 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill4/8/1999
The defendant, Juan Alfonzo Hill, appeals as of right following his conviction by a jury in the Washington County Criminal Court for rape of a child, a Class A felony. The defendant was sentenced to thirty-five years confinement to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender and was fined twenty-five thousand dollars. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for our review:
"(1) whether the trial court erred by allowing extensive questioning of the defendant on cross- examination about his previous convictions;"
"(2) whether the trial court erred by admitting a prejudicial tape-recorded conversation between the defendant and the officer investigating his case; and"
"(3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence."
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
The record in this case reveals that the defendant lived with the victim, then seven years old, and the victim's mother. It reflects that on the night of May 16, 1994, when the defendant and victim were home and the victim's mother was gone, the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim. Before trial, the defendant made a statement to Sergeant Debbie Barron in which he claimed that as he was falling asleep on the night of the offense, the victim climbed on top of him and began moving on his penis with her vagina. He claimed that he did not know why he had an erection but that when he woke up, he pushed off the victim and told her to go to bed. At trial, however, the defendant testified that he was with the victim's mother on the night of May 16 and was never alone with the victim that night. He denied raping the victim.
I. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the state to cross-examine him extensively about his prior convictions for witness coercion and assault with intent to commit first degree murder. He argues that the evidence should have been excluded as prejudicial under Rule 403, Tenn. R. Evid. The state contends that the convictions were admissible pursuant to Rule 609(a), Tenn. R. Evid. The state further argues that the defendant opened the door to the extensive questioning when he testified about the convictions on direct examination and gave self-serving explanations.
The trial court has discretion in determining whether the probative value of a defendant's prior conviction is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of introducing the conviction. Only an abuse of that discretion may avail the defendant any relief. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
The record reflects that pursuant to Rule 609, Tenn. R. Evid., the state filed notice before trial of its intent to use evidence of the defendant's prior convictions to impeach the defendant if he testified. The trial court held a hearing on the issue and concluded that if the defendant testified, the convictions would be admissible to impeach his testimony. The trial court further found that the probative value of the convictions outweighed any prejudicial effect.
The defendant testified at trial and admitted on direct examination that he had been convicted for witness coercion and assault with intent to commit first degree murder. He explained in detail the facts surrounding the incident that formed the basis for the convictions. On cross-examination, the state went into more detail about the facts surrounding the previous convictions, and the defendant objected. The trial court agreed that the state was going into more detail than was necessary for impeachment but concluded that the defendant opened the door for the questions b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|