## Facts

- George Richard Broyles was convicted of murdering Billy D. Smithers, and a jury fixed punishment at life imprisonment.
- At trial, Broyles introduced reputation witnesses who testified his reputation for peace and quietude was good.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked these witnesses whether they had heard Broyles had been arrested and convicted for drunken driving, reckless driving, and disorderly conduct.
- The defense objected, arguing the questions concerned traits not involved in a murder charge.
- In closing argument, the prosecutor made extended remarks about parole eligibility and the possibility of parole from a life sentence.
- The trial court did not adequately control or cure the parole-related argument.
- Broyles appealed, challenging (1) the cross-examination of character witnesses, (2) the jury instructions, and (3) the prosecutor’s parole argument.

## Issues

1. When a defendant offers reputation evidence of peace and quietude, may the prosecution cross-examine those witnesses by asking whether they have heard of prior misconduct (drunken driving, reckless driving, disorderly conduct) to test credibility and the accuracy of the reputation testimony?
2. Whether the prosecutor’s detailed closing argument about parole eligibility and the possibility of parole from a life sentence is improper and prejudicial such that a new trial is required.

## Decision

- The court held the prosecutor’s cross-examination of reputation witnesses was permissible to test the witnesses’ credibility and knowledge, because the referenced misconduct bore a reasonable relation to the trait of peace and quietude.
- The court held the prosecutor’s extended parole argument was improper and prejudicial because it invited the jury to base punishment on speculation about executive parole action rather than the evidence and instructions.
- Because the trial court did not sufficiently cure the misconduct, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant introduces evidence of good reputation, the prosecution may cross-examine reputation witnesses by asking whether they have heard reports of specific acts of misconduct by the defendant, to test the credibility and reliability of the reputation testimony.
- Such cross-examination is limited to acts of misconduct that reasonably relate to the particular character trait the defendant has placed in issue.
- When specific-acts questions are permitted over objection, the jury must be instructed that the inquiry is admitted only to evaluate the character witness’s credibility, not as substantive proof of guilt.
- Detailed argument to the jury about parole eligibility and the likelihood or timing of parole is improper because parole decisions are committed to executive authority and are not proper considerations in the jury’s sentencing function.
- Improper parole argument that may influence the jury’s punishment determination is prejudicial and requires reversal absent an adequate curative admonition.

## Conclusion

The court approved cross-examination of peace-and-quietude reputation witnesses with misconduct reasonably related to that trait, but reversed the murder conviction because the prosecutor’s detailed parole-eligibility argument improperly affected sentencing and was not adequately cured.


Broyles v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 73 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954)