testified that defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect. Defendant’s personality traits, which Dr. Kull said did not amount to a disease or defect that should excuse or mitigate his conduct, were immaterial to the case, or at least of only minimal materiality, unless a psychiatric evaluation of the trustworthiness of a witness’s testimony is admissible to assist the jury’s weighing of credibility. State v. J.Q., supra, 252 N.J.Super. at 39, 599 A.2d 172 (credibility is an issue reserved exclusively for the jury); United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782, 785-87 (8th Cir.1993). Assuming arguendo that such a psychological evaluation of the credibility of a witness would ever be admissible, it surely could not be admitted without a substantia 15 A.2d 1260 (App.Div.1986) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Kull’s testimony acquainted the jury with
holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that despite limiting instruction letter written by murder victim shortly before his death was improperly admitted