## Facts

- Jose (Joel) Palma Segovia was charged with sexual assault on a child; the prosecution’s principal witness was the thirteen-year-old complainant, T.L.
- The defense theory was that T.L. fabricated the allegations; the defense sought to attack her credibility through cross-examination.
- During cross-examination, defense counsel asked T.L. whether she and another person had stolen $100 from her mother’s store; T.L. denied it.
- The prosecutor objected, and outside the jury’s presence the trial court ruled the question was inadmissible, treating it as:
  - “Other-acts” evidence under CRE 404(b) requiring notice, and
  - An attempted use of extrinsic evidence barred by CRE 608(b).
- The trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial, finding the error incurable.
- Segovia moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity; the trial court denied the motion.
- Segovia sought review in an original proceeding; the Supreme Court of Colorado issued a rule to show cause.

## Issues

1. Whether asking a witness about an alleged shoplifting incident for credibility impeachment is permitted under CRE 608(b) rather than barred as CRE 404(b) other-acts evidence or as improper extrinsic impeachment.
2. Whether the trial court’s sua sponte mistrial was supported by manifest necessity such that retrial was permitted, or whether double jeopardy barred further prosecution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Colorado made the rule to show cause absolute.
- The court held the trial court erred by ruling the shoplifting question inadmissible; it was a permissible inquiry under CRE 608(b).
- The court held there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial on the record presented.
- The court directed the trial court to grant Segovia’s motion to dismiss, barring retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Legal Principles

- CRE 608(b) permits, in the court’s discretion, cross-examination about specific instances of conduct that are probative of a witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
- A credibility question aimed at a witness’s truthfulness is governed by CRE 608(b), not CRE 404(b), when not offered as substantive proof of guilt or propensity.
- CRE 608(b) bars proving specific instances of conduct with extrinsic evidence, but it does not bar asking the witness about the conduct on cross-examination.
- When a court declares a mistrial sua sponte after the jury is sworn, retrial is permissible only if manifest necessity justified terminating the trial.
- In evaluating manifest necessity, courts must consider less drastic alternatives (such as curative instructions) before aborting the trial; failure to do so weighs against retrial.

## Conclusion

Because the defense’s shoplifting question was permissible impeachment under CRE 608(b) and the trial court did not face manifest necessity to declare a mistrial—especially without exhausting reasonable alternatives—the Double Jeopardy Clause required dismissal and barred a second trial.


People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008)