United States v. Jenkins (Antonio)

Lavelle Rondell Johnson appeals his conviction for possession of contraband in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1971(a)(2). Johnson contends that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that evidence of his 1986 armed robbery conviction and his 1978 grand theft conviction could be used to impeach him if he elected to testify.

Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that a defendant's prior conviction is admissible for impeachment purposes if it involves "dishonesty or false statement," or if it is a felony conviction and "the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant."

Here, the government met its burden of showing that the probative value of the evidence of Johnson's prior felony convictions outweighed their prejudicial effect.

The district court properly considered the impeachment value of Johnson's prior grand theft and armed robbery convictions, the fact that Johnson's armed robbery conviction occurred less than one year prior to his possession of a knife while in prison, the lack of similarity between the past crimes and the charged offense, and the fact that Johnson's credibility was a central issue in the case. See United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d 760, 762-64 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 579-80 (9th Cir.1985).

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that evidence of Johnson's prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he chose to testify. Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(1), United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d at 760.

AFFIRMED.