Court Opinion

ID: 9717575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:06:14.248083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:54.078567
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KUEHN, specially concurring: I agree that defendant’s constitutional right to confront a chief accuser was unduly restricted. I write to underscore how mere-fact impeachment actually hindered that right and to suggest that its use to shield witnesses other than a defendant is unwarranted. To the extent that my colleagues find mere-fact impeachment to be incompatible with our traditional approach for gatekeeping the use of prior convictions, I respectfully disagree. If the application of the Montgomery three-part test leads to a determination that the probative value of impeachment outweighs the potential for unfair prejudice to a defendant, it should fall within the trial court’s discretion to hedge that determination with mere-fact impeachment. I would allow for a trial court’s approval of mere-fact impeachment whenever necessary to reduce the risk of unfair prejudice to a defendant. The State’s case depended on James Hill. Without Hill, the prosecution could not place defendant at the crime scene or define his role in the offense. The attenuation of ad hominem impeachment, produced by the nondisclosure of Hill’s past crimes, was sufficient for the majority to find a sixth amendment violation. Although I agree with my colleagues, mere-fact impeachment’s veil shielded Hill’s credence from effective challenge in other ways. It allowed Hill to assert with impunity that an oath, rather than self-interest, motivated his testimony. Defendant questioned Hill’s motive to bear false witness against a former comrade. He insinuated that Hill would say anything to curry prosecutorial favor in order to ease his own predicament. In response, Hill flatly denied any deal in return for his cooperation with the State. He also insisted that he expected nothing in return for his testimony. Thereafter, mere-fact impeachment provided a shield that protected both assertions from challenge. Defendant was denied the means by which to show that Hill’s punishment for armed robbery was inexplicably lenient. There was no measure for Hill’s 10-year prison sentence without disclosure of Hill’s prior criminality. Thus, Hill’s claim that his cooperation was unbar-gained for and that his sentence was imposed without State intercession went unchallenged. The proper evaluation of Hill’s avowal required the context of four armed robbery convictions within a four-year time frame. With this knowledge, a jury may well have determined that a four-time convicted armed robber could not obtain such a lenient sentence without prosecutorial assistance, that Hill’s claim to the contrary was a lie, and that his testimony was the unreliable byproduct of an effort to preserve his own freedom. Moreover, the jury needed to know that Hill awaited sentence on two more armed robberies. In addition to the context this information would have provided for Hill’s initial claim, it would have countered Hill’s insistence that he expected nothing in return for his testimony. The jury needed to know that Hill faced extended-term punishment for a fifth and sixth armed robbery conviction. It needed to know that without concessions from the State, Hill would spend the better portion of his life in prison. Instead, the mere-fact-impeachment approach was carried over to Hill’s pending charges. Defendant could only elicit the fact that Hill awaited sentence on “two class X felonies.” The jury was left to ponder what that meant. Thus, defendant could not establish the true nature of Hill’s peril. As a consequence, he could not show the extent to which Hill needed prosecutorial concessions. A proper evaluation of Hill’s second claim required the context of two pending armed robberies and the prospective penalties they carried. A suitably apprised jury may have concluded that Hill expected favorable treatment in return for his testimony, that his statements denying same were false, and that his testimony was an undependable consequence of his attempts to remain free. Thus, mere-fact impeachment unduly restricted defendant’s constitutional right to confront his chief accuser in several ways. Furthermore, the need to employ mere-fact impeachment in order to protect Hill from unfair prejudice was unfounded. We allow for the use of evidence of a person’s criminal past on the supposition that knowledge of certain past misconduct helps jurors measure the worth of what someone has to say. This premise applies to all witnesses, but it takes on an added dimension when the person impeached is an accused in a criminal case. While evidence of a defendant’s criminal past discredits what he says, its admission can undermine more than just his word. Since a criminal past is relevant to guilt, its admission can undermine the presumption of innocence. A wicked past manifests wicked ways that enhance the likelihood of guilt no matter what other evidence exists to support the charge at hand. Here, the admission of evidence of defendant’s prior armed robbery conviction would have demonstrated a penchant for robbing people at gunpoint. Such a propensity is highly germane to the question of whether defendant committed this armed robbery. However, the law is well settled that such highly charged evidence is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to establish a criminal bent from which to infer guilt. This created the predicament that accompanied the potential admission of defendant’s earlier armed robbery conviction— the inherent danger that defendant’s prior conviction would sway thinking on the question of guilt rather than the question that allowed for its admission into evidence. This danger is unique to criminal defendants. Justice Steigmann’s mere-fact-impeachment approach derives logic as a means to address this danger. Mere-fact impeachment reduces the risk that jurors will misuse a prior conviction to decide a defendant’s guilt. This is its only logical purpose — to ease the potential for unfair prejudice that defendants face when impeached with their prior criminality. James Hill did not take the stand to defend against a criminal charge. His prior convictions could not be misused to decide his guilt because his guilt was not in issue. The only prejudice he faced was the possibility that jurors would use the evidence of his prior criminality for its intended purpose and discount his testimony because of it. Disclosure of the dishonest nature of Hill’s criminal past would have further prejudiced his testimony, but not in an unfair way. Jurors could not have used the nature of his crimes other than to question his testimony’s worth. This is precisely why we allow for the admission of this form of impeachment evidence. For the reasons stated, I specially concur.