Legal Document

469 U.S. 38 105 S.Ct. 460 83 L.Ed.2d 443 Edward LUCE, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 83-912. Argued Oct. 3, 1984. Decided Dec. 10, Syllabus During his trial in Federal District Court on federal drug charges, petitioner moved to preclude the Government from using a prior state conviction impeach him if he testified. Petitioner made no commitment testify motion were granted and proffer as what testimony would be. The denied limine, ruling that fell within category of permissible impeachment evidence under Rule Evidence 609(a). did not testify, jury returned guilty verdicts. Appeals affirmed, holding since it consider petitioner's contention abused its discretion denying limine without making finding, required by 609(a)(1), probative value outweighed prejudicial effect. Held: To raise preserve for review claim improper with conviction, defendant must testify. perform weighing conviction's against effect, reviewing court know precise nature defendant's testimony, which is unknowable when, here, does Any possible harm flowing district court's permitting wholly speculative. On record this case, conjectural whether have allowed conviction. Moreover, when has way knowing sought so impeach, cannot assume adverse motivated decision Even these difficulties could be surmounted, still face question harmless error. If rulings 609(a) reviewable, almost any error result automatic reversal, logically term "harmless" an presumptively kept testifying. Requiring order claims enables determine impact erroneous may light whole, tends discourage motions exclude solely "plant" reversible event Pp. 41-43. 713 F.2d 1236, (CA 6 1983) affirmed. James I. Marcus, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Bruce M. Kuhlik, Washington, D.C., respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits defendant, who at trial, entitled Court's forbid use credibility. 2 * was indicted charges conspiracy, possession cocaine intent distribute, violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 841(a)(1). United States Western Tennessee, 1974 There granted, nor make In opposing motion, represented serious crime controlled substance. 3 ruled 609(a).1 noted, however, scope affect specific evidentiary rulings; example, prepared hold excluded limited explaining attempt flee arresting officers. However, took stand involvement drugs, then impeached II 4 Sixth Circuit 1236 (1983). refused limine2 explicit finding held will ruling. 5 Some other permitted similar situations;3 we conflict. 466 903, 104 1677, 80 152 (1984). affirm. III It clear, course, had testified been admit reviewable appeal along complete detailing cross-examination, jury's verdict. 7 A handicapped effort rule subtle questions outside factual context.4 This particularly true directs weigh effect defendant. balancing, testify.5 8 subject change case unfolds, actual differs contained proffer. Indeed even nothing unexpected happens judge free, exercise sound judicial discretion, alter previous such matter conjecture attack credibility means 9 When also If, Government's strong, means, prosecutor might elect arguably inadmissible 10 Because accused's "seldom turns resolution one factor," New Jersey v. Portash, 440 450, 467, 99 1292, 1301, 59 501 (1979) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), support granted; but virtually risk free because difficulty enforcing it. 11 See generally Hasting, 461 499, 103 1974, 76 96 Were appeal, windfall reversal; appellate enable whole; tend 12 Petitioner's reliance Brooks 406 605, 92 1891, 32 358 (1972), supra, misplaced. those cases reviewed Fifth Amendment challenges state-court operated dissuade defendants preliminary reaching constitutional dimensions 609(a)—is appeal. 13 POWELL, concurring stated essentially adopt today: 14 "The preferred method raising [petitioner's] take subsequent . Only presented concrete context." U.S., 462, S.Ct., 1299. 15 Accordingly, judgment 16 Affirmed. 17 STEVENS part consideration or case. 18 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 19 I join understand only challenge respecting admission purposes Rules Evidence. correctly identifies two reasons precluding unless testifies trial. careful requires can evaluated adequately context unfolded. And declines harmless-error determination should prove incorrect. 20 do deciding broader appealability vel non involve particular, read quotation POWELL's 1298, (1979), see ante, 43, intimating respect concerning constitutionality admitting immunized purposes. others determinative legal considerations, requirement actually admissibility issue necessarily appropriate. need frame less acute, calculus interests correspondingly different, than decides today. provides: "General Rule.—For purpose attacking witness, convicted shall admitted elicited established public during cross-examination (1) punishable death imprisonment excess year law convicted, determines outweighs (2) involved dishonesty false statement, regardless punishment." "In limine" defined "[o]n threshold; very beginning; preliminarily." Black's Law Dictionary 708 (5th ed. 1979). broad sense refer before anticipated offered. See, e.g., Lipscomb, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 332, 702 1049, 1069 (1983) (en banc); Kiendra, 663 349, 352 (CA1 1981); Fountain, 642 1083, 1088 (CA7), cert. denied, 451 993, 101 2335, 68 854 (1981); Toney, 615 277, 279 (CA5), 449 985, 403, 66 248 (1980). Ninth allows makes unequivocally announcing intention convictions proffers substance contemplated testimony. Cook, 608 1175, 1186 banc), 444 1034, 100 706, 62 670 Although explicitly authorize rulings, practice developed pursuant inherent authority manage course trials. Fed.Rule Evid. 103(c); cf. Crim.Proc. 12(e). answer; could, number reasons, differ

Classification Label: 0