Court Opinion

ID: 9768819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:51:48.714427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:46.960976
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I am reluctant to dissent because this same mistake in trial procedure has been pointed out in many earlier previous opinions of this court. See Britton v. Floyd, 293 Ark. 397, 738 S.W.2d 408 (1987); Richardson v. State, 292 Ark. 140, 728 S.W.2d 189 (1987); Williams v. State, 289 Ark. 69, 709 S.W.2d 80 (1986); Collier v. Hot Springs S & L Assn., 272 Ark 162, 612 S.W.2d 730 (1981); Gallman v. Carnes, 254 Ark. 987, 497 S.W.2d 47 (1973); and Flake v. Thompson, 249 Ark. 713, 460 S.W.2d 789 (1970). Even so, I must register a protest in the present case because it is evident that the trial court overruled the motion in limine concerning the criminal conviction of the appellant and his passenger. Although trial attorneys have a duty to see that the record is preserved for appellate purposes, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to insure that a complete record is maintained. Obviously, the appellant’s counsel would not have introduced the very evidence he sought to exclude had the court not overruled his motion. In the appellant’s statement of the case in his brief he asserts: “The trial court heard the arguments of counsel in chambers prior to the testimony of these witnesses and overruled the plaintiffs motion in limine.” This assertion has not been refuted. The appellee’s only comment on the subject is that the record does not reflect a ruling by the court. I would not dissent in this case were I not totally convinced that an injustice has been done and that there will be no other opportunity to correct it. The prior convictions, for the most part, did not involve dishonesty. Moreover, one of the convictions and subsequent release from prison occurred more than fifteen years before the trial of the present case. Even if the prior criminal convictions in this case had been rendered recently, their prejudicial effect obviously far outweighed any probative value and should have been excluded pursuant to A.R.E. Rule 609(a), which states: For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one [1] year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party or a witness, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. The weighing of probative value against prejudicial effect must be done on a case by case basis. Floyd v. State, 278 Ark. 342, 645 S.W.2d 690 (1983). In the present case, it does not appear that the question relating to some of the prior convictions would have been used for impeachment purposes but instead to inflame the prejudices of the jury. I see no revelant connection between a battery conviction for a shooting in a pool hall and a liability determination for an unrelated automobile accident occurring several years later. No character witnesses were involved in this case nor was the proceeding a criminal one. When the issue of prior convictions is raised, the judge has a duty to see that he is informed of the relevancy before the evidence is admitted. Hawksley v. State, 276 Ark. 504, 637 S.W.2d 573 (1982). There is no such finding in this case. The purpose of allowing evidence of prior convictions is, in the first place, to test the credibility of the witness — not to bolster the case against him. McDaniel v. State, 282 Ark. 170, 666 S.W.2d 400 (1984). I realize that the majority opinion does not hold that evidence of all the prior convictions was relevant and proper. However, the effect of the opinion is the same as if we were holding that the trial court properly allowed all questions on all convictions. I am convinced that the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value of this evidence and that the trial court erroneously allowed the highly prejudicial evidence to be presented to the jury. I would reverse and remand.