*1 requirement of suffi- 803(8)(C)foundation nor- is otherwise
cient trustworthiness investigative notes of in the
mally present officer.
a law enforcement desirable, necessary nor to a
It is neither result, sweep competent much so
sound cooperating of a aside. Notes an investi- aspects of
officer address recorded
gation not observed helpful will be
reporting officer that no reason to If there is
trier of fact. trustworthiness, they should
question their the W.R.E. 805 hear- admissible under exception public report as a within
say disputed report. In this case the
public Deputy Van of causation
statement
Alyne’s report properly excluded as
lacking in trustworthiness. MILLER,
Lee Vincent (Defendant),
Appellant Wyoming, STATE (Plaintiff). Appellee
No. 88-161. Wyoming.
Dec. Munker, D. State Public Defend-
Leonard Intern, er, (argued), Bill Rice Student appellant. for Gen., Meyer, Atty. John W. Joseph B. Gen., Renneisen, Sylvia Lee Deputy Atty. Gen., Hackl, Atty. and Howard Asst. Sr. Intern, Legal appellee. (argued), Strand *2 CARDINE, C.J., following of Miller The cross-examination and Before URBIGKIT, place, objection by THOMAS, MACY and then took without GOLDEN, defense: JJ. “Q. Miller, you previously Mr. dis- CARDINE, Justice. Chief why people may cussed have referred to Miller, seeks re- Lee Vincent Appellant, you Ragsdale. and about the name Do aggravated as- conviction for versal of his you testimony? remember that contending dis- battery, that the sault Yes, “A. sir. erroneously evidence admitted trict court “Q. you It is also true used the name of in Los felony conviction concerning a 1983 Ragsdale, John isn’t it? with intent possession of PCP Angeles for I “A. used it once. that admission of Miller contends to sell. “Q. you And one of the reasons used 609(a). Ap- violated W.R.E. this evidence Angeles you that name in 1983 Los the evidence was admis- pellee argues that felony, were isn’t convicted of a that rule. under the same sible right? affirm. We felony “A. I don’t recall what that was drinking had been Miller and his victim charge what the was. they party at a when whiskey and beer not, “Q. possession charge, The was it verbally victim began argue. to sell, with intent was it not? of PCP Miller, punctuating his threats threatened Well, possession “A. Miller epithets. Apparently, with racial me, they possession it of and busted knowledge of his victim’s gained had some wasn’t, both, they dropped but it sales witnessing him physical prowess by beat possession possession. of to sell to from night en- up cowboys three in one “Q. subsequently You were convicted him a few gaging public fight in a fist with felony selling in that? beating Fearing a and con- months before. felony. if “A. I don’t know it was a leg recently injured would cerned that “Q. probation? You received 36 months defending
prevent
adequately
him from
himself,
Miller stabbed his victim
Well,
think,
let
it was a little
“A.
me
knife,
potential-
inflicting
a
that,
abdomen with
years,
more than
five
but at the
ly life-threatening injury.
got probation
time I
I did 2 and a half
becoming
it
years and was
monotonous
trial,
During
prosecutor sought
job,
interfering
my
as far as
with
and I
variety
appel-
to admit into evidence
my job
have to take off
two or
convictions,
prior
primarily
criminal
lant’s
check,
go
my
three times a week and
testi-
to contradict intimations from Miller’s
upset,
getting
boss was kind of
so I went
mony
peaceable
he was a
man. The
my probation
officer and asked him
district court did not view that
any way
go
I could
back to court and ask
having placed
issue his character as
months,
just give
them to
me the six
man,
peaceable
and it refused to admit
my-
I couldn’t do no more time
because
prior
those
convictions. The record then
job,
self
more time on the
so we took
becomes somewhat obscure. After defense
gave
they
it
to court and
me six
back
objections
to admission of the
convic-
proba-
I
no more
months.
didn’t have
sustained,
prosecutor
tions were
asked:
out,
tion,
my job
got
and still had
when I
I
allowed
“MR. BLONIGEN: will still be
I don't know if it was a misdemeanor
but
go
into the other?
or a
or not.”
I
“MR. RAYMOND [defense counsel]:
here,
guess
we are
what
is the
while
Appellant now asserts that the admission
allow him
in-
609(a),
extent
the Court will
testimony violated W.R.E.
of this
it,
quire,
you
as I understand
been
pertinent part:
provides
convicted of it.
purpose
attacking the credi-
“For the
“MR.
And when.
witness,
BLONIGEN:
that he has
bility of a
a crime shall be admit-
been convicted of
Okay.”
“THE COURT:
by court
to make
preliminary
ted if elicited from him or established
s failure
609(a)
public
during
findings required by
record
cross-examination
did not
punishable
unequivocal
if the crime was
but
violate a clear and
rule of law.
*3
imprisonment in excess of
by
explained
609(a)
death or
in Bradley,
As we
under
year
one
under the law
which places
upon
no
burden
court to make
convicted,
he
and the court deter-
was
findings
support
such
to
the admission of
probative value of admit-
mines that the
prior convictions until the defendant enters
outweighs
ting
preju-
this evidence
its
objection.
proper
Only
a
at that time does
* *
effect to the defendant
dicial
obligation
the trial court’s
to make those
preliminary determinations become clear
regard
argument
His
in this
is two-fold.
unequivocal.
object
The failure to
First,
argues
he
that
the district court
obligation.
stitutes a waiver of that
Brad-
failing
requisite pre-
in
make the
erred
to
Appellant
P.2d
ley,
at 1165.
not
findings
prior
liminary
that the
conviction
premise plain
upon
error
the trial court’s
probative
was for a
and that
findings.
failure to make the Rule 609
outweighed
preju-
value of the evidence
its
Second,
potential.
contends it was
dicial
he
Appellant would also
find
have us
testimony
its
error to admit
because
plain
in
prior
error
the admission of his
prejudicial
negligi-
effect far exceeded its
conviction
on his
that
based
contention
its
probative
ble
value.
prejudicial
probative
effect exceeded its
appellant’s
We note that
failure
However,
value.
he concedes that the bal
timely objection
make a
to the introduc
to
ancing
prejudice against probative
worth
testimony requires
affirm
tion of this
us to
ordinarily discretionary
a
matter for the
conviction,
finding
his
absent a
that
prevail
appeal
trial court and that to
he
admission of such evidence rises to the must,
matter, clearly
as a threshold
demon
plain
level of
error.
inflammatory
strate the
nature of the evi
plain
“To determine whether the
error
proba
dence and establish that it had little
met,
apply
standard has
a three-
been
Appellant
carry
tive value.
has failed to
First,
part test.
this court must be able
concerning
this burden. His evidence
unequivocally
to discern
from the record
prior
prejudicial
drug
nature of his
convic
what occurred at trial without resort to
only widespread pub
demonstrates
tion
Second,
speculation.
appellant must
with,
given
lic concern
and media attention
demonstrate that what occurred consti-
to,
drug
rejected
illicit
use. We
a similar
tutes a clear and obvious violation of a
showing
to
as insufficient
establish
unequivocal
clear and
rule
law. Final-
prior
effect of a
ly,
adversely
that violation must have
State,
Apodaca v.
627 P.2d
1027-28
right
appel-
affected some substantial
(Wyo.1981), and hold likewise
this case.
lant.”
Appellant has also failed to establish that
State,
Schwenke v.
768 P.2d
testimony
him
elicited from
had no
State,
(Wyo.1989); see also Britt v.
During
prosecution’s
probative worth.
(Wyo.1988).
P.2d
not find
We will
chief, testimony
given
that
case
ruling
plain
discretionary
appellant was also known as Lee Vincent
appellant
trial court unless the
demon-
stand,
Ragsdale.
appellant
When
took the
strates a clear abuse of that discretion
logical
attempted
he
to rebut the
inference
showing that the trial court
not have
could
testimony
employed
that
that he
an
from
reasonably concluded as
it did. See
explained
had
alias. He
that he
been
1034-35;
Schwenke, 768 P.2d at
Gresham
Ragsdale
raised
a man named
State,
(Wyo.1985);
708 P.2d
56-57
fa-
later in life discovered that his natural
State, 698 P.2d
625-26-
Munden v.
Miller,
ther
named
a name he subse-
(Wyo.1985); Bradley
635 P.2d
quently
prosecutor’s
later
assumed.
(Wyo.1981).
appellant’s
of the name
inquiry into
use
prior
respect
appellant’s
Ragsdale at the time of his
With
to
first as
John
error,
expía-
that
signment of
we hold that the trial
conviction served to contradict
also,
against
This is
impeach
charge
to
him.
generally
appellant’s
nation
unfortunately,
another case where the ba-
he
had resorted
credibility, suggesting
holding
inadequate
objection
sis
deceptive practice
assuming
—
review —was
plain
and a
error standard of
therefore,
We,
hold
the admis-
alias.
appellate
counsel for
re-
briefed
neither
concerning
sion of
view.
I dissent.
error.
did
amount
not
improper
It
this court
appears
is affirmed.
Appellant’s conviction
according
theory
of law not
decide
URBIGKIT, J.,
dissenting opinion.
filed
litigants,
especially when
briefed
*4
tidy up the
theory
again
that
used to
is
URBIGKIT, Justice, dissenting.
“noting” the fail-
prosecution’s case. After
majority
where the
This is another case
“timely
ure of Miller’s counsel
to make a
his
the
affirms
defendant’s
that
objection”,
majority
the
determined
object
failed to
to
court-appointed counsel
felony did
prior
the
of Miller’s
introduction
arguably improper evi-
the introduction of
609(a)
plain
not
under a
violate
object may
That
to
dence.
failure
make a
error
But the failure to
standard.
illegal
mentioned,
prior
for
objection”
allowed Miller’s
was
“timely
not even
briefed, by
prosecu-
fate at
at least
drugs to determine his
trial
much
either
the
less
Following
relevant
tion or Miller.1
the observed
much as did the actual evidence
as
has
Objection to
of the evidence of
those matters and issues that the Court
introduction
made,
arguably
previously.
was
record
but
ruled out
Miller’s criminal
reason,
Honor,
objection
obviously,
the
Your
we
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
or
for whatever
three,
prohibit
oppose
the offense which was then
No.
the
failed to include
all
the rules
by
Miller follow-
discussed
ing
cross-examination
older than ten
introduction
argu-
particular
testimony.
years.
offense
his
That
not have
No.
the batteries would
ably
drugs and a false name and when
turpitude,
involved
the crime of moral
I don't
involved
trial,
prejudicial.
in
most
It set
put peacefulness
illuminated
in
believe the
has
perjury
interjected,
stage
issue,
then
aggressive
the
for intimated
put the
nature of the
he has
argu-
my opinion
improperly
issue,
in rebuttal
in
most
into
and
so-called victim
that is law
failed,
by
prosecution
the
which had
and
Wyoming
ment
the
under Rule 404 of
Evidence,
Rules of
Miller,
get
complainant
to
to trial to
not
testify.
Rule 406 also talks about this kind
prosecution
im-
The
addressed that
thing.
comment
that rule
The
underneath
concluding
peachment in
contention:
they
that
to make it clear that
intended
seems
a
believing
put
should be able to
the victim's
Mr.
state-
defendant
And how about
Miller's
ment,
aggressive
into
Miller
nature
evidence. Mr.
what
believe out
the state-
can we
courts,
they
fight
way
at the Holi-
has testified that
day
had a
He
his
around the
ment?
knows
that,
punches
prior felony
he did
and he
a
Inn where
throw
we know
he has
convic-
fight.
days
everybody
did
I think it would be a
to listen to
tion. He had two
in,
things
thing
and I don't
testify
to let those
then Mr. Brummond won’t be
else
here,
and
testimony.
what he
Mr. Miller has
He
that
said or
bel[ie]ve
to tailor
has had that
his
any way
peaceful
do
in
said he was a
man.
I
opportunity.
rerely
you state
Objection
requested.
not believe that
because
[sic]
and a mistrial
taken
you
in
defense that
objection
and
that
acted
selfe [sic]
The
the mistrial
was sustained
you
obligation
are
with it the
that
carries
denied.
putting your
peacefulness into
just prior
quota-
character for
sequence
events
to
issue,
opinion
the Court that it
majority
and I would submit to
tion found in
included:
prohibited by
additionally it
is
Rule 404. And
Hon-
ATTORNEY]: Your
[PROSECUTING
or,
prejudicial to
defendant's case.
may
would be
approach
the Bench?
(The
him to
COURT: I didn’t understand
following proceedings
at the
THE
were had
say
Counsel,
peaceful person.
was a
that he
Bench
hearing
and
out of
between Court
There is testimo-
Jury):
[DISTRICT ATTORNEY]:
of the
ny
ex-
he would not have used violence
Hon-
Your
[PROSECUTINGATTORNEY]:
not,
defense,
or,
cept
personal
making
and he would
request
at this time I am
reputation
put
he
in
both
present previous
evidence
Court to be
to
con-
allowed
404(b)
puts his
and Rule
is once he
in
and
violence
victions
prior
occurred
’86
'87 as well
issue,
re-
deadly weapon
can be
character into
evidence
’70. I
felonies with
in
ceived.
believe the
reveals the
state
not
to me that
brought
COURT: It is
that clear
questioning
THE
defendant has
about
will
defense's ob-
opposed
he said that.
I
sustain the
to that
of the character as
and ask
jection.
place
fighting
for violence
character
victim,
I will still
opposed
[PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]:
here as
go
request
into the other?
I
allowed to
him on
allowed to
that I be
cross
J.,
objection,
majority
(Wyo.1989)(Urbigkit,
trial
this
re-
tional where those chal- merit, ders a decision on an lenges ... based issue have it would bar the vindi- proposed personal rights cation was not briefed constitutional any party proceeding, deny society against a check further the court parties opportunity present- violations until the same claim is shall afford the view, ed my present on. direct review. In their views on the matter
215 through supplementary briefing. If convictions en If masse. opportunity, jury might court fails to afford such an thought the decision a rehearing upon timely ordered shall be being exposed close call after to the actual petition any party.” events, evidence of the real then Miller’s past history tip could be available to S., Adoption 857, Alexander 44 Cal.3d balance, although history would have 207A, 1, 4, Cal.Rptr. 45 Cal.3d 245 750 P.2d guilt no relevance to his or innocence to the 778, (emphasis original 782 crime for which he was on trial. This quoting statute). in part from a California prosecutorial pattern is neither new nor rebriefing process See a similar utilized in fair. McCall, This follows a course of recent State v. 119, 160 Ariz. 770 P.2d developments where Co., (1989); non-rele- Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. vance has proof. become a formula for trial 490, 1073, cert. denied 152 Ariz. 733 P.2d Pena v. See (Wyo.1989) 780 P.2d 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d (Urbigkit, dissenting). J. reh’g denied 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. (1987); Cole v. Delaware
L.Ed.2d 414
More
century ago,
than a
Oliver Wen-
League
Parenthood, Inc.,
Planned
Holmes, Jr.,
dell
then a Justice on the
for
(Del.Super.1987);
A.2d
and State v.
Judicial Court of Massachu-
Seward,
(La.1987).
setts,
The second reason my “[W]hen for dissent is crime, been convicted of a only tinued conviction that the trier of fact ground disbelieving him which such should determine a defendant’s fate proof general affords is the readiness the actual evidence of real events estab- to do evil which the conviction Anglo-American lished “the noble no- supposed to show. It is from that try tion that we per- cases rather than general disposition jury alone that the Proposal A Marques, sons.” Beaver and is asked to infer a readiness to lie in Modify the Rule on Criminal Convic- particular case, Impeachment, tion and thence that he Temp.L.Q. (1985). has lied fact. The prosecutor Because the evidence has no tried to tendency prove introduce that he *7 prior Miller’s was mistak convictions en en, masse3, only but argument perjured little that he has him is needed to make self, good pur- prosecutor’s the claim that and it reaches the that conclusion pose prejudice solely through general was to proposition and inflame jury to secure Miller’s conviction. that he is of That the bad character and unwor judge only permitted thy trial Fitchburg Gertz v. evidence of one of credit.” Co., prior Railroad prose- does not affect 137 Mass. purpose (1884).[5]
cutor’s in seeking the introduction honor, added.) (Emphasis [PROSECUTING Your ATTORNEY]: making request at this time I am a of the see, however, Note, Impeachment 5.But with present previous Court to be allowed to Prior Convictions Under Federal Rule Evi- victions that occurred in '86 and ’87 as well as 609(a)(1): Balance, dence U.L.Q. A Plea 63 Wash. prior deadly weapon felonies with a in ’70. (1985) (footnotes omitted and Co., quoting Fitchburg Railroad Gertz Impeachment by 4. W.R.E. evidence of 609— (1884)), Mass. which stated: conviction of crime—states: argue prior (a) Others convictions serve as purpose General rule.—For the of at- impeachment witness, effective tacking devices. Justice credibility of a provides frequently Holmes the most ad- that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitting prior vanced rationale for crimes admitted if elicited from him or established conviction, prior into by public during evidence. A Justice record cross-examination (1) explained, displays "general Holmes punishable by but if the a readi- crime evil,” (1) jury imprisonment ness to do death or from which the in excess of one year victed, particular “infer a under the law under readiness to lie in a case.” which he was con- admitting pro- prior Another and the court determines that the rationale for convic- admitting jury right bative value of weighs tions is that the this evidence out- has the to know a defendant, prejudicial background. its effect to the witness’ statement, dishonesty misquotation or regardless involved or false This of Justice Holmes as the punishment. philosophic impeachment source of conviction —Co., current not ameliorated decision Laundry Mach. v. Bock Green -, 1984 n. regarding 109 S.Ct. the United State U.S. (1989). L.Ed.2d 557 of the rules of a differentiated function Green, trials. 109 S.Ct. evidence for civil dangerous as well as improper, It seems or 1981.7 run, prior acts to allow bad long in the of the defendant convictions previous difficulty advanced in this case The first imposed originally reduce the burdens in li- occurs with the fact that no motion punishes it convicts government before any prior mine was made to anchor convic- view. my jurisprudential That is citizens. charged relevancy tion to its with the crime to reduce However, majority seeks if this “Generally to the defendant. government originally on imposed the task will to at- of which convictions be usable that reduction punished, are before citizens credibility prior be determined tack should openly light in the done least be should at Evidence, United to trial.” 3 Weinstein’s 404(b) W.R.E. created day. The court (1988). at 609-95 States Rules § 609[05] can abolish those court and the and 609 difficulty inability pin- The second is the pen. When the stroke rules with prior offense was con- point whether 404(b) can illus- exceptions to W.R.E. 609(a)(2)dis- sidered to fall within W.R.E. footnote, lengthy Gezzi trated statement, honesty or false (Wyo.1989),the 974-76 780 P.2d 609(a)(1) outweighing probative value governing princi- meaning as a rule has no prejudicial effect. If the former is used for legal fiction as it is.6
ple.
enough
There is
as
admissibility, the decision was erroneous
improvident to
probably
It is difficult
D. Louisell
a matter of law. 3
and C.
broadly
topic
appropriately consider
Mueller,
Evidence
317 at 332
Federal
§
impeachment of
law as the
emplaced
(1979). Conversely, if the basis is invested
a defendant
probative
ver-
in the balanced test of
value
presented
now
the kind of a record
effect,
the decision was fac-
sus
is made on a
of this court
and the decision
tually unjustified in
this case
conse-
court deci-
by appellate
error context
quently, an abuse of discretion.
Id. at
objection.
adequacy of trial
sion of the
315;
States,
Luck v. United
217 McGowan, Pena, Impeachment 780 in Criminal See evidence. bad character of Convictions, by Prior 1970 J., dissenting). (Urbigkit, P.2d 316 Defendants (1970); Note, 1 Law & Social Order Evi foray prose- of Clearly, offensive Pennsylvania Limits Judicial dence— not achieve the territorial cutor here did Impeachment by Prior Discretion on within for umbrella Randall, v. Convictions —Commonwealth dishonesty 609(a)(2) “involvpng] of crimes Note, (1988); 567 Prior Temp.L.Rev. appli- majority by any or false statement” Impeachment in the District Conviction Rationally constrained cation of that rule. Happened What When Columbia: of im- usage is of the cross-examination also Luck?, 35 Cath.U.L. Courts Ran Out of of convic- the evidence peachment where Annotation, (1986); and Con Rev. 1157 factor related probative minimal tion had a 609(a) Application Rule struction and of compared to the facts of this case Evidence Permit the Federal Rules of from a bad char- effect to Miller Impeachment by Evidence ting Witness man had of a black who acter infusion Crime, A.L.R. Prior Conviction of drugs. in previously dealt (1978). Note, Fed. 570 Evidence— Cf realistically assays the Miller’s brief Diggs Lyons: The Use Prior Crimi problems presented: Impeach Credibility nal Convictions that the introduction of It is clear 609(a), 60 Tul.L. Actions Rule Civil Under procedural- prior conviction evidence was Note, Impeachment Rev. 863 highly preju- It was also ly deficient. Federal with Prior Convictions Under Miller, black, painted as dicial. 609(a)(1): A Evidence Plea Rule being drug dealer. One a California Wash.U.L.Q. (1985). Balance, have to be deaf and blind Court, Supreme in consid- The California great national news to be unaware broadening parameter of admissi- ering the population holds fear that our nation’s amend- bility created a constitutional illegal drug problem and those for the Castro, People ment in 38 Cal.3d net- participate in its distribution who 719, 726, P.2d Cal.Rptr. work. (1985), admissibility deci- considered process: process out due and discretional Before this court sifts sions evidence, re- acts a realistic however, versus bad ignore, cannot is the What we proper briefing, search and not exacerbat- of the Fourteenth process due clause intrusion, be re- by plain which, ed should interpreted by the Amendment analysis Court, quired. The literature and text demands States United subject visually and fac- just presump- the W.R.E. 609 inferences—not even tually recognition extensive. The of an on a rational connection tions—be based reasoning prem- proved from the fact to extrinsic the fact between * * * recognized by Holmes infer- ise to result Justice inferred. “[C]ommon-law ences, counterparts, topically thought- statutory like their is often discussed.8 satisfy process due standards analysis ful addition to the review must experience.” Ladd, Trends, light present-day Credibility Tests—Current *9 837, States, 412 (1940) U.S. can v. United 89 U.Pa.L.Rev. 166 be included [Barnes thirty suggested age will have been convicted of variegated, of are but it is 8. Statistics generic conceptualization felony. of the literature that at least fourteen some percent Within this truth, the adult American males have been of pursued for the it is as a search of trials With of a felonious offense. one out convicted quite in rational belief how determinable not participants eight potential now witnesses or of possible testimony is either more North’s Oliver category, falling the astronomical within that today than would have been less valid or Iitigative review of the use of bad increase in cruel, year ago. could also To be one case one impeachment by conviction acts evidence and reliability relationship of ask what easily civil and criminal cases can be in both anticipatory post- logically by or provided is present progression contin- understood. ues, If the pardon. same witness It is still the unexpected by it should not be to find history, whether the same bad acts who has century, perhaps four one out of the turn of pardoned or not. Americans above out of five of all adult one 218 (Id. 2357, ly impugn character of the defendant L.Ed.2d 380
93 37 ] S.Ct. 844-845, suggest greater pp. thereby 93 at likelihood pp. S.Ct. at U.S. guilt crimes with which he was 2362-2363.) Paraphrasing question of the * * * charged. will not tolerate this inten- we must ask with We asked evasion felony significant convic- tional and of our any particular respect to rules. impeachment: is offered tion which substantial assur- with it be said prosecution’s
“Can in- We conclude that credibility of is a witness that the ance quiry clearly improper was under Rule having suf- adversely 609, M.R.Evid., affected that none of ex- If is the answer 404(b), this conviction?” ceptions fered in Rule M.R.Evid. stated prohibited by due “no,” impeachment applied. it We hold that was reversible important element of a fair process: “An District Court to this for the allow jury consider relevant trial is that a testimony. bearing on the competent supplemental request briefing I would on (Bruton or innocence.” v. guilt issue of adequacy objection, the issues of 123, 131, States, (1968) 391 U.S. United counsel, ineffectiveness of error and 1620, 6, 1625, fn. fn. 88 S.Ct. comprehensive as well as a more review 476.) L.Ed.2d substantively why procedurally and this “that if the felo- further reflects court presented conviction which was has convicted ny the witness been of which jury in was admissi- the cross-examination evil,’ does ‘readiness do not show a purview ble within the W.R.E. 609. simply support fact will not of conviction to lie.” Id.
an inference of readiness P.2d at 119.
Cal.Rptr. at further court noted
The California conspire to it is a state law and then asked
commit a misdemeanor turpitude from a moral follows
“[w]hat person conspiracy to tattoo a conviction of PATTEN, Jr., and Charles G. VAN Cal.Rptr. n. at 727 under 18?” Id. Patten, Martha Louise Van Randall, n. 7. Com. v. P.2d at 119 Cf. (Plaintiffs), Appellants (1987). A.2d 1326 515 Pa. defendant, not the impeachment, Witness PATTEN and Charles VAN Westamerica in review the Montana involved Company, Mortgage Shaw, a Colorado 775 P.2d State (Defendants). corporation, Appellees 1989), (Mont. but the recitation 208-09 subject by prejudice,
on No. 89-93. evidence, totality not has a of relevance: Wyoming. Supreme Court any appro- fails to disclose The record priate inquiry as to reason for the State’s Dec. prior criminal conduct of Mr. Schoon- Clearly something not inad- over. it was nature, as the defendant’s at-
vertent in
torney objected to but by the trial court. We
overruled part that the intention
clude *10 discredit witness
State was to engaged in
showing that he had been assault, intimidation and
crimes of crime involved the intimidation
guns. the aim We further conclude that part improper- was to State