Opinion ID: 2550501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Use of minute order for impeachment purposes

Text: Warren asserts that the district court erred by not carefully balancing the probative value of the prior conviction against its prejudicial effect when there was a question as to whether the person referenced in the minute order was in fact Warren. He further argues that the district court erred by finding that the State could use a certified minute order rather than a certified judgment of conviction for impeachment purposes. We conclude that the probative value of Warren's prior conviction was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect. The decision of whether to admit a prior conviction for impeachment purposes under NRS 50.095 is within the discretion of the district court, and we will not disturb the decision absent an abuse of discretion. [30] Further, NRS 50.095 does not limit impeachment to only evidence of felonies relevant to truthfulness or veracity. [31] Warren's contention that the California conviction was highly prejudicial because he was not the person referenced in the minute order is unpersuasive. As discussed above, the State had ample evidence to prove that Warren was the person referenced, and Warren never denied that this was his California conviction. Further, had Warren testified, he would have placed his credibility at issue. Warren's California conviction related to dishonesty, directly challenging his credibility. [32] Although the similarity of the offense to the one for which Warren was on trial increases its prejudicial effect, that fact alone is insufficient to find an abuse of discretion when weighed against its probative value. [33] Therefore, the probative value of Warren's prior conviction was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. However, we agree with Warren's other argument that the district court erred in allowing impeachment with a minute order rather than a judgment of conviction. The State may not inquire about a prior conviction under NRS 50.095 unless prepared to prove the conviction with a judgment of conviction. [34] We have previously found error in impeachment when the prior conviction was evidenced by: (1) a sealed conviction; [35] (2) an incomplete certified judgment of conviction omitting the defendant's sentence; [36] (3) FBI rap sheets; [37] and (4) testimony by a court clerk that a jury returned a guilty verdict for the defendant a week prior, but final judgment had not yet been entered. [38] The document with which the State intended to impeach Warren was a minute order, certified by a deputy clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Although the minute order indicated the offense for which Warren was convicted and his resulting sentence, it was not a judgment of conviction. We hold that a minute order, certified or otherwise, is insufficient evidence of a prior conviction for impeachment under NRS 50.095. Therefore, the district court erred by ruling that the State could use the California minute order to impeach Warren. [39]