Court Opinion

ID: 9740279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:31:35.303064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.252736
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion dealing with the inadmissibility of evidence of certain of the defendant’s prior convictions.
The trial judge did not have the new rules of evidence to follow at the time of this trial. What rules and case law were available she did follow very thoughtfully.
As the majority points out, the application of the provisions of Rule 6091 to a lifetime career offender may be difficult. The question is what to admit and what not to when credibility is placed at issue.
I would, however, point out that a lifetime career offender with a bedsheet record has very little credibility, if any. When such a witness takes the stand to tell his story, he should have other witnesses to substantiate that story, because his testimony alone usually isn’t believed, and understandably so.
I do not feel that the trial judge here abused her discretion in ruling that evidence of certain prior convictions was admissible on the question of credibility. She was very careful in her review and did exclude evidence of four of defendant’s eight prior convictions.
Although the majority opinion does not say that *342Rule 609 is retroactive, I believe that is its position. In any event, my position is that it is not. Court-made rules are not retroactive unless so designated.
I would affirm the conviction.

 See footnote 10 in the majority opinion.