with the finding of delinquency for particular acts,” in this case, theft) (emphasis added); Roland v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (Ind.1986) (holding that although the trial court improperly permitted reference to the witness’s juvenile adjudication based on theft for impeachment purposes, there was no prejudicial effect requiring reversal); cf. Terrell v. State, 507 N.E.2d 633, 635 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had “no record” when, in actuality, the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary).