State v. Sims, C7-94-667
| Decision Date | 23 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C7-94-667,C7-94-667 |
| Citation | 526 N.W.2d 201 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Melvin O'Neal SIMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Melvin O'Neal Sims for further review of the unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming his convictions of and sentences for three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in the above-entitled matter be, and the same is, denied. However, in the interests of preventing future error, we note that the court of appeals' analysis of the issue of impeachment use of prior convictions could mislead trial courts.
Minn.R.Evid. 609(a) provides that a prior conviction for any crime directly involving dishonesty or false statement is automatically admissible for impeachment purposes; it provides for discretionary admission of prior convictions for crimes not involving dishonesty or false statement if the crimes are felonies and if the trial court determines the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effects. The defendant in this case had multiple prior felony convictions of aggravated robbery, one prior felony conviction of simple robbery, and a gross misdemeanor theft conviction. The trial court engaged in discretionary balancing--see State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn.1978), among many decisions--in ruling that the prior felony convictions could be used if defendant testified. It ruled that the gross misdemeanor theft conviction was automatically admissible as one involving dishonesty.
We agree with the court of appeals' conclusion that defendant is not entitled to a new trial on this ground. However, we disagree with the court of appeals' analysis. With respect to the robbery convictions, the court of appeals, citing one of its own decisions, said that robbery and aggravated robbery directly involve dishonesty or false statement and therefore the convictions for those offenses were automatically admissible. Alternatively, the court said that the convictions for robbery and simple robbery were properly admitted in the trial court's discretion. We agree with the alternative basis for admission. However, the court erred in saying that the offense of robbery or aggravated robbery is one involving dishonesty or false statement. See State v. Ross, 491 N.W.2d 658, 569 (Minn.1992) [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Al-Amin
...have determined that a prior conviction for robbery is not automatically admissible under Rule 609(a)(2). See, e.g., State v. Sims, 526 N.W.2d 201 (Minn.1994) (stating that prior convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery did not directly involve dishonesty and false statement, so as to......
-
People v. Segovia
...States v. Fennell, 53 F.3d 1296 (D.C.Cir.1995); United States v. Ortega, 561 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1977) (shoplifting); State v. Sims, 526 N.W.2d 201, 202 (Minn.1994) (shoplifting). 6. United States v. Smith, 80 F.3d 1188, 1193 (7th Cir. 1996) (theft is probative of truthfulness); State v......
-
State v. Greer
...Here, there is no question that the crime underlying Strom's prior conviction involved dishonesty or false statement. In State v. Sims, 526 N.W.2d 201 (Minn.1994), we clarified that Rule 609(a)(2) does not provide trial courts with discretion to exclude evidence of a prior conviction on the......
-
State v. Holman, No. A07-1443 (Minn. App. 10/21/2008)
...of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible for impeachment purposes. Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2); see State v. Sims, 526 N.W.2d 201, 201 (Minn. 1994) (stating that any crime involving dishonesty or false statement is automatically admissible for impeachment Evidence that ......