State v. Watkins, 104313, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, decided August 29, 2017.
Defendant testified to his criminal history. Then the state made him repeat the same criminal history all over again on cross. Defense objected but trial court allowed it. The higher court affirmed. Here’s some of that case below. —————————————————
Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to cross examine him about his prior convictions. Defendant argues that he had established the nature of his prior offenses during direct examination, and therefore the State’s cross-examination on his prior offenses was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. The State argues that Missouri statutory and case law permit the State to demonstrate a defendant’s prior convictions on cross-examination.
During his direct examination, Defendant admitted that he pleaded guilty to: 1) unlawful use of a weapon, exhibiting, and resisting arrest in March 2009; 2) possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana in August 2009; 3) two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in April 2011; and 4) unlawful use of a weapon, exhibiting, and resisting arrest in June 2011. Defendant also testified regarding the length of his sentences and the locations of where he pleaded guilty.
During the State’s cross-examination of Defendant, the State sought to question Defendant on his prior convictions. Defendant objected, arguing that his convictions had been “covered in full on direct.” However, the trial court overruled Defendant’s objection. The State then asked essentially the same questions that Defendant had answered on direct examination. The State questioned Defendant on the types of crime he had been convicted of, the dates of his convictions, and the length of his sentences.
Section 491.050 permits the State to cross-examine a defendant who testifies. It reads, in relevant part:
“[A]ny prior criminal convictions may be proved to affect [a defendant’s] credibility . . . Such proof may be either by the record or by his own cross examination, upon which he must answer any question relevant to that inquiry, and the party cross-examining shall not be concluded by his answer.”
In interpreting § 491.050, this Court has held that the State has an “absolute right” to demonstrate the nature of a defendant’s prior convictions. State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). The only limit on the State’s “absolute right” is that it may not go into the details of the crimes leading to the prior convictions. Id.