Opinion ID: 1120029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: impeachment by prior robbery conviction

Text: Alexander submits that the court's refusal to enter a protective order to prohibit his impeachment by means of his prior robbery conviction was error. At the time of trial, Alaska Criminal Rule 26(f)(1) provided: General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime is admissible but only if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement. Alaska Criminal Rule 26 was rescinded, effective August 1, 1979, and the identical provision is now Alaska Rule of Evidence 609(a). In addition, Rule of Evidence 609(c), which was formerly Alaska Criminal Rule 26(f)(4), states: Admissibility. Before a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction, the court shall be advised of the existence of the conviction and shall rule if the witness may be impeached by proof of the conviction by weighing its probative value against its prejudicial effect. We have recently considered the admissibility of a prior grand larceny conviction under Alaska Criminal Rule 26(f). Lowell v. State, 574 P.2d 1281 (Alaska 1978). It was asserted in Lowell that grand larceny was not an offense involving dishonesty or false statement within the terms of Alaska Criminal Rule 26(f). We stated: Appellant points out that the conference report on the analogous Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: `By the phrase [dishonesty and false statement] the committee means crimes such as perjury or subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement or false pretense, or any other offense in the nature of crimen falsi, the commission of which involves some element of untruthfulness, deceit or falsification bearing on the accused's propensity to testify truthfully,' Moore, Federal Practice, Rules Pamphlet, Part 2, p. 626 (2d ed. 1975). Larceny is not expressly included within this list. However, we agree with those courts and commentators who have held that larceny and embezzlement, among others, disclose the kind of dishonesty and unreliability which bear upon the veracity of persons perpetrating those crimes. As to this question we find no error. [16] Id. at 1284. The viability of Lowell was reaffirmed in Richardson v. State, 579 P.2d 1372, 1376-77 (Alaska 1978), which approved impeachment on the basis of a prior conviction for petty larceny. We find Lowell to be controlling with respect to impeachment by prior robbery conviction. Although robbery [17] involves the additional element of force or putting in fear, it, like larceny, concerns the unlawful taking of something of value. [18] We hold that robbery is a crime of dishonesty within the terms of Alaska Rule of Evidence 609(a). Thus we conclude that it was properly admissible for impeachment.