to a witness about a previous investigation was improper because “[e]learly the testimony the State was attempting to elicit from [the witness] was highly prejudicial and irrelevant in this case.” Field, 144 Idaho at 572, 165 P.3d at 286 We find that the testimony the prosecutor was attempting to elicit from Mr. Hartmann was similarly highly prejudicial and irrelevant. While the prosecution here claims that the question was relevant to rebut anticipated impeachment or attacks on Mi’. Hartmann’s character by the defense by attempting to establish that Mr. Hartmann was not fired for poor performance, a witness’s credibility and character may not be supported before it has been attacked. I.R.E. 608(a), (b); Pierson v. Brooks, 115 Idaho 529, 532-34, 768 P.2d 792, 795-97 (Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Even more, the length of Mr. Hartmann’s
holding that testimony supporting the witnesss character for truthfulness was improperly admitted on redirect examination because there was no attack on the witnesss credibility or character during crossexamination holding that it was error for the trial court to allow the state to question the confidential informant on direct examination about her lack of felony charges when there was no prior attack of the witnesss credibility holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error