Court Opinion

ID: 9454075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:35:09.278975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:57.516149
License: Public Domain

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the court’s opinion. With reference to the Luck1 issue, the question as to whether the conduct involved in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in this case was the same as or similar to that involved in appellant’s prior larceny convictions was not raised in the trial court. Thus we are not required to consider this question on appeal. Hood v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 365 F.2d 949 (1966). In this connection, however, the following language from Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 347, 383 F.2d 936, 940 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1029, 88 S.Ct. 1421, 20 L.Ed.2d 287 (1968), should be noted:
“A special and even more difficult problem arises when the prior conviction is for the same or substantially the same conduct for which the accused is on trial. Where multiple convictions of various kinds can be shown, strong reasons arise for excluding those which are for the same crime because of the inevitable pressure on lay jurors to believe that ‘if he did it before he probably did so this time.’ As a general guide, those convictions which are for the same crime should be admitted sparingly; one solution might well be that discretion be exercised to limit the impeachment by way of a similar crime to a single conviction and then only when the circumstances indicate strong reasons for disclosure, and where the conviction directly relates to veracity.” (Footnote omitted.)
Stealing, as Gordon indicates, “reflects adversely on a man’s honesty and integrity,” but is not “directly relate [d] to veracity.” Ibid.

. Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965).