18WheelerAccidentLawyer

18 Wheeler Accident Lawyer | 18 Wheeler Accident Attorney

§ Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime

Codes > Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes > Rules of > Article VI > Rule 609.

Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime

(a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement.

(b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

(c) Effect of pardon or other equivalent procedure or successful completion of rehabilitation program. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if the conviction has been the subject of one of the following:

(1) a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a specific finding of innocence; or

(2) a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a specific finding of rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of any subsequent crime.

(d) Juvenile Adjudications. In a criminal case only, evidence of the adjudication of delinquency for an offense under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301 et seq., may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult.

(e) Pendency of Appeal. The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.

Comment: Pa.R.E. 609(a) differs from F.R.E. 609(a). Pa.R.E. 609(a), subject to the time limitations in Pa.R.E. 609(b), is similar to F.R.E. 609(a)(2) because it permits impeachment of any witness by evidence of conviction of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, regardless of what the punishment for that crime may be. However, Pa.R.E. 609(a) does not permit use of evidence of conviction of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, which is allowed under F.R.E. 609(a)(1), subject to certain balancing tests. This limitation on the type of crime evidence admissible is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987); Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973). Moreover, Pa.R.E. 609(a), unlike F.R.E. 609(a)(2), specifically provides that a conviction based upon a plea of nolo contendere may be used to impeach; this, too, is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Commonwealth v. Snyder, 408 Pa. 253, 182 A.2d 495 (1962).

As a general rule, evidence of a jury verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not be used to impeach before the court has pronounced sentence. See Commonwealth v. Zapata, 455 Pa. 205, 314 A.2d 299 (1974). In addition, evidence of admission to an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program under Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 310-320 may not be used to impeach credibility. See Commonwealth v. Krall, 290 Pa. Super. 1, 434 A.2d 99 (1981).

Where the target of impeachment is the accused in a criminal case, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 again comes into play. See Comment to Pa.Rs.E. 607, 608 pointing out that § 5918's prohibition against questioning defendant who takes stand about conviction of any offense other than the one for which he is on trial applies only to cross-examination. Hence, evidence of conviction of a crime may be introduced in rebuttal after the defendant has testified. See Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973).

Pa.R.E. 609(b) differs slightly from F.R.E. 609(b) in that the phrase “supported by specific facts and circumstances,” used in the latter with respect to the balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect, has been eliminated. Pa.R.E. 609(b) basically tracks what was said in Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987). Where the date of conviction or last date of confinement is within ten years of the trial, evidence of the conviction of a crimen falsi is per se admissible. If more than ten years have elapsed, the evidence may be used only after written notice and the trial judge's determination that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The relevant factors for making this determination are set forth in Bighum, supra, and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978). For the computation of the ten-year period, where there has been a reincarceration because of a parole violation, see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 526 Pa. 294, 585 A.2d 1061 (1991).

Pa.R.E. 609(c) is similar to F. R. E. 609(c). There are no Pennsylvania cases dealing squarely with the matters covered by section (c). Where a pardon is based upon a finding that a defendant was in fact innocent, the conviction is a nullity and has no probative value; accordingly, there is no basis to permit its use. A pardon based upon a finding of rehabilitation is an indication that the character flaw which gave rise to the inference of untruthfulness has been overcome and so should no longer be taken into account. A subsequent conviction of any crime, whether or not it involves dishonesty or false statement, casts substantial doubt on the finding of rehabilitation and justifies use of the evidence. In the case of both types of pardon, the instrument embodying the pardon must set forth the finding of innocence or rehabilitation. A pardon granted to restore civil rights or to reward good behavior does not make evidence of the conviction inadmissible under Pa.R.E. 609(c), but is admissible in rebuttal if the conviction is used to impeach. Commonwealth v. Quaranta, 295 Pa. 264, 145 A.2d 89 (1926).

Pa.R.E. 609(d) differs from F.R.E. 609(d). Under the latter, evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally inadmissible to impeach credibility, except in criminal cases against a witness other than the accused where the court finds that the evidence is necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence. Pa.R.E. 609(d), to be consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6354(b)(4), permits a broader use; a juvenile adjudication of an offense may be used to impeach in a criminal case if conviction of the offense would be admissible if committed by an adult. Juvenile adjudications may also be admissible for other purposes. See42 Pa.C.S. § 6354(b)(1), (2), and (3).

Moreover, under the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, the accused in a criminal case has the right to use the juvenile record of a witness to show the witness' possible bias, regardless of the type of offense involved. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 309 (1974); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 521 Pa. 218, 555 A.2d 860 (1989).

Pa.R.E. 609(e) is identical to F.R.E. 609(e). There is no Pennsylvania law on this issue. According to the Advisory Committee Notes to F.R.E. 609(e), a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction regardless of a pending appeal because of the “presumption of correctness that ought to attend judicial proceedings.” This is the predominant view. 1 McCormick, Evidence, § 42 (4th ed. 1992).