With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conduct on cross-examination, providing the conduct did not result in criminal conviction and providing the conduct is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. See Rule 11 — 608(B)(1); State v. Marquez, 87 N.M. 57, 62, 529 P.2d 283, 288 (Ct.App.1974). Thus, by taking the stand in his defense, Defendant became a witness in the case, and it was permissible under both Rules 11-404(A)(3) and 11-608(B)(1) for the prosecution to attack Defendant’s credibility by establishing that he had a character for untruthfulness. Because a cash register shortage tends to show a character of dishonesty, questions regarding disciplinary action taken against Defendant for cash register shortages were proper under Rule 11-608(B)(1). See State v. Wyman, 96 N.M. 558, 560, 632 P.2d 1196, 1198 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). {44} While Rule 11-608(B) permitted the

A: holding that theft victims were not directly injured by a money launderers subsequent activities because only after the theft occurred and the semiconductors were sold could tran launder the proceeds
B: holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount
C: recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing
D: holding that questions concerning embezzlement burglary auto theft and larceny involve dishonesty were probative as to truthfulness and were proper crossexamination under  rule 608 b
D.