Opinion ID: 2189436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: admissibility of past convictions to impeach the defendant

Text: The defendant's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to bring in evidence of his past convictions for attempted larceny in a building, attempted robbery, and larceny is clearly erroneous. The defendant challenged the admissibility of the prior convictions by arguing that they did not clearly bear on the issue of credibility, that their effect on the jury would be too prejudicial, and that their admission might cause him to refrain from taking the stand. MRE 609(a)(2) provides that evidence of such convictions are admissible if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence on the issue of credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect and articulates on the record the factors considered in making the determination. [8] The trial court exercised its discretion and enunciated its reasons for allowing evidence of the prior convictions on the record. The court considered the defendant's motion to suppress the prior convictions twice. The first time, on a motion in limine on September 23, 1980, the court stated: ... I would allow the prosecution to use the conviction for attempt [ sic ] larceny in a building whether he wishes to or not, attempt [ sic ] robbery unarmed and larceny from a person. The credibility is important, and this is not so prejudicial as to outweigh the probative value. When the motion was raised again, the court stated: It becomes very obvious from what counsel has said that credibility is going to be an important factor in this case.... I know what the rule is and know that similar crimes ought not to be admitted when they will be so prejudicial that probative value becomes very small. In this particular incident, I'm convinced that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. These are larcenous kinds of crimes. As I remember, there are a couple of felonies, all larcenies, and it goes directly to credibility and therefore, I deny the motion. The trial court's decision was made after consideration of the relevant factors. See, e.g., People v Baldwin, 405 Mich 550; 275 NW2d 253 (1979); People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35, 39; 268 NW2d 275 (1978). The court determined that evidence of the prior convictions was extremely relevant with respect to the defendant's credibility and that any potential similarity between the earlier convictions and the current case was outweighed by this probative value. The similarity of past crimes to the current case was further diminished because the defendant in effect admitted he had removed the television set, and the real issue was not the underlying theft, but his involvement in the murder. Most importantly, the defendant took the stand, thus obviating any fear that the use of the convictions for impeachment purposes might result in his refusal to testify. We therefore determine that the admission of evidence of the prior convictions was certainly within the bounds of the trial court's discretion, and the defendant's contention otherwise is meritless.