Court Opinion

ID: 9774435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:20:33.300755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:08.486084
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. Quite often our review of records reflects that many lawyers do not know how to impeach a witness. In this case the prosecuting attorney asked the defendant: “Actually, Mr. Floyd, you have nine previous felony convictions, do you not?” That is an improper question. 2 CRIMINAL DEFENSE TECHNIQUES § 26.09 [2] (1982); See 3 GOLDSTEIN TRIAL TECHNIQUE § 20.80 (2d ed. 1969). The effort to discredit the witness was being made by showing the witness had been convicted of certain crimes. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 609 (a), defines just what criminal convictions may be used to discredit a witness’ testimony. There are two categories of crimes generally described as (1) felonies and (2) crimes involving dishonesty or false statements. If a conviction falls within category 2, the trial judge does not decide whether the information is more prej udicial than probative since a conviction that contains an element of dishonesty obviously will bear directly on the veracity of the witness. But a conviction for a crime that does not involve an element of dishonesty may not necessarily show that a witness is a liar. For example, a conviction for manslaughter would not necessarily prove a person would lie under oath. Therefore, the trial judge must weigh the evidence of convictions before the witness can be asked about such convictions. It is the nature of the crime the witness was convicted of that relates to the veracity of the witness. A jury that knows a witness has been convicted of robbery, which is a form of thievery, may well decide such a witness would unhesitatingly lie. The question should be: “Isn’t it true you were convicted of robbery in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas in 1980?” It would not be proper to ask, “Have you been convicted of a felony,” or “nine felonies.” That is meaningless to a jury which must decide how that information bears on one’s propensity to tell the truth. The appellant’s argument is equally wrong. The appellant wants the State to only be able to ask, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”, and, in this case, not be allowed to mention that the defendant has nine felony convictions. This is a confused application of the rule that, ordinarily, the details of the offense cannot be mentioned. See McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 43 (2d 1972). Both attorneys miss the meaning of the rule and the way it may be used in court. If the State does have evidence of nine convictions that qualify for use under Rule 609, then the State can ask the proper question nine separate times.