 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale5/10/1990
. 317, 701 P.2d 575 (App.1985). The exercise of this discretion should not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. See State v. Dixon, 126 Ariz. 613, 617 P.2d 779 (App.1980). As observed in M. Udall and J. Livermore, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence ยง 47 at 87 (2d ed. 1982), Rule 609 changes prior practice in a significant way in that " s a condition to the use of a conviction to impeach the court must find that the probative value on credibility outweighs prejudicial effect." Here, evidence of a drug conviction by a law enforcement officer carried a high potential for prejudice vis-a-vis its probative value. This is not a case where, due to the absence of witnesses, the credibility of Nevitt was of considerable importance. Cf. State v. Dalglish, 131 Ariz. 133, 639 P.2d 323 (1982). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of this evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.
Affirmed.
|