dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s disposition of appellant’s second assignment of error. It was reversible error for the trial court to allow testimony regarding appellant’s past sexual behavior under 12 O.S.1981, § 2609.
Section 2609 of the Evidence Code allows for a witness to be impeached by the introduction of past criminal convictions. In the present case, the testimony as to appellant’s possible homosexuality was not even remotely connected to any past conviction of appellant. Defense counsel objected to the line of questions regarding appellant’s possible homosexuality, but was overruled.
Neither was such evidence admissible under Section 2608(B). While Section 2608(B) allows for cross-examination into specific instances of conduct, the questioned conduct must be probative of the witness’ truthfulness or untruthfulness. Appellant’s possible homosexuality has no bearing on his credibility for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Furthermore, such testimony was highly prejudicial to appellant especially in light of the crime with which he was charged. This Court, in Tobler v. State, 688 P.2d 350, 354 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), reversed the defend*976ant’s conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct wherein the prosecutor made repeated references to the defendant’s possible homosexuality. In addressing these comments, we stated:
However, we find not a semblance of relevance to tha.t discussion ... The conclusion is clear that allegations of appellant’s homosexuality served no probative purpose whatever, and only served to inflame the jury.
In the instant case, such evidence served no purpose but to inflame the passions of the jury.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial.