Gaskin v. the State, 334 Ga. App. 758

Defendant Larry Gaskin was convicted by a jury of two counts of child molestation based primarily on victim K.C.’s out‑of‑court statements; no medical evidence corroborated the allegations.
At trial K.C. gave inconsistent testimony, largely refusing to describe the incident, but admitted prior statements to family, a forensic interviewer, police, and school personnel; the defense presented testimony that K.C. received money and a phone for her birthday.
Defense sought to elicit testimony from K.C.’s mother about Gaskin’s community reputation for truthfulness; mother testified she knew his reputation and would believe his sworn testimony.
On cross‑examination the prosecutor asked the mother whether her view would change if she knew of prior arrests and then elicited specifics: arrests for marijuana possession/distribution, simple battery, criminal damage to property, and obstruction of a 911 caller.
Trial court later acknowledged admitting the arrest specifics was error but ruled the error harmless and denied a new trial; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the admission was an abuse of discretion and not harmless given the credibility‑centric case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior arrests on cross‑examination under OCGA § 24‑6‑608(b)	State: Cross‑examination into awareness of arrests was permissible to test credibility	Gaskin: Specific arrests unrelated to truthfulness were inadmissible and improper impeachment	Court: Allowing questioning about the specific arrests was an abuse of discretion because the arrests did not involve dishonesty and mother had already said arrests did not change her view
Harmless‑error review of improper impeachment evidence	State: Error was harmless; highly probable the error did not affect verdict	Gaskin: Case turned on credibility; improper arrest specifics likely influenced jury and require new trial	Court: Error was not harmless under the “highly probable” test; reversal required because the case was essentially a he‑said/she‑said credibility contest

Williams v. State, 332 Ga. App. 546 (standard for reputation/opinion evidence under OCGA § 24‑6‑608)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (applying clear abuse of discretion standard to evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.) (acts probative of untruthfulness limited to forgery, perjury, fraud, etc.)
United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332 (5th Cir.) (Rule 608(b) inquiry limited to misconduct probative of truthfulness; impeachment cannot introduce substantive evidence)
United States v. Sellers, 906 F.2d 597 (11th Cir.) (prior convictions or drug use generally not admissible under 608(b))
United States v. Rubin, 733 F.2d 837 (11th Cir.) (limitations on 608(b) impeachment evidence)
Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (admission of improper evidence bolstering a lone witness can be harmful error)
Beasley v. State, 204 Ga. App. 214 (admission of similar transaction evidence without limiting instruction can be harmful when State rests on witness credibility)
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.) (erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only if not harmless)