*1
Baker,
issued for the
Flint v.
in this case. we need not address the other Accordingly, issues raised The for writ of is denied. appeal. petition prohibition motions to dismiss or are respondents’ quash petition moot.
Gerald Dean FOWLER v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 99-802
Supreme delivered November Opinion *2 Benton D. for Bryant, appellant. Gen., Gen., Asst.
Winston Gil Att’y Dudley, Att’y Bryant, by: for appellee. This case is Imber, Clinton J
Annabelle before
before usus onon reviewreview fromfrom thethe Arkansas
Arkansas Court of Appeals.1
Mr. Gerald Fowler
his conviction of harassment in Wash
appealed
Court.
Circuit
He
trial court erred
ington County
argued
the State to cross-examine him and another witness
permitting
*3
about their attendance at a
and about certain beliefs
meeting
they
shared
Circuit
concerning
Washington County
Court over them. The Court of
with Mr. Fowler
agreed
Appeals
reversed. We
State’s
for review. It is well
granted
petition
review,
setded that
a
for
we consider the case as
upon
petition
it were
filed in this court. Frette v.
though
originally
City of
103,
State,
331 Ark.
The Helen worked as a at the Wright, receptionist Center in Arkansas. She became Washington County, Jones with Mr. Fowler as a result of his visits to the acquainted regular Center to attend of a meetings community-improvement Jones Mrs. testified that Mr. Fowler became demand- group. Wright very of her his visits to the ing center. she during testified Specifically, that Mr. Fowler to her on a basis began talking about daily religion and that his discussions her with interfered with the unprovoked 1997, of her she performance job. Mr. September reported center, Fowler to at the at which time two security officers security to him about his behavior. spoke 13, 1997,
On Mr. Fowler Mrs. September telephoned Wright at her home and her asked to write down his name and phone number. She incident to officers at the reported security Jones week, Center. The Mr. Fowler Mrs. following telephoned Wright at the After Center. she informed a officer about the security Jones call, .he and told Fowler to leave Mrs. picked up phone later, alone. Five minutes Mr. Fowler arrived at Wright the Jones [1] Reporter’s note: See Fowler v. State, 67 Ark. App. S.W.2d (1999). Center and Mrs. At that she approached called the Wright. point, arrived, When police. they with Mr. Fowler they spoke directed him not to incident, harass Mrs. As a result of this Wright. for the Judge issued an Municipal City order on Springdale 7, 1997, October Mr. Fowler from prohibited or approaching with Mrs. or communicating her Wright family. of harassment that charge forms the basis this appeal
arises out of an incident that is to have occurred on October alleged 9, 1997. According of Mrs. and her Wright left the daughter, Center at they about 10:00 p.m. day. Jones home, their drive During at a red at the stopped intersec- light tion of Mountain Road and 265. Mr. Fowler Highway pulled up beside them in a minivan and made contact with Mrs. eye Wright and her After the red daughter. turned Mr. Fowler light green, to follow Mrs. proceeded and her for Wright several daughter miles. Mrs. testified that the Wright minivan driven Mr. Fowler followed her after she turned left onto Randall Wobbe Road. She then turned onto Lowell Road right and turned around at the first business. After she back onto Lowell Road pulled and headed south, she saw Mr. again Fowler as he traveled north on Lowell Road. She then turned back onto Randall Wobbe Road and traveled west toward 71. After Highway turn making onto right 71, she drove Highway north for a distance of about two miles. At the intersection of Road, 71 and Highway Blossom Apple Mrs. *4 turned Wright Road, onto Blossom right and Apple turned again around at the first business. She then drove back to the intersection Blossom Road and Apple 71. As she was Highway preparing turn and 71, back south on go she Highway saw Mr. again Fowler .the minivan north on driving 71. Highway This Ms. testimony by and her Wright was contro- daughter verted several by witnesses for the defense. Mr. Fowler testified that he attended a at the 9, 1997, meeting Center on October left Jones the center at 9:45 approximately and then arrived p.m., at a local restaurant at about pizza 10:10 or 10:15 His p.m. p.m.
was corroborated three witnesses by who attended the meeting and also met him at the evening restaurant. pizza to Mr. According roommate, Fowler and his Mr. Fowler was at their home between the time he left the Center and the time he arrived at the Jones restaurant, is, between 9:45 and 10:10 or 10:15 p.m. p.m. p.m. On State, cross-examination the Mr. Fowler and one of his alibi
witnesses, Mr. Nick were asked about the Herrington, meetings attended at the Center and the beliefs shared con- they Jones the court’s over them. The trial court ruled that authority cerning these to the issue the State were relevant of each inquiries by trial, At witness’s the conclusion the found credibility. jury Mr. Fowler of the crime of harassment sen- guilty imposed tence of one in the a fine year County Washington Jail $1000.
Mr. Fowler asserts on that the trial court erred when it appeal allowed State him and Mr. about their Herrington beliefs. A defendant’s beliefs are irrele- political political ordinarily However, vant in a criminal prosecution. particular question in this is whether the beliefs that this presented defendant appeal and his alibi witness shared about the Circuit Washington County Court’s over them were relevant to the issue of their credibility.
The admission of evidence is a matter that fies within the
discretion of the trial
125,
court. Arthur v.
337 Ark.
Zearley,
State,
S.W.2d 67
Bell v.
(1999);
334 Ark.
A No. Bryant: irrelevant, Objection, beyond scope direct examination. I think if I’m allowed to flush out I’ll try Mr. Franco: be as brief as absolutely possible but I think that I get can to a point will deal with his directly Well, I think if this goes credibility then I’ll COURT: *5 it for at least the time permit Overruled. being. Continuing Cross-Examination Mr. Franco: Q Do with you deal matters relating government? No, sir, A we deal with matters to constitutional relating documents. these, do have discussions Okay, you regarding have or more courts over governments specifically
you? No, sir,
A we discuss citizen’s rights. Q All In the realm of with the court right. dealing system, more justice criminal specifically system? 'Well,
A it’s exercise of citizen’s mainly your rights, rights. Q What are those citizen’s rights? Well,
A that would be too much to enumerate.
Q Please answer the question? Honor, Mr. BRYANT:Your it’s me how this can have beyond to do with the of a anything credibility witness. Well, Counsel,
The Court: I again, have addressed the objec- Now, tion. I’m it to a so overruled. going up point you may proceed.
Continuing Cross-Examination Mr. Franco: — Q What are those citizen’s which deal with I’ll rights you narrow it for with the criminal you, dealing just justice system and the court system? Well, we don’t confine it to that. —
IQ want let’s confine the to that for just topic purposes your answering question? — Well, it’s know and I know if I can don’t it quote said, one of
exactly, your fathers and I can’t founding vigilance, it but is the exercise of freedom quote exacdy vigilance keep nation’s free it’s citizens so to make aware of what the people constitution is for and how that it is to work as a restraint against governmental abuses.
Q What abuses? governmental *6 Well, know, feel ask me that I don’t I strange you’d ques- any governmental tion as if don’t think there’s ever been you abuses. the feel that ever been abused
Q you you’ve govern- Do ment yourself?
A I feel like that there has been an excess of it that and of this government, they’re every course discussing day and this is what the courts are for is to to work try newspapers what is out the differences of as to people’s opinions correctly what is not. judicial and it;
Q That there has on is that flag right gold correct? stripes Honor, I Your Objection, may approach BRYANT: please? The Court: You may. Honor,
Mr. BRYANT: Your only Prosecutor is thing to do in this trying case is prejudice Jury against my client because of his There’s has political beliefs. no way anything to do with the to tell the truth or is an ability not. This outrageous on Prosecutor’s client and attempt prejudice I’d ask part my that he that. permitted to do
Mr. FRANCO: Throughout entire of this prosecution mat- ter Mr. has objected Fowler to the with on stripes it and gold him, stated it’s and doesn’t have the over military it’s my from I understanding his statement. think if the belief that’s here to, I it think today goes directly fact of if he thinks have authority. Well,
The COURT: can narrow down your issue which particular I’m goes going it but we need to narrow the of the on scope get with inquiry it. All You right. may proceed.
By Mr. Franco:
Q What’s on that significance gold stripes flag right there?
A It shows that it’s a military flag.
Q your opinion, and? had, to the studies that we have that’s correct. According What’s that mean in if it’s a your opinion All right.
military flag? *7 studies, Well, under, if— now I’m from all quoting
right. Yes, sir, sir?
Q yes, 4D, I believe the U.S. constitutional A U.S.C. denotes § America. flag be, what’s the Q gold What is type supposed mean?
A It does have a on symbol top. is that correct?
Q fringe military flag; means it’s a gold Yes, sir, to certain according according to army regulations, codes. —
itQ Is belief that if it’s a then there isn’t your military flag it true that —it’s belief that since we have you’re your military flag in the courtroom this is a court and we don’t basically military court, have over in this is that belief? jurisdiction you your A I understand that versus no U.S. citizen says Reed Calvert shall be tried in a court. military Yes,
Q sir? Bush, A And President and I don’t remember the George now, date all an executive order that courts in the right signed United States are courts. military
Q did? He
A He did.
Q Do consider a you military this to be court? A I’m what the you record is. just telling Q I’m this to be a asking you military consider court? A I don’t know as I have an I’m that’s telling you opinion. what I have read executive order of a U.S. Court Supreme ruling. on this Based upon your One more studies topic.
and the that’s a not in the military military; fact flag, you’re correct?
A Not now. feel
Q Do are in the court here you you wrong today be tried for the that have been charges brought against you?
A I’m here. — feel Q Do based belief you upon your your study —that — A Let me ask Imay question? ask a you minute, The COURT: Now wait a await minute. This process is not at to work all unless some going we follow basic rules. Mr. Franco, ask you questions if you respond questions possible with either or no and if don’t yes understand the *8 tell him and question he will simply restate and question maybe sometime sunset before this matter will come an end. Please try answer, again to just repeat you you ask the question and as you respond as briefly succinctly you possibly can awith or no hopefully yes and then we’ll move ahead.
By Franco: Mr. Q Based upon your study and your of this understanding order, executive do you feel that are in the you court proper yourself for the charges have been against filed you? A To the best my study until I’m shown or can differently states, I’m a proved differently U.S. citizen in one of the fifty citizen, I’m under the U.S. Constitution of America as a free I’m not in military and if it’s correct to the according study that’s military flag, flag denotes what I’m under court in this room. Q So based you, upon believe your study you this to be a military court?
A According George Bush. Then, on redirect Mr. Bryant: Gerald,
Q are you nervous about here being today? A I’m relaxed. totally have a about whether
Q you may Even though disagreement or is the to be in a flag flag displayed particular proper — courtroom, I mean what’s you fully your thoughts do accept over that? jurisdiction you, you accept about Court’s Yeah, I have it. accepted are your thoughts And what about role of here Jury today?
A I think a great that’s American way. trial, Later in the Mr. Nick was cross-examined Herrington the State: there,
Q Your out what is that? meetings type meeting Honor, Your Object, beyond scope Mr. BRYANT: direct examination. He said he was at the think he meeting. I FRANCO: the door.
opened "Well, I The COURT: fail to see how it’s relevant really these Counsel. If can tie it proceedings, into I’ll something, a few questions. Fowler,
Mr. FRANCO: It’s like when we did Mr. I’ll just get right point.
By Mr. Franco:
Q You notice the over there? Yes, sir.
Q What sticks out on that flag you?
A A variety things. What about the
Q around gold fringe flag?
A Indicates law. military
Q What that mean you? does A It’s not common law.
Q it’s not common law? Okay,
No,A sir it’s not.
Q The law that we’re in court the trial we doing today, here have is a criminal trial? Yes,
A sir. What law is we’re here type doing today? That indicates law. flag military InQ your opinion is this court? military NotA my opinion.
Q Whose opinion? 4, Code, 102, Tide U.S. Section which defines the flag, 71-73, Tide U.S. Code which goes further into flag, Army 840-10, it, into 8. Regulation really gets Chapter Q Do you believe that Mr. Fowler right is in the court today for, with, for the he’s charges been a violation of charged state law— Flonor,
MR. BRYANT: Your this is all very interesting. Overruled, it goes to I’m going The COURT: it. Overruled. By Mr. Franco:
Q You believe Mr. Fowler is in the correct court based today that’s here and he’s upon with a crime under charged laws State of Arkansas?
A How you define a crime— harassment, Q The crime of he’s with the charged crime of harassment?
A Well— n
Q It’s a or no yes believe he’s in the question, you right court?
IA don’t know. — Q Do you here as a you’re witness this court and I today oath, in; you think took an were sworn correct? is that *10 Yes, sir. — under that don’t let Q flag, you Does the fact you’re second, wrong flag me believe that that’s you back up just courtroom, be in this correct? here, let’s it that have a set of complete flags put
A We don’t way. is then if that is
Q missing flag flying? What other flag is A The American means Old do flag peace Glory present, it? you see
Q So we have right flag? A You don’t have a set. complete Based that do believe that bound Q upon you you’re by court here of this authority today?
A I’m a witness here. Well, believe belief that Mr.
Q based you upon your Fowler is court? by bound authority Yes, he’s an got attorney. No, let me restate Do believe that Mr. my question. you court, Fowler is bound of this that he comes authority under the of this court based what have talked authority upon about, the and stuff— Honor,
Mr. BRYANT:Your how the witness is supposed as to what Mr. Fowler believes? I believe that’s testify improper. The COURT: That wasn’t the question. question does believe that Mr. Fowler bound this witness is court, of this which I assume to his belief in this which goes system I if to some extent has to do with his think something he can narrow the issue to one of I’m credibility going let’s move inquiry please, along. have, Honor,
Mr. Franco: That’s the last I Your what I’m about. exactly asking that’s By Mr. Franco:
A If he didn’t believe he was bound he wouldn’t be here.
219 Then, Mr. BRYANT: on redirect by means to take an oath understand what it Mr. Herrington,
Q tell the truth? Yes, sir. that oath here today? Are bound Yes, sir. of the 608(b) Mr. Fowler that Rule On argues appeal, of the chal of Evidence admissibility Arkansas Rules governs misses mark. Rule 608(b) This testimony. argument lenged a to the of witness’s credibility by proving pertains impeachment Here, of there no instances conduct. was attempt by specific either witness’s State impeach credibility by- proving specific Rather, of conduct. the State to establish that Mr. instances sought did not Fowler and believe Herrington Washington thus Court had the case and cast Circuit County try on their to tell the truth under oath. Rule doubt obligation 608(b) States is The United Court rejected simply applicable. Supreme Abel, in similar United States v. U.S. 45 (1984), a 469 argument conduct under Rule a 608(b) is recognized impeachment by matter from of bias. by proof separate impeachment rule, a all relevant is admissible. Ark.
As
evidence
general
Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is
R.
evidence
any
having tendency
is
to make the existence of
fact that
of
any
consequence
more
less
than it would
determination
action
or
probable
the evidence.
Evid.
without
Ark. R.
401. A witness’s
is
credibility
issue,
State,
an
to attack
v.
338
subject
by any
always
party. Dansby
697, 1 S.W.3d
Ark. R.
(1999);
Ark.
Evid. 607.
scope
extends to matters of
Ark.
cross-examination
R. Evid.
credibility.
A matter is not collateral if the evidence is relevant to
611.
show
bias,
intent,
State,
or interest. See
v.
Arthur
knowledge,
supra;
Dansby
State,
165,
v.
314 Ark.
v.
862 S.W.2d
Zearley,supra; Pyle
(1993);
State,
Proof of
Goodwinv.
263 Ark.
The State elicited from Mr. successfully Fowler his view that the in the courtroom was a that Reed v. flag military Calvert flag; court; no United States citizen says shall be tried in a military and that President Bush an executive order that all in signed courts the United are States courts. From Mr. military the Herrington, State elicited view his that the the in trial court law; “common law” but indicated that the United States military court; Code stated the trial court awas and military was uncertain that Herrington Mr. Fowler was in the court. right The could have concluded from jury this evidence that the wit nesses the case, of the court to questioned authority hear the that their commitment to tell the a truth in court whose authority Thus, be they doubtful. the questioned might evidence elicited was circumstantial evidence on the witnesses’s bearing credibility.
The man who believesthat he is or under no moral legal obliga- tion at all timesand under all the circumstancesto tell truth under sanction an oath has test destroyed only by which he can claim at the credit hands of men. Evidence 957
Wigmore, (Chadbourn Rev. 1970) from (quoting § 251, 19 S.C.L. (1 Hill) 252 The Anonymous, (1833)). evidence of Mr. Fowler’s and Mr. beliefs Herrington’s concerning Washing- ton Circuit Court’s over County them would have to make the facts to tendency which testified less they in probable than would be eyes jury without the evidence. Hence, that evidence was relevant to the issue of their credibility.
The
at issue in
case
was admitted
testimony
during
the State’s cross-examination of Mr. Fowler and Mr. Herrington.
This court has
taken the view that the
traditionally
cross-examiner
should
wide latitude because
given
cross-examination is the
means which to test the truth of
the witness’s
and the
State,
141,
witness’s
Wilsonv.
289 Ark.
Davis v.
We have stressed
allowing
importance
supra.
of evidence relevant to
wide latitude with
to the admission
regard
191,
State,
v.
Ark.
which makes otherwise relevant evidence
proba
of unfair
tive value is
substantially outweighed by
danger
*13
However, the
was not
Rule 403
issue
prejudice.
weighing
preserved
for
because it was neither raised at trial Mr. Fowler nor
appeal
the trial
Mr. Fowler mentioned
was it ruled
court. While
upon
he
that he
the word
never
the trial
on notice
“prejudice,”
put
judge
Also,
him balance
value
to
probative
against prejudice.
asking
the trial court never
ruled on the
specifically
prejudice objection.
We have
held that
word
previously
merely mentioning
“preju
court
in a
dicial” without
the trial
results
obtaining
ruling by
State,
failure to
the Rule
for
v.
309
403 issue
Terry
preserve
appeal.
64,
Therefore,
Ark.
we are
from
(1992).
Affirmed. and dissent. JJ.,
Glaze, Thornton, Smith, Smith, LAVENSKI The R. holds Justice, dissenting. majority are in Fowler’s relevant evidence his political opinions for The so harassment. does that a prosecution majority by stating witness’s is an issue and out always credibility by pointing proof of bias and is therefore The credibility admissible. goes majority thus affirms the trial court’s decision to prosecution into the defendant’s beliefs in enquire order discredit his political that he did not follow the victim his vehicle on 9, October 1997. In particular, takes majority position Fowler’s beliefs United States courts regarding flags miliary called Thus, into his for the respect court. if he the court’s he also not honor might question authority might his oath as a witness to The further holds speak truthfully. majority that Fowler’s to the objection failed raise an issue of questioning under R. Evid. I Ark. 403. prejudice disagree.
Evidence of is bias admissible for reason. clearly good However, evidence, there are limits. Bias like other relevant just any evidence, is to limitations under subject Ark. Evid. R. should an made. objection holds that Fowler failed to majority make this I believe Fowler objection. preserved objections evidence both as to its ultimate relevance and as to its potential under Rule 403. prejudice above,
As the Fowler’s cross-examina- majority during quoted tion, Fowler’s in his third of six attorney to the line of objections stated: questioning, Bryant: *14 Honor,
Mr. Your I Objection, may approach please?
The Court: You may. Bryant: Honor, Your the thing the is only Prosecutor to trying do in case is the against client prejudice Jury my because of his political beliefs. There’s no this has way to anything with the to tell ability the truth or is an not. This outrageous
223 client and I’d ask my to the Prosecutor’s part prejudice on attempt to do that. he not be permitted Well, down to narrow your question can THE COURT: to I’m going issue which to goes that particular on with of the inquiry get need to narrow the scope it but we All You may proceed. it. right. with the the to then allowed ques- court prosecutor proceed in the effect denying objection. on basis credibility,
tioning cite as does not Rule 403 While Fowler’s objection specifically addresses his clearly the basis for the objection, objection evidence. in a for exclusion of the as Specificity “prejudice” ground essential. is but objections important, not-always making error, Because the of a trial is to avoid an objection purpose to a should be inform objection specific enough that the court can realize trial court of the so particular problem, invoked, is that rule would why what rule of evidence being answer, exclude a and can then rule intelhgendy responsive thereon, is an and so party offering given the- But all that to confront ... is opportunity objection. required evidence is that the any objection objection sufficiently clear and definite so that the court understand the reason for will and so that the is basis of objection objection apparent Thus, stated, the trial court. even if the courts will allow inartfully an the trial court of the reason for the objection apprises objection. Am.
75
Trial 424
Fowler’s
(1998). Accordingly,
objection
§
JUR.2d
on the
sufficed to alert the trial court that
grounds
“prejudice”
relevant,
was
evidence
although possibly
prosecutor
elicit
Fowler’s
beliefs was substan
attempting
regarding
political
addition,
more
than
a
tially
prejudicial
probative.
specific ground
for an
need not be stated where the error is clear from the
objection
103;
Evid.
Ark.
context. SeeArk. R.
Thomsonv.
Littlefield,
raised,
a
As the the United States Court con- majority Supreme sidered the of similar evidence for bias admissibility purposes Delaware, Abel, in Dawson v. and under Rule 403 supra, analysis U.S. While the Court found that evidence of the (1992). *15 tenets in of the Brotherhood” Abel was “Aryan developed, properly Dawson, the Court found that it was to reversible error allow such information into evidence. The distinctions Abel between and Dawson are The case crucial. instant is much more similar to Dawson than Abel. to Abel, defendant and two cohorts were indicted for bank trial, At Abel’s called a witness who had
robbery. prosecution witnesses, Mills, also been a member of this One of Abel’s gang. tenets, had testified he had no or its knowledge gang then offered for rebuttal another member who prosecution gang he, Abel, testified that and Mills were all members of this gang. This witness testified that the had sworn to themselves gang perjure one another. The Ninth Circuit protect Court of found Appeals that the could not be offered to show testimony that Mills was was a because he member of the The lying United States gang. reversed, Court that Abel’s and Mills’ Supreme member- holding in the ship Mills’ bias gang sufficiendy probative possible towards Abel to warrant its into admission evidence.
In the
the Court discussed how bias
to a
opinion,
applies
witness’
for or
a defendant.
testimony
Because of the
against
“common law evidence”
under which this
concept
in,
came
the Court
Rule
value
applied
regarding
probative
of the evidence versus its
effect
to determine in
prejudicial
part
whether the evidence was admissible to the issue
hand.
at
Court determined that its
value
its
probative
outweighed
prejudice
because of the
bond
common
and shared beliefs
Abel
Mills and
had
involved,
in which
through
were
gang
specifically
because these beliefs included a
themselves.
willingness
pegure
Abel is also
because of the discussion the Court
important
gave
the common
and the
Abel
two other
membership
witnesses
shared. The Court
noted that “a
witness’s and
specifically
party’s
common
in an
even without
membership
organization,
proof
tenets,
has
witness or
is
its
party
personally adopted
certainly
Abel,
Flowever,
of bias.”
membership may relevant to bias. If the is a organization knit loosely group nothing do with the matter of having subject the inference of litigation, bias from common member- arising *16 or nonexistent. If the had elicited may prosecutor small ship that both and Mills Book belonged respondent Club, Month the would not have inferred bias even jury probably if the District had admitted the The attributes of testimony. Court - Brotherhood a secret sect sworn to Aryan prison perjury - bore on the fact of bias but also self-protection direcdy only on the source and of Mills’ bias. The tenets of this strength group showed Mills had that motive to slant his powerful testimony towards or even commit respondent, perjury outright. Abel, 469 at U.S. 54. contrast, Dawson, in the Court reversed a mur-
By first-degree der sentence in the of trial based on the admission sentencing stage of a that Dawson was involved with the Brother- stipulation Aryan hood. The abstract stipulation apparently proved only group’s beliefs without that the had committed unlawful proving group any such, conduct or violent acts. As the Court found that it was not circumstances, relevant to or to rebut help prove any aggravating evidence because in the in and any mitigating membership group, itself, Dawson, Court, cannot be considered In sinister. in essence, determined that the admission of the was more stipulation than because the prejudicial was not sufficient probative stipulation circumstances. There was no prove any aggravating foundation for in the finding Brotherhood in and of membership Aryan itself relevant. The Court stated: proved anything
Delaware have avoided this if it had might problem presented evidence more than mere abstract beliefs on showing Dawson’s but, record, on the part, one is left with the present that the feeling Brotherhood evidence Aryan was because employed simply would find these jury beliefs morally Because Dela- reprehensible. more, ware failed to do we cannot find the evidence was properly admitted as relevant character evidence.
Dawson,
However, Abel,
In the instant there is no evidence that the group which Fowler in defense other mem- belonged espouses perjury bers before the courts. Nor is there clear connection made any between the abstract witness’s belief indicia of court regarding fact, and a for the record reflects propensity dishonesty. little about called very group “Community with a con- Improvement”. prosecutor began general inquiry matter of the He cerning subject group’s meetings. progressed documents, into Fowler’s beliefs about constitutional inquire abuses, citizen’s the U.S. rights, governmental concluded with a about whether Fowler believed he was in a query military redirect, court. On Fowler his submission to the acknowledged court’s and reaffirmed his jurisdiction *17 obligation speak truthfully. Fowler and alibi witness who testified Certainly, that he was any elsewhere the commission of the offense was fair for during game But, little, cross-examination. what if anything, prosecution’s have of bias was questions may proved outweighed by prejudice Fowler as one with uncommon stigmatizing beliefs. political views, moral, Those who have whether or political, religious, phil- osophical, embraced should not generally find majority those views so used to their detriment in easily our courts. Mr. Fowler well have committed the offense which may for he was and if so should endure charged the appropriate consequences. However, beliefs, evidence of his abstract without more than shown case, in the I, instant should not have been admitted into evidence. therefore, dissent. respectfully
Thornton, J., joins.
GLAZE, dissents J., separately.