Opinion ID: 1322624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Colf Balancing Test

Text: Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by failing to conduct the proper balancing test in determining whether Petitioner's prior convictions were admissible. We agree. This Court has held that a trial judge must conduct a balancing test to determine whether remote convictions are admissible under Rule 609(b). State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 626, 525 S.E.2d 246, 248 (2000). Rule 609(b) creates a presumption that remote convictions are inadmissible and places the burden on the State to overcome this presumption. Id. at 626-627, 525 S.E.2d at 248. When considering whether to admit prior convictions, a trial judge should consider the following factors: (1) The impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) The point in time of the conviction and the witness's subsequent history; (3) The similarity of the past crime and the charged crime; (4) The importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) The centrality of the credibility issue. Id. at 627, 525 S.E.2d at 248. After the trial court conducts the balancing test, the judge must make a determination and articulate, on the record, the specific reasons for his ruling. Id. In the present case, the judge explained that the prior convictions were admissible because the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. However, the trial judge did not articulate why the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. We hold that a trial judge must conduct the Colf balancing test when considering the admission of remote prior convictions with reference to the factors enumerated in that opinion. Therefore, in the present case, the trial court erred by not conducting the proper balancing test.