Court Opinion

ID: 9634457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:13:42.743417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:03.555066
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, J.,
concurring. “[E]vidence of prior convictions ... is [generally] inadmissible at a criminal trial either to establish guilt or to show that a defendant would be likely to commit the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025 (1968). The reason for the exclusion of such evidence is that “prior convictions have an inherent prejudicial effect,” id at 297, 235 A.2d at 116, and may be used only to evaluate credibility. While a trial judge would be well-advised to bar *214admission into evidence of prior convictions except those relating to truth-telling, such as false swearing or perjury, those judges in the future who permit the admission of a recent prior conviction on cross-examination should establish upon the record the probative purpose for such admission and the factors that outweigh the “inherent prejudicial effect” of the conviction. Because the facts of this case involve self-defense and a crime of violence, the defendant’s past conviction is admissible under Cote. I concur.