Wise v. Southern Tier Express, Inc.
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 79 Motion in Limine No.1 (Prior Conviction). Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RODERICK WISE, an individual,
SOUTHERN TIER EXPRESS, INC., a New
York corporation; DOES I through X; and
ROE CORPORATIONS I through X,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01219-APG-PAL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 1 (PRIOR CONVICTION)
(ECF No. 79)
Plaintiff Roderick Wise has moved to exclude evidence of his “prior felony conviction,
criminal record, and any other wrongful act.” ECF No. 79. The motion refers only to a 2012
felony conviction for assault and related papers regarding the underlying 2010 incident.
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) generally allows the admission of such evidence in this
situation, unless it would be barred by Rule 403. Thus, I must balance the probative value of the
impeaching conviction against the danger of unfair prejudice. Evidence of a felony conviction
would likely taint the jury against Wise; thus, there is significant risk of unfair prejudice. There is
little probative value to the conviction. Wise’s credibility will be important, as he likely will
testify about how his injury occurred and the resulting effects on his life. However, his
conviction for assaulting his roommate has little relation to veracity. Nor is it similar to the issues
presented in this case. The fact that Wise (in the defendant’s opinion) “presented a rather bizarre
story” at his criminal trial (ECF No. 97 at 4-5) does not render his conviction for assault probative
of his credibility. Therefore, Wise’s motion in limine (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED. However,
should Wise offer evidence at trial that renders his conviction more probative, the defendant may
ask me to reconsider this decision outside the presence of the jury.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?