[PSUSkinsFan21]

First, I really like you RF. Usually we agree on most topics, but even when we disagree, we can both do it in an intelligent and respectful way. That's why I love this site.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

That Taylor's ATVs were stolen would come up in the trial (if there is one). It doesn't have to be brought up to overtly impeach the credibility of the victim - it is as likely to come up during the prosecutor's opening statements, direct examination or cross-examination of witness as it is for the defense. Moreover, assuming that the victims are the same people who shot at Taylor, that they allegedly shot at Taylor is going to impeach the credibility of the victims in the eyes of the jury.

Certainly if they shot at Taylor that would be introduced to impeach the witnesses. My post did not contemplate that fact scenario because I wasn't aware that they fired at ST when I made my post. And I agree that the fact that ST thought his ATVs were stolen by the alleged victims would be brought out. However, IF the alleged victim has not yet been convicted of the theft, then the defense cannot say "don't believe this witness, he's the one who stole the ATVs to begin with." He may be able to say that ST believed the witness stole his ATVs, but that doesn't help to exonerate ST in any way, and it's questionable that it would really challenge the credibility of the witness.

Evidence of past crimes is admissible in many states even when there are no convictions....they're called "prior bad acts/crimes." Also evidence of prior crimes is admissible in many states for purposes other than impeachment (I'd be more than happy to cite some specific statutes if you really want me to)

Again, Florida may be different, but at least under the Federal Rules (which most states have used as a model for their own rules of evidence), "specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purposes of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than the conviction of a crime ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ...." (See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b)). Under this rule, only prior acts related to a witness' truthfulness may be admissible, and even then it is a judgment call for the judge. It's been a few years since my crim courses, but I'm rather certain that acts like theft are not probative to truthfulness unless they involve some deception (i.e. theft by forgery, fraud, etc.). Simply stealing a car has nothing to do with a witness' ability to tell the truth.

Furthermore, you are correct that prior crimes are admissible, but at least with respect to the Federal Rules (Rule 609), the evidence must be of a felony conviction and, again, the "probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused." Therefore, my point is that 1. the alleged victims/theives have not been convicted of stealing the ATVs, and 2. there is a strong argument for the prosecution that the prejudicial effect of allowing any such conviction would outweigh its probative value. Regardless of what side you think the judge would come out on, at least it's worth mentioning that it's still a judgment call for the judge. The admission of evidence related to either prior acts or past convictions is not permitted per se as a matter of law. It is only permitted after the judge conducts a balancing test.

Do you really think that the issue of the stolen ATVs wouldn't come up in trial? If so, I very much differ with you. The stolen ATVs go to Taylor's motive and are relevant to a defense Taylor might mount (I'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to).

I agree that the issue would be raised. I think I disagree with you as to what effect that fact has on the ability of the defense to impeach or challenge the credibility of the witness. Which brings us back to where this all began......how strong of a case does the prosecution have if it's based on eye-witness testimony? I think the fact that we've gone back and forth so much on just this one evidentiary issue shows that nobody really can tell for sure.........but I think we can agree it's not cut and dry either way.