 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Werner6/5/2003
ander Gorman's testimony after his earlier ruling of exclusion, which followed his denial of a motion in limine, he did not err in deciding that the state had not committed a discovery violation pursuant to Rule 16(h). The state certainly was surprised by the trial justice's ruling and did not deceive defendant by using Commander Gorman to provide the necessary comparison between the weapon depicted in the two photographs and the weapon seized from Apartment 14A.
V. The Exclusion of Prior Convictions of Certain State's Witnesses
Before the trial began, counsel for the state moved in limine to preclude the introduction of the criminal records of prospective witnesses for the state, Loran Stoddard, Michael McGonigle, Kenneth Gammon and Frank Burton for the purpose of impeaching their credibility. The trial justice granted the motion. On appeal, defendant cites as prejudicial error the granting of the motion in respect to Kenneth Gammon and Loran Stoddard. The specific records in regard to these prospective witnesses were as follows:
KENNETH GAMMON
(1) 1983 reckless driving: $100 fine;
(2) 1982 malicious damage: plea of guilty, 6 mos. probation plus restitution;
(3) 1982 possession of marijuana: $75 fine imposed;
(4) 1982 drug possession: 3 years suspended and probation; LORAN STODDARD
(1) 1988 disorderly conduct: $25 fine plus court costs;
(2) 1987 driving under the influence : minimum penalty;
(3) 1987 operating on a suspended license: $500 fine plus costs;
(4) 1983 resisting arrest: $50 fine plus costs;
(5) 1983 disorderly conduct: $25 fine plus costs;
(6) 1981 larceny under $500: $25 fine plus costs;
(7) 1979 filing false police report: $50 fine plus costs.
The trial justice found that Stoddard's record was "stale" and that the jury probably would consider the disorderly conduct and driving-under-the-influence charges as evidence of bad character rather than an attack upon his credibility. He commented as follows:
"I really feel if I allow this minor record to go before the jury, even with the usual and appropriate explanation regarding credibility, that it would serve no other useful explanation than to poison the mind of the jury with regard to Mr. Stoddard because of the nature of these offenses, and they would not use it for assessing their credibility whatsoever but would be more likely to assess his propensity for either alcohol consumption or aggressive behavior and that is simply not on trial here * * *."
In respect to Kenneth Gammon, the trial justice found as a fact that each of the prior convictions was "stale" and "not probative, relevant and material to his credibility." For these reasons, the trial justice granted the motion in limine.
The defendant cites many cases in which we have upheld trial justices' rulings that admitted evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes over defense objections that such convictions were remote in time. See, e.g., State v. Simpson, 606 A.2d 677, 680 (R.I. 1992); State v.Taylor, 581 A.2d 1037, 1040 (R.I. 1990); State v. Pope, 414 A.2d 781, 784 (R.I. 1980). In each of these cases, the trial justice advanced reasons for his ruling that this Court believed to be sufficient to overcome an argument that the admission of such evidence constituted an abuse of discretion.
In the case at bar, the trial justice determined that the prejudice that would result from the admission of these prior convictions outweighed the probative value of the evidence in respect to the credibility of the testimony of the wi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|