OPINION
Dеfendant was convicted of aggravated burglary contrary to § 40A-16^4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6), and larceny over $100.00 but less than $2500.00 contrary to § 40A-16-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). The issue on appeal аrises from the assistant district attorney’s cross-examination of defendant concerning certain prior misdemeanor convictions. We affirm.
New Mexico Rules of Evidence, Rule 609, § 20-4-609, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, Supp.1973), states:
"Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.
“(a) General Rule. For the purposе of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been conviсted of a crime is admissible but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted or (2) involved dishоnesty or false statement regardless of the punishment.”
Since misdemeanors arе punishable in New Mexico by imprisonment for “less than one [1] year,” the rule appears to have been violated. Section 40A-29-4(A), N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6).
New Mexico Rules of Evidence, Rule 103, § 20-4-103, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp.1973), states:
“Rulings on evidence.
“(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantiаl right of the party is affected, and
“(1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidenсe a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apрarent from the context . . . . ”
Although defense counsel objected to the introduсtion of the prior convictions under Rule 609, supra, the “specific ground[s]” stated relate to juvenile convictions and stale convictions. See Rule 609(b) and (d), supra. Since he did not assert the inadmissibility of convictions of crimes punishable by imprisonment for less than one year, this issue is raised for the first time on appeal in violation of § 21-2-1(20), N. M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4).
Defendant suggests two methods by which we can review the alleged еrror despite § 21-2-1(20), supra. He alleges that the trial court had an affirmative duty to bаlance the probative value of the evidence against its possibly prejudicial effect. The trial court is allowed to weigh’ these factors under New Mexico Rules of Evidence, Rule 403, § 20-4-403, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp.1973). That rule is a rule of exclusion аnd the procedure set out under Rule 103, supra, must be followed before error сan be predicated upon its violation. The rule was not mentioned to the triаl court, nor was the possibility of unfair prejudice brought to its attention. Cf. State v. Baсa,
Defendant also alleges that the “plain error” provision found in Rule 103(d), suprа, allows review. In United States v. Garelle,
Defendant also contends а jury instruction was erroneous in that it stated the jury could consider misdemeanor convictions and assertedly failed to limit consideration of prior convictions to impeaching defendant’s credibility. No objection was made to the instruction. Defendant argues that the instruction is reviewable under Rule 41(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states, “The court must instruct the jury upon all questions of law necessary for guidance in returning a verdict.” See Rule 41(a), supra. We do not decide whether a crеdibility instruction is “necessary for guidance” under the rule. We merely hold that the instruction complained of was an instruction upon credibility. Even though it might have contained еrroneous statements of law, it still satisfied'the requirements of Rule 41(a), supra. That rule operates only when there is complete failure to instruct upon a neсessary issue. See Advisory Committee Comment to Rule 41, supra, and cases cited therein.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.