Chapter 6 - § 6.12 • OTHER EVIDENCE ISSUES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.12 • OTHER EVIDENCE ISSUES

§ 6.12.1—Impeachment with Prior Convictions

Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-90-101, any witness in a DUI (or any criminal) trial may be impeached with evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony. Unlike the counterpart federal rule (FRE 609), a state court need not consider the age of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, nor whether the offense was one of "dishonesty."

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that a defendant who is being impeached with a prior felony conviction has no right to the traditional CRE 403 balancing test to determine whether the unfair prejudice flowing from the introduction of such evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. People v. Chavez, 621 P.2d 1362 (Colo. 1981). Presumably, this analysis applies to witnesses other than the defendant.

A guilty plea entered in connection with a deferred judgment and sentence may be used for impeachment purposes even though sentence has not yet been imposed, so long as the plea has not been withdrawn. People v. Vollentine, 643 P.2d 800 (Colo. App. 1982). Contrast People v. Silva, 987 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1999) (felony conviction existed until the deferred sentence was set aside).

Generally, impeachment with a misdemeanor conviction, a traffic conviction, or a juvenile adjudication is not allowed. However, in People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008), the court held that the trial court erred when it found a prior instance of shoplifting inadmissible under CRE 404(b) and CRE 608(b). Shoplifting is a specific instance of conduct that is probative of truthfulness pursuant to CRE 608(b), and to that extent, People v. Jones, 971 P.2d 243 (Colo. App. 1998), is overruled.

A defendant may seek to block the use of a conviction on the ground that the conviction was improperly obtained. Normally, the acceptance of a guilty plea by the court may be equated with a jury verdict, and conviction may be used for impeachment purposes. People v. Baca, 610 P.2d 1083 (Colo. App. 1980). However, constitutionally invalid convictions cannot be used for impeachment purposes. People v. Meyers, 617 P.2d 808 (Colo. 1980); People v. Wieghard, 709 P.2d 81 (Colo. App. 1985).

Once the issue is raised, the court should rule on the motion, and should not defer ruling until such time as the prosecution actually seeks to use the prior conviction. People v. Apodaca, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1985), held that the trial court erred in refusing to rule upon the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the use of a prior conviction to impeach the defendant until such time as the district attorney actually sought to use the conviction. The court reached the same conclusion in Bales v. People, 713 P.2d 1280, 1281-82 (Colo. 1986), when the motion to suppress was filed on the first day of trial. A more detailed discussion of collateral attacks on the validity of a guilty plea is contained in § 8.3.

The inquiry concerning the prior conviction is normally limited to the date of the conviction, the name of the crime for which the defendant was convicted, and the fact that the conviction was for a felony offense. People v. Baenziger, 97 P.3d 271 (Colo. App. 2004). The trial court has broad discretion to limit any further inquiry. People v. Huynh, 98 P.3d 907, 913 (Colo. App. 2004); People v. Williams, 89 P.3d 492 (Colo. App. 2003). A defendant can open the door to additional inquiry by testifying to his or her own version of the facts underlying the conviction. People v....