## Facts

- A woman reported being sexually assaulted on April 6, 1979 and, the next morning, went with police to Donald Ray Hines’s home and identified him as an assailant.
- Police arrested Hines and, during a search incident to arrest, found a matchbox containing marijuana in his pants pocket.
- Hines was tried for kidnapping, sexual assault, and marijuana possession.
- The jury convicted Hines of marijuana possession but could not reach verdicts on the kidnapping and sexual assault charges.
- At trial, Hines presented an alibi through Susan Robinson, who testified about Hines’s whereabouts and events late on April 6 and early on April 7.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor confronted Robinson with her failure to mention several trial details during a prior pretrial interview about the same events.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution improperly impeached a defense alibi witness by questioning her about significant facts omitted from a prior interview concerning the same events.
2. Whether the impeachment, if improper, was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal of the marijuana possession conviction.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the marijuana possession conviction.
- The court held the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Susan Robinson was proper impeachment.
- The court concluded the questioning was adequately grounded in the prior interview and permissibly highlighted material omissions bearing on credibility and possible recent fabrication.
- The court found no reversible prejudice, particularly given the independent physical evidence supporting the marijuana possession conviction.

## Legal Principles

- A witness may be impeached by prior omissions when the earlier statement or interview concerned the same subject matter and was sufficiently complete that the omitted facts would reasonably be expected to have been mentioned.
- Material omissions from a prior statement may be treated as inconsistencies for impeachment purposes when used to test credibility and suggest embellishment or recent fabrication.
- Proper impeachment by omission requires an adequate foundation linking the witness to the prior interview and identifying the omitted matters with reasonable specificity.
- Even if an evidentiary error occurs, reversal requires prejudice affecting the conviction; independent, direct evidence of guilt can support a finding of harmlessness.

## Conclusion

The court held that cross-examination highlighting an alibi witness’s material omissions from a prior interview was permissible impeachment and, in light of the marijuana found on Hines during a search incident to arrest, affirmed the marijuana possession conviction.


State v. Hines, 130 Ariz. 68, 633 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. 1981)