Court Opinion

ID: 9536984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:10:41.593493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:41.103761
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ,
Justice (dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s denial of Griggs’ motion for a protective order *799which would have blocked the admission into evidence of her prior misdemeanor convictions should be affirmed. For the reasons stated by Chief Justice Boney in his dissenting opinion in Parish v. State, 477 P.2d 1005, 1008-1014 (Alaska 1970), and in my dissenting opinion in Scott v. State, 445 P.2d 39, 41-44 (Alaska 1968), I am of the view that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Griggs’ motion. In Spaulding v. State, 481 P.2d 389 (Alaska 1971), and Parish v. State, 477 P.2d 1005 (Alaska 1970), we held that our trial courts have discretion to exclude evidence of prior convictions of crime. In the case at bar the similarity between the crime charged and Griggs’ prior convictions of petty larceny and prostitution made it imperative that these prior convictions not be admitted at her trial.1 Here the state’s case against Griggs was not an overpowering one. Given the similarity of the pending charge to her prior convictions, I am persuaded that the introduction of her prior convictions was prejudicial error.2
I further think the sentencing proceedings were so flawed that Griggs is minimally entitled to be resentenced before a different superior court judge upon remand. In Waters v. State, 483 P.2d 199, 203 (Alaska 1971), we said:
Sentencing courts should be wary of relying on a record of police “contacts” or an arrest record in determining an appropriate sentence. The dangers inherent in the use of such records and in giving undue weight to such factors should be readily apparent to the trial judge.3
Study of the record of the sentencing proceeding in the case at bar shows frequent references to Griggs’ numerous purported police contacts. In light of these circumstances, I believe that Waters requires that Griggs be resentenced.

. Although I now have grave reservations concerning the effectiveness of any limiting instruction regarding the jury’s use of evidence of this character, I note that in the case at bar the trial court did not instruct the jury that this evidence was being admitted solely for the purpose of impeaching the accused’s credibility and was not to be used by the jury as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.

. Some seven years have now elapsed since this court first indicated that the subject of impeachment of a witness’ credibility by prior conviction of crime was an appropriate one for study by the bar of Alaska and for proposed rule revision. Sidney v. State, 408 P.2d 858, 863 n. 24 (Alaska 1965); Scott v. State, 445 P.2d 39, 43 (Alaska 1968) (dissenting opinion); Parish v. State, 477 P.2d 1005, 1014 n. 20 (Alaska 1970) (dissenting opinion). In all these cases we had occasion to remind the bar that this court desired their views on the subject of revising our impeachment by prior conviction of crime rule.
At present our Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure has recommended that the following rule be adopted:
Rule 26. Evidence.
(f) Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. Evidence of the conviction of a witness for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement shall be inadmissible for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. Before a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction, the court shall be advised of the existence of the convictions and shall rule if the witness may be impeached by proof of the conviction. If the witness is the accused, no evidence of his conviction of a crime shall be admissible for the sole purpose of impeaching his credibility unless he has first introduced evidence solely for the purpose of supporting his credibility.
See also State v. Santiago, 492 P.2d 657, 661 (Hawaii 1971), where the Supreme Court of Hawaii recently held that
to convict a criminal defendant where prior crimes have been introduced to impeach his credibility as a witness violates the accused’s constitutional right to testify in his own defense. Insofar as HRS § 621-22 and any rule of this court allow the introduction of prior convictions in a criminal case to prove the defendant’s testimony is not credible, those provisions are at odds with the Due Process Clauses of Haw. Const. art. .1, § 4 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Fnited States Constitution.

.See Peterson v. State, 487 P.2d 682, 683 n. 1 (Alaska 1971); Robinson v. State, 484 P.2d 686, 690 n. 11 (Alaska 1971).