Opinion ID: 2364400
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: remote felony

Text: The defendant testified in his own behalf. The prosecutor's first question on cross-examination was whether Sommers had ever been convicted of a felony. The defense objected on grounds that no hearing had been held to determine whether the defendant would be unduly prejudiced by such evidence. Commonwealth v. Richardson, Ky., 674 S.W.2d 515 (1984). After a brief bench conference during which the court was informed that Sommers had been convicted of burglary some eighteen years before, the objection was overruled. The witness answered, Approximately 17 or 18 years ago, yes. The defense did not request that the jury be admonished to consider the evidence only with respect to credibility. See Hall v. Commonwealth, Ky., 817 S.W.2d 228 (1991). On appeal, Sommers contends that, in view of the remoteness of the prior felony, the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the question. Under Richardson, supra , the remoteness of the prior felony conviction is relevant to the determination of whether the evidence will be unduly prejudicial. As a conviction recedes into the past, its value on the question of credibility wanes proportionately, while the prejudice as to guilt is less easily dispelled. Having reviewed the record extensively, we are persuaded that the evidence of a single 17- or 18-year-old felony was minimally relevant to credibility, and was highly and unduly prejudicial on the issue of guilt. We hold that permitting the testimony over objection constituted an abuse of discretion.