*1
STATE of Terry THOMPSON, L. Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 23801. Idaho, Supreme Court of Boise, October 1998 Term.
April *2 Defender, Caldwell, for appellant.
uty Public argued. A. Thomas Sullivan General; Attorney Lance, Hon. Alan G. Attorney Jorgensen, Deputy K. Kenneth K. General, Boise, respondent. Kenneth for Jorgensen argued.
SCHROEDER, Justice. judg- from Thompson appeals Terry L. battery of a ments conviction for sexual from the sen- appeals minor and assault and minor battery of a entered tence sexual court. against him in the district
I. AND PRIOR
BACKGROUND PROCEEDINGS 18- charged under section Thompson was (I.C.), sexual bat- 1508A of the Idaho Code tery minor sixteen seventeen child allegedly had years age, he because with his 16-year-old girl’s breasts touched a years least and was at five hand and mouth also girl. The indictment older than the aggravated assault under charged him with 18-905(a) 18-901(b) he because §§ I.C. girl allegedly had threatened psycho- ordered a knife. The district court pursuant logical evaluation parties stipulation to determine wheth- trial. competent er stand report, dis- psychological Based on the compe- Thompson was trict found that court tent to trial. stand testify attorney him Thompson’s called Thompson taking the at the Prior to trial. stand, granted trial court the State’s regarding allow cross-examination motion to conviction, limiting the exami- fact the conviction. nation to the to the nature prohibited reference i.e., lewd lascivious conviction— conduct. trial, Thompson moved for in the
Later
psychological evalua-
his written
admission of
stipulated
admission.
tion. The State
Thereafter,
during
cross-examination
ex-wife,
requested
the State
ruling
it would
allowed
on whether
regarding
her
the reasons
cross-examine
assuming Thompson,
Fouser, P.A.,
her divorce
Canyon County
&
Wiebe
Sullivan,
Thompson’s prior felony
Defenders;
convic-
Dep-
reason to be
A.
Public
Thomas
engaged
§
tíon for
he
lewd conduct
in with
I.C.
18-1508A should not have
intro-
been
daughter.
refused,
initially
their
The court
impeach
duced to
at trial.
ruling
that the
conduct
too remote.
Rule
of the Idaho
Evi
Rules of
responded
The State
that the
bad act
(I.R.E.),
pertinent
dence
provides,
part:
already
psy-
evidence was
in evidence in the
*3
(a)
For
purposes
General rule.
at
of
chological
Thompson moved to
credibility
witness,
portion
tacking
of a
evi
report
strike that
of
which re-
abuse,
history
ferred to his
of sexual
that
dence of the fact
the witness has been
prior conviction and sentence. The trial
felony
convicted of a
and the nature
of
Thompson
court denied the motion.
then
felony shall
if
be admitted
elicited from
report
moved to withdraw the
from evidence.
record,
by public
witness or established
motion,
The court also
this
denied
and the
but
if the court determines in a hear
inquire why Thompson
State
allowed to
ing
of
presence
jury
outside the
and his ex-wife had divorced. She testified
.the fact
na
conviction or the
having
21-year-
that he was
with
an affair
a
conviction,
both,
ture of the
or
are
old woman.
relevant
of
to the
the witness
case,
Near the
of
conclusion
the trial
admitting
probative
and that the
value of
judge
parties
they
objections
asked the
if
had
outweighs
prejudicial
this
ef
evidence
its
proposed jury
Thompson
to the
instructions.
party offering
fect to the
the witness.
inquired about
on
instructions
lesser included
609(a).
I.R.E.
this rule the
Under
trial court
offenses. After the
on
instructions
that sub-
apply
two-prong
must
a
test
to determine
attention,
ject
were called to his
whether evidence of the
conviction
replied that the
were
instructions
“satisfacto-
(1)
should be admitted:
the court must deter-
ry.”
mine whether the fact or nature of the con-
jury
guilty
returned
of
verdicts
to the
credibility;
viction is relevant
the witness’
to
charge
battery
sexual
of minor and
(2)
so,
and
court must
determine
assault. The trial court sentenced
probative
whether the
value of the evidence
years
years
unified 35
15
with
fixed for
outweighs
impact.
prejudicial
its
v.
State
battery
the sexual
minor.
Bush,
30,
22,
1249,
131 Idaho
951 P.2d
1257
Thompson appeals
convictions and
(1997).
battery.
sentence for sexual
He contends
reviewing
In
the trial court’s deci
the trial
following
court erred
prong concerning
sion as to the first
rele
(1)
respects:
by
that if
ruling
he testified in
vance,
the standard
review is de novo. Id.
defense,
own
could elicit
State
on
758,
(citing
Raudebaugh,
v.
124
State
pri-
cross-examination the
that he had a
fact
(1993)).
766,
596,
reviewing
864
P.2d
604
(2)
conviction,
by refusing
or
to strike
the trial
court’s decision as
the second
prejudicial and inadmissible evidence from
prong concerning
whether the
val
psychological
report
refusing
and
outweighs
ue of the evidence
its
(3) by
report,
allowing
withdraw the
his ex-
impact, the standard of review is
abuse
testify
towife
as to the reasons she divorced
31,
discretion.
Id. at
II. within of such the outer bounds discretion consistently legal appli- and standards THE TRIAL PROPERLY AD- COURT (3) choices; specific cable to whether MITTED EVIDENCE OF THOMP- court reached decision an exer- SON’S PRIOR CONVICTION ON cise of reason. THE ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY. 598, (citing Hedger, Id.
Thompson argues
prior felony
State v.
con-
(1989)).
600,
1331, 1333
viction
lewd and lascivious conduct under
768 P.2d
relevant
Wyoming conviction was
Prong
Bush’s
A. First
—Relevance
credibility, the
stated:
issue of
Ybarra,
573,
P.2d
In State
“
does not
against a minor
A sex crime
(1981),
recognized
‘dif-
the Court
veracity
honesty
as
degrees
pro-
specifically
relate to
felonies have different
ferent
”
therefore,
credibility,’
id.
the issue of
perjury,
value on
bative
crime of
does the
580,
People v.
(quoting
at 442
634 P.2d
category de-
the first
fall within
does not
177,
Cal.Rptr.
Rollo,
20 Cal.3d
Further,
crime
the sex
Ybarra.
scribed in
(1977)),
three
identified
Wyoming
here is not defined
involved
whether
categories of felonies
determine
felony, and therefore does
as violent
law a
impeach-
could
used for
category described
fall
the third
within
Category
such
one involves crimes
ment.
Thus,
that under
we conclude
in Ybarra.
“intimately
perjury
connected”
which
*4
case, Wyoming
this
the
specific
facts of
credibility.
Category
Id.
with the issue of
category de-
the middle
crime falls within
robbery
such
or bur-
two involves crimes
as
i.e„
which,
Ybarra,
while
a crime
scribed in
to
glary
“somewhat less relevant”
which are
falsify,
propensity to
directly showing a
credibility.
Finally, category
of
Id.
the issue
“
rights
disregard for the
of
a
does disclose
‘[ajcts
...
[which]
three involves
of violence
reasonably expect
might
one
others which
bearing
generally
or
on
little
no direct
have
”
testimony if
express
giving
to
itself in
false
581,
veracity.’
honesty and
Id. at
634
advantageous
the wit-
to
such would be
Rollo,
177,
Cal.Rptr.
(quoting
569
at
compunction
had
775).
ness.
Bush
no
Since
two
regard
category
to
P.2d at
With
a
crimes,
against engaging in immoral acts with
the Ybarra court noted:
minor,
he
robbery,
larceny,
is
reason to
that
there
no
believe
“On
other hand
showing propen-
advantage
burglary, while not
a
an
for
gain
would hesitate to
disregard for
sity
falsify,
a
do disclose
by
testimo-
giving
in this
false
himself
case
might
rights
others
reason-
of
which
Committing
act with a
ny.
an immoral
ably
express
giving
itself in
expected
be
type of “marked break from
minor is the
testimony
it
be to
false
whenever would
a
[
...
affords
]
sanctioned conduct
advantage
the wit-
of
witness.
If
credibility.
predicting
basis” for
reasonable
stealing
compunction against
ness had no
581,
Ybarra, 102 Idaho at
(quoting
Id.
taking
away
it
property or
another’s
443).
P.2d at
force,
by
hard
physical
him
or
it is
threat
argues
his
that because
why he would
to obtain an
to see
hesitate
battery,
previous conviction of sexual
I.C.
advantage
friend in a trial
for himself or
Furthermore,
giving
testimony.
18-1508,
a
violence”
§
false
is defined as
“crime of
acts, although
by a
19-5307,
criminal
evidenced
prior
§
such
legislature
I.C.
conviction,
single
may represent
such
category
Ybarra’s
conviction falls under
break from
conduct
marked
sanctioned
have little or no direct
three crimes which
future
that it affords
reasonable basis of
veracity.
bearing
honesty and
on
credibility____”
prediction upon
§
§
enumerates I.C.
18-1508
Code
19-5307
Ladd,
(quoting
Credibility
Id.
Test —Current
(dealing
with a minor child
lewd conduct
with
(1940)).
Trends,
166,
L.
Pa.
Rev.
U.
sixteen)
heading
“Fines in
under
under the
of
of a
In Bush
Court held that evidence
this
of
of violence.” Section 19-5307
cases
crimes
Wyoming
acts
prior
conviction for immoral
of
and sets forth the
lists a number
crimes
impeach-
child
be introduced for
with a
could
operate
imposing
fines which
provisions
purposes
609. 131 Idaho
ment
under I.R.E.
question
is whether
judgment.
a civil
31, 951 P.2d at
The Court stated
at
Thomp
legislative
moves
classification
whether evidence
“[t]he
determination
felony
category
prior
conviction into
son’s
particular
conviction relevant
of a
“act of vio
under Ybarra as an
three crime
facts
credibility depends
particular
on the
bearing
no
which has little or
direct
lence”
case and must
circumstances
each
it
honesty
veracity. The
believes
or
case-by-case ba-
on a
therefore be decided
not.
does
important
facts to con-
Id. One of
sis.”
legislature was not
It
is clear that
noted,
sider,
the Court
definition
evidentiary
classify crimes for
concluding
attempting
particular
crime. Id.
purposes
legislature
§in
§
19-5307. The
under
I.C.
for im-
18-1508A was relevant
addressing the unrelated
issue
fines and
peachment purposes under I.R.E. 609.
judg-
enforcement
those fines as civil
legislature’s
Should the
ments.
classification
Prong
B. Second
Value
—Probative
§of
as a
18-1508
crime of violence be con-
claims
the trial court erred
trolling,
anomaly
an
would arise that
by only
engaging
requisite balancing
admissibility
conviction for im-
probative
prejudicial impact
value versus
peachment purposes
could turn
the state
regard
with
to the nature of his
convic-
in which
act
Wyoming
occurred.
tion,
regard
the fact
and Nevada
statutes considered Bush and
conviction.
Muraco,
State v.
The
analyzed by
Nevada statute
this
probative
some
value under Idaho Rule of
Court
in Muraco also criminalized certain
conduct which was
committed
“the in-
Evidence
...
[609]
credibility.
to,
arousing, appealing
tent of
or gratifying
The trial court read I.R.E.
verbatim
the
passions
lust or
or sexual
of
desires
that
and discussed the time limitations set forth
person or
that
of
child.” Nev.Rev.Stat.
under the
The court
rule.
concluded that
(1987).
noted,
§
previously
201.230
As
this
Thompson’s prior
within
conviction fell
the
Court held that evidence of the defendant’s
ten-year time limitation and
addressed
then
prior
conviction
under the
lewdness
Ne-
question
the
request
State’s
impeachment
vada statute was admissible for
about
the nature
conviction:
Muraco,
purposes under I.R.E. 609.
COURT: Under 609 the
does find
Idaho at
P.2d
228.
Nevada
involved in this case—and
the credi-
since
Muraco,
in
Wyoming
statute considered
the
bility
questioned by
is
witness
in
statute considered
and the
Bush
well
examination as
as this Court observ-
statute considered
this
all
case
criminalize
ing her
I
demeanor while on the stand feel
similar
Bush
conduct. Consistent with
and
Muraco,
that the
value of the lewd and
the trial
Court affirms
court’s
conduct,
Thompson’s
being
nothing
conclusion that
conviction
lascivious
said
more
Muraco,
question
1.
the Court reserved
to the court, felony prejudicial conviction and its effect. The outweighed for a to the attack any outweighs of its prejudicial therefore, value far of the fact of evidence allowed lewd regard to the probative value with conviction, prejudice it did minimize but to even lascivious conduct action because of- of the nature not allow evidence lewd and though charged with a he’s Appeals held The Court fense. criminal offense conduct lascivious discretion. its court had not abused district case, only reason he is is particular “analysis and in the concurred This Court under alleged victim was not because the in its review of disposition” of this issue age. years of Rodgers, State v. Appeals decision. Court of you if will take the So the Court allow 1047, 1062, 1208, 1213 stand, Thompson, the State Mr. will allow (1991). you’ve if been convicted to ask present case in the jury already instructed the offense. I’ve many of the same factors consid considered they they can take that hear impeachment including the credibility. Rodgers, That’s ered apply that to the crime, they you or not. the remoteness would believe whether value conviction, similarity would rule that the nature The Court between conduct, offense, lascivious charged, lewd and the crime past crime and sufficiently enough add to the does not credibility centrality of issue. credibility outweigh your attack of recognized of credi issue trial court value, so— in this case bility particularly central (Court reviewing.) basically the evidence consisted because Indicates that are relevant COURT: against word. the victim’s word probative value of and that the initially trial prejudice To minimize outweighs prej- admitting this evidence *6 Thomp that evidence of the nature ruled offering party wit- udicial to the the effect prior should not be admitted son’s conviction proba- the ness. And the Court finds that into evidence. say I should does tive value does not —or two- properly applied the outweigh prejudicial effect so the not determining in whether to admit prong test allowing of- nature of the Court’s Thompson’s prior conviction. evidence of fense. request any Thompson further clarifi- did not III. judge’s analysis after the cation of the trial parties they if would like judge asked the RE- ERRED BY THE TRIAL COURT findings. him to restate PREJUDICIAL STRIKE FUSING TO 1066, Rodgers, 119 812 In State v. EVIDENCE AND INADMISSIBLE Ap- (Ct.App.1990), the P.2d 1227 RE- THE FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL analysis em- peals affirmed the result and AND BY REFUSING TO PORT by weighing ployed the district court when THE REPORT. WITHDRAW prior probative value the defendant’s of the Thompson for the admission moved impact. against prejudicial its pre- been psychological report which had Rodgers in sev- considered The district determining purpose of wheth- pared for the (1) impeachment value of eral factors: stand trial. The competent er he was (2) crime, of the the remoteness by report stipulation as Defen- admitted conviction, (3) the criminal his- witness’ Thompson A. Thereafter dant’s Exhibit (4) past tory, similarity between report portion and to strike a moved (5) impor- charged, crime the crime and report altogether, finally to withdraw the (6) testimony, the cen- tance of the witness’ proposed to cross-exam- prosecutor when the (7) issue, trality and then- on the cause of ine defendant’s ex-wife of the witness’ criminal nature and extent objected, Thompson divorce. When 1073, P.2d Id. at 812 at record as a whole. report con- prosecutor pointed out that the that the The district court concluded 1234. anticipated in information that was to the defen- tained the prior conviction was relevant 634
Thompson’s
testimony, including
ex-wife’s
in-
The
Gray,
State relies on State v.
784,
formation about
his-
sexual
(Ct.App.1997),
129 Idaho
Mr. he also has a waived sexual admissibility. tion to daughter Ap abuse. He indicated that his re- The Court of however, ported peals Gray, in sexually agreeing that he abused her. Mr. held Thompson completed Program previ the Rider the admission of evidence which had Cottonwood, probation ously in treatment been deemed inadmissible is a waiver any objection. 794, a sex through pro- offender the SANE Id. at at gram. According Thompson, to Mr. he did Gray court did not address whether sexually daughter. agreeing abuse his He said the admission of evidence consti him she turned in because he was any subsequent objection tuted waiver of pursuing a sexual with her interest friends. present which is the situation case. Gray is not instructive. The trial court denied the motion strike request report. to withdraw the authority State relies out-of-'state claims the trial court erred proposition for the that a motion to strike refusing to strike the and inad- previously admitted evidence “will be allowed report missible evidence objection ground cases where refusing to withdraw the was unknown and have could not been known ordinary diligence at the time the evi-
A question threshold is whether Spidle, dence was received.” Jones v. properly preserved this issue has been 103, (1971) 366, (emphasis appellate Pa. 286 A.2d general review. “The rule omitted). appellate Murphy Waldrip, also v. is that an See court will not consider an (before alleged appeal (Tex.Ct.App.1985) S.W.2d error on in the absence of timely objection granted, alleged motion to withdraw mov- to that error at tri evidence Stevens, 822, 824, party why ing showing must al.” State make there (1995). objection “[Ojrdinarily objec an no made the time evi- admitted). rules, however, purpose tion comes too late for review dence was These appeal, adopted made the first time after the have not been Idaho. jury has retired or the cause has been sub *7 general recognized The rule in Idaho them, mitted or to after close of the is that the trial court in has sole discretion arguments, or for or on motion new trial deciding or whether to admit exclude evi otherwise, after verdict has been ren discretion, however, dence. This not un Yost, 415, 424, Hayward dered.” 72 Idaho limited. The trial court must exercise reason (1952). 242 P.2d making in its decision. Thompson’s objection came before Thomp- The trial court based its denial of report jury, published to the before report son’s to or motion strike withdraw the of arguments, the close and the case before Thompson’s on the that fact counsel had jury. objec had been submitted to previously stipulated to admission of the re- properly preserved appellate tion was port, already and the fact that had review. (1) previously had testified that he been con- (2) (3) victed, problems, he had mental he Ordinarily, appellate courts review hospital had been treated at the state admitting excluding trial court decisions or (4) Blackfoot, currently being and he was evidence under the abuse discretion stan Hospital. treated at the VA Thomson, dard. Morris rel. Morris v. ex stated: 138, 144, 937 P.2d (1997). got a lot spe [W]e There no of stuff that’s not relevant Idaho cases which cifically address the standard of with that was introduced the defendant and review regard go just ruling going to a trial on motion I’m not to back and now court’s a to away things withdraw evidence. cross that defendant eight nine on about or he went give and then not and brought into courtroom a went to then he years ago ... and clarify ex- opportunity an to the State on and hospital in Blackfoot and he had mental things. He indicated plain those undoing what’s on, not Blackfoot, convicted, and so Court’s to he was sent been jury. already presented to the been problems and the State he’s had mental evaluation, so stipulated psychological a when to considered A factor por- pick choose you’re going information determining request to redact a portions. bring in other tions of it and preju is whether an exhibit or to withdraw Department Health have We also now is, party; that the other result to dice would stipulated that were records Welfare on admission party relied opposing has the of authen- proof we no admitted and have oppos example, has For the evidence? ticity now. failed calling a witness or foregone ing party redact response Thompson’s request to in reliance In documents to have available report relating portion of the specific The trial being admitted? the evidence conviction, fact, question. of his the nature did not address place: took been following conversation would have that there State concedes withdrawing the exhibit. Well, prejudice had not no the defendant COURT: on the no reliance There was detrimental of these different mentioned himself all trial court’s might differ- admission have ruled matters prejudice was inconsistent failure to consider ently. already that I was not I did rule applicable legal standards. get of the of- with going to into the nature .... fense trial court’s refusal A basis for the Honor, Well, your I MR. SWAFFORD: report or allow its portions strike suggest that Mr. never would opened Thompson had was that withdrawal SANE, Cotton- anything mentioned about his own testimo door to evidence wood, et cetera. However, contrary trial court’s to the ny. Well, you stipulated he did when COURT: testimony conclusion, previous psychological It’s Exhibit A. admit admission of this open door for did not evaluation. Thompson testified The fact that evidence. Yes, your Honor. MR. SWAFFORD: jail, presently in that he had that he was However, prejudi- that would be far more felony, previously convicted been anything. I mean it cial than for his mental he had been treated prove nothing offense. would about this being now problems at Blackfoot and was Well, I a lot to do think it has COURT: his mental Hospital for at the YA treated I think it has a lot do with this offense. suggest con problems, did not Thompson taking the stand and with Mr. lascivious conduct viction was for lewd and testifying jail, he been in he’s 15-year-old daughter or that he jail, taking testifying the stand and that he Program at Cot “completed had the Rider Blackfoot, he’s con- tonwood, has been sex been treatment as a probation and *8 sent program.” and he was to victed through the SANE offender testimony it. or tes Nothing Blackfoot for in timony from the other witnesses received paragraph That there MR. SWAFFORD: “history Thompson of had a jail. suggested that nothing or about Blackfoot contains Finally, acknowledging sexual abuse.” directly rath fact of Well, undoing I’m what not COURT: impeach to prosecutor for the er than wait already already admit- you’ve done. You him, objection Thompson waive his did not A and stipulated to admit Exhibit ted and v. of his conviction. State to evidence already in here. all these matters 85, Allen, 676, 677-78, 747 P.2d 113 Idaho brought in They the defendant were (Ct.App.1987). 86-87 himself, necessarily at- the defendant’s proper apply attorney The trial court failed did not torney. The defendant’s denied the motion jury legal standard when it to inform the of all these ask him request the re- to withdraw question strike and I recall the other offenses. As port. felony” you was “Have been convicted of question The next Thompson is whether the error in she divorced he was —because
refusing portions report having 21-year-old strike an affair awith woman. report allow withdrawal was harmless. The trial court indicated because she formerly testified that she was married to An may error if deemed harmless it Thompson, testimony was within the right does not affect a substantial scope However, of direct examination. accused. 52. The I.C.R. determination testimony substantive on direct was limited right whether a substantial has af- been alleged to the issue of the victim’s advance hinges appears fected it whether from planning making a tape of her conversa- record that the error contributed to Thompson tion with and her if, accusa- the verdict. An error harmless against if, tions other men. only say, the appellate court is able to doubt, beyond a jury reasonable that the Thompson The claims State failed to have would reached the same result absent object inquiry to the State’s of Karen con- the error. cerning Thompson. the reason she divorced Brazzell, 431, 435, However, State v. Thompson timely did make a ob- 139, (Ct.App.1990) (citing jection, State both at the time State re- first Boehner, 311, 315, quested 756 P.2d a side-bar with the discuss (Ct.App.1988)). See also State v. Me- whether the State could cross-examine Karen drano, 114, 120, 844 P.2d the reasons for her from divorce (no immediately (Ct.App.1992); Thompson I.R.E. 103 after the error State Thompson. the admission asked Karen she had or exclusion of evidence unless divorced prejudices right it a substantial defen- eliciting The purpose State’s dant). testimony Karen’s as to the reason she di The Court conclude that the cannot Thompson vorced was to show motive under preju error was harmless. The error did 404(b). I.R.E. The State assumed Karen right dice a substantial of the defendant. testify would the reason she divorced expressly The recognized trial court had Thompson was because he was convicted for prejudice allowing that the evidence of engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct with Thompson’s prior nature of conviction out 15-year-old daughter. their The State also weighed any probative considering value argued that because evidence of the fact that fact that the nature of the offense and Thompson previously had been convicted for presently charged very the offense were engaging daughter lewd conduct similar. The for the already witnesses State through psycho in evidence victim, police were a officer and and the logical report, the State should be allowed to trial court pursue questioning why determined the regarding its line of alleged “questionable.” Thompson. victim was al Karen divorced leged previously why victim had made false alle allowed the State to ask Karen she gations against perr of sexual abuse other Thompson apparently divorced it because be Thompson sons. why testified trial and denied she lieved evidence of reason di allegations battery. already the victim’s of sexual vorced in evidence. noted, beyond The Court psychologi cannot conclude reason As this evidence able doubt report would have cal remained in the been should have objec gave response convicted without introduction of the record. answer Karen language prosecutor’s question tionable introduced addi was not admissible tional evidence that be *9 IV. yond what was THE TRIAL ERRED BY COURT AL- V. KAREN LOWING THOMPSON TO AS THE
TESTIFY TO REASONS CONCLUSION SHE DIVORCED THOMPSON. The trial court abused its discretion when Karen nature of allowed it refused strike evidence (Karen) testify why Thompson’s prior psy- cross-examination conviction from
chological report, or allow withdrawal it the State report, and when allowed Thompson as to the Karen cross-examine Thompson. The Court she divorced reason beyond a reasonable conclude is unable to con- Thompson would have been doubt error. The despite trial court’s victed conviction and sentence judgments of vacated, a new is remanded for case necessary It to address
trial.
appeal.
issues raised on
other
SILAK
TROUT and Justices
Chief Justice
WALTERS, CONCUR.
JOHNSON,
Pro Tern
Justice
PART AND
IN
CONCURRING
IN PART.
DISSENTING
opinion except
I
in all of the
concur
Court’s
(The
Properly Admitted
part II
Trial Court
Thompson’s Prior
Evidence of
Conviction
I
Credibility),
which
re-
the Issue of
spectfully dissent.
view,
my
§
the I.C.
19-5307 character-
Otherwise,
no
I make
important.
ization is
analysis of
out of the
the statutes
sense
states in Bush and Muraco.
other
view,
Aso,
my
court did not
the trial
any
engage
weighing
of the “fact”
conviction, only
“nature.” When
its
nature,
did, I
stripped of
the tidal court
weigh
think the trial court then needed to
against
value
concerning
I
fact of conviction. As
effect
record,
court did not
so.
read the
the trial
do
of alcohol He Athough we jurors for his trial. voir dire of *10 occurred, improper voir dire conclude that