brother’s alleged harassment of Defendant’s witnesses occurred in the interim. As a result, in order to properly impeach Plaintiff, Defendant should have recalled Plaintiff to ask her about the alleged harassment prior to questioning Kini or requesting permission to recall Boone. Because Defendant did not follow this procedure, Boone’s and Kini’s testimonies were not admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach Plaintiff. See HRE Rule 609.1(b). Moreover, although the court might have determined that such evidence was relevant to Plaintiffs credibility, we believe the court could have also properly determined that such collateral matters would lead to “undue delay [or a] waste of time.” See HRE Rule 403; cf. State v. Zukevick, 84 Hawaii 203, 208 n. 5, 932 P.2d 340, 345 n. 5 (App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, excluding the evidence under these
holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement holding trial courts allowance of testimony under the present sense impression exception if error was harmless because statement was admissible under excited utterance exception holding statement made twentythree minutes after event admissible as a present sense impression recognizing statement could be admissible as an excited utterance and still constitute a testimonial statement for purposes of a confrontation clause analysis holding that under certain circumstances statements on a 911 tape may be admissible as a present sense impression