have been 'at a time probatively related to the time period about which he was attempting to testify (citation omitted)); Stewart v. State, 398 So.2d 369, 375 (Ala.Crim.App.) ("|T]he credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing mental incapacity, but only if the incapacity exists at the time the witness testifies, or existed at the time of his observation of the incident about which he testifies.”), writ denied, 398 So.2d 376 (Ala.1981); Stanford v. Commonwealth, 793 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Ky.1990) (“[P]rior mental treatment of a witness is not relevant as to credibility unless it can be demonstrated that there was a mental deficiency at the time of the testimony or at the time of the matter about which the testimony was given.”); State v. LeBlanc, 517 So.2d 951, 958 (La.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), writ granted in part, denied in part, 519
holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that evidence of witnesss acquittal by reason of mental illness was properly excluded partly because no showing was made that mental disorder affected witnesss credibility holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statements are admissible even in the event of that witnesss actual or feigned memory loss holding that witnesss prior grand jury testimony was inconsistent with his claimed loss of memory at trial holding witnesss mental histoiy irrelevant because witnesss present not past memory ability was the only relevant inquiry