5/10

1) Pauls conviction from 1992 can be admitted against him as an impeachment

of his credibility.
The North Carolina rules of evidence make any conviction that is a felony, class A1,
class 1, or class 2 misdemeanor resulting in 60 days or more of confinement within
the past 10 years automatically admissible against a defendant for the purposes of
impeaching their credibility. If a conviction happened outside of 10 years it can still
be admitted against the defendant if the judge feels its probative value is
substantial such as a serious felony. Evidence of a persons past crimes is
inadmissible to show that they acted in conformity with that character.
Here, Pauls conviction in 1992 did result in more than 60 days of
confinement because the facts show that Paul was sentenced on November 21 1992
and was released on November 21 1996 which is a period of four years. Since four
years is longer than 60 days then this conviction is a conviction that resulted in
more than 60 days of confinement. This is not in the sample answer. My distinction
notes say punishable by more than 60 days of confinement but that is what those
named classes are. Use the classes instead.
Here, Pauls conviction is older than 10 years since the facts show that Pauls
was convicted in 1992 and the current case is being tried in 2005 which is a period
of 13 years. Since a period of 13 years is longer than a period of 10 years this
conviction is not automatically admissible.
Here, a judge would feel the probative value of this conviction is substantial
because the conviction is a serious felony since Pauls conviction is for voluntary
manslaughter. Since the conviction shows a serious disregard for the law and
others wellbeing a judge would find that Pauls conviction is strongly probative of
his credibility. This isnt part of the rule in the sample answer. It comes from the MBE
outline--- need to find out if this provision is in NC as well.
In conclusion a judge would likely admit the evidence of Pauls 1992
conviction against him in the present case.
2) Pauls conviction from 2002 would likely be admitted against him.
The North Carolina rules of evidence make convictions resulting in more than 60
days of confinement within the past 10 years automatically admissible. If a
conviction does not result in more than 60 days of confinement a judge can still
exercise his discretion and admit the conviction to impeach the credibility of the
witness if the judge feels it has substantial probative value such as showing a
disregard for the law or for other people in society.
Here, the conviction did not result in more than 60 days of confinement
because the fact show that his sentence for this crime did not include confinement.
Here, the conviction was within the past 10 years because the conviction
occurred on October 16 2002 and the present action is on march 3 2005 a period of
just over three years. Since three years is fewer than ten years this conviction
occurred within 10 years.
Here, a judge would feel the probative value of this conviction is substantial
because it shows that Paul has a disrespect for others persons since it is a
conviction for an assault which as an element requires the defendant to have
harmed or attempted to harm another person.
In conclusion a judge would likely admit the 2002 conviction against paul.
3) Neither the assault against Vera Victim nor the false statement to an officer
by Paul would be admissible.
A witness credibility cannot be impeached with evidence of specific bad acts.
Unless the act is probative of truthfulness then it can be asked about but no
extrinsic evidence can be admitted.
Here, the assault against Vera Victim did not result in a conviction so it is not
admissible as a prior conviction. Also since this assault is a specific act that Dans
attorney is attempting to introduce it is barred because a witness credibility is only
able to be impeached by evidence of their reputation for truthfulness and prior
convictions.
Here, the written statement given by Paul to the officer is not admissible
because the evidence is evidence of a prior bad act that is not a conviction and in
the interest of prevent minature trials over issues that are not the subject of the
current litigation evidence of specific prior bad acts are not admissible to impeach a
witness. Since lying to a police officer is probative of truthfulness Paul could be
asked about the false statement but no extrinsic evidence can be admitted.
In conclusion neither the unprosecuted assault nor the false statement to the
officer are admissible against Paul.