 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Green9/1/1999
or convictions outweighs the possible prejudicial effect it might have had. We only evaluate whether the trial Judge abused his discretion . . . ." Id; see also State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 66 (Tenn. 1992).
In reviewing the trial court's exercise of discretion in the present case, we readily discern the nexus between the violence implicit in rape and kidnapping and the explicit violence that was shown in the case on trial. "However, the fact that a prior conviction involves a similar crime for which the defendant is being tried does not automatically require its exclusion." State v. Blevins, 968 S.W.2d 888, 893 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). " he trial court must analyze the prior conviction and the offense on trial to determine whether the conviction's probative value on credibility is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice on the substantive issues." Id. In the present case, the court concluded that the probative value weighed heavier in the balance. For the reasons explained below, we hold that this discretionary decision should not be disturbed.
In analyzing this issue, we initially note that the prior convictions were both felonies. Even though the prior convictions' impact on credibility should be considered, Rule 609 does not require as a threshold matter that prior felonies offered for impeachment involve dishonesty or false statement, as is the case with prior misdemeanor convictions. See Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2); Blevins, 968 S.W.2d at 892- 93. Second, although violence may be implicit in the prior offenses of rape and kidnapping, the defendant was not on trial in the trial court for either of these offenses. Thus, although the offenses had a similar characteristic, they were not identical. Third, the trial court aptly observed that, because the defendant contradicted the victim's version of the events, the defendant's credibility was a key issue in the trial. Finally, the trial court gave clear and cogent admonitions to the jury concerning the proper use of the impeachment evidence.
We find that the factors referenced above support the trial Judge in the exercise of his discretion to allow the impeachment evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR:
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|