Court Opinion

ID: 9518165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:45:44.503061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:36.621958
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Ind.Evid.R. 609(b) is biased against admitting convictions of more than ten years unless the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The State did not overcome the presumption of inadmissibility.
The party seeking to overcome the presumption of exclusion must support the argument for probative value with specific facts and cireumstances upon which the trial court may base a finding of admissibility. Ind. Evid.R. 609(b). The State in its argument before the trial court on the day of trial supported its argument for admissibility by saying that:
The State would use this evidence only for impeachment just to go against his eredi-bility; not to argue that onee a robber, always a robber ... However, my argument was that, I thought, perhaps this Rule is there because the Court believes that a person may rehabilitate if he was only 18 at the time and hasn't done anything since, then it shouldn't reflect on his credibility now. However, we've got two other convictions afterwards. That, that's what my argument is Ashton v. Anderson, the court went back to civil law to determine which crimes had rendered witnesses incompetent witnesses. - And those crimes were robbery, rape, murder, burglary; those type of crimes ... And 609 starts with that general rule.
(Supp.R.23-25).
There is no evidence of exceptional cireum-stances justifying the admission of the prior conviction. In fact, because the prior convietion was for a robbery conducted under similar cireumstances, there was an increased danger that the jury would not view it solely as evidence of credibility. Hence, there was an increased risk of prejudice that reduced the probative value of the twelve year old conviction.
The Senate Judiciary Committee in construing subsection (b) of Rule 609 stated:
It is intended that convictions over ten years old will be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional cireumstances. The *956rules provide that the decision be supported by specific facts and circumstances thus requiring the court to make specific findings on the record as to the particular facts and circumstances it has considered in determining that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial impact.
10 James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice See. 609.23 (2d ed. 1996).
The trial court made no such findings. The Committee went on to say:
It is expected that, in fairness, the court will give the party against whom the conviction is introduced a full and adequate opportunity to contest its admission.
Id.
The State of Indiana filed its Notice of Intent to Use Prior Conviction and Motion in Limine on the day of trial. The hearing on the motions was held prior to the commencement of trial on the same day it was filed. It is clear that the drafters of the rule specifically required sufficient advance notice. I cannot hold that notice is sufficient when given on the day of trial. Advance written notice must be given, sufficient to allow the adversary to challenge the conviction's admissibility, of an intent to use an aged conviction for impeachment purposes, Ind.Evid.R. 609(b). United States v. Pritchard, 973 F.2d 905, 908 n. 3 (11th Cir.1992).
The danger in admitting convictions of more than ten years is that while their probative value is limited, their prejudicial effect remains. I would reverse the conviction.