Opinion ID: 2547270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The district court properly admitted prior conviction evidence to show predisposition

Text: Daniels argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a judgment of conviction from a 1993 burglary he committed in California. Daniels argues that the conviction was insufficient to indicate a predisposition to commit robbery. We disagree. The decision to admit or exclude evidence of prior offenses is within the discretion of the trial court. [12] [T]hat determination will be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse. [13] The judgment of conviction was relevant to Daniels' assertion that he was not predisposed to commit robbery. Daniels put his predisposition to commit robbery in issue when he raised the affirmative defense of entrapment. [14] Furthermore, the judgment of conviction was not too stale to impeach Daniels' credibility. NRS 50.095 allows for the impeachment of a witness with evidence of a felony conviction if 10 years or less have elapsed since the termination of his confinement, parole, probation, or sentence for that conviction. In using that statute as a guide, we conclude that the district court properly admitted the judgment of conviction because it was used to attack Daniels' credibility and less than 10 years had elapsed since the termination of Daniels' sentence for that crime.