Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 830.0

529US3

Unit: $U58

[09-26-01 12:26:35] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 753 (2000)

755

Opinion of the Court

distribute. Before trial, the Government ﬁled motions in
limine seeking to admit Ohler’s prior felony conviction as
character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
and as impeachment evidence under Rule 609(a)(1). The
District Court denied the motion to admit the conviction
as character evidence, but reserved ruling on whether the
conviction could be used for impeachment purposes. On the
ﬁrst day of trial, the District Court ruled that if Ohler tes-
tiﬁed, evidence of her prior conviction would be admissible
under Rule 609(a)(1). App. 97–98. She testiﬁed in her own
defense, denying any knowledge of the marijuana. She also
admitted on direct examination that she had been con-
victed of possession of methamphetamine in 1993. The jury
found Ohler guilty of both counts, and she was sentenced
to 30 months in prison and 3 years’ supervised release.
Id.,
at 140–141.

On appeal, Ohler challenged the District Court’s in limine
ruling allowing the Government to use her prior conviction
for impeachment purposes. The Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit afﬁrmed, holding that Ohler waived her ob-
jection by introducing evidence of the conviction during
her direct examination.
169 F. 3d 1200 (1999). We granted
certiorari to resolve a conﬂict among the Circuits regarding
whether appellate review of an in limine ruling is available
in this situation. 528 U. S. 950 (1999). See United States v.
Fisher, 106 F. 3d 622 (CA5 1997) (allowing review); United
States v. Smiley, 997 F. 2d 475 (CA8 1993) (holding objection
waived). We afﬁrm.

Generally, a party introducing evidence cannot complain
on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. See
1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence
§ 103.14, p. 103–30 (2d ed. 2000). Cf. 1 J. Strong, McCormick
on Evidence § 55, p. 246 (5th ed. 1999) (“If a party who has
objected to evidence of a certain fact himself produces evi-
dence from his own witness of the same fact, he has waived
his objection”). Ohler seeks to avoid the consequences of