🦅
Federal Evidence • Witness Impeachment
EVID#095
Legal Definition
In civil cases, misdemeanor convictions are inadmissible to impeach. However, in criminal cases, they are admissible if the crime involves moral turpitude, subject to a CEC 352 balancing (on the record, for the defendant).
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you're watching a court drama, and there's a moment where the lawyers question a witness' honesty. They want to bring up the witness's past small crime to suggest they might not be trustworthy. Here's how the scene would play out differently under Federal law versus California law:
Under Federal law, it's pretty straightforward. If the witness once did something small but dishonest (like cheating on taxes), that can be brought up, no matter if it's a regular lawsuit (civil case) or a criminal trial. But, if their past wrongdoing was something minor and not about honesty (like a speeding ticket), then it's not relevant.
California's script changes depending on the case:
In a civil lawsuit (like someone suing another for damages), California law would stop any mention of past misdemeanors. It's as if the witness' slate is clean. The idea is to keep the trial focused on the current issue, not the witness's past errors.
In a criminal trial, however, California is more open to exploring a witness's past misdemeanors, but only if those past actions involved moral wrongdoing, like deceit or causing harm. It's a way of saying, "This person has shown they can act unethically, so keep that in mind." But, there's a catch. The judge must ensure this information is truly useful and won't just unfairly turn the jury against the witness. This is especially important if the witness is also the one being accused (the defendant). The judge has to balance the scales carefully – making sure the trial is fair but also acknowledging that a person's past actions can sometimes help us understand their current behavior.
Under Federal law, it's pretty straightforward. If the witness once did something small but dishonest (like cheating on taxes), that can be brought up, no matter if it's a regular lawsuit (civil case) or a criminal trial. But, if their past wrongdoing was something minor and not about honesty (like a speeding ticket), then it's not relevant.
California's script changes depending on the case:
In a civil lawsuit (like someone suing another for damages), California law would stop any mention of past misdemeanors. It's as if the witness' slate is clean. The idea is to keep the trial focused on the current issue, not the witness's past errors.
In a criminal trial, however, California is more open to exploring a witness's past misdemeanors, but only if those past actions involved moral wrongdoing, like deceit or causing harm. It's a way of saying, "This person has shown they can act unethically, so keep that in mind." But, there's a catch. The judge must ensure this information is truly useful and won't just unfairly turn the jury against the witness. This is especially important if the witness is also the one being accused (the defendant). The judge has to balance the scales carefully – making sure the trial is fair but also acknowledging that a person's past actions can sometimes help us understand their current behavior.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob was on trial for theft. During the trial, it was revealed that he had a previous misdemeanor conviction for shoplifting. Result: Since Bob's trial was a criminal case and his past misdemeanor involved moral turpitude, it was allowed as evidence to question his credibility.
Hypo 2: Sam sued Bob for breaking a contract. In the trial, Bob's lawyer tried to bring up Sam's past misdemeanor for petty theft. Result: Since this was a civil case, Sam's past misdemeanor conviction was not allowed as evidence to challenge his honesty.
Hypo 3: Bob was in court for a traffic violation. The prosecution mentioned his past misdemeanor for a bar fight. Result: The misdemeanor was not related to moral turpitude and the case was a minor criminal matter, so the past misdemeanor was not considered relevant to impeach Bob's credibility.
Hypo 4: In a criminal case where Sam was accused of fraud, the prosecutor used his past misdemeanor of writing a bad check to question his truthfulness. Result: This past misdemeanor was considered relevant and admissible in the criminal trial as it related to dishonest behavior.
Hypo 2: Sam sued Bob for breaking a contract. In the trial, Bob's lawyer tried to bring up Sam's past misdemeanor for petty theft. Result: Since this was a civil case, Sam's past misdemeanor conviction was not allowed as evidence to challenge his honesty.
Hypo 3: Bob was in court for a traffic violation. The prosecution mentioned his past misdemeanor for a bar fight. Result: The misdemeanor was not related to moral turpitude and the case was a minor criminal matter, so the past misdemeanor was not considered relevant to impeach Bob's credibility.
Hypo 4: In a criminal case where Sam was accused of fraud, the prosecutor used his past misdemeanor of writing a bad check to question his truthfulness. Result: This past misdemeanor was considered relevant and admissible in the criminal trial as it related to dishonest behavior.
Related Concepts
How may a witness be <impeached>?
In California, how may a witness be impeached?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to evidence of character for untruthfulness?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence under Proposition 8?
