Correct, but remember, the prosecution could have also called their own witness to testify to their opinion of D's character for untruthfulness/D's reputation for it.Raiden wrote:Thanks for the explanation above guys, that does help. I just have been confused between character evidence and impeachment. My understanding now is that getting in evidence regarding impeachment/truthfulness is a lot easier than getting in character evidence. The door was open to the prosecution to talk about truthfulness, but that could only be through the witness who first brought it up.
They just can't call their own witness to testify to the specific bad act itself (i.e. extrinsic evidence)
Also, as NYSea said, once the prosecution inquires on cross about whether that witness has heard that D cheated on an exam, they must take the witness's answer. That is, if that witness is like "Nah, I have no idea wtf you are talking about," then the prosecution can't go any further.