 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Farrar4/16/2002
953, 960 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Since the trial court acted within the confines of Rule 609, we review its decision under an abuse of discretion standard.
During the State's cross-examination of Eldie Farrar, the court held a conference outside the hearing of the jury to determine which of the witness's misdemeanor convictions, if any, the State would be allowed to use to impeach his credibility. The State agreed that most of the witness's convictions could not be used, but argued that his conviction for failure to appear, along with the fact that he was currently in jail on a charge of probation violation, should be allowed as probative of the witness's credibility. The trial court ruled that the State would be allowed to impeach the witness only with the failure to appear conviction, finding that it was probative of the witness's credibility, and that the probative value of the conviction was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Thereafter, the following exchange occurred between the State and the witness:
Q: Now, you are the same Eldie Farrar who was convicted in Bedford County General Sessions Court on December 14th of the year 2000 of the crime of failure to appear in court?
A: No, sir. I was failure to appear going to jail. I was late getting to jail.
Q: All right.
A: And now if you're late reporting into jail, they charge you for failure to appear.
Q: You were convicted; all right. You are the same Eldie Farrar convicted in Bedford County General Sessions Court on December 14th of the year 2000 of the crime of failure to appear?
A: Right, I reckon so.
MR. RANDLES: No further questions.
The State argues that failure to appear is a crime involving dishonesty because, to have been convicted of the offense, the individual must have "knowingly failed to appear," and been without a reasonable excuse. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-609 (1997 & Supp. 2001). The trial court apparently accepted the State's argument, finding that the conviction had a bearing on the truthfulness of the witness. We disagree. Failure to appear is not in the same class of offenses, considered probative of truthfulness, which our courts have previously held to be crimes involving dishonesty. See Neil P. Cohen et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 6.09 (4th ed. 2000) (". . . crimes involving dishonesty include robbery, larceny from the person, transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, shoplifting, burglary, grand larceny, petit larceny, theft, stealing, concealing stolen property, . . ."); see also State v. Leon Hurd, No. E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Crim. App. LEXIS 262, at *40 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2001) (noting that misdemeanor crimes admissible to impeach a witness's credibility usually fall into the theft category). Nonetheless, we agree with the State that the trial court's error in admitting the conviction was harmless, in light of the relatively minor portion of the witness's testimony that the impeachment occupied, and the fact that his essential testimony, indicating that it was the victim who attacked the defendant, was corroborated by three other defense witnesses, including one who was neither intoxicated when he took the stand, nor impeached with evidence of prior convictions.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
As his final issue, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain his conviction for aggravated assault. When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue on appeal, this court must consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|