 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pyburn8/16/2004
these convictions for impeachment purposes, arguing that the 1981 and 1983 convictions were too remote to have any probative value and the prejudicial effect of the 1991 conviction of aggravated robbery outweighed its probative value on credibility. The State conceded that the 1981 and 1983 convictions were outside the ten-year period, but claimed that because robbery was a crime involving dishonesty, it was entitled to question the appellant regarding the 1991 aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court allowed the State to use the 1991 aggravated robbery conviction for impeachment purposes, finding the aggravated robbery conviction to be probative of the issue of credibility. The trial court further determined that the probative value was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect, finding aggravated robbery was not "similar" to first degree murder.
Tennessee courts have previously recognized that aggravated robbery is a crime of dishonesty. See State v. Caruthers, 676 S.W.2d 935, 941 (Tenn. 1984) (armed robbery); State v. Goad, 692 S.W.2d 32, 37 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (armed robbery); State v. James P. Stout, No. 02C01- 9812-CR-00376, 2000 WL 202226, at *15 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Feb. 17, 2000) (especially aggravated robbery). Moreover, contrary to the appellant's assertion, the trial court correctly determined that the prior conviction's probative value was not outweighed by any unfair prejudice, finding that "the thing that really hurts you as far as prejudicial is if the act is similar to the act that's being charged and crime being tried, that's not the situation here."
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the appellant's prior conviction of aggravated robbery was admissible as impeachment evidence. The appellant's credibility was a key issue at trial, and the appellant's prior conviction of aggravated robbery was probative of his credibility. Moreover, aggravated robbery and first degree murder are not similar offenses. See State v. DeShawn McClenton, W1999-00879-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 987283, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, July 11, 2000) (concluding that prior convictions of attempted first degree murder were dissimilar to aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping); State v. Jeffery Jermaine Hankins, No. 02C01-9806-CC-00170, 1999 WL 569576, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Aug. 4, 1999) (concluding that "the crime of aggravated robbery . . . not so similar to the offense of murder second degree as to compel finding of prejudice"). The prior conviction of aggravated robbery was admitted only for impeachment purposes, and no details of the offense were introduced at trial.
C. Admission of Photographs
Next, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence three photographs of the crime scene. The decision regarding the admissibility of photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and that ruling will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978). In order to be admitted as evidence, a photograph must be relevant to an issue at trial. Tenn. R. Evid. 402; State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 758 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). "`If relevant, the photograph is not rendered inadmissible because the subject portrayed could be described by words; . . . the photograph would be cumulative; . . . or [the photograph] is gruesome or for some other reason is likely to inflame the jury.'" Collins v. State, 506 S.W.2d 179, 185 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1973) (quoting 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 637 (13th ed.)). However, relevant photographs may be excluded if their probative value is substantially outwe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|