Opinion ID: 2550501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Applicability of Luce

Text: Warren argues that the district court erred by permitting the State to use the minute order of his California conviction for impeachment purposes. Warren contends that the court's ruling prevented him from testifying. The State argues that Warren failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he did not testify. The State urges this court to adopt the United States Supreme Court's holding in Luce, [8] which would preclude our review of the issue. Warren suggests that this court should not adopt Luce 's holding because our decision in Pineda v. State [9] is at odds with Luce. In Luce, the Supreme Court held as a matter of federal evidence law that in order to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify. [10] The Court offered two primary reasons in support of its holding. The first reason involves the weighing of probative value versus prejudicial effect. The Court reasoned that without a defendant's trial testimony, there is an insufficient record from an in limine ruling to determine whether the trial court properly weighed the probative value of the impeachment evidence against its prejudicial effect. [11] The precise nature of the defendant's testimony is necessary to perform the balancing. [12] The second, and more fundamental reason involves the appellate court's ability to conduct harmless error review. The Court concluded that any harm resulting from a trial court's erroneous in limine ruling would be speculative absent the defendant's testimony. [13] And, the Court reasoned that even a proffer of the defendant's intended testimony would be insufficient to determine whether the error was harmless because a defendant's testimony could differ from the proffer. [14] Further, the trial court might have changed its ruling during trial for any number of reasons, or the prosecutor might not have actually impeached the defendant with the prior conviction. [15] Therefore, the Court held that a reviewing court could not determine whether a trial court's error was harmless without the defendant's trial testimony, and any error would result in automatic reversal. Were in limine rulings ... reviewable on appeal, almost any error would result in the windfall of automatic reversal; the appellate court could not logically term `harmless' an error that presumptively kept the defendant from testifying. [16] We have yet to decide whether to embrace Luce. Warren's reliance on Pineda to reject Luce is misplaced. In Pineda, we declined to follow the Supreme Court's holding in Ohler v. United States [17] that a defendant waives the right to appeal a trial court's in limine decision to admit evidence of prior convictions when he preemptively introduces those convictions on direct examination. [18] The waiver issue that we addressed in Pineda is different from the one presented here because it did not implicate the appellate court's ability to conduct a harmless error review of the in limine ruling. Because our holding in Pineda involved different issues and considerations, it does not control our decision on whether to adopt the holding from Luce. States that have adopted Luce generally agree with its premise that a reviewing court cannot meaningfully review a trial court's in limine impeachment determination without the defendant's actual trial testimony. [19] Conversely, states declining to follow Luce maintain that the problem of meaningful review is unfounded when the record sufficiently demonstrates, through an offer of proof, the nature of the defendant's proposed testimony and that the defendant refrained from testifying when faced with impeachment by a prior conviction. [20] Under such conditions, a reviewing court would have a sufficient record to conduct a harmless error analysis. In Wickham v. State , the Alaska Court of Appeals adopted an offer of proof test to avoid the appellate review problems discussed in Luce. [21] At trial, the defendant's counsel made an offer of proof specifically describing the defendant's anticipated testimony. [22] Counsel unequivocally stated that the defendant's decision to testify depended on the trial court's ruling on the impeachment evidence. [23] The appellate court concluded that the record was sufficient to review the trial court's in limine decision. [24] The Alaska court then reviewed the trial court's decision for harmless error. [25] Other states that do not follow Luce similarly engage in harmless error review when the record is sufficient to preserve the impeachment issue for appeal. [26] We conclude that the offer of proof procedure addressed in Wickham eliminates the problems identified in Luce. We therefore adopt the Wickham approach, finding it more persuasive than Luce. When presented with a sufficient record, we will have little difficulty in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit impeachment evidence of a defendant's prior convictions. In order to preserve the issue for appeal, we hold that a defendant must make an offer of proof to the trial court outlining his intended testimony, and it must be clear from the record that, but for the trial court's in limine ruling, the defendant would have testified. The record in the instant case provides us with adequate details for review. From the beginning of trial, Warren intended to present an entrapment defense. The record indicates that he would have testified to the facts supporting that defense. Furthermore, the record makes clear that Warren fully intended to testify until the district court ruled that the minute order of his prior conviction could be used for impeachment purposes and to show predisposition. But for the district court's in limine ruling, Warren would have testified. We therefore conclude that Warren preserved his right to appeal the impeachment issue. Before we consider the impeachment ruling, however, we must first review the propriety of the district court's ruling regarding the admission of the prior conviction to show predisposition as this affects any harmless error analysis with respect to the impeachment ruling.