Opinion ID: 1999321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questions concerning prior convictions.

Text: On cross-examination, the district attorney questioned appellant Leverette about his prior convictions. The following exchange took place: Q. Have you ever been convicted of a crime?  A. Convicted ? Q. Um-hmm. A. Nothing other than driving without a license and disorderly conduct. Q. How many times on the disorderly? A. I don't remember exactly. Q. It's more than once, though, isn't it? A. Twice.  Q. Twice? Gambling and fightingwould those be the two occasions? A. Yes. Q. What years? A.  I don't remember exactly the years. Q. '67? Would that refresh your memory? A. Maybe '67. Q. So you've had some trouble with the law before, haven't you? A. Yes. Appellants claim that it was prejudicial error for the prosecutor to mention the nature of the crimes. This court has frequently stated that evidence relating to the nature of the prior crimes is generally inadmissible because of the prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. Nicholas v. State (1971), 49 Wis. 2d 683, 688, 183 N. W. 2d 11. However, a number of exceptions have sprung from that general rule. In Nicholas, supra, at page 689, this court stated: . . . The party conducting the cross-examination may ask the witness only two questions, to wit: Has he ever been convicted of a crime; and, if so, how many times? If the witness' answers are truthful and accurate, then no further inquiry may be made. However, if the witness lies or claims he cannot remember, the cross-examiner is entitled to supply for the jury the information which the witness has denied or failed to recall. . . . However, if on direct, the answers are inaccurate or incomplete, then the correct and complete facts may be brought out on cross-examination. Generally, this is done by asking the defendant if he was convicted of a particular crime on a particular date; and if he still denies it, then his criminal record may be put in evidence in order to show that he, in fact, has been convicted. When asking the witness about prior crimes, it is permissible to mention the crime by name in order to insure that the witness understands which particular conviction is being referred to. The transcript reveals that appellant himself volunteered the information that the nature of his prior crimes  was driving without a license and disorderly conduct. The district attorney went further, however, and specified that the disorderly conduct charges arose out of gambling and fighting. Error, if any, cannot be held to be prejudicial, especially in light of appellant's admission.