Opinion ID: 415604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Pre-Trial Balancing

Text: 109 The district court explicitly ruled that the probativeness of Lipscomb's prior robbery conviction outweighed the prejudice to him. It also partially complied with our request in Smith, 551 F.2d at 357 n. 17, and Crawford, 613 F.2d at 1050, for some indication of the reasons for the finding, explaining that credibility was important to Lipscomb's defense and that someone desperate enough to rob someone is also desperate enough to lie on the witness stand. 76 110 A fuller explanation of the district court's reasoning, including some discussion of prejudicial effect, would have been desirable. Nevertheless, we hold that its decision to admit Lipscomb's prior conviction was not an abuse of discretion. See Jackson, 627 F.2d at 1208-09 (explicit finding of admissibility ... [is not] an absolute requirement the nonperformance of which mandates reversal). 77 Robbery is generally less probative than crimes that involve deception or stealth. But it does involve theft and is a serious crime that shows conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct reflects more strongly on credibility than, say, crimes of impulse, or simple narcotics or weapons possession. 78 The age of the conviction (eight years ago) and Lipscomb's age when it was committed (16) reduce the probativeness of the conviction. On the other hand, credibility was central to the trial, and prejudice was not especially great because the previous crime was not similar to the present one. Cf. Gordon, 383 F.2d at 940 (convictions which are for the same crime should be admitted sparingly).