State of Iowa v. Wendell Karl Harrington, 2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 38

Harrington was convicted of ongoing criminal conduct, first-degree theft, second-degree theft, and three counts of second-degree burglary, enhanced as a habitual offender.
The charges stemmed from a series of June 14, 2008 break-ins; Harrington pleaded not guilty.
Before trial the district court ruled on impeachment use of Harrington's prior convictions, distinguishing between dishonesty and non-dishonesty crimes.
The State sought to impeach Harrington if he testified; the court stated dishonesty crimes could be disclosed to the jury, others could be impeached without specifying the crime.
Harrington testified and disclosed prior felonies; the State clarified those felonies were theft and burglary.
The court of appeals reversed the ongoing-criminal-conduct conviction but affirmed the others; Harrington sought further review on admissibility of prior convictions under Rule 5.609.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior theft/burglary convictions fall under Rule 5.609(2).	Harrington argued balancing required for all priors.	Harrington contends district court must balance for all prior convictions.	Convictions fall under 5.609(2); automatic admissibility for dishonesty.
Whether the district court erred by not applying balancing under 5.609(1) for the priors.	Balancing required for all priors regardless of category.	No balancing needed for 5.609(2) crimes.	No balancing required; automatic admissibility under 5.609(2).
Whether Axiotis governs balancing for crimes of dishonesty under 5.609(2).	Axiotis requires balancing for admissibility.	Axiotis is overruled to the extent it requires balancing for 5.609(2) crimes.	Axiotis overruled; 5.609(2) crimes are automatically admissible.
Whether theft and burglary with intent to commit theft are crimes of dishonesty under 5.609(2).	Theft/burglary with intent to steal are crimes of dishonesty.	They are not challenged as dishonesty.	Theft and burglary with intent to steal are crimes of dishonesty; covered by 5.609(2).
Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting Harrington's priors for impeachment.	Admissibility enhances impeachment value for credibility.	Automatic admission limits discretion.	No abuse; priors automatically admissible for impeachment under 5.609(2).

State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833 (Iowa 2010) (reviewed to limit issues on further review; impeachment rule context)
State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (review of issues under 5.609 considerations on appeal)
State v. Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1997) (balance framework for 5.609 prior convictions (overruled))
State v. Paredes, 775 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 2009) (interpretation of rule similarities to federal rule)
State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 2008) (balancing probative value vs. prejudice in impeachment)
State v. Daly, 623 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa 2001) (preservation of error in in limine rulings for impeachment)
State v. Miller, 229 N.W.2d 762 (Iowa 1975) (early categorization of theft/burglary as dishonest)