Court Opinion

ID: 9643699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:37:56.352271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:17.389357
License: Public Domain

Peck, J.,
dissenting. The majority view is predicated on the assumption that the trial court ignored all but one of the factors set forth in State v. Gardner, 139 Vt. 456, 460-61, 433 *196A.2d 249, 251-52 (1981), for its consideration before deciding whether to admit evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes. I believe this assumption is pure speculation and accordingly I respectfully dissent.
The opinion concedes that if the record were silent we could assume compliance with the Gardner standards. The real mistake made below, it seems, was in saying anything. Because the court referred to one of the factors, the majority leap nimbly to the conclusion that other factors were not considered; there is a fallacy in logic there somewhere. The ruling appears to be that if reference is made to one of the factors, the trial court must then proceed to put upon the record expressly a laundry list of all of the factors under pain of being stamped with an abuse or failure to exercise discretion, and suffer a reversal. Considering that we said also in Gardner that “[t]his discussion is by no means exhaustive. Many other facts may well be important in different situations,” id. at 461, 433 A.2d at 252, the majority have impaled the trial courts upon the horns of a most unpleasant dilemma in deciding prior conviction questions. It has become a say-all or say-nothing choice.
The burden of showing an abuse of discretion, hitherto imposed squarely upon the party claiming it, Ohland v. Ohland, 141 Vt. 34, 39, 442 A.2d 1306, 1309 (1982), has been seriously wounded if not slain for purposes of these cases. But all is not lost; in the alternative, the majority are counselling the trial courts that it is acceptable if they say nothing — give no reason at all for their decision; otherwise the complete litany, the limits of which are not yet defined, must be recited.
In my view the several Gardner factors were on the record before the trial court. Moreover, Gardner was brought to the court’s attention by defense counsel, if it was not already aware of it. The mere fact that all the criteria were not addressed expressly does not justify the assumption that they were ignored simply because one of them was discussed. I would affirm.