Opinion ID: 2274618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion to Exclude Evidence of Defendant's Prior Convictions

Text: The defendant's first contention on appeal is that the trial justice erred in denying defendant's pretrial motion in limine, in which, based on Rule 609 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, [7] Vargas sought to preclude the state from introducing his prior convictions if he testified in his defense. [8] Vargas contends that the state should have been barred from using his prior convictions because the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed any probative value, and further, Vargas argues, the convictions were too remote in time. [9] Rule 609 provides that evidence of a prior criminal conviction is inadmissible for impeachment purposes if the trial justice determines that the prejudicial effect of the conviction substantially outweighs its probative value. Additionally, in State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098, 1117 (R.I.1992), this Court outlined factors that the trial justice must balance when determining whether to allow the state to impeach criminal defendants with their prior convictions. We held that the trial justice must look at the nature of the crimes, the remoteness of the convictions, and the defendant's disdain for the law as represented by the extent of his or her criminal record. Id. It is well settled that the decision regarding the admissibility of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a witness is a discretionary matter for the trial justice. State v. Morel, 676 A.2d 1347, 1356-57 (R.I.1996) (citing State v. Simpson, 606 A.2d 677, 680 (R.I.1992)); see also State v. Remy, 910 A.2d 793, 796 (R.I.2006) (recognizing that the trial justice is vested with considerable discretion in this regard). This Court will reverse the trial justice's decision only upon finding that the trial justice abused his or her discretion. State v. Rodriquez, 731 A.2d 726, 731 (R.I.1999). In the case at bar, it is clear from the record that the trial justice engaged in the appropriate Rule 609 analysis. He noted that Mr. Vargas has a substantial record of arrests and convictions of various crimes over the past 20 years. [10] Indeed, Vargas's prior convictions included four charges of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, federal charges of uttering and delivering forged United States Treasury checks, and a charge of third-degree sexual assault stemming from his relationship with Darcy, when she was only fourteen years old. The trial justice denied defendant's motion in limine with respect to the convictions for possessing a stolen motor vehicle and uttering forged treasury checks, but granted the motion with respect to the third-degree sexual assault conviction: I'm guided by Rule 609 of the Rules of Evidence    I think it's only fair in exercising my discretion that the state should have an opportunity to show that if [Vargas] decides to testify that he is not the law abiding citizen that he might wish to create an impression of   . [However, because] the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value of [the third-degree sexual assault] conviction, I'm inclined to grant the [m]otion in [l]imine with [respect to] that one particular conviction because it does relate directly to the nature of the charge that's before the Court today which is both first and second degree sexual assault. We are satisfied that this ruling comports with Rule 609 and reflects an appropriate exercise of judicial discretion. On appeal, defendant makes much of the fact that these convictions were more than ten years old at the time of trial. However, the passage of time is merely one factor that the trial justice must consider when making a Rule 609 decision. The fact that the convictions were more than ten years old is not determinative on the question of admissibility because of the nature and number of the crimes. Cf. State v. Gillespie, 960 A.2d 969, 981 (R.I. 2008) (affirming trial justice's decision to exclude witness's prior conviction of loitering for indecent purposes, as it was the only conviction in her record available to the jury, was not indicative of her credibility, and the record as a whole did not demonstrate her disdain for the law). As we previously have declared, conviction of the earliest crime, though committed many years before, as well as intervening convictions, should be admissible for impeachment purposes unless the trial justice determines that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value of the past conviction. Mattatall, 603 A.2d at 1117. In the case at bar, the trial justice determined that the probative value of defendant's previous convictions for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and check forgery, if admitted, would outweigh any prejudicial effect of this evidence. As the trial justice noted, both convictions speak to defendant's credibility; possession of a stolen motor vehicle and check forgery are crimes that involve dishonesty, such that the jury was entitled to consider these convictions when determining whether to believe defendant's testimony.