State v. JoynerÂ, 243 N.C. App. 644

Defendant Randolph Joyner was tried for felony larceny and possession of stolen property after being seen hauling items from owner Monk’s property and selling scrap at a salvage yard; jury convicted, and defendant later pled guilty to habitual felon status.
The prosecutor planned to impeach defendant with five prior convictions (for forgery, uttering, obtaining property by false pretenses), all more than ten years old.
Before defendant testified, the court held a voir dire and ruled the prior convictions could be used to impeach; defense objected during the voir dire but did not object when the convictions were actually elicited in front of the jury.
Defendant contended on appeal that the trial court failed to perform the Rule 609(b) balancing and make specific findings of facts and circumstances justifying admission of convictions older than ten years.
The Court of Appeals held the objection was not preserved because it was not made contemporaneously when the evidence was introduced; alternatively, the court found no error because the probative value of the convictions was apparent from the record.

Issue	State's Argument	Joyner's Argument	Held
Preservation of objection to impeachment with >10‑year-old convictions	Objection at pre-testimony voir dire was insufficient; contemporaneous objection required when evidence is introduced	Voir dire objection preserved the issue for appeal	Court: Not preserved — defense failed to object when convictions were actually introduced before the jury, so appellate review waived
Whether Rule 609(b) required specific factual findings before admitting >10‑year‑old convictions	Even if >10 years, convictions impeach credibility (dishonesty crimes) and probative value outweighed prejudice; probative value was apparent from record	Trial court erred by making only conclusory findings and failing to recite specific facts and circumstances required by Rule 609(b)	Court: Even assuming preservation, no reversible error — the convictions’ impeachment value, similarity to charged crimes, continuity, and centrality of credibility were apparent from the record, so detailed findings were unnecessary

State v. Harris, 140 N.C. App. 208 (2000) (trial-court balancing on prior convictions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570 (2000) (contemporaneous objection requirement to preserve evidentiary rulings)
State v. Ray, 364 N.C. 272 (2010) (objection must be made when evidence is offered to preserve appellate review)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (2012) (requirements for asserting plain error on appeal)
State v. Ross, 329 N.C. 108 (1991) (Rule 609(b) impeachment use and when findings are required)
State v. Hensley, 77 N.C. App. 192 (1985) (trial court must find specific facts and circumstances to admit >10‑year‑old convictions)
State v. Shelly, 176 N.C. App. 575 (2006) (factors trial court should consider under Rule 609(b))
State v. Holston, 134 N.C. App. 599 (1999) (factors relevant to admissibility of old convictions)
State v. Moul, 95 N.C. App. 644 (1989) (findings not necessary where no material conflict and probative value is apparent)
State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 278 (1989) (admission of prior convictions without findings is error only when probative value is not apparent from record)