Opinion ID: 2314780
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of prior convictions of witness.

Text: At a pre-trial motion hearing on January 28, 1981, the defendant requested that he be allowed to use two prior convictions of the victim's mother in order to impeach her testimony at trial. The victim's mother was a key witness for the State. Her convictions were for the issuance of two bad checks in the amounts of $24.50 and $35. The certified copies of the convictions that were offered to the trial court indicated neither that the mother had been represented by counsel, nor that she had waived her right to counsel. The defendant offered nothing further bearing on either of these facts. The trial court deferred ruling on the defendant's motion until an appropriate occasion at trial arose. After the victim's mother had testified, the defendant renewed his motion, but the court denied it and noted the defendant's exception. [1-3] Superior Court Rule 68 requires that a party seeking to impeach the credibility of a witness through prior convictions introduce a certified record of the judgment of conviction indicating that the . . . witness was represented by counsel at the time of the conviction unless counsel was waived. We interpret this rule as placing the burden of proving representation by or waiver of counsel upon the party seeking to use a witness' prior conviction. See State v. Maxwell, 115 N.H. 363, 365, 341 A.2d 766, 767 (1975); State v. Herbert, 108 N.H. 332, 335, 235 A.2d 524, 527 (1967). Additionally, even if the defendant had met his burden of proof, the trial court would still have had the discretion to exclude the convictions, if it had concluded that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value. See State v. Staples, 120 N.H. 278, 283, 415 A.2d 320, 323 (1980); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 295, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15, 116 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025 (1968). Because we find that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof under Superior Court Rule 68, and that, in any event, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the convictions, we uphold its decision.