Opinion ID: 525593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use of Prior Convictions--Ruiz

Text: 27 Ruiz contends that the trial court's failure to make an on the record finding that the probative value of using his prior convictions for impeachment purposes outweighed its prejudicial effects constituted reversible error. Alternatively, he contends that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. In United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979), we held that a court must engage in a two step balancing test prior to admitting extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts. Id. at 911. Under this test: [F]irst it must be determined that the extrinsic offense evidence is relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character. Second, the evidence must possess probative value that is not substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice.... Id. at 911. In United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.1983) we held that ... the intendment and purpose of the prejudice element in [the use of evidence of extrinsic prior bad acts] ... are [sufficient] ... to warrant ... an on-the-record articulation by the trial court of Beechum's probative value/prejudice inquiry when requested by a party. Id. at 213. We further held that [i]n the absence of on-the-record findings in response to such a request, we will be obliged to remand unless the factors upon which the probative value/prejudice evaluation were made are readily apparent from the record and there is no substantial uncertainty about the correctness of the ruling. Id. at 213. See also United States v. Zabaneh, 837 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.1988). 28 In this case Ruiz elected to take the stand in his own defense. Anticipating that the government would attempt to impeach Ruiz by use of his prior convictions, his attorney stated, ... I would like, on the record, balancing the prior convictions in that they are identical to the same offense charged and I would argue that they would be unduly prejudicial.... A brief conversation ensued between the court, the prosecutor, and Ruiz's attorney, regarding the nature and dates of the prior offenses. The court then stated, That motion is denied. Ruiz took the stand and, on cross-examination, testified that he was uncertain that he would recognize cocaine if he saw it. The government then used the evidence of Ruiz's prior convictions to impeach him. The court gave the jury a limiting instruction to the effect that this evidence could be used for impeachment purposes only. 29 From the record in this case, it is apparent that the court's ruling allowing evidence of prior convictions was correct, as his prior convictions show his knowledge of the substance in which he was dealing. See, e.g., United States v. Rodarte, 596 F.2d 141 (5th Cir.1979). The factors upon which the probative value/prejudice evaluation were made, however, are not clear from the record. We, therefore, remand this case to allow the district court to make an on-the-record evaluation of these factors. We note, in doing so, that there are occasions such as this one in which the probative value of the evidence is not readily apparent until the defendant testifies. In such circumstances the trial court may make its evaluation based on the likely uses of such evidence and condition its use based on the defendant's testimony. 30 The district court's judgment as to Moreno is AFFIRMED; 31 the judgment as to Orguiza is REVERSED; 32 and the judgment as to Ruiz is VACATED and REMANDED.