Ellis v. State, 2012 Ark. 65

Ellis was convicted of first-degree murder and felon in possession for the March 14, 2010 shooting of Keith Thomas in Magnolia.
Eyewitnesses testified Ellis shot Thomas after an argument; some described the brown-handled .22 revolver and threats.
A gun recovered behind Thomas’s home and spent shell casings found; medical examiner described a small-caliber noncontact wound.
Ellis testified he did not shoot and argued shell casings were not his and that Thomas had a gun; defense disputed shell-casing placement.
The prosecutor sought to question Ellis about prior violent felonies to attack credibility; the circuit court allowed the inquiry.
On appeal, Ellis challenged sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of prior-conviction impeachment under Rule 609; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for first-degree murder and felon in possession?	Ellis argues evidence is insufficient.	State contends substantial evidence supports the verdict.	Substantial evidence supports the convictions.
Was the cross-examination into Ellis’s prior felonies within Rule 609?	Ellis contends court failed to balance probative value against prejudice.	State argues court properly weighed probative value and prejudice.	Court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination within Rule 609 limits.
Did the court err by not instructing the jury to consider prior convictions only for credibility?	Ellis argues absence of limiting instruction was error.	State argues instruction not required given the record and scope of inquiry.	No reversible error; trial court’s ruling within discretionary bounds.
Should the trial court’s balancing of probative value vs prejudice for Rule 609 be reviewed de novo?	Unsupported by record since trial court made initial determination.	Trial court’s discretion should be reviewed for abuse.	Abuse-of-discretion standard applied; no abuse found.
Did the limited scope of the prior-conviction inquiry (type of crime, weapon, relationship) fall within Rule 609?	Ellis contends inquiry was broader than allowed.	State contends inquiry was appropriately limited by record.	Inquiry was limited and within Rule 609 boundaries.

Turner v. State, 325 Ark. 237 (Ark. 1996) (probative value outweighs prejudice in Rule 609 balancing; credibility central where testimony exists)
Benson v. State, 357 Ark. 43 (Ark. 2004) (prior convictions for impeachment; weighing probative value vs prejudice)
Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63 (Ark. 1995) (prior crimes used for impeachment when credibility is central)
Williams v. State, 375 Ark. 182 (Ark. 2008) (sufficiency review; substantial-evidence standard)
Floyd v. State, 278 Ark. 342 (Ark. 1983) (limits on disclosure of prior convictions under Rule 609)