Opinion ID: 2251424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Impeachment Based Upon Prior Convictions

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously prohibited defense counsel from cross-examining Waldo and Ridenour about their prior crimes. The record does not show that defense counsel posed any questions to Michael Ridenour regarding any prior crimes he may have committed. During direct examination by the State, Edd Waldo admitted that he had prior convictions for crimes of deceit and dishonesty: arson in 1961, breaking and entering in 1965, and unlawful use of a credit card in 1970. During cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to question Waldo about more specific details of these prior convictions: (1) Whether the arson conviction of 1961 also involved the burglary of a residence; (2) What type of business was involved in the 1965 conviction for breaking and entering; (3) Whether the 1970 conviction was based upon the unlawful use of a John Patrick Quinn's credit cards, and (4) Whether he obtained the credit cards by committing an armed robbery. The trial court sustained each of the State's objections to these questions. A witness may be cross-examined about prior criminal convictions for offenses which are infamous crimes or crimes of dishonesty. Ashton v. Anderson (1972), 258 Ind. 51, 279 N.E.2d 210. However, a witness may be questioned only about whether he had previously been convicted of a particular crime. Skaggs v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 180, 293 N.E.2d 781. Generally, the details of the prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty or false statement may not be explored. King v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 226. The trial court properly restricted defense counsel's efforts to explore the details of these crimes. Defense counsel then argued at a hearing outside the presence of the jury that Waldo had participated in other felonies for which he had not been convicted or charged. He alleged that Waldo had participated in a burglary with Gibbens previous to the Cass burglary, and he wanted to question Waldo about this burglary. His request to so question Waldo was correctly denied by the court. A witness may not be impeached by specific acts of misconduct which have not been reduced to a criminal conviction. Bland v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1032.