Opinion ID: 780831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Introduction of Criminal Convictions

Text: 18 Inmates argue that the district court abused its discretion by allowing TEK's counsel to ask Inmates to state the names of the crimes of which they had been convicted. Evidence of a felony conviction is admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, subject to the limitations of Rule 403. Inmates contend that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the enumeration of the specific crime committed was more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403. 19 The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence at trial. We will reverse the district court only for a clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion. United States v. Ford, 17 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Wright, 799 F.2d 423, 425 (8th Cir.1986)). The jury was aware that Inmates were incarcerated at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, a medium/maximum security prison, during the time the incidents at issue in the trial occurred. The court determined that the evidence would assist the jury in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses' testimony. As we have written, most jurors probably do not understand the range of offense connoted by the term felony, and thus [may] need to know the specific crime in order to evaluate its effect on credibility. Id. at 1103 (quoting Cummings v. Malone, 995 F.2d 817, 826 (8th Cir.1993) (quotation omitted)). In this case, the specific details of the crimes were omitted, as were details about the victims, thus minimizing any potential prejudice to Inmates. Furthermore, the court instructed the jury explicitly that the evidence of the crime for which a person is convicted and a sentence given is usable ... only to test the credibility of the witness.... Nothing else. The court repeated this limiting instruction during its final instructions to the jury. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the crimes to be enumerated. 20 Inmates' remaining contention is without merit and requires no discussion. 21 The judgment is affirmed.