Opinion ID: 2431316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: use of a speeding ticket to impeach plaintiff lewis

Text: The majority opinion concludes that even if you assume the trial court was in error in refusing to allow defendant Travagliante to impeach plaintiff Lewis by showing his prior conviction of speeding, such error was not prejudicial because the excluded evidence is unrelated to any issue other than the witness's credibility, and on that issue it is of such little consequence that no reversal of the judgment needs to be made in any event. On this basis, the majority declines to rule on the present status of the use of non-serious misdemeanors, such as a traffic violation, to impeach a witness pursuant to section 491.050 as amended in 1981. I concur in the majority's affirmance of the trial court on this issue, but I would reexamine section 491.050 as amended and hold that it no longer mandates the admission of all criminal offenses. In light of this construction, I would adopt a test for admissibility that would only admit for impeachment purposes convictions, pleas and guilty findings for felonies and serious misdemeanors that are, in fact, relevant to truth telling. The conviction of speeding was offered as bearing on plaintiff's credibility as a witness, i.e., it was proposed that the jury consider whether the fact that plaintiff Lewis pled guilty to a speeding charge on some prior occasion somehow makes him less likely to be telling the truth under oath when testifying in the present case. In denying the offer of proof, the trial court said, A speeding conviction is in no way impeaching the integrity or the character of a witness. I agree wholeheartedly. When considered as a question of what is reasonable in light of human experience, the trial court's conclusion is obviously true. However, Missouri has almost a century of decisions interpreting section 491.050, RSMo, to allow impeachment of witnesses by showing the conviction of a minor misdemeanor even though such a violation is never logically relevant to credibility (hereinafter called non-credibility misdemeanors). The irrational nature of allowing this form of impeachment becomes even more pronounced when it is considered that all parties agree that the fact that plaintiff was speeding on some prior occasion is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether he was speeding on this occasion. See State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1992) (use of prior crime evidence to prove that defendant committed the crime charged). I would uphold the trial court's ruling refusing to allow the appellant to use the speeding conviction for impeachment purposes. I would adopt an evidentiary rule for the Missouri courts which would no longer allow impeachment using a misdemeanor that is not relevant to the witness's credibility.
Under the common law, a person who had been convicted of an infamous crime was, in the eyes of the law, a totally incompetent witness in any litigation. Until 1895, the Missouri courts sometimes relaxed the common law incompetency rule to allow such a witness to testify under varying circumstances. In 1895, the Missouri legislature put a definitive end to the common law incompetency rule by enacting section 491.050, RSMo. [1] This section read as follows: Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense is, notwithstanding, a competent witness; but the conviction may be proved to affect his credibility, either by the record or by his own cross examination, upon which he must answer any question relevant to that inquiry and the party cross examining shall not be concluded by his answer. State v. Blitz, 171 Mo. 530, 71 S.W. 1027, 1030 (1903), quoting Laws 1895, p. 284 (emphasis added). In 1981, the legislature amended section 491.050 to read as follows: Any person who has been convicted of a crime is, notwithstanding, a competent witness; however, any prior criminal convictions may be proved to affect his credibility in a civil or criminal case and, further, any prior pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere, and findings of guilty may be proved to affect his credibility in a criminal case. Such proof may be either by the record or by his own cross-examination, upon which he must answer any question relevant to that inquiry, and the party cross-examining shall not be concluded by his answer. There is a second code section, which was pivotal in the Missouri courts' construction of section 491.050 on this issue. Section 556.010, which was enacted in 1835, [2] read as follows: `The terms crimes, offense and  criminal offense,  when used in this or any other statute, shall be construed to mean any offense, as well misdemeanor as felony, for which any punishment by imprisonment or fine or both may by law be inflicted.' ... (Emphasis added.) The legislature has also amended this statute. By the enactment of the Criminal Code in 1977, effective on January 1, 1979, all the definitions in former Chapter 556 were repealed, including this definition of criminal offense in section 556.010. There is no definition in new Chapter 556 for the term criminal offense nor for criminal conviction. However, section 556.016, also enacted as part of the Criminal Code, specifies what constitutes a crime and which crimes are categorized as a felony, or as a misdemeanor. [3] This section reads as follows: Classes of crimes.  1. An offense defined by this code or by any other statute of this state, for which a sentence of death or imprisonment is authorized, constitutes a crime. Crimes are classified as felonies and misdemeanors. 2. A crime is a felony if it is so designated or if persons convicted thereof may be sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term which is in excess of one year. 3. A crime is a misdemeanor if it is so designated or if persons convicted thereof may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of which the maximum is one year or less.
This Court first faced the issue of whether the conviction of a non-credibility misdemeanor could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness in Blitz, 71 S.W. 1027, eight years after the legislature had enacted section 491.050. The Court based its decision in Blitz on the criminal offense terminology. This case involved a defendant charged with grand larceny. The prosecution impeached three of defendant's witnesses by showing one kept a house of prostitution, another had been convicted for frequenting a bawdy house and for being in adultery with a woman, and the third had been convicted of fighting. The Court pointed out that prior to the enactment of section 491.050, it was the settled law of this state that the only convictions of a witness admissible for purpose of impeachment were those for a felony or petit larceny. Id. at 1030. The Court quoted the statute and based its holding that a non-credibility misdemeanor may be used for impeachment purposes upon the conclusion that the use of the term criminal offense in section 491.050 incorporated the specific definition of that term from section 556.010. The Court stated: This leads us to inquire, what is a criminal offense? We are not left in doubt as to this. The term criminal offense was doubtless used, and will be presumed to have been used, in section [491.050], with full knowledge of the meaning of that term as defined in section [556.010], which provides, The terms `crime,' `offense' and `criminal offense,' when used in this or any other statute, shall be construed to mean any offense, as well misdemeanor as felony, for which any punishment by imprisonment or fine or both may by law be inflicted. ... This act was not simply declaratory of the well-settled rule that a prior conviction of a witness had to be as to an infamous crime. If such had been the intention of the legislature, they would have used in section [491.050] the term infamous crime, instead of criminal offense, both of which terms are clearly defined by our statute. If the term infamous crime had been used, then, clearly, would it [sic] be held as simply declaratory of the well-settled rule; but instead they use the broad term, criminal offense, which presumptively was used in the sense as defined by the statute. Blitz, 71 S.W. at 1030. Ironically, the Blitz Court readily acknowledged that the rule it adopted was both unwise and was a radical change in the common law of evidence. The Court stated: It is further urged that a penal offense, not infamous, is not necessarily inconsistent with a good moral character. This might furnish a valid reason against the enactment of the law, but furnishes none against declaring it as the law after it is enacted. Had the language of this statute been called to the attention of the learned judges who decided the cases of State v. Prendible, 165 Mo. 329, 65 S.W. 559 and State v. Grant, 144 Mo. 56, 45 S.W. 1102 [two court of appeals cases which had continued to apply the old rule excluding non-credibility misdemeanors for impeachment despite the enactment of section 491.050], and had the attention of our learned and esteemed Brother Bland been specially called to all the statutes bearing upon this question, doubtless all of them would have said: We doubt the wisdom of this radical alteration in the rules of evidence, yet it has been so altered by the lawmaking power, and we will declare the law so to be. While we doubt very seriously the wisdom of this sudden and apparently unnecessary change of the long-established rules of evidence, which have been uniformly followed for so many years, doubtless on account of their being based upon that most appropriate foundation of reason and justice, yet, if this change is unwise and was ill-considered, the more strictly it is enforced the sooner its defects will appear, and the sooner will the power that created it bring about its destruction. Id. at 1030-31. Because hindsight is better than foresight, it does not take an accomplished legal historian to observe that the lack of wisdom evidenced by the rule adopted in Blitz is exceeded only by the misplaced optimism in the expectation that the legislature would correct the problem and that it would do so sooner if the unwise rule were strictly enforced. Since Blitz , the Missouri courts have periodically added to the line of decisions that acknowledge the fallacy in allowing the use of non-credibility misdemeanors to impeach while stubbornly deferring to the Court's construction of sections 491.050 and 556.010 in Blitz and optimistically expressing hope for a legislative solution that has failed to materialize. See Forbis v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 513 S.W.2d 760 (Mo.App.1974) (in a wrongful death action, defendant's conviction, approximately six months prior to the events in this case, for speeding and a conviction of defendant when he was 17 years old for passing in a no passing zone, could come in on cross-examination because section 491.050 confers an absolute right to show prior convictions to impeach the defendant); Franklin v. Friedrich, 470 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.1971) (personal injury accident in which defendant was properly impeached with his plea of guilty to a careless and imprudent driving charge, which arose out of the same accident that gave rise to the civil action; this conviction was admitted as both impeaching evidence and as substantive evidence of careless driving because defendant pled guilty to the charge; see footnote 5 and the associated text); State v. Cox, 333 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Mo.1960) (defendant charged with involuntary manslaughter when the vehicle he was driving, while intoxicated and engaged in a drag race with another vehicle, rear-ended a third vehicle killing both the driver and a passenger; held it was proper to impeach defendant on cross-examination with his prior conviction of operating a motor vehicle without a state driver's license); Hoover v. Denton, 335 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.1960) (negligence action arising out of an automobile collision; on cross-examination the Court allowed the defense to question plaintiff about his convictions for careless driving and driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of that same collision); and Fisher v. Gunn, 270 S.W.2d 869 (Mo.1954) (plaintiff allowed to impeach defendant in a personal injury action by showing his conviction for careless and imprudent driving also at the time of the collision in which plaintiff was injured). This is the first case involving the issue of the use of a non-credibility misdemeanor to impeach since the legislative changes in 1979 and 1981. As such, it is this Court's first opportunity in nearly 100 years to correct this unwise rule of impeachment. The use of the term criminal offense in section 491.050 as defined in section 556.010 brought us to the irrational rule we are now applying. Therefore, the elimination of that phrase and the repeal of that definition affords an opportunity to correct something that has needed correcting for a long time. In the present case, the majority has avoided ruling on this issue. If we decide in the future to continue our present interpretation of section 491.050, we will not only have missed our chance to correct and improve the law, but we will have created precedent to the effect that the statutory change was not significant. If we stick with that course of action, we will no longer have the excuse of blaming this otherwise inexplicable rule of impeachment on the legislature.
The apparent self-curing nature of the issue under discussion helps to demonstrate the absence of logic and reason in the impeachment rule adopted in the Blitz line of cases. The catch-22 [4] nature of the problem is demonstrated by the majority's decision in this case that any error in allowing the use of a non-credibility misdemeanor to impeach is not prejudicial because speeding has no bearing on credibility. This answer will always be available for this problem. In effect, the majority responds to this issue with the rhetorical question, So what? In one sense this answer is always available in any situation involving the admissibility of irrelevant, nonprejudicial evidence. The rules of relevancy are just common sense, which the jury is sensitive to, even if the law is not. If a judge improperly overrules a hearsay objection, then the jury can and will usually go ahead and use the evidence for its improper purpose. On the other hand, an item that is not relevant to any issue in the lawsuit cannot be made relevant, no matter how non-prejudicial the ruling of the judge to admit such evidence. There is no intelligent way to use non-relevant evidence. Moreover, the jury will likely ferret out relevancy problems because relevancy is really just common sense about how and to what extent that evidence moves the issue forward on some material issue in the case. So, does this solve the problem? The following section analyzes three common scenarios in which this type of evidence is encountered and attempts to answer the question, So what? To illustrate the range of problems created by allowing the use of a non-credibility misdemeanor to impeach the credibility of a witness, assume impeaching evidence similar to that in the present case. Specifically, assume the defendant in each of the following three lawsuits had a conviction for speeding near Columbia, Missouri, on January 1, 1990. Assume this impeachment evidence is used in three different lawsuits as follows: Lawsuit A is a suit for breach of contract; Lawsuit B is a civil action for personal injuries arising out of an accident which occurred in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 4, 1991, in which it is claimed that defendant was exceeding the 55 mph speed limit on I-29 near the Kansas City International Airport; and Lawsuit C, which is for personal injuries arising out of an accident near Columbia, Missouri, on January 1, 1990, and in which it is claimed defendant was speeding. In Lawsuit C, the speeding conviction sought to be used for impeachment arose out of the very accident in which the plaintiff's personal injuries were sustained. Admitting the speeding conviction to impeach the defendant in any of these lawsuits is illogical and irrational. There is no connection between being convicted of a traffic violation, such as speeding, and truth telling. There is nothing about a speeding conviction that indicates any mistaken belief or lack of truthfulness by the witness with regard to his substantive testimony. What small amount of disrespect for the law that may be involved in a traffic violation, such as speeding, is not indicative of a person willing to intentionally swear falsely under oath, i.e., commit perjury. By and large, the rationale supporting the law of evidence is well grounded in human experience and, given a reasonable explanation, usually makes sense to a jury. As I pointed out above, this is particularly true with respect to rules of relevancy, which really are just common sense. Whenever the rules of evidence deviate from practical experience, jurors will be tempted to treat them as technical obstructions to the search for truth and ignore them. Even more damaging is the fact that illogical rules of evidence may confuse and mislead jurors, who may conclude that they do not understand the issues in the case when they are presented with evidence that does not have a readily apparent, logical use in the lawsuit. All of these risks are present in admitting the speeding conviction in Lawsuits A, B and C. Admitting the speeding conviction in Lawsuits B and C is not only illogical and confusing but also highly prejudicial. There is a substantial risk that the jury will be led to believe that the speeding conviction is being offered as substantive evidence of speeding on the occasion of the accident in issue. In Lawsuit B, the fact that the defendant was speeding in January of 1990 is in no way probative of the proposition that he was speeding at the time of the accident in July of 1991, and it would not be admitted for that purpose. In the present case, which is like Lawsuit B, the fact that plaintiff Lewis pled guilty to a speeding charge on a prior occasion clearly is not relevant to whether he was speeding at the time of this accident. Because the defendant's main claim of fault against the plaintiff in this accident is speeding, it would have been natural for the jury to misuse this evidence if it had been admitted. In Lawsuit C, the fact that the defendant was convicted of a traffic offense for speeding at the same time and place where the accident in issue occurred would not be admissible as substantive evidence that he was, in fact, speeding because it is in the nature of hearsay. [5] The trial judge most likely will instruct the jury when the evidence of the conviction is admitted that it can be used for impeachment but not as proof that the party was speeding at the time of this accident. The distinction between using the speeding conviction to impeach (which use is contrary to common sense) while not using it to prove speeding on the occasion of this accident (which is direct evidence but is also hearsay) is a sophisticated and technical distinction, and it is unlikely that any juror would understand, much less accurately apply, any limiting instruction short of a full-blown lecture on relevancy and hearsay. Missouri's rule which allows non-credibility misdemeanors to be used for impeachment is further complicated by an exception to the rule. This exception excludes violations of municipal ordinances as opposed to violations of state statutes. The rationale for the exception is that violations of municipal ordinances are in the nature of civil violations and, therefore, are not criminal convictions and are not admissible for impeachment purposes. Meredith v. Whillock, 173 Mo.App. 542, 158 S.W. 1061, 1063 (1913). This exception makes perfect sense when one considers the long line of cases in this state holding that a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offense for other purposes. Kansas City v. Neal, 122 Mo. 232, 26 S.W. 695, 696 (1894) (holding that the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to enter a writ of error because violation of a city ordinance is not a crime and, thus, not a felony); Ex parte Hollwedell, 74 Mo. 395 (1881) (violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offense; therefore, Article II, Section 12, of the Missouri Constitution, requiring prosecution by indictment or information, is not applicable because an indictment or information is only necessary for a criminal offense); State v. Muir, 164 Mo. 610, 65 S.W. 285 (1901) (defendant indicted under Missouri statute for gaming, and defendant had previously been convicted for the same offense under an ordinance of the city of Mexico; because prosecution under a civil ordinance is a civil action, there is no double jeopardy problem when the state acts to enforce a statute, and both actions may be brought regardless of any particular order). This exception also makes perfect sense when one views it as an effort by the Missouri courts to avoid the application of section 491.050 and its illogical and inflexible rule allowing impeachment with a non-credibility misdemeanor. However, try to explain to jurors or parties to a lawsuit why it is that if they get a speeding ticket from a city police officer it is not admissible to impeach their credibility, but if they get a speeding ticket from a highway patrolman, this somehow has a bearing upon whether or not they will be truthful witnesses under oath in court. This distinction between state and municipal convictions leads to the further complicating issue of who has the burden of proving whether the conviction is under a state statute or a municipal ordinance. Where the evidence of the violation is the testimony of the impeached party or an answer to an interrogatory, as opposed to a formal record of the conviction (which would show on its face whether it was a violation of a municipal ordinance or a state statute), the burden is on the impeached party to show a violation of a municipal ordinance. Otherwise, the impeaching party has an absolute right under the statute to admit the impeaching evidence. [6] Smile v. Lawson, 506 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.1974), Forbis v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 513 S.W.2d at 766. The difficulty of explaining the striking difference in excluding violations of municipal ordinances while admitting convictions of non-credibility misdemeanors is substantially eased by the solution proposed herein, which would construe the statute to admit for impeachment purposes only those convictions which are relevant to credibility. Nearly all violations of municipal ordinances are, likewise, not relevant to credibility. Therefore, continuing to treat violations of municipal ordinances as inadmissible for impeachment purposes would correspond with the rule proposed herein.
There are three reasons why I believe this Court is free to construe the current statute in a different manner than the previous version of the statute was construed in Blitz and the subsequent line of decisions. First, Blitz makes clear that the phrase criminal offense, as defined in section 556.010, was absolutely fundamental to those decisions. Either of the two legislative changes, i.e., the repeal of section 556.010, effective January 1, 1979, or the removal of the term criminal offense from section 491.050 in 1981, was sufficient to release this Court from its prior construction of the statute. Because this is the first time this Court has considered this issue since the amendments to the statutes, I believe it is appropriate to consider the impact of those amendments on our determination of this issue. I will not speculate as to what my decision would have been in Blitz had I been around in 1903. Nevertheless, in construing the successor statute in 1992, I believe I am entitled to benefit from the 90 years of doubt in the wisdom of this radical alteration in the rules of evidence and the equally long-expected change by the legislature that never came to pass despite our strict enforcement. If the statute had not been amended and the precedent construing it was recent, I would be reluctant to deviate from that precedent. However, refusing to follow the much-criticized rationale, which this Court used in 1903 in Blitz , is significantly different from refusing to follow recent precedent in construing a statute that had not been amended. I believe this Court should seize the opportunity to adopt a more workable, logical rule of impeachment. Second, it may be contended that the term crime, as used in the phrase convicted of a crime in the first line of section 449.050, incorporates from section 556.010 the definition of crime similar to the definition of criminal offense, which the prior statute incorporated from repealed section 556.010. In my view, conviction of a crime  is used generically and not specifically. The purpose of the amendment in 1981 was to change the result of the holding in State v. Frey, 459 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. 1970). In Frey , this Court held that a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) is not a conviction and, therefore, could not be used to impeach. Prior to 1981, the statute required a conviction for impeachment. To enlarge what could be shown to impeach to include a SIS, the 1981 amendment added prior pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere, and findings of guilt. Since these three additional dispositions have been added to the description of occurrences that can be used for impeachment, a conviction of a crime  is no longer the exclusive impeaching event covered by the statute. The addition of pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere, and findings of guilt, which do not incorporate the term crime and thus could not incorporate the definition from section 556.010, leads me to believe that the term crime was used generically and not specifically. This portion of the statute does not speak to the issue of whether non-credibility convictions of crimes, pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere, or findings of guilt can be used to impeach. This is the second reason I believe this Court is free to decide this issue without regard to the Blitz precedent and the Court's construction of the prior statute. Third, and perhaps most important, is the last sentence of the statute, which has not been considered by any court, on the issue of whether non-credibility misdemeanors may be used to impeach. This sentence states: Such proof may be either by the record or by his own cross-examination, upon which he must answer any question relevant to that inquiry, .... § 491.050, RSMo (emphasis added). The phrase, [s]uch proof, means proof of a criminal conviction to affect credibility in a civil or criminal case or proof of prior pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere, or findings of guilt to affect credibility in a criminal case. The phrase, that inquiry, refers to the inquiry of whether the conviction, plea or finding of guilt affects the witness's credibility. The statute specifically provides the witness must answer any question about those convictions, pleas or findings of guilt relevant to credibility. It follows that the contrary is also mandated; i.e., the witness need not answer any question relating to a conviction, plea or finding of fact that is not relevant to credibility. Thus, the statute specifically includes, and always has included, the answer to the issue under discussionthat the witness need only answer regarding convictions, pleas and findings of guilt that are relevant to credibility. Thus, I would hold that the statute mandates exactly what it says; i.e., it only provides for the admission of convictions, pleas and findings of guilt that are relevant to credibility.
Rather than leave the determination of which criminal convictions, pleas or findings of guilt are relevant to credibility to a case-by-case determination, I would adopt a more specific rule. I would be amenable to the adoption of most of the various rules followed in other jurisdictions that result in the exclusion of non-credibility misdemeanors for impeachment purposes. Some jurisdictions allow only felonies to be used for impeachment, others allow the use of only felonies and misdemeanors involving dishonesty or false statement, while others allow any felony along with misdemeanors involving moral turpitude. [7] I would prefer to adopt a rule that would allow the use of convictions, pleas and findings of guilt of any felony or any misdemeanor involving dishonesty or false statement. [8] I believe that any conviction, plea or finding of guilt of a felony is relevant to credibility. The law generally recognizes the serious ramifications of a conviction of a felony. Those ramifications encompass such matters as the removal and restoration of civil rights, the right to hold office, the right to vote and the right to hold certain professional licenses following the conviction of a felony. The general public recognizes the significance of a conviction of a felony, and a jury will have no problem in evaluating the weight that should be given to such a conviction, plea or finding of guilt on the witness's credibility. In the case of misdemeanors, I would limit the convictions, pleas or findings of guilt that can be shown for impeachment to misdemeanors involving dishonesty or false statement. Under this approach, traffic violations, vagrancy, sexual misconduct such as prostitution or solicitation of prostitution (so long as it does not constitute a felony), and simple assault or other violent acts not constituting a felony would probably not be admissible to impeach the witness. Misdemeanors involving the making of a false statement under oath, misdemeanors of obtaining money under false pretenses and misdemeanor larceny would likely be admissible to impeach. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) [9] allows the use of the same categories of crimes, i.e., any felony and any misdemeanors involving dishonesty or false statements. The fact that the federal courts follow a similar rule would afford some guidelines to the extent Missouri courts desire to review the cases of another jurisdiction following such a rule. Eight other state courts use this approach. [10] The final decision as to where to draw the line between misdemeanor crimes that involve dishonesty or false statement and other misdemeanors will be left for final decision by the Missouri courts in the future. I would continue to distinguish between violations of state statutes and violations of municipal ordinances by excluding all convictions of municipal ordinances on the grounds that they are civil in nature and do not constitute crimes. Violations of municipal ordinances are not felonies, so they would not be admissible under the felony rule in any event. The vast majority of the ordinance violations do not involve dishonesty or false statement, so they, too, would be inadmissible even without a special rule for municipal ordinances. Any inconsistency involved in excluding violations of municipal ordinances involving dishonesty or false statement is outweighed by the desirability of maintaining consistency with our other holdings that violations of municipal ordinances are not crimes. I would uphold the trial court's rejection of plaintiff Lewis' prior conviction for speeding for the same reason the trial court gave, i.e., that a speeding conviction is not relevant to impeaching the credibility of a witness. I would hold that the decision in Blitz and its progeny is no longer applicable in light of the amendment to section 449.050 and the repeal of section 556.010.