## Facts

- Virginia Sue Renneberg (also known as Virginia Sue LaVanway) and Milton V. LaVanway went to a restaurant where Virginia had been employed to obtain her final paycheck.
- After briefly going to the rear restrooms, they returned to the front; Virginia used a phone near the cash register while Milton stood near the door and moved about.
- The cashier heard the register open and saw Virginia facing the register; the defendants then left.
- A witness reported seeing a young woman at the register holding a stack of bills; the register was immediately found short by about $250.
- At trial, the defense introduced evidence of the defendants’ good character.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Virginia about narcotics addiction and methadone treatment; she admitted both.
- The trial court admitted the addiction testimony after character evidence was introduced and instructed the jury to consider it only for credibility/weight of testimony, not as proof of guilt.

## Issues

1. Whether, after defendants introduce evidence of good character, the prosecution may cross-examine about prior narcotics use/addiction to rebut that character evidence.
2. Whether drug addiction evidence is admissible solely to impeach a witness’s general credibility for truthfulness absent proof linking addiction to lack of veracity.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed both convictions.
- The court held that once defendants placed character in issue, the State could use evidence of prior drug use/addiction on cross-examination as specific contradiction of the asserted good character.
- The court rejected (in dictum) the view that addiction evidence is admissible as routine credibility impeachment absent medical or scientific proof connecting addiction to untruthfulness.
- The court treated the limiting instruction as reducing prejudice by restricting the jury’s use of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant who introduces evidence of good character opens the door to otherwise inadmissible misconduct evidence offered to rebut that character claim.
- Evidence of narcotics addiction may be used on cross-examination to contradict good-character evidence when character has been affirmatively placed in issue.
- Drug addiction evidence is not automatically admissible to attack a witness’s general credibility for truthfulness; absent a demonstrated scientific or medical connection to veracity, it should not be admitted on that theory.
- A limiting instruction may confine the permissible use of such evidence and mitigate unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the prosecutor’s cross-examination about narcotics addiction was permissible rebuttal after the defense introduced good-character evidence, while cautioning that addiction evidence is not, without supporting proof, a general-purpose tool for impeaching truthfulness.


State v. Renneberg, 83 Wn.2d 735, 522 P.2d 835 (Wash. 1974)