Opinion ID: 2121015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impeachment by Criminal Record

Text: Cohen argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to use a prior Illinois conviction for robbery to impeach him during cross-examination. Cohen contends that because the State in its answer to discovery promised to provide the criminal records of the defendant as they became available, yet failed to do so, the robbery conviction should have been excluded. Our standard of review for claims of trial court error on violations of discovery orders was stated in Van Cleave v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 356, 365, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 819, 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989): The trial court is in the best position to determine the effect of violations of its discovery orders.... Therefore, it is afforded broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters, and this Court reverses its decisions only in cases of clear error. Wallace v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 1006. A discovery violation will generally not result in reversal unless prejudice has resulted. Despite the State's failure to produce Cohen's criminal record in discovery, the defense knew that Cohen had previous convictions in Illinois. Indeed, Cohen was incarcerated in Illinois when he was brought to Indiana for trial. Cohen's counsel admitted that he discussed Cohen's criminal record with his client before putting him on the stand. Counsel also acknowledged that at the time Cohen took the stand, he and Cohen believed that the defendant had previously been convicted in Illinois for assault and battery as well as for deceptive practices. Appellant argues that he would not have testified at trial had he known through discovery that he had the impeachable offense of robbery on his record. Cohen contends that he did not know he had pled guilty to robbery when he entered his plea in Illinois. The trial court was unpersuaded by Cohen's argument. It noted that the defendant was a thirty-three year old former police officer, not a naive teenager. The court indicated that it did not believe that Cohen did not understand why he was in prison in Illinois at the time that he was sent to Indiana for trial. In addition, there was no evidence that the State's failure to disclose Cohen's criminal record was an intentional act of bad faith. Cf. Carter v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 158, 170-71 (bad faith proper element to consider in case of alleged discovery abuse). Although the State had access to Cohen's criminal record prior to trial and did not disclose it, the State could readily have assumed that the record's content was easily within the reach of a defendant currently serving time for the crimes listed therein. We cannot say that the conclusion reached by the trial court was clearly erroneous, and therefore there are no grounds for reversal on this point.