Opinion ID: 2444412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of prior convictions admitted to impeach

Text: For his last argument for reversal, Coleman claims that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to impeach him with evidence of his prior convictions. Coleman filed a motion in limine asking that the evidence of his two prior convictions occurring in the last ten years be inadmissible in the event that he took the stand. Coleman contended that the prejudicial value of such evidence in a murder trial outweighed the probative value. The trial court found that Coleman's prior convictions for burglary and theft of property could be used to impeach him, explaining that, The question of hisshould he testify, his truthfulness would be an issue and the long standing tradition is to allow impeachment as to truthfulness on burglary and theft. Rule 609(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides the general rule for attacking the credibility of a witness with evidence of prior convictions: For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party or a witness, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Pollard v. State, 296 Ark. 299, 756 S.W.2d 455 (1988). This rule concerns itself with the credibility of a witness who is offering testimony in the current case and admissibility must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. When a defendant in a criminal case takes the stand in his own behalf, credibility becomes an issue and the State may, under certain circumstances, test that credibility by asking the defendant if he has been convicted of certain crimes. Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278, 590 S.W.2d 853 (1979). Since Coleman disputed the accuracy of his recorded statement to Detective Gann, his credibility was at issue. When testifying before the jury, Coleman claimed that the detectives had coerced him into making the recorded statement and that They did everything but write a script for me to follow while giving this statement so I'd be sure and accurate when I said it. Under the circumstances, admission of his two prior convictions for burglary and theft was not error. The record has been examined in accordance with Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-3(h), and it has been determined that there were no rulings adverse to the appellant which constituted prejudicial error. Affirmed.