 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Holden4/19/2005
Facts and Procedural History
The defendant, Theodore F. Holden, was indicted for one count of burglary of a motor vehicle and two counts of theft of property. Following the State's dismissal of the theft charges, a jury found the defendant guilty of the remaining charge of burglary, and he was sentenced to six years incarceration as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant's sole contention is that the trial court erred when it found that the defendant "opened the door" to cross-examination regarding the defendant's prior burglary convictions.
Prior to trial, the State filed a notice of intent to use prior convictions for impeachment purposes. The convictions, listed chronologically, included:
1) Armed Robbery (November 10, 1988)
2) Attempted Aggravated Robbery (January 9, 1992)
3) Theft (January 29, 1996)
4) Theft (March 28, 1996)
5) Theft (May 30, 1996)
6) Burglary (July 11, 1996)
7) Burglary (July 3, 1997)
8) Possession of Cocaine for Sale (January 14, 2000)
9) Criminal Impersonation (December 4, 2000)
10) Theft (December 4, 2000)
11) Attempted Theft (January 12, 2001)
12) Theft (March 5, 2001)
13) Burglary (April 24, 2001)
In response, the defendant filed a motion in limine, contending that should the defendant testify the court should prohibit impeachment with his past convictions. Specifically, the defendant argued that, with the exception of criminal impersonation, none of the convictions were admissible because they were: (1) stale, and the interests of justice did not require the court to look beyond ten years; (2) not probative at all as to credibility; or (3) the same charge for which the defendant was on trial, resulting in heightened prejudice. Alternatively, the defendant requested a limiting instruction for the jury if the convictions were to be allowed to impeach the defendant.
In ruling on the motion in limine, the trial court found that the prejudicial effect of the armed robbery and attempted aggravated robbery convictions outweighed their probative value because they would bring to the jurors' minds crimes of violence. The court further disallowed the three burglary convictions because of their similarity to the crime for which the defendant was charged. The court also found the conviction for possession of cocaine for sale to be inadmissible to impeach the defendant. Regarding the remaining charges of theft, attempted theft, and criminal impersonation, the trial court found that their "probative value far outweighs any prejudicial value because [the defendant's] credibility would be at issue" and allowed the convictions for the purpose of impeachment.
As part of the defense's proof at trial, the defendant testified, and the following exchange took place between the defendant and his counsel on direct examination:
Q: Now Mr. Holden, you know that by choosing to testify today, your credibility is at issue?
A: I understand.
Q: And you do have several misdemeanor thefts on your record; is that true?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: You have three in 1996?
A: I guess, yeah.
Q: You have one in 2000?
A: I guess, yeah.
Q: You have misdemeanor criminal impersonation in 2001?
A: Yeah, I do.
Q: And you have a theft in 2001, a misdemeanor theft?
A: Okay.
Q: Now you pled guilty in all of those cases; is that correct?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: You
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|