Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 6/10/2019

Rule 609. ?Impeachmentby Evidence of a Criminal Conviction.

 

(a)      In General. Thefollowing rules apply to attacking a witness?s character for truthfulness byevidence of a criminal conviction:

(a)(1)   for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, waspunishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:

(a)(1)(A)   must be admitted, subject to Rule403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not adefendant; and

 

(a)(1)(B)   must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness isa defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicialeffect to that defendant; and

 

(a)(2)   for anycrime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the courtcan readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime requiredproving ? or the witness?s admitting ? a dishonest act or false statement.

 

(b)      Limiton Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passedsince the witness?s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever islater. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:

 

its probative value, supportedby specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicialeffect; and

 

the proponent gives an adverseparty reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has afair opportunity to contest its use.

 

(c)      Effectof a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of aconviction is not admissible if:

(c)(1)   theconviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate ofrehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that theperson has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a latercrime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or

 

(c)(2)   the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment,or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

 

(d)      JuvenileAdjudications.Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if: 

(d)(1)   it is offered in a criminal case;

 

(d)(2)   the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;

 

(d)(3)   an adult?s conviction for that offense would be admissibleto attack the adult?s credibility; and

 

(d)(4)   admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determineguilt or innocence.

 

(e)      Pendencyof an Appeal. Aconviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even if an appeal is pending.Evidence of the pendency is also admissible.

 

 

2011 Advisory Committee Note. The language of this rulehas been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make themmore easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughoutthe rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intentto change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is thefederal rule, verbatim.

 

Original AdvisoryCommittee Note.? This rule is the federalrule, verbatim, and changes Utah law by granting the court discretion inconvictions not involving dishonesty or false statement to refuse to admit theevidence if it would be prejudicial to the defendant. Current Utah law mandatesthe admission of such evidence. State v. Bennett, 30Utah 2d 343, 517 P.2d 1029 (1973); State v. Van Dam, 554 P.2d 1324 (Utah1976); State v. McCumber, 622 P.2d 353(Utah 1980).

 

There ispresently no provision in Utah law similar to Subsection (d).

 

Thependency of an appeal does not render a conviction inadmissible. This is inaccord with Utah case law. State v. Crawford, 60 Utah6, 206 P. 717 (1922).

 

This ruleis identical to Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The 1990 amendments tothe federal rule made two changes in the rule. The comment to the federal ruleaccurately reflects the Committee's view of the purpose of the amendments.