## Facts

- John H. Kellensworth, Jr. was tried by a jury on charges of rape and burglary; venue was moved to avoid prejudice from pretrial publicity.
- The defense presented testimony portraying Kellensworth as affectionate and devoted to his former wife and child:
  - His mother testified he “worshipped” his former wife and child.
  - Kellensworth and his father testified on cross-examination that he “loved” his former wife.
- After the defense rested, the State called Kellensworth’s former wife to rebut that portrayal.
- The former wife testified to specific prior acts of violence by Kellensworth against her, including pulling a gun on her, attempting to run her off the road, knocking her against a brick wall, and striking her.
- The trial court admitted the former wife’s testimony as rebuttal evidence.
- Kellensworth was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for both offenses, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting extrinsic evidence (the former wife’s testimony) solely to contradict defense testimony about Kellensworth’s feelings toward his former wife, a collateral matter.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the former wife’s testimony was not proper rebuttal on a substantive point but extrinsic impeachment offered to contradict collateral testimony.
- Because the impeachment concerned collateral matters and carried a substantial risk of unfair prejudice, its admission was reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- A witness may not be impeached on a collateral matter by calling another witness to contradict the first witness’s testimony.
- A fact is generally “collateral” if it is not independently provable apart from its tendency to contradict; independently provable facts include those relevant to the substantive issues and those showing bias, interest, conviction, or defects in capacity, opportunity, or knowledge.
- Collateral impeachment may be pursued through cross-examination (and, in limited circumstances, judicial notice), but not through extrinsic evidence offered solely to contradict.
- The rule limits distraction of the jury, time consumption, and unfair prejudice from side disputes unrelated to the charged offenses.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the State improperly used the defendant’s former wife to introduce specific, prejudicial misconduct solely to contradict a collateral portrayal of the defendant’s relationship, violating the bar on extrinsic impeachment of collateral matters.


Kellensworth v. State, 275 Ark. 252, 631 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. 1982)