Opinion ID: 2277071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the delayed impeachment instruction

Text: Coates took the witness stand in his own defense. While he was testifying on direct examination, his counsel elicited from him his prior convictions. He did so in order to draw the sting from the inevitable impeachment on cross-examination. See Beale v. United States, 465 A.2d 796, 800 (D.C.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1030, 104 S.Ct. 1293, 79 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Counsel then asked for an immediate instruction to the effect that the convictions could be considered solely in connection with the defendant's credibility. See District of Columbia Criminal Jury Instruction No. 1.08 (3d ed. 1978). The judge declined to give the instruction at that time, observing that Coates had not yet been impeached. He stated that the instruction would be given at the conclusion of Coates' testimony. After the direct examination had been completed, Coates' attorney said he was not going to request the impeachment instruction. The judge eventually gave the instruction when Coates was impeached with his prior convictions during cross-examination. The judge later acknowledged that he should have given the impeachment instruction at the time it was initially requested. See Kitt v. United States, 379 A.2d 973, 975 (D.C.1977). He offered to correct the error by advising the jury that the instruction that the prior convictions could be considered solely in connection with Coates' credibility applied to their disclosure during the direct examination as well as to their mention during cross-examination. Defense counsel, however, declined the offer. Counsel did not move for a mistrial, and indicated that he did not intend to pursue the issue on appeal. The judge also included the impeachment instruction in his charge to the jury at the close of the case. Under these circumstances, Coates' argument for reversal is less than convincing. See Tillman v. United States, 96 A.2d 272, 273 (D.C.1953). We are not persuaded that juries which are properly instructed at the conclusion of a trial [1] will generally misapprehend, in the absence of an immediate cautionary instruction during trial, the limited purpose of the prior conviction evidence. Dixon v. United States, 287 A.2d 89, 99 (D.C.), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 926, 92 S.Ct. 2474, 32 L.Ed.2d 813 (1972). As Justice Holmes put it three quarters of a century ago in Graham v. United States, 231 U.S. 474, 481, 34 S.Ct. 148, 152, 58 L.Ed. 319 (1913): It would be absurd to upset a verdict upon a speculation that the jury did not do their duty and follow the instructions of the court. We are satisfied that the judge did all that he could to undo any mischief that could have resulted from the delay in giving the impeachment instruction, that the defense declined his offer to take any additional remedial steps, and that the delay in any event did not substantially affect the jury's decision. Kitt, supra, 379 A.2d at 975.