Opinion ID: 1508742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State's Cross-Appeal on D.R.E. 609(a)

Text: On cross-appeal, the State argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by prohibiting the State from inquiring into the types of crimes for which Archie previously was convicted. [5] The State contends that, under D.R.E. 609(a), this Court has adopted the federal practice and procedure of allowing such impeachment evidence. [6] Archie concedes that the Superior Court's ruling conflicts with this Court's prior interpretation of the operation of D.R.E. 609(a). It is appropriate here to clarify the issue of prior-crimes impeachment under D.R.E. 609(a). On August 19, 1997, the Superior Court ruled that it would allow the State to ask Archie what types of crimes he had committed. The court stated, I believe under 609 and the Federal counterpart, the majority of cases that I've read allow the State to inquire as to what types of crimes. The next day, however, the court reversed its ruling over the State's objection and held that the State could inquire only into the number and character of convictions, i.e., felonies or crimes of dishonesty. The Superior Court erred in limiting the scope of inquiry into Archie's prior convictions. In 1980, this Court adopted the Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence, noting in its order of adoption that the Rules were designed to follow closely the lead of the Federal Rules and those of many other states. [7] Prior to the adoption of D.R.E. 609, this Court had held that the State could ask only two questions regarding a defendant's prior convictions: (1) whether the defendant had been convicted of a felony; and (2) how many times he or she had been convicted. [8] By allowing for more specific inquiries into a witness' criminal convictions, D.R.E. 609 liberalized the process by which a party could impeach a witness. First, D.R.E. 609(a)(1), virtually identical to Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(1), provides that the court shall admit for impeachment purposes prior convictions for any crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of two years if the court determines the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. [9] Second, D.R.E. 609(a)(2), like its federal counterpart, requires that the court admit prior convictions involving dishonesty or false statements. [10] The adoption of D.R.E. 609 therefore demonstrates that Delaware has embraced the federal practice and procedure for impeachment by prior conviction. [11] Under Fed.R.Evid. 609(a), a cross-examiner may inquire: (1) whether a witness previously has been convicted of a felony or crime of dishonesty; (2) if so, what those crimes were; and (3) where and when those convictions were obtained. [12] Although this Court stopped short of expressly adopting the same standard, we already have recognized that D.R.E. 609(a) modified the previous statutory rule and precedent concerning prior-crimes impeachment. [13] Therefore, in the case at bar, the Superior Court at first correctly ruled that it would permit the State to inquire into the types of crimes for which Archie was convicted. The next day, the court erred by limiting the inquiry. D.R.E. 609(a), like its federal counterpart, is not without limitations. That is, D.R.E. 609(a) does not permit the examiner to expose details of the prior conviction. In short, the cross examination should be restricted to the fact of the convictions, and the circumstances and details of prior criminal conduct should not be explored by the prosecutors. [14] By allowing a cross-examiner to inquire into the type of crime and the date and place of the convictions, without releasing the prejudicial details of the events, jurors will have more pertinent information with which to weigh the credibility of the witness.