The State may cross-examine a character witness about his knowledge of acts of misconduct by the defendant or rumors of such acts in the community. State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 519, 458 P.2d 21 (1969); ER 405(a). The purpose is not to prove that the acts occurred but to impeach the testimony of the character witness.

ER 405 permits a party to test proffered reputation evidence by inquiring into the character witnesses' basis and breadth of knowledge, including prior criminal convictions of the person whose reputation the witness is testifying about. Karl B. Tegland, Washington Practice: Evidence Law and Practice, sec. 405.6 at 13 (4th ed. 1999); accord State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 891-92, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 (1992); State v. Styles, 93 Wn.2d 173, 175-76, 606 P.2d 1233 (1980); State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 519, 458 P.2d 21 (1969). When cross-examining a character witness as to his personal knowledge of acts of misconduct by the accused, the examining questions should be made in good faith belief of the accuracy of the information and prefaced `by either `Did you hear,' `Have you heard,' or `Do you know.' Styles, 93 Wn.2d at 175-76 (quoting Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d at 519).

examined about his personal knowledge of specific incidents of misconduct. State v. Styles, 93 Wn.2d 173, 175, 606 P.2d 1233 (1980) (quoting State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 518, 458 P.2d 21 (1969)); 5 K. Tegland, Wash. Prac., Evidence § 125, at 451 (3d ed. 1989). The broad scope of this rule is explained by one commentator as follows:

Where character witnesses are cross-examined as to their personal knowledge of acts of misconduct of the accused, the primary purpose of such cross examination must be to impeach the testimony of the character witnesses, not to discredit the person on trial. State v. Styles, 93 Wn.2d 173, 606 P.2d 1233 (1980); State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 458 P.2d 21 (1969); State v. Cyr, 40 Wn.2d 840, 246 P.2d 480 (1952). The same method of proof is applicable when the prosecution seeks to rebut the accused's evidence of a pertinent trait of character.

[1] Washington follows the minority rule in regard to the type of questions allowed on cross-examination of a defendant's character witnesses. State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 458 P.2d 21 (1969); State v. Cyr, 40 Wn.2d 840, 246 P.2d 480 (1952). See Annot., 47 A.L.R.2d 1258, 1306, § 21(b) (1956).

Impeaching testimony may materially reduce its credibility. State v. Austin, 83 Wn. 444, 145 P. 451 (1915); State v. McMullen, 142 Wn. 7, 252 P. 108 (1927); State v. Stilts, 181 Wn. 305, 42 P.2d 779 (1935); State v. Anderson, 46 Wn.2d 864, 285 P.2d 879 (1955); State v. Duree, 52 Wn.2d 324, 324 P.2d 1074 (1958); State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 458 P.2d 21 (1969). The opportunity to cross-examine a character witness for the defense is essential for yet another reason.

A defendant's character witness may be cross-examined about his personal knowledge of specific incidents of misconduct. State v. Styles, 93 Wn.2d 173, 175, 606 P.2d 1233 (1980) (quoting State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 518, 458 P.2d 21 (1969)). The purpose of this type of cross-examination is to impeach the testimony of the character witness, not to discredit the defendant, even though that may be its effect.

Fitzgerald contends that this was improper. [11]State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 458 P.2d 21 (1969) is dispositive of the issue. In Donaldson, the defendant was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor.

In this jurisdiction, the prosecutor may ask a defense character witness whether he or she knew that a defendant had committed some act of misconduct. State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 458 P.2d 21 (1969). It has been suggested that a better rule would be to limit such questioning to the witness' knowledge of a defendant's reputation.

See CrR 2.1(d). Error is next assigned to the refusal of the trial court to give the instruction on admissions and confessions which Robbins proposed and to the instruction given. The instruction given was approved in State v. Donaldson, 76 Wn.2d 513, 520, 458 P.2d 21 (1969) and is an accurate statement of the law. [4] Error is also assigned to the refusal of the trial court to give a proposed instruction which set forth the "missing witness" rule.