 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salt Lake City v. Struhs12/30/2004
BR>
The factual circumstances surrounding Defendant's prior alcohol related convictions were significantly different than the events which occurred in this case. The prior convictions evidence was not relevant to the impeachment of Defendant's testimony. Further, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence without properly weighing the probative value of the evidence with the danger of unfair prejudice as required under rule 403. See State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 203 (Utah 1987). Because there was little probative value in admitting the evidence of the prior convictions, and there was a substantial danger of unfair prejudice, the evidence of Defendant's prior convictions should not have been admitted.
Additionally, because Defendant was able to counter much of the City's evidence, absent the trial court's error, there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been more favorable to Defendant, and therefore, the trial court's error was not harmless.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
WE CONCUR:
Norman H. Jackson, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|