Opinion ID: 1222093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Prior Convictions to Impeach

Text: The prosecution sought to impeach the testimony of both defendants by introduction of evidence of prior convictions pursuant to XX-XX-XXX, C.R.S.1973. The convictions were based upon jury verdicts of guilty and the denial of motions for a new trial in the preceding separate trials of the defendants. In both cases, the defendants had not been sentenced. The defendants contend that this was reversible error under the rule announced in People v. Goff, 187 Colo. 57, 530 P.2d 512 (1974) (jury verdict which has not been tested by motion for new trial and has not been supported by the imposition of sentence cannot be used for impeachment purposes). The essential function of the rule articulated in People v. Goff, supra , was to insure that impeachment would not be based upon a conviction which had not withstood the test of judicial scrutiny and the review provided by a motion for a new trial: [T]he accused is entitled to have the trial judge determine that the jury convicted him on competent evidence and that error did not occur which would require a new trial. People v. Goff, supra . The function was fulfilled in this case. Both defendants received a ruling on their motions for a new trial on the offense in issue prior to the use of the convictions in this case. There is ample authority from other jurisdictions for the proposition that a felony conviction, after denial of a motion for a new trial, but prior to sentencing, may, nonetheless, be used for impeachment purposes. See generally Annot., 14 A.L.R.3d 1272 (1967). That portion of the rule in People v. Goff, supra , requiring sentencing as a condition precedent to subsequent use of a conviction for impeachment purposes does not stand alone and does not go to the heart of the truth-finding function or raise serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts. People v. Moreno, 176 Colo. 488, 491 P.2d 575 (1971), quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971). Accordingly, we find no prejudice in this deviation from the letter of the rule in People v. Goff .