 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sexton6/4/2002
burglary, which accounted for four of the sixteen convictions, was a "bad property crime." See Smith, 203 Wis. 2d at 295-96. That was not enough.
. Because of the number of convictions involved, of particular concern is the trial court's failure to specifically address whether the probative value of the prior conviction evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Wis. Stat. § 906.09(2).
The danger of unfair prejudice is self-evident. The court should have expressly considered the potential for the jury to decide the case on grounds other than the evidence of guilt. It should have balanced that potential against what may have been the enhanced probative value attaching to the perception that, the more convictions, the more likely the person is not credible.
. Although it may have been expedient to simply admit all of Sexton's prior convictions, a proper exercise of discretion requires the trial court to apply the Smith factors and balance the probative value and prejudice of the convictions under Wis. Stat. § 906.09. Here, as in Smith, "A blanket ruling, while expedient and consistent, fails to show a consideration of the proper factors with respect to each witness, and thus, is an erroneous exercise of discretion." Smith, 203 Wis. 2d at 299. In fact, a policy of admitting all prior convictions improperly removes all discretion.
. Sexton also argues the specific factors regarding his prior convictions and contends that this court could, but should not, affirm the trial court's erroneous decision if "facts of record applied to the proper legal standard support the trial court's conclusion." State v. Pittman, 174 Wis. 2d 255, 268-69, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). However, this court cannot do that here. Under the circumstances presented, that would be tantamount to exercising discretion, which is the trial court's province. See Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 282, 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980). Also, the facts concerning the correct number of prior convictions are not clear.
. Sexton argues that the trial court's error was not harmless. See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). The State does not respond to Sexton's harmless error argument and thereby concedes it. See State v. West, 214 Wis. 2d 468, 477, 571 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1997).
By the Court. -- Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|