Opinion ID: 200903
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Theft of Electricity Conviction

Text: 28 The prosecutor referred during his redirect examination of Special Agent Kleber to the fact that Kleber was aware of Pawtucket Police reports concerning theft of electricity in the early nineties. Balthazard claims that this was an improper reference to his prior nolo contendere plea to a charge of theft of electricity. 29 We reject Balthazard's argument because we agree with the district court that he opened the door to questioning about the report. During cross examination, Balthazard's counsel suggested to Special Agent Kleber that the only investigative report that linked Balthazard to unrelated criminal activity was a report that concerned stolen auto parts. By seeking to create an impression in the minds of jurors that Balthazard had had only limited prior contacts with law enforcement, Balthazard's counsel opened the door to questioning about additional reports that linked Balthazard to other criminal activity. The trial court thus did not act inappropriately in allowing the government to follow up on an issue that Balthazard himself had raised. See, e.g., United States v. Sotomayor-Vazquez, 249 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2001) (defendant opened the door to cross examination concerning Rule 404(b) evidence by testifying about the subject on direct). 30