State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431

Background

Defendant was charged with second-degree robbery and second-degree burglary.
Two prior convictions (1994 and 1995) and intervening disorderly persons offenses were discussed at a Sands hearing for impeachment purposes.
Trial court allowed using intervening disorderly persons offenses to bridge the gap between remote convictions and the instant crimes.
Defense objected that the prior convictions were too remote and that N.J.R.E. 609 should be applied differently from federal rule.
At trial, defendant did not testify; the jury convicted on robbery and third-degree burglary.
Appellate Division affirmed; Supreme Court granted certification to consider Sands-based impeachment issues and remoteness doctrine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting remote prior convictions for impeachment.	State contends Sands framework properly allows bridging with intervening offenses.	Harris argues convictions are too remote and disorderly persons offenses cannot bridge remoteness.	No abuse of discretion; convictions admissible to impeach if probative value outweighs prejudice.
Whether intervening disorderly persons offenses may bridge the remoteness gap under Sands.	State argues intervening offenses support admissibility.	Harris argues such offenses are not crimes and cannot bridge remoteness.	Allowed; intervening disorderly offenses may be considered to remove the bar to admission.
Whether N.J.R.E. 609 should be modified or aligned with Federal Rule of Evidence 609.	State/Amicus favor preserving current NJ approach and continue using Sands framework.	Harris urges moving toward Federal Rule 609(b) ten-year rule.	Court declines to overrule NJ.R.E. 609; defers modification to Supreme Court Committee on Evidence.
Whether the use of prior narcotics convictions for impeachment was improper or prejudicial.	State asserts those convictions are proper for credibility determinations.	Harris contends such use risks prejudice and is too remote.	No reversible error; such convictions treated as appropriate under Sands/NJ.R.E. 609.
Whether the marijuana conviction acted as a bridge or was improperly used.	State characterizes marijuana conviction as a bridge to connect older convictions.		Court affirms use as bridge; not challenged on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (N.J. 1978) (impeachment decision; remoteness and discretion of trial court in admitting prior convictions)
State v. Hawthorne, 49 N.J. 130 (N.J. 1967) (historical foundation for admissibility of prior convictions regardless of age)
State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377 (N.J. 1993) (sanitizing and limiting prior conviction evidence to degree/date to reduce prejudice)
State v. Hamilton, 193 N.J. 255 (N.J. 2008) (rules on sanitizing and discretion to admit prior convictions for impeachment)
State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289 (N.J. 1989) (prejudice concerns; credibility determinations in prior-conviction evidence)
State v. McBride, 213 N.J. Super. 255 (N.J. Superior App. Div. 1986) (precedent on use of prior offenses for impeachment when multiple convictions exist)
State v. Irrizary, 328 N.J. Super. 198 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2000) (consideration of intervening convictions for extended terms remoteness)
State v. Byrd, 198 N.J. 319 (N.J. 2009) (context on evidentiary rules and broad discretion)
State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (N.J. 2010) (restrictions on new issues on appeal; res judicata of issues)
State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2009) (limits on introducing new issues on appeal)
State v. Whitehead, 104 N.J. 353 (N.J. 1986) (prior convictions for impeachment—burden on defendant to justify exclusion)