Court Opinion

ID: 9686644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:59:47.464689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:21.088442
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
Evidence that another person has been convicted of the same crime for which the defendant is on trial is not admissible as proof of the guilt of the defendant. The same evidence, however, may be admissible for many other reasons.
It is generally held that the State may show that its witness has been convicted of a felony instead of waiting for the defendant to develop that point on cross-examination. See, United States v. Del Purgatorio, 411 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. King, 505 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1974).
Evidence relating to bias is relevant because certain relationships and circumstances may impair the impartiality of the witness. For this reason evidence relating to the underlying relationships, circumstances, and influences operating on the witness should be disclosed to the jury. The fact that a witness had not only participated in the same crime but had been convicted of that crime is such a circumstance.
In State v. Cole, 252 Or. 146, 448 P.2d 523 (1968), such evidence was held admissible as proof of the facts and circumstances of the crime, the circumstances under which the *793witness was testifying, his status with regard to the charge, and as a matter affecting the credibility of the witness.
In Dye v. State, 77 Ga. App. 517, 48 S.E.2d 742 (1948), such evidence was held admissible to show the status or relationship of the parties.
Evidence as to the prior conviction of the witness in this case was admissible, not as proof of the defendant’s guilt, but to show her prior conviction of a felony and establish the relationship between the witness and the crime for which the defendant was on trial.
I would affirm the judgment.
Hastings, J., joins in this dissent.