Opinion ID: 2203238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Limiting Use of Criminal Record for Impeachment

Text: Near the close of the state's case, the defense moved that the defendant's prior criminal record not be used against him on cross-examination should he take the stand in his own defense. The court denied the motion, stating that in the event the defendant does take the stand, that he has put in issue his life history and the State may inquire as to his background events. Although the judge's statement was over-broad as a statement of general law, in the context, it should not be taken literally, but simply as the judge's ruling that Graham's heinous criminal record was admissible. The reason the defense wanted to keep Graham's criminal record out is obvious: it is extensive. In 1968, he was convicted of manslaughter. In 1975, he was convicted of armed robbery of a bank, armed robbery of a grocery store, aggravated robbery of a grocery store, and aggravated assault for running down a police officer with his car. Admission of convictions for impeachment purposes is governed by the Minnesota Rules of Evidence: (a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if    established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year    and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect   . (b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction   . Minn.R.Evid. 609. Not having been released yet for the 1975 convictions, it having been approximately 8 years since his release for the 1968 conviction, none of Graham's prior convictions had decayed under the rule. Whether the probative value of the convictions outweighs their prejudicial effect is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Amos, 347 N.W.2d 498, 502 (Minn.1984). See also State v. Bettin, 295 N.W.2d 542 (Minn.1980). The trial court's decision will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Amos, 347 N.W.2d at 502. The defendant's arguments for exclusion rest largely on his right to testify rather than on any abuse of discretion by the trial court. The court's ruling did not directly prevent Graham from testifying. He could have done so, but had he taken the stand and thereby put his credibility at issue, his past crimes, determined relevant to his credibility under the Rules of Evidence, could be used to impeach him. No abuse having been shown, the judge's ruling stands.