Court Opinion

ID: 9769286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:43:30.318315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:59.815665
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
Appellant’s gratuitous statement that he had not been in any trouble with the law during the last ten years clearly authorized proof of any “trouble with the law” which appellant had experienced during that period, but it did no more. Only a felony conviction or one for an offense involving moral turpitude will revitalize remote convictions. Livingston v. State, 421 S.W.2d 108.
The rule of remoteness is based upon reason. An accused should not be impeached by convictions which occurred so far in the past that they do not shed any light on his credibility at the time of trial.
Offenses which do not involve moral turpitude have no bearing on the credibility of an accused and should not be employed as they have been by the majority to revitalize old crimes.
I would reverse the conviction.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.