Opinion ID: 387154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prior Conviction Testimony

Text: 3 Tom's long-time girlfriend, Ms. Rogers, testified in support of the defense theory that Tom was not predisposed to sell cocaine. Ms. Rogers testified under direct examination that she had never known Tom to deal in drugs. The prosecution then elicited, over objection, Rogers' admission that she was aware of Tom's prior drug conviction. 2 The relevant defense testimony was: 4 Q. Now you have lived with Doug for quite some time. Have you found any drugs at home as a result drugs that belonged to Doug? 5
6 Q. Do you know if Doug actually deals with drugs? 7 A. No, he doesn't. 8 Q. You have never known him to deal in drugs? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You ever heard you ever heard you ever hear Doug talking about making money from drugs. 11 A. No. 12 The prosecution then elicited the following on cross-examination: 13 Q. So, your testimony isn't that he didn't deal in drugs. It's just that you didn't see him deal in drugs, is that it? 14 A. I wasn't aware that he ever did, except for that one conviction. 15 Q. Well, you testified you weren't aware of him dealing at all, isn't that correct? A. Well 16 Q. Since your testimony didn't you mean that you didn't see him dealing in drugs? Is that what you meant? 17 A. I didn't see him dealing in drugs, and I wasn't aware that he did after that time. It was so long ago. We weren't together then I mean 18 The trial judge ruled that the prior conviction was too old to be relevant for any purpose other than impeachment. The judge acknowledged the prejudicial effect of allowing the questions regarding the prior conviction, but felt compelled to allow the questioning in light of Rogers' testimony indicating that she did not know Tom to deal in drugs. 19 Tom argues that the prior conviction had little or no relevance and, therefore, under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence the trial judge should have refused to allow cross-examination on that subject. Rule 403 provides that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 403 is subject to reversal only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. United States v. Watkins, 600 F.2d 201 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). 20 Tom claims that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the challenged evidence because that evidence did not directly impeach Rogers' testimony, and therefore it had little or no probative value. In United States v. Bosley, 615 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1980), the defendant was asked whether he delivered cocaine during the course of a particular alleged conspiracy. He responded that he delivered no cocaine. The prosecution then introduced evidence to show that the defendant had, on an unrelated occasion, delivered cocaine to a certain individual. This court reversed, finding, among other things, that the defendant had not meant to say that he has never, ever, delivered cocaine to anybody but rather that he delivered no cocaine in the course of the alleged conspiracy. Id. at n.2. Thus the impeaching evidence was improper. 21 The defendant attempts to analogize the facts in Bosley to those of the instant case. Here witness Rogers never directly denied knowledge of any prior conviction of Tom's, and yet the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine her regarding the conviction. This differs from the impeaching evidence in Bosley, however, because here the questions regarding the prior conviction did tend to impeach the witness. 22 Ms. Rogers testified that she had known Tom for several years and that she had never known him to deal in drugs. That she knew of Tom's prior drug conviction does tend to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of her testimony. The impeaching evidence did indicate that Rogers was not presenting an accurate picture of her knowledge of Tom's drug involvement; thus it was relevant to credibility. 23 The testimony was, as the trial judge recognized, highly prejudicial. This is especially true given defendant's reliance on the defense of entrapment. He needed to show doubt as to whether he was predisposed to drug dealing. The jury may well have improperly inferred predisposition from the past conviction. 3 The trial court went through the Rule 403 balancing analysis and decided that the impeaching testimony was too pertinent to credibility to be excluded. 4 This balancing of probative value against prejudice is committed to the trial court. United States v. Watkins, supra, at 204. It cannot be said that an abuse of discretion occurred here. 24 The trial judge attempted to limit the prejudicial effect of the testimony by carefully instructing the jury to ignore the prior conviction when considering the predisposition issue. Rogers was a crucial defense witness and it was important that the jury fully evaluate her credibility. Given these facts, the trial court's decision to admit the prejudicial but probative evidence of Tom's prior conviction did not constitute an abuse of discretion.