for untruthfulness); State v. Hall, 120 Conn.App. 191, 991 A.2d 598, 604 (2010) (allowing misdemeanor convictions if defendant "open[s] the door to the admission of the evidence”); State v. Bergerud, 155 Idaho 705, 711-12, 316 P.3d 117 (Idaho Ct.App.2013) (allowing "inquiries into specific instances of the witness's conduct during cross-examination of that witness if the conduct is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness" but barring "evidence of the misdemeanor conviction itself”); Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451, 463-64 (Ky.2013) (allowing "simple inquiry” about the conduct involved in a misdemeanor conviction, “so long as a proponent does not attempt to prove the conduct involved ... by extrinsic evidence”); State v. Martin, 279 Mont. 185, 926 P.2d 1380, 1389 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Butler v. State, 120 Nev. 879, 102 P.3d 71,
holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony holding no confrontation right violation where the district court limited crossexamination to basic information about the witnesss convictions and prohibited inter alia descriptions of the witnesss conduct during the incidents leading to his convictions emphasis added holding that crossexamination about whether witness previously provided false information clearly was admissible as probative of the witnesss veracity holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error