Court Opinion

ID: 9573575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:56:56.381495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:55.118234
License: Public Domain

BEATTY, J.:
I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial judge erred in the admission of defendant’s prior convictions for possession of an unlawful weapon, and pointing and presenting a firearm. The prejudicial effect clearly outweighed the probative value of these prior convictions. The trial court admitted the prior convictions solely because the crimes indicated a tendency to get in trouble. The trial court’s reasoning amounted to prohibited character evidence under 404(b), SCRE.
A fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence is that an accused shall only be tried on the offense charged, indicted, and currently before the court. Thus, the courts, state and federal, closely scrutinize the admission of prior convictions of the accused. See Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 433, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000). As a result, similar prior *494convictions are not per se inadmissible; however, they are generally excluded.2
In Green v. State, our supreme court opined, “admission of evidence of a similar offense often does little to impeach the credibility of a testifying defendant while undoubtedly prejudicing him. The jury, despite limiting instructions, can hardly avoid drawing the inference that the past conviction suggests some probability that defendant committed the similar offense for which he is currently charged.” 338 S.C. at 434, 527 S.E.2d at 101 (quoting United States v. Beahm, 664 F.2d 414, 418-419 (4th Cir.1981)). The Green court set forth factors to be considered when weighing probative value against prejudicial effect.
The Green court provided the following factors for consideration when determining whether to admit evidence:
1. The impeachment value of the prior crimes.
2. The point in time of the conviction and the witnesses’ subsequent history.
3. The similarity between the past crime and the crime charged.
4. The importance of the defendant’s testimony.
5. The centrality of the credibility issue.
Id.; see also State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000).
Here, the trial court considered the Coif factors when in determining whether to allow the manslaughter conviction into evidence. Notwithstanding the trial court’s Coif analysis of the prior manslaughter conviction, the record does not clearly reflect similar treatment of the two additional prior convictions. In fact, the record only reflects an indirect consideration of 609(a)(1), and (b) SCRE, absent the required Coif considerations, as it relates to these prior convictions.
*495During the colloquy on the admissibility of the prior convictions the trial court stated:
And, of course, the credibility issue is central. I think when it comes, down to it, in order for the jury to be able to see the credibility of this defendant as well as any other witness, they should be able to see all of these, but it’s probably risky to let that in. So I’m going to have to rule that the manslaughter conviction would not be allowed to be used.
However, the other two convictions, no question, would be allowed to be used. They are both over a year old, well within the 10-year period and, frankly, do indicate within themselves consistency as well as when considered with the manslaughter conviction. So I don’t think there’s any question that all of them do.
And I realize certainly, Mr. Strickler, that prejudicial issue related to these, but, frankly, I think under those circumstances the probative value does substantially outweigh the prejudice that could be directed toward the defendant from it. So with that in mind, I’m going to allow the convictions that have been requested within the 10-year period but not the manslaughter conviction.
The trial court further stated:
[I]t comes down to whether or not you present these to the jury to let them decide whether they consider the defendant worthy of belief or how much his worthiness of belief is affected by these convictions.
And the fact that he may tend to get in trouble from time to time, while it has a certain amount of prejudice in it, also, does include that issue of whether or not he’s worthy of belief.
It is clear that the trial judge did not properly consider the Coif factors. It appears that the trial judge improperly concluded that significant probative value exist merely because of the similarity of the crimes. Absent more, the court’s reasoning is erroneous.
The prior convictions involved possession and pointing a gun, the current charge involves the use of a gun in a homicide. The prejudicial effect is inescapable. Further, it is evident that the trial court’s conclusion that the probative *496value of the prior convictions outweighed the prejudicial effect was based upon the court’s belief that the prior convictions, when considered with the manslaughter conviction, indicated that the defendant had a tendency to get in trouble. That tendency to get in trouble raised the issue of whether the defendant is worthy of belief. The foregoing amounts to no more than impermissible character evidence. 404(b), SCRE.
The defendant claimed self-defense. The record does not reflect overwhelming contrary evidence of his guilt; the only witnesses to the homicide were the defendant and the deceased. The defendant’s testimony was important and his credibility was a central issue in the case. The prior convictions were an attack on the defendant’s character and yielded very little if any impeachment value. Absent impeachment value, there is no probative value in the admission of the prior convictions in this case. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s ruling.

. “We decline to hold similar prior convictions inadmissible in all cases. Trial Courts must weigh the probative value of the prior conviction against their prejudicial effect to the accused. In the special case, where the prior conviction is for the same offense as that for which the defendant is being tried, the trial court generally will not permit the government to prove the nature of the offense ... [it] would amount to unfair prejudice.” Green, 338 S.C. at 433 n. 5, 527 S.E.2d at 101 n. 5 (internal citation omitted).