Court Opinion

ID: 9627456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:44:05.245759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:12.466895
License: Public Domain

SWANSTROM, Judge,
concurring specially.
I disagree with the majority’s analysis leading to the conclusion that the particular prior felonies committed by Pierce were relevant to his credibility. Under that type of analysis no crime would be excluded. Moreover, in this case the felony impeachment evidence thrust into the trial was totally unnecessary. Obviously, there was so much at stake for the defendant facing the charge of robbery that no other “motive for lying” needed to be suggested. The state should have been content to rely upon the other truly relevant, and less prejudicial, evidence to undermine Pierce’s credibility. Only because I think the prejudice was minimized and the error was harmless in this instance do I concur in Part II-A of the opinion. I concur fully in the remainder of the opinion and in the vote to affirm.