conduct on cross-examination, providing the conduct did not result in criminal conviction and providing the conduct is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. See Rule 11 — 608(B)(1); State v. Marquez, 87 N.M. 57, 62, 529 P.2d 283, 288 (Ct.App.1974). Thus, by taking the stand in his defense, Defendant became a witness in the case, and it was permissible under both Rules 11-404(A)(3) and 11-608(B)(1) for the prosecution to attack Defendant’s credibility by establishing that he had a character for untruthfulness. Because a cash register shortage tends to show a character of dishonesty, questions regarding disciplinary action taken against Defendant for cash register shortages were proper under Rule 11-608(B)(1). See State v. Wyman, 96 N.M. 558, 560, 632 P.2d 1196, 1198 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). {44} While Rule 11-608(B) permitted the
holding that questions concerning embezzlement burglary auto theft and larceny involve dishonesty were probative as to truthfulness and were proper crossexamination under  rule 608 b holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing holding that theft victims were not directly injured by a money launderers subsequent activities because only after the theft occurred and the semiconductors were sold could tran launder the proceeds holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute