Court Opinion

ID: 9754392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:58:10.498405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:52.954015
License: Public Domain

MOTZ, Judge,
concurring.
This case presents an exceedingly difficult issue. I agree with much in Judge Murphy’s dissent. I am particularly troubled that our holding here means that a conviction for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance is never admissible for impeachment purposes under Md.Rule 1-502. There undoubtedly are occasions when permitting impeachment with such a conviction would be an abuse of discretion, for example, where the prior conviction involved “giving a friend a marijuana cigarette” or is identical to the present charge. See Dyce v. State, 85 Md.App. 193, 200, 582 A.2d 582 (1986).
But, if we were writing on a clean slate, it would certainly be my view that a conviction of distribution of a controlled substance is admissible for impeachment purposes in at least some circumstances. Indeed, it seems to me that this case involves such circumstances. That is, it should be within the trial court’s discretion to permit a defendant, accused of assault in 1992, who wishes to testify in his own behalf, to be impeached with a 1989 conviction for distribution of cocaine when that conviction resulted in a jail sentence and the defendant offers no proffer, or evidence, that the prior conviction was a minor infraction or involved no surreptitious conduct. In other words, I believe that a conviction for distribution of a controlled substance falls within Judge McAuliffe’s Category III, see Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348, 366, 535 A.2d 445 (1988) (McAuliffe, J. dissenting), and that a trial court should be able to determine, in a particular case, if the conviction is admissible for impeachment purposes. That decision would, of course, be subject to review, and reversal, if admission in a particular case was an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Dyce v. State, supra.
*594We are not, however, writing on a clean slate. Like Chief Judge Wilner, I believe Court of Appeals’ precedent requires reversal here. Accordingly, I reluctantly concur.