Title: Rules of Evidence v. Rules

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

Serial: 99544

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

FILED
May 02 2002

No. 89-R-99002-SCT

RE: MISSISSIPPI RULES OF
EVIDENCE

AMENDED ORDER

‘This matter has come before the Court en banc on Motion to Amend Certain Rules
of Evidence and Comments filed by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules, and
the Court, having considered the petition, found that it should be granted and that such
amendments will promote the fair and efficient administration of justice.

By order filed April 18, 2002, the Court granted the petition and approved the
proposed amendments. However, it has been since called to the attention of the Court that
certain scriveners errors appear in the text of M.R.E. 504 asset forth in Exhibit “A” to that
order.

ITIS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order of this Cou

 

sed in this matter is

hereby amended and superceded by this order, and M.R.E. $04 and 609 are amended as set
out in Exhibits “A" and “B” to this order. ‘The order in this matter filed on April 18, 2002
i horeby superceded and vacated,

ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall spread this order on
the minutes of this Court and that it be submitted to West Publishing Company for
publication in the Sowhern Reporter (Mississippi Edition) and in the Mississippi Rules of
Court. ‘The order which Is amended and superceded hereby, however, shall not be *
published.

50 ORDERED, this the QO” aay of Api, 2002

 

WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., JUSTICE.
FOR THE COURT

 

'Y, J, NOT PARTICIPATING
 

IT “A” TO ORDER

 

SSISSIPPI RULES OF EVIDENCE

RULE $04. HUSBAND-WIFE PRIVILEGE

 

(2) Definition. A communications confidential if itis made privately by any person
to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.

(b) General Rule of Privilege. In any proceeding, civil or criminal, a person has a
privilege to prevent his spouse, or former spouse, from testifying as to any confidential
communication between himself and his spouse.

(©) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by either spouse
in his or her own right or on behalf ofthe other.

(@ Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in civil actions between the
spouses orn a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against (1) the person
of any minor child or (2) the person or property of (i) the other spouse, (i) a person residing
in the houschold of either spouse, or (if) @ third person committee in the course of
committing a crime against any of the persons described in (d)1) or (2) of this Rue.

[Rule $04(d) amended in Fisher v. Stare, 690 So. 24 268, 272 (Miss. 1996) to "apply
prospectively upon publication in West's Southern Reporter" (published in S
Reporter 2d advance sheet issue of May 1, 1997; amended May 2, 2002.]

 

‘outhern

‘Comment

‘There are two areas of law which govern if and when one spouse may testify against
the other, spousal competency and marital privilege. M.C.A. § 13-1-5 governs matters of
spousal competency. On the other hand, marital privilege protects certain communications
‘made during the marriage. The privilege extends only to communications which were
intended to be confidential. Thus, the presence of another person, even a family member,
is deemed to mean that the communication was not intended to be confidential. Likewise,

int wae that the communication would be confidential, third party may not tet
the communication, even ifhe learned it from one of the spouses directly. Rule
504(a) is in accord with existing Mississippi practice

   

    

Rule 504 (b) states the general rule. One spouse can prevent the other from testifying
regarding the confidential communication in either a civil or eriminal proceeding.

 

‘The privilege does not extend to cases in which one is charged with a crime agaist
tte person oF the property of (1) the wiles spouse, (2) a child of either of them, O) a person,

 
familial or non-famitial, residing in the household of either, or (4) another person when in
the act of committing a crime against any of them.

Rule 504(c) was. ‘n 2002 to make the spousal privilege rule consistent with
Rule 601(a)(1) which makes spouses competent witnesses against each other in civil actions
Interemu then, The policy of is vl ot

 

[Amended March 20, 1995; amended May 2.2002.)
EXHIBIT “B” TO ORDER

MISSISSIPPI RULES OF EVIDENCE,

RULE 609. IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF
CONVICTION OF CRIME,

(2) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility ofa witness, evidence
thathe has beenconvicted of crime shalt be admittedif elicited fromhinrorestabtished by
pubierecend dung crov-examinanon ber onfyriftheerimetiywas pamthableby death or
Impnsonmentan-exeest of one-yearunder the frw-underwhrcir he was comicted and the
courtdetermines thatthe probative valet admitting this evidence outweighs itsprejudicial
cftect on spamrort2yrmoived dishonesty or alse statement, re

‘G.evidence that (A) a nonparty witness has been convicted of a crime shall
admitted subject 10 e was punishable by death ot
conviced, and (B) a patiy has been convicied of such a cme shell be
ifthe court determines that the probative value of
its prejudicial eff

(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted
Cit involved diahonesty or falee statement, regardleze of punichment,

(©) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if period of
more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the
witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever i the later date, unless
the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction
supported by the specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial
effect. However, evidence ofa conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein isnot
‘admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance writen nwtive
of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest
the use of such evidence

 

   

 

(©) Effect of Pardon, Annulment, Expungement or Certificate of Rehabilitation.
Evidence of conviction is not admissible under this rule if (1) the conviction has been the
subject of pardon, annulment, expungement, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent
procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person
has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was punishable by death or
imprisonment in excess of one year, or (2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon,
sanvilment, ar thor equivalent proceduee haced on a finding of innocence.

 

 

(@) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not
admissible under this rule. The court may, however, ina criminal case allow evidene ofa
juvenile adjudication ot a witness other than the accused it conviction of the ottense would
,dmissible to attack the eredibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in
evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.

 

(© Pendency of Appeal. The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render
nee ofa conviction inadmissible, Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.

 

[Amended May 2, 2002,

Comment
‘Under Rule 6U%(a)_cnmes_are_divided_jnto_two categories _for_purposcs_of
impeachment, 609(a}(1) deals with felony convictions and under he original version tated
‘convictions of all witnesses the same. The second category, 609(a)(2), originally addressed
‘times involving dishonesty or false wl mes

‘Rule 609(a)(1) was amended in 2002 t0 incorporats the rationale of decisions by the
“Mississippi Supreme Court which recognized the difference in the highly prejudicial effect
‘ofshowing. ‘the convictions when the witness is the accused and the little prejudicial effect

 

other witnesses. [tw when the im
accused in acriminal case there is little orno unfair
be caused the probative value on the
eae lame ways outweigh any prejudice, In White v. State, 785 So.2d 1059
ss.2001) it accused ofeonfonta
iate’s witness wih his felony drug conviction,
‘eae 201 hc cor eld lhe sae ns pp pemied io apeah defense

‘witness with his five prior convictions, noting that there was no prejudice against the
accused.

fiw tu sleatly apobyto-siv
i . dd rule, convict
toi must be analyzed uidelines set forth te
124.632 7) to det ative val ste
peu iil effect tod nd fi dy the
envi rede impeach any thor witness aro admisgible unless the court is
perdee cspneti ene aaa cues oasis
ings on the issue isn
Gee Seedoore abate
‘Convictions from any state or federal jurisdiction may be considered for admission
under the mle,
dish false statement i ines
fon of pen le amen aud "
strona tine i hesonmisonot sich aalssomecinet
of ful falsification bearins

tnuhfully Such convietons are pesulaly probative of credibility and are alway to be
ssimittsd, not aubjest to the diserstionary balancing by the judge,

‘The reference in former 609(a) to proving a conviction during cross-examination is
sfiminated beeause the conviction may have to be proved in rebuttal ifthe witness refuses
‘t0-admit the prior conviction on cross-examination,

 
‘Subsection (b) imposes a time limitation on prior convictions. If the conviction
‘occurred more than ten years earlier, it may not be used as impeachment evidence. The
rationale underlying subsection (b) is based on faimess. A person's past should not be able
to haunt him for the duration of his life. The judge may grant an exception in instances
where the probativeness of the conviction substantially outweighs the prejudice. But, before
the judge makes such a devision, the proponent must give the adversary sufficient notice 50
thatthe adversary may challenge the decision.

Prior to the rules Mississippi had no time limitation regarding prior convictions. The
courts held only thatthe prior conviction should not be too remote in time from the case at
bar. That principle obviously left « great deal of discretion with the trial judge in
determining remoteness. ‘Thus, the appellate court often upheld the use of prior convictions
for impeachment which were far in excess of the ten-year limitation of Rule 609(b).

‘Subsection (¢) expresses the public policy that a person who has been rehabilitated
‘or whose canvition hax heen mld hase ona later finding of his innocence should not
be tainted by this conviction. Subsection (c) does not apply to pardons which simply restore
4 person's civil rights. Rather, itis implicitly limited to cases in which rehabilitation has
‘occured of in Which it canbe shown that the person was innocent.

Subsection (4) prohibits impeachment based on juvenile adjudications. Reasons for
this rue inelude the wish to free an adult from bearing the burden of a youthful mistake, the
informality of youth court proceedings, and the confidential nature of those proceedings. See
TRE 609, Advisory Committec’s Notes

In pre-rule Mississippi practice, the use of juvenile adjudications for impeachment
purposes has been governed by M.C.A. § 43-21-361 which provides that no adjudication
against a child shall be deemed a criminal conviction. Indeed, the juvenile offender is
permitted by etatite ta dony the Fact ofthe prioe adjudication. However, the statute permits
‘ross-examination by either the state or the defendant ina criminal action or the respondent
in a juvenile adjudication proceeding regarding prior juvenile offenses for the limited
Purpose of showing bias and intrest. In shor, the evidence could be used in these limited
circumstances but not to attack the general credibility ofthe witness.

 

 

 

‘Under Rule 609(4) the court has the discretion to allow impeachment of a witness,
other than a criminal defendant, by a prior juvenile adjudication i the judge determines that
itis necessary, The court's discretion extends only to witnoazee other than the accused in 9
criminal ease.

‘Subsection (¢) reflects the presumption that exists m favor of a tial court's decision.
‘Until overturned, that decision is deemed to be the correct decision. Once the prior
conviction has heen introduced, the adversary can present evidence that an appeal of that
conviction is pending. In theory, this gives a sense of balance to the use of the prior

4
conviction, However, n practice, evidence ofa pending appeat has insutictent weight 1o
balance the use of the prior conviction.
[Amended effective March 1, 1989.]

[Comment amended effective March 1, 1989; amended May 2, 2002,}