ELLETT, Chief Justice:
The defendant appeals from a conviction by a jury of the crime of selling cocaine. He assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to permit cross-examination of the state's principal witness.
The witness in question testified that he first contacted the defendant regarding the purchase of some cocaine and was advised to come back at a subsequent date. The witness did so and he and the defendant left in the van belonging to the witness and went to a beer tavern. The defendant left the witness in the van while he entered the tavern. A short time later he returned and requested $110.00 to procure the drug — $85.00 for the cocaine and $25.00 for himself. The money was given to the defendant who re-entered the saloon and immediately returned with the cocaine.
Two officers kept the witness under surveillance at all times and confirmed his testimony as to the movements of the parties. The witness gave the cocaine to the officers who had it analyzed and confirmed that it was cocaine.
During cross-examination of the witness, counsel attempted to show misconduct on the part of the witness at an earlier time in order to attack his credibility. The proffered testimony was to the effect that if a certain captain in the sheriff's office were called to testify, he would say that the witness was a former deputy sheriff who had resigned under pressure; that there was a question about his honesty and integrity; that the sheriff's office would not rehire him; that the witness lied about not knowing anything about a certain dog; that the witness would not follow proper procedures regarding the turning-in of narcotics; and that in his opinion [the captain's] the performance of the witness was not good.
The trial court rejected the proffer of proof and refused the defendant's counsel the right to pursue the matter and that ruling is the sole basis of this appeal. The trial judge ruled correctly and there are several Rules of Evidence adopted by this Court which sustains the ruling.
Rule 22, Utah Rules of Evidence, states as follows:
Rule 47, Utah Rules of Evidence, contains the following appropriate language:
The better reasoned cases hold that conduct where no conviction is had is not admissible to impeach a witness. In the case of State v. Herrera
Our sister state, Arizona, had the question before its Supreme Court in the case of State v. Johnson.
The fault is as patent when any witness is subjected to such an examination as it is when the defendant is the witness. The Tenth Circuit in Tafoya v. United States
The matter of cross-examination and the extent thereof rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge, and he will be reversed only if he abuses his discretion in a given case.
In the instant matter, the proffered testimony would not have any relevance to the question of guilt or innocence of the defendant and could only have been an attempt to try the witness as to whether or not he was considered a good officer in the opinion of a captain on the force. It would seem that the opinion of the sheriff in hiring and keeping the witness would be of more importance than would that of the captain if those opinions were material to the case being tried.
There is no error in the trial of the case and the judgment is hereby affirmed. No costs are awarded.
CROCKETT, WILKINS, and HALL, JJ., concur.
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in result.