Court Opinion

ID: 9845764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:27:45.876227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:21.371434
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
with whom RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins,
dissenting.
In adopting the Luce rule, the court finds persuasive the fact that “Luce was a unanimous decision and that a majority of state courts addressing the issue have adopted the Luce rule.” At note 5 and accompanying text. Federal Rule of Evidence 609 and the rules of all the states cited by the court as having adopted the Luce rule, however, are broader than Alaska Rule of Evidence 609.1
The Federal rule permits impeachment by the same convictions that the Alaska rule permits, as well as “impeachment on the basis of any other conviction, if the *1360crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year in the jurisdiction in which the witness was convicted and is more probative than prejudicial.” Alaska Evidence Rules Commentary 609(a). The Alaska rule limits admissibility “to convictions involving crimes such as perjury, fraud, forgery, false statement, and other crimes in the nature of crimen falsi [and thus] sharpens the inquiry.” 2 Id. As a result, the factual inadequacies associated with Rule 609 in limine rulings in federal practice are less likely to occur in Alaska practice.
In addition, resolution of this issue by adoption of the Luce rule is unnecessary from the perspective of judicial economy. While the federal circuit courts have been presented frequently with the issue of whether a defendant must testify to preserve for review a claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction,3 this case represents the first time our court of appeals has been squarely faced with the issue.
Indeed, in the two eases where Luce has been implicated, Page v. State, 725 P.2d 1082 (Alaska App.1986),4 and Wickham v. State, 770 P.2d 757 (Alaska App.1989), the court of appeals has demonstrated an ability to distinguish between cases where the factual record was not adequate to permit review, Page, 725 P.2d at 1088-87, and cases where the record was adequate. Wickham, 770 P.2d at 761.
We have yet to build a significant body of jurisprudence regarding the weight to be given decisions of the court of appeals on issues where its expertise is significantly implicated. It is in cases such as this that we are given the opportunity to address this important issue. Since its inception in 1980, the court of appeals has had original appellate jurisdiction for all criminal prosecutions commenced in the superior court. AS 22.07.010-020. The experience gained by the court of appeals through its special jurisdiction, is a compelling reason why we should grant a high degree of deference to it on issues such as the one presented by this petition.
Taking into account the court of appeals’ expertise with the subject matter, and the fact that it is in a better position then we to determine whether a record is adequate to permit meaningful review of a Rule 609 in limine ruling, we should defer to its approach to the issue. If the issue is brought before us for discretionary review, Appellate Rule 304, we can determine then whether the court of appeals abused its discretion.
The court of appeals stated:
The present case poses few of the uncertainties discussed in Luce and Page. Wickham’s counsel made it clear that Wickham’s decision to testify would depend on the court’s ruling on the eviden-tiary issue. Wickham’s counsel also made a reasonably detailed offer of proof as to Wickham’s proposed testimony. Under the circumstances, the trial court had adequate information to enable it to balance the probative value of the impeachment evidence against its potential for prejudice to Wickham’s case. The record leaves little room for doubt that the state would have introduced evidence of Wickham’s perjury convictions had he testified. The trial court indicated that the convictions would be admissible to *1361impeach Wickham, regardless of the substance of his testimony. We conclude that Wickham did not forfeit his right to appeal the admissibility of his perjury convictions by electing not to testify at trial.
Wickham, 770 P.2d at 762 (footnotes omitted).
It is my opinion that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in determining that the record in this case “is adequate to permit meaningful review.” Id. at 761. As a result, I would dismiss the petition for hearing as improvidently granted.5

. See At n. 4; see also Ariz.R.Evid. 609 (similar to Fed.R.Evid. 609); Cal.Evid.Code § 788 (West 1989) (felony convictions admissible with limited exceptions); Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-145 (West 1989) ("A person’s ... conviction of crime may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credibility”); Idaho R.Evid. 609 (similar to Fed. R.Evid. 609); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 38 § 155-1 (Smith-Hurd Supp.1989) ("conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting [witness's] credibility”); Mich.R.Evid. 609 (conviction may be shown if crime involved dishonesty or false statement; the crime contained an element of theft, was a felony, and is more probative than prejudicial); Tex.R.Cr.Evid. 609 (similar to Fed. R.Evid. 609); S.C.Code Ann. § 19-11-60 (Law. Co-op. 1976) (broader than Fed.R.Evid. 609); S.D.Codified Laws Ann. § 19-14-12 (1987) (similar to Fed.R.Evid. 609); Tenn.R.Evid. 609 (pre-1990 similar to Fed.R.Evid. 609, post-1989 defendant need not testify to preserve issue for appeal); Utah R.Evid. 609 (similar to Fed.R. Evid. 609); Va.Code Ann. § 19.2-269 (1983) (felony or perjury "conviction may be shown in evidence to affect [witness's] credit”); Wash.R. Evid. 609 (similar to Fed.R.Evid. 609); Wyo.R. Evid. 609 (similar to Fed.R.Evid. 609).

. See At nn. 2, 3.

. See, e.g., United States v. Kuecker, 740 F.2d 496 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir.1983), aff'd 469 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); United States v. Lipscomb, 702 F.2d 1049 (D.C.Cir.1983); United States v. Halbert, 668 F.2d 489 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 934, 102 S.Ct. 1989, 72 L.Ed.2d 453 (1982); United States v. Kiendra, 663 F.2d 349 (1st Cir.1981); United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 267, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Toney, 615 F.2d 277 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 985, 101 S.Ct. 403, 66 L.Ed.2d 248 (1980); United States v. Cook, 608 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1034, 100 S.Ct. 706, 62 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); United States v. Cavender, 578 F.2d 528 (4th Cir.1989).

.In Page, the court of appeals found the Luce reasoning persuasive in its review of an in li-mine ruling which would have allowed impeachment with the defendant's prior conviction under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b). Page, 725 P.2d at 1086.

. I find it difficult to determine which criterion of Appellate Rule 304 justifies discretionary review of this case.