Court Opinion

ID: 9599734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:21:09.436484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:46.707789
License: Public Domain

GOOLSBY, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I agree with the majority’s reversal but write separately because I disagree with the majority’s undertaking the balancing test of Rule 609(b), SCRE, to rule the prior convictions inadmissible at a new trial.
I agree that the trial court erred in failing to determine “that the probative value of the eonviction[s] supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs [their] prejudicial effect.” Rule 609(b), SCRE. The record before this court is devoid of information about the prior convictions from which we could ascertain specific facts and circumstances as part of the Rule 609(b) balancing test. I, therefore, would reverse and remand the case for a new trial at which the trial court would follow the requirements of Rule 609(b) to decide the ultimate question of the admissibility of the prior convictions.