State v. Hardy
946 P.2d 1175 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington Evidence Rule 609(a)(1), a prior felony conviction not involving dishonesty is admissible for impeachment only if the proponent demonstrates its probative value regarding the witness's truthfulness outweighs its prejudicial effect. Prior felony drug convictions are generally not probative of a witness's veracity and are thus presumptively inadmissible.
Facts:
- At 4:30 AM on a street corner in Seattle, Patrick Hardy approached and spoke with Shamsa Wilkins.
- Wilkins testified that Hardy then robbed her of her jewelry.
- Hardy testified to a different version of events, claiming Wilkins was in a physical altercation with a female friend when jewelry fell to the ground.
- Hardy stated that he simply picked up the loose jewelry from the ground to help out.
- Hardy did not deny leaving the scene with Wilkins' jewelry in his possession.
- Police later found Hardy passed out in his car at a nearby intersection.
- Wilkins' jewelry was discovered in Hardy's pockets upon his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Patrick Hardy with second-degree robbery in a Washington trial court.
- Prior to trial, the State moved to admit Hardy's prior felony drug conviction for impeachment purposes should he testify.
- The trial court granted the motion, ruling the conviction was admissible as an unnamed felony.
- At trial, the jury convicted Hardy of second-degree robbery.
- Hardy (appellant) appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the prior conviction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- Hardy (petitioner) then sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Washington Evidence Rule 609(a)(1), is a defendant's prior felony drug conviction admissible for impeachment purposes if it is not specifically shown to be probative of the defendant's truthfulness as a witness?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sanders
No. Under ER 609(a)(1), a prior felony drug conviction is not admissible for impeachment unless the party seeking admission demonstrates that the conviction is specifically probative of the defendant's truthfulness and that this probative value outweighs its inherent prejudice. The court held that the purpose of ER 609(a)(1) is to assess a witness's credibility (truthfulness), not their general law-abiding character. Citing its precedent in State v. Jones, the court found that few felonies not involving dishonesty are probative of veracity and that prior drug convictions, in particular, 'have little to do with a defendant's credibility as a witness.' The trial court must conduct an on-the-record balancing test and articulate how the specific crime bears on veracity; here, the trial court did the opposite by stating the conviction's impeachment value was 'almost nil.' Admitting the conviction as an 'unnamed felony' does not cure the error, as it strips the conviction of the very nature that might make it probative. Because the case was a credibility contest between Hardy and the victim, the error was not harmless and required reversal.
Dissenting - Justice Talmadge
Yes, the admission of the prior conviction should be upheld because any error was not prejudicial. The majority opinion creates a confusing, near per se rule of inadmissibility for prior drug convictions that conflicts with the established case-by-case balancing test. Furthermore, the error was harmless because Hardy's version of the facts was 'rather incredible' and was contradicted by the victim's statements, which were properly admitted as excited utterances. Given the weakness of Hardy's testimony, there is no reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was materially affected by the admission of an unnamed prior felony for impeachment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens the rule from State v. Jones, establishing a strong presumption against the admissibility of prior drug convictions for impeachment purposes under ER 609(a)(1). The ruling heightens the burden on the prosecution, requiring an explicit, on-the-record demonstration of how a specific non-dishonesty felony is probative of truthfulness. By rejecting the notion that drug-related activity inherently involves deceit, the court protects a defendant's right to testify without being unfairly prejudiced by a past that is irrelevant to their credibility, thereby ensuring the jury focuses on the facts of the present case rather than on character or propensity.
