Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a
Criminal Conviction
(a) In
General. The
following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by
evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for
a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by
imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must
be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in
which the witness is not a defendant; and
(B) must
be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the
probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that
defendant; and
(2) for
any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the
court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime
required proving — or the witness’s admitting — a dishonest act or false
statement.
(b) Limit
on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This
subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s
conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of
the conviction is admissible only if:
its
probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially
outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
the
proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use
it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
(c) Effect
of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not
admissible if:
(1) the
conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of
rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the
person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later
crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or
(2) the
conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent
procedure based on a finding of innocence.
(d) Juvenile
Adjudications.
Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if:
(1) it
is offered in a criminal case;
(2) the
adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;
(3) an
adult’s conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s
credibility; and
(4) admitting
the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.
(e) Pendency
of an Appeal. A
conviction 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 rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the
Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and
terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be
stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on
evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is
the federal rule, verbatim, and changes Utah law by granting the court
discretion in convictions not involving dishonesty or false statement to refuse
to admit the evidence if it would be prejudicial to the defendant. Current Utah
law mandates the admission of such evidence. State v. Bennett, 30 Utah 2d 343,
517 P.2d 1029 (1973); State v. Van Dam, 554 P.2d 1324 (Utah 1976); State v. McCumber, 622 P.2d 353 (Utah 1980).
There is
presently no provision in Utah law similar to Subsection (d).
The pendency
of an appeal does not render a conviction inadmissible. This is in accord with
Utah case law. State v. Crawford, 60 Utah 6, 206 P. 717 (1922).
This rule is
identical to Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The 1990 amendments to
the federal rule made two changes in the rule. The comment to the federal rule
accurately reflects the Committee's view of the purpose of the amendments.