Also known as: prior conviction · previous conviction · previous convictions · priors · criminal record · criminal history
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An earlier criminal judgment against a defendant that may be offered to impeach credibility, prove an element of an offense, or support a sentencing enhancement, subject to balancing under Rule 403 and other limits on prejudice.
Patrick Phan faced a felon-in-possession charge. He offered to stipulate that he had a qualifying prior conviction so the jury would learn only the fact of the conviction. The government declined and sought to introduce the full judgment and underlying facts. The district court excluded the detailed record because the probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Portia Price moved to exclude her prior theft conviction before testifying in her fraud trial. After the court denied the motion, she introduced the conviction herself on direct examination to reduce its sting. On appeal she argued the denial was error. The appellate court held that her strategic choice forfeited review of the ruling.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pilar Pena was convicted of a drug offense. The sentencing judge found that she had a prior conviction for a similar offense and used that finding to raise the statutory maximum sentence. Pena argued the increase required a jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt. The court upheld the enhancement because the prior conviction fell outside the jury-trial requirement.
Paul Peterson was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. The government introduced evidence of his earlier felony conviction to satisfy the felon-in-possession element. Peterson objected that the evidence was unduly prejudicial. The court admitted a redacted judgment because the conviction was an essential element the prosecution had to prove.
Pearl Porter testified in her own defense at trial. The prosecutor sought to impeach her with a prior perjury conviction. Defense counsel objected that the conviction was too old and unfairly prejudicial. The court allowed the impeachment after finding the conviction's probative value on credibility outweighed any prejudice.
Preston Pratt took the stand and denied involvement in the charged robbery. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked about a prior robbery conviction to test his credibility. Pratt objected that the question was improper. The court permitted the inquiry because the prior conviction was relevant to truthfulness and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
A court may exclude the evidence under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The name and nature of the prior conviction often carry such a risk when the defendant's status as a felon is the only disputed fact.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the trial court denies a motion to exclude the conviction and the defendant then introduces it on direct to lessen its impact, the defendant may not later claim error on appeal.
Supporting sources
No. The Supreme Court has held that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
…do so until after Miranda had confessed orally. [^maj-68]: Vignera thereafter successfully attacked the validity of one of the prior convictions, Vignera v. Wilkins , Civ. 9901 (D. C. W. D. N. Y. Dec. 31, 1961) (unreported), but was then resentenced as a second-felony offender to the same term of imprisonment as the original…