Case Title: State v. Sims

Citation: 298 Or. 360, 692 P.2d 575

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1984-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
692 P.2d 575 (1984)
298 Or. 360
STATE of Oregon, Respondent On Review,
v.
Jerry SIMS, Petitioner On Review.
TC C 83-04-31842; CA A29486; SC S30658.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted June 6, 1984.
Reassigned October 17, 1984.
Decided December 18, 1984.
*576 David E. Groom, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender.
Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.
JONES, Justice.
The issue in this case is the same as that presented in State v. McClure, 298 Or. 336, 692 P.2d 579 (1984), and State v. Simmonds, 298 Or. 356, 692 P.2d 577 (1984).
Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of attempted assault in the first degree. Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of two prior bank robberies in defendant's trial. The trial judge made the following statement and ruling:
In applying the "five-factor" test set forth in State v. McClure, supra, 298 Or. at 338, 692 P.2d 579, to the trial court's decision, we note as follows:
Factor (1): Impeachment value of prior crime  Armed robbery is a crime involving dishonesty and is relatively high on the credibility scale, not as high as the nondiscretionary crimes admissible under OEC 609(1)(b) such as perjury, forgery or theft by deception, but much higher than homicide or other assaultive crimes.
Factor (2): Time of crimes  Defendant was convicted of Robbery I in 1972, escaped from custody in 1974 and committed another robbery while on escape status in 1974. He was paroled in 1975 and then was convicted of yet another robbery in 1979. After being sentenced on that crime, he was charged in this case with Robbery I, Attempted Assault I and Ex-Convict in Possession of a Firearm, alleged to have occurred *577 in 1983. There is no doubt the prior convictions were recent within the contemplation of factor (2).
Factor (3): Similarity of crimes  As in State v. McClure, supra, and State v. Simmonds, supra, the prior crimes were the same as the present crimes charged. This factor weighs heavily against admission.
Factor (4): Importance to the defendant to testify  In this case the defendant took the stand, so he was not dissuaded from testifying even though faced with the impeachment evidence.
Factor (5): Centrality of credibility issue  In his appellate brief, defendant summarizes the facts as follows:
It is apparent from the trial judge's ruling that he felt the prior crime evidence was important to the state to impeach the defendant's credibility.
As we said in State v. McClure, supra, and State v. Simmonds, supra, the better choice would have been for the trial court to restrict the state to the fact that the defendant had been convicted of prior felonies rather than to identify them by name, because of their similarity to the present charge. The trial judge nevertheless properly exercised his discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal.
The Court of Appeals, 678 P.2d 782, is affirmed.