Opinion ID: 2108549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: impeachment by prior convictions

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine by which the defendant sought to exclude all references to [the] defendant's prior criminal record and that, as a consequence, the defendant effectively was precluded from testifying in his own defense. It is well established that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by proof of prior convictions of crimes for which imprisonment may be more than one year. State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 563, 356 A.2d 125, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846, 96 S. Ct. 84, 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); see State v. Shaw, 185 Conn. 372, 383, 441 A.2d 561 (1981); General Statutes § 52-145. The trial court's decision to deny the motion to exclude a witness' prior record when offered to attack his [or her] credibility will be upset only if the court abused its discretion. In determining whether there has been an abuse, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. E. M. Loew's Enterprises, Inc. v. Surabian, 146 Conn. 608, 612, 153 A.2d 463 [1959]. Every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action must be made. State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 10-11, 291 A.2d 240 (1971). On appeal, the defendant has limited this claim of error to his 1968 convictions for breaking and entering and rape, and he concedes that the trial court did not err in not excluding other prior convictions. [6] It is unclear from the record of the case which is before us whether this claim was so limited in the trial court. Moreover, in view of the defendant's admission that some of his criminal convictions could be used for impeachment, the decision regarding one particular conviction would appear to be harmless, even if erroneous. The defendant failed to show that he would have taken the stand, despite the admissibility of some of his criminal record, if only the 1968 convictions had been excluded. See State v. Iasevoli, 188 Conn. 325, 328, 449 A.2d 996 (1982). In any event, we cannot say that the trial court could not reasonably conclude that all references to the defendant's criminal record should not be excluded. None of the convictions involved were too remote under the law of this state; [7] see State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 447 A.2d 396 (1982); and any possible prejudice to the defendant because of the similarity of earlier convictions to the pending charges might have been cured by instructions had the defendant chosen to testify. See State v. Shaw, supra. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude all references to the defendant's criminal record. There is no error.