impeachment Forum

[leeyatong]

Hi, guys, there is a Q:

A defendant is charged with trafficking in firearms, in violation of federal firearms control laws, as well as receiving stolen property. the charges arise from the D's having attempted to sell a semi-automatic weapon identified as one of dozens that were stolen from a warehouse a year ago, the D denies intending to sell the gun or knowing that it had been stolen. At trial, which of the following would the court be least likely to allow the prosecution to introduce as evidence against the D?

The right answer is A. evidence that the D was once convicted of armed robbery with a semi-automatic weapon.

Why is this answer? the felony conviction can be introduced to impeach the D, right?

Can anyone help me? Thanks so much.

[nixy]

The fact of the felony conviction can be introduced to impeach only if the D testifies. If the D doesn't testify, it can't come in.

The nature of the conviction - that he was convicted of armed robbery using a semi-automatic weapon - would be excluded as overly prejudicial/propensity.

[leeyatong]

Thanks, but the Q said D denies intending to sell, is that testifying? I feel confused...

[leeyatong]

The fact of the felony conviction can be introduced to impeach only if the D testifies. If the D doesn't testify, it can't come in.

The nature of the conviction - that he was convicted of armed robbery using a semi-automatic weapon - would be excluded as overly prejudicial/propensity.

Thanks, but the Q said, the D denies intending.... is that not testifying? I feel confused.

[nixy]

It doesn't necessarily mean that the D would testify, but even if the D did testify, the details of the conviction (its nature) would still not be admissible because it would be too prejudicial/too close to propensity.

[leeyatong]

It doesn't necessarily mean that the D would testify, but even if the D did testify, the details of the conviction (its nature) would still not be admissible because it would be too prejudicial/too close to propensity.

Thanks, really clear, so if the conviction is another felony for example, homicide, it may become better, am I right? Thanks so much

[nixy]

If it’s homicide you’re still not likely to be able to state the nature of the conviction. Just the fact of it.

[encore1101]

Remember that courts are wary to admit evidence of past crimes because there's a concern that the jury will interpret it as "propensity" evidence. The jury may convict a defendant because he committed a crime before, and he's therefore more likely to have committed the crime this time too.

That being said, evidence of past crimes may still be admissible if the probative value outweighs the potential prejudice. Look at what the evidence is being offered to prove versus how much "danger" is there that the jury will convict the defendant because it thinks he has a propensity to commit crime.

Generally, look at MIMIC = Motive, Identity, Mistake (or lack thereof), Intent, Common Scheme or Plan.

In your question, the proposed evidence that defendant committed an armed robbery doesn't tend to prove the crime he is accused of presently -- that he received a stolen rifle and tried to sell it. If his defense was that he didn't know it was an actual rifle and thought it was a model replica, then the previous-crime evidence has a greater chance of being admitted to rebut the defendant's supposed ignorance (by showing he has familiarity with rifles).

[encore1101]

Defendant's argument is that he didn't know that the gun was stolen, and that he did not have the intent to sell it; i.e. Mistake (or lack thereof), and Intent out of MIMIC.

If defendant was previously convicted of defacing firearms, that evidence may be admissible to show that defendant has a familiarity with stolen guns and its therefore not likely that he was mistaken that the rifle at issue was stolen.

[leeyatong]

If it’s homicide you’re still not likely to be able to state the nature of the conviction. Just the fact of it.

Thanks so much.

[leeyatong]

Defendant's argument is that he didn't know that the gun was stolen, and that he did not have the intent to sell it; i.e. Mistake (or lack thereof), and Intent out of MIMIC.

If defendant was previously convicted of defacing firearms, that evidence may be admissible to show that defendant has a familiarity with stolen guns and its therefore not likely that he was mistaken that the rifle at issue was stolen.

Thanks so much for the clear and perfect explanation, have a nice day.