Opinion ID: 1624312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial judge err by overruling defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's question to ivy as to whether he had been convicted of any crime?

Text: The prosecutor asked, Mr. Ivy, have you been convicted of any crimes? Counsel for Ivy objected, stating that If he'll make it a felony, we have no objection. The Court said, Do what? Counsel for Ivy then stated, If he will say have you been convicted of a felony, we'd have no objection. The objection was overruled. And Ivy answered, Yes, sir. On redirect examination by his counsel, Ivy testified that he was convicted of simple assault about five years earlier. He testified that in Starkville, a guy got mad at him during a pool game and began cursing him. As Ivy was getting into his car, this person pushed him from behind, and Ivy turned around and hit him. He pled and paid the fine in city court because he had to go back to Florida. The prosecutor's question clearly violated new Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609(a), which provides as follows: For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on a party or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. The ground for the objection was apparent from the context. Miss.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). The State argues that the Mississippi Rule of Evidence had been in effect no more than 28 days, but this is irrelevant. The State correctly admits that Ivy's conviction could not be used to impeach appellant's credibility due to the fact that punishment for simple assault was a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months or both. Furthermore, even if the prior conviction was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, the trial judge was required under the rule to make a finding on the record of the probative value of this evidence of prior convictions to determine whether the probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. Peterson v. State, 518 So.2d 632 (Miss. 1987), in which a conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because of a violation of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609(a). Were the prior conviction based on a felony, this Court would either reverse and remand if the admission thereof were manifestly prejudicial, or remand for a finding under Rule 609. However, because the prior conviction was for a misdemeanor, a balancing of the probative value and prejudicial effect by either this Court or the trial court is not necessary. See Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 811 n. 5 (Miss. 1987). This Court reverses the conviction and remands for a new trial and directs that the prior conviction not be admitted in evidence on retrial. This Court does not address the remaining assignment of error regarding the weight and sufficiency of the evidence since the issue is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., dissent.