Opinion ID: 1833605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the trial court erred by overruling adams's motion in limine and objection to the introduction of the appellant's prior record and by allowing the state to use adams's prior record after an inadequate peterson determination.

Text: ¶ 53. Adams maintains that it was error on the part of the trial court to allow his prior convictions to be used for impeachment in the event his testified. Specifically, Adams argues that the trial court failed to apply the Peterson test in determining whether the prior convictions would be allowed. Peterson v. State, 518 So.2d 632 (Miss.1987). ¶ 54. Adams filed a motion in limine regarding his prior record. The trial court denied the motion without addressing the Peterson factors. The trial court addressed the motion again on the first day of trial. During its argument, the State addressed the Peterson factors. After hearing arguments, the trial court denied the motion. Adams then asked for clarification that the convictions would only be used if he testified at trial. ¶ 55. Rule 609 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence allows impeachment of a witness by admission of evidence of a prior conviction of a crime. Rule 609(a) states: (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 elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on a party or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. M.R.E. 609(a). Adams had pled guilty to two counts of grand larceny and one count of forgery. He had been sentenced to five years on each count with each sentence being suspended.