Opinion ID: 2299853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Walsh's Prior Convictions

Text: Walsh also argues that the trial justice abused his discretion by ruling that Walsh's criminal convictions would be admissible for impeachment purposes if he testified during the trial. The prior convictions that the state sought to admit into evidence were: (1) a conviction in 1995 for possession of a controlled substance; (2) a conviction in 1984 for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; (3) a conviction in 1980 for entering a building with the intent to commit a felony; and (4) a conviction in 1980 for second degree larceny. Although there is no bright-line time limit for the use of prior convictions, evidence of a prior conviction shall not be admitted if it is too remote in time that it would amount to undue prejudice. See State v. Simpson, 606 A.2d 677, 680 (R.I.1992); see also Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 609. Moreover, the determination of what is so remote as to constitute undue prejudice is an issue to be left to the discretion of the trial judge. Id. In the instant case, the trial justice stated that the state should have the right to impeach Mr. Walsh, in the event that he takes the stand to testify in this case, and use the convictions to impeach him. See G.L. 1956 § 9-17-15. The trial justice was correct in stating that Rhode Island does not, unlike the federal system, draw a bright line at the ten-year period, [particularly when] there is a continuing period of misconduct. See State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098, 1117 (R.I.1992); see also State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127, 386 A.2d 378, 386 (1978). Prior to the instant case, Walsh had committed at least four criminal offenses from 1980 through 1995, which the trial justice presumably determined to be sufficient to establish a continuing period of misconduct. We agree and conclude that it was not an abuse of the trial justice's discretion in finding that Walsh's prior convictions suggested a pattern of criminal activity not wholly unrelated to the present case. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court.