Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Pursuant to these provisions, the trial court determined the <br />total diminution of homeowners' property value to be $670,000. To <br />preclude any double recovery for the loss in value suffered prior to <br />December 1, 1997, the court deducted the $48,000 homeowners <br />had previously recovered from the diminution. We conclude the <br />trial court's determinations are supported by the record. Therefore, <br />the trial court did not err in relying on the expert's testimony. <br />III. <br />Basin contends the trial court abused its discretion in <br />sustaining homeowners' objection to Basin's effort to introduce <br />evidence concerning homeowner Jim Tatum's attorney disciplinary <br />record as character evidence to impeach his credibility. In support <br />of its argumerit, Basin relies on People v. Distel, 759 P.2d 654 <br />(Colo. 1988); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1986); <br />and United States v. Whitehea~ , 618 F.2d 523 (4th Cir. 1980). We <br />find no error. <br />A court may, in its discretion, admit evidence of specific <br />instances of a witness's conduct on cross-examination if it is <br />_probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. CRE 608(b); People v. <br />16 <br />