Cited by

Analysis of the Jones Factors Impeachment Value of the Prior Convictions The supreme court has determined that impeachment of a witness with his or her prior crimes “assists the jury to see the ‘whole person’ and therefore to better judge the truth of the witness’s testimony.” -63 (Minn. 2020) ().

(“[Rule 609] clearly sanctions the use of felonies .

(indicating that repeated crimes may show a lack of trustworthiness).

The purpose of admitting past convictions to impeach is to give the jury an opportunity to judge the “whole person.” State v. Brouillette , (quotation omitted).

4 First, the district court determ ined that the first factor weighed in the state’s favor because the two convictions allowed the jury “to see the whole person and better evaluate [appellant’s] testimony.” The admission of prior convictions allows the jury “to see the ‘whole person’ and t hus to judge better the truth of his testimony.” State v. Brouillette , ( quotation omitted).

3 (2016) (defining “force”); (finding force where defendant forcefully grabbed victim by the shoulders, tur ned her around, and grabbed her in the buttocks and vaginal area and the victim testified that she was afraid the defendant might hurt her).

The admission of prior convictions to impeach a testifying witness aids the jury because it allows the jury “to see the ‘whole person’ and thus to judge be tter the truth of his testimony.” (citation omitted); (stating that “general lack of respect for the law,” rather than the nature of the conviction itself, informs the fact-finder about a witness’s credibility).

We “must sustain” a district court’s admission of a defendant’s prior convictions “unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.”

sed its discretion because “the impeachment value was minimal, at best, and [her] testimony was important to her defense.” As to the first Jones factor, the district court followed the whole -person approach, which recognizes that “impeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the ‘whole person’ and thus to judge better the truth of [her] testimony.” (quotation omitted).

(recognizing that a cautionary instruction “adequately protects [a] defendant against the possibility that the jury would convict him on the basis of his character rather than his guilt”).

“[A] prior conviction can have impeachment value by helping the jury see the ‘whole person’ of the defendant and better evaluate his or her truthfulness.” Swanson, d at 655 (-67 (Minn. 1993))

not directly related to truth or falsity for purposes of impeachment, and thus necessarily recognizes that a prior conviction, though not specifically involving veracity, is nevertheless probative of credibility.”

to judge better the truth of his testimony.” (citations omitted).

we observed that impeachment by prior crime aids the jury by permitting it to see the “whole person” of the testifying witness and therefore to better judge the truth of his testimony.

not directly related to truth or falsity for purposes of impeachment, and thus necessarily recognizes that a prior conviction, though not specifically involving veracity, is nevertheless probative of credibility.” (explaining that under rule 609(a), a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is automatically admissible and admission of other crimes is discretionary with district court), review denied (Minn.1997).

(1) Impeachment value of the prior crime The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “impeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it ‘to see the “whole person” and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony.’ ” State v. *509 Brouillette, (quoting St.

repeated contempt for laws which he is legally and morally bound to obey.” (quotation omitted).

at 438, 439 ; (stating that "[t]he coercion required by the statute need not precede or be separate from the sexual contact”); (stating that a person acts with "force” when he grabs the victim by the shoulders, grabs her buttocks and vaginal area, and the victim fears that "anything could happen”).

(“Lack of trustworthiness may be evinced by his abiding and repeated contempt for laws which he is legally and morally bound to obey ⅞ * ⅜.” (quotations omitted)).

(discussing cautionary jury instruction that directs jury to consider defendant’s prior conviction only as it relates to defendant’s credibility).

(evidentiary rulings are sustained absent clear abuse of discretion).