State v. Alexis
95 Wash. 2d 15, 621 P.2d 1269 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), a trial court must conduct a case-specific balancing test to determine whether the probative value of a defendant's prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes outweighs its prejudicial effect. A court cannot apply a per se rule of admissibility for certain types of crimes.
Facts:
- On September 29, 1975, Andrew J. Alexis was convicted of second degree rape.
- In May 1977, Alexis was charged in a separate incident with first degree rape.
- During his 1977 trial for first degree rape, Alexis chose not to testify.
- Alexis's decision not to testify was motivated by his fear that his 1975 rape conviction would be admitted into evidence for impeachment purposes, prejudicing the jury against him.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew J. Alexis was convicted of first degree rape in a Washington state trial court in 1977.
- Alexis, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.
- Prior to the retrial, the defense filed a motion to exclude evidence of Alexis's 1975 rape conviction.
- The trial court denied the motion, issuing a pretrial ruling that the prior conviction would be admissible for impeachment purposes if Alexis chose to testify.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review of the trial court's pretrial evidentiary ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Washington Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) permit a trial court to apply a per se rule that a defendant's prior rape conviction is always admissible for impeachment in a subsequent rape trial, rather than conducting a case-specific balancing of its probative value against its prejudicial effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Hicks, J.
No. Washington Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) does not permit a per se rule of admissibility for prior convictions and instead requires the trial court to exercise its discretion by balancing the probative value against the prejudicial effect in each specific case. The court rejected the trial judge's reasoning that all rapists are inherently self-deceiving and prone to lying, finding this created an improper categorical rule. The purpose of ER 609 is to balance the defendant's right to testify against the state's interest in challenging credibility. This requires a genuine, on-the-record balancing of several factors, including the nature and remoteness of the prior crime, the length of the defendant's record, and the centrality of the defendant's credibility, while also considering the importance of the jury hearing the defendant's version of events. The case must be remanded for the trial court to conduct this proper balancing test.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing the mandatory procedure for trial courts in Washington when considering the admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment under the newly adopted ER 609. By rejecting a per se approach, the court prevents judges from creating categorical rules that would automatically admit certain prior convictions, thereby undermining the rule's discretionary balancing requirement. This ruling strengthens a defendant's right to testify by mitigating the chilling effect that the fear of automatic admission of a prejudicial prior conviction can have. It solidifies the principle that such evidence is strictly for assessing witness credibility, not for suggesting a defendant has a propensity to commit the crime charged.
