Title: State v. Noble

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

126 Ariz. 41 (1980) 612 P.2d 497 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Andrew Milo NOBLE, Appellant. No. 4924-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. May 29, 1980. Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and Greg A. McCarthy, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Justice. We granted defendant's petition for review of a memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, Department B, in order to consider two questions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24 and Rule 31.19, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. In 1965, defendant was convicted of two counts of perjury. See State v. Noble, 2 Ariz. App. 532, 410 P.2d 489 (1966). Prior to trial in the instant case, the defendant moved to preclude, for impeachment purposes, *42 the prior felony convictions. The court denied the defendant's motion stating: At trial, the defendant took the stand, and on direct examination admitted the previous felony convictions for perjury. He was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of not less than ten nor more than twelve years in the state prison. He appealed and the Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision, held that because he had taken the stand and admitted the previous convictions, he had waived the right to question the denial of his motion on appeal. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO CONTEST DENIAL OF MOTION ON APPEAL The Court of Appeals, relying upon a prior decision of that court, State v. Ellerson, 125 Ariz. 254, 609 P.2d 69 (No. 1 CA-CR 1621, 1980), held that when the defendant took the stand and "drew the sting," by admitting the prior felony convictions, he waived the right to object to the previous ruling of the trial court denying his motion to preclude the use of the prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes. After the instant decision of the Court of Appeals, this court, in State v. Ellerson, 125 Ariz. 249, 609 P.2d 64 (No. 4839-PR, filed 27 February 1980), held that the defendant did not waive the right to object to the ruling of the trial court by "drawing the sting" during the time of trial. In doing so, we cited a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where a defendant, because of an adverse ruling on his motion to exclude impeachment by prior conviction, elected not to testify. The Ninth Circuit stated: We then stated in Ellerson, supra: We believe that Ellerson, supra, is dispositive of this case, and we will proceed to the merits of the denial of the motion by the trial judge. DENIAL OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE Rule 609(a) and (b), Arizona Rules of Evidence, reads: The prior convictions were obtained in 1965, and trial in this case was in November of 1978. Although we do not know when defendant was released from confinement, the convictions are more than ten years old. Under both Rule 609 and the law as it existed prior to the adoption of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. King, 110 Ariz. 36, 514 P.2d 1032 (1973); State v. Soule, 121 Ariz. 505, 591 P.2d 993 (App. 1979). We have stated: Defendant's prior convictions were for perjury, certainly dishonesty or false statements. The trial court did not err in finding that the probative value of defendant's two prior convictions for the purpose of impeachment outweighed the admittedly prejudicial effect of their admission. We find no error. Judgment affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HOLOHAN, V.C.J., and HAYS and GORDON, JJ., concur.