State v. Broadnax

779 S.E.2d 789 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A masked gunman entered Church's Chicken and held one of the employees at gunpoint while the employee emptied the cash registers. Three other employees locked themselves in the kitchen. The gunman was wearing a striped shirt, had a distinctive 'lazy eye,' and carried a clear plastic bag. The gunman calmly exited the store, climbed into a 'gray Dodge old model truck' driven by an accomplice, and left the scene. One of the employees chased the gunman outside and saw him riding in the passenger seat of the gray truck as the driver pulled out of the parking lot. The police stopped the driver of the getaway vehicle a short distance and. D was crouched down on the floorboard of the passenger side. D had a 'lazy eye.' The police officers found a gun and a bag full of money jammed under the truck's passenger seat, adjacent to D. One of the employees identified D as the gunman in a 'show-up' identification, and testified that he recognized Respondent's distinctive facial features, build, and clothing. D was charged with one count of armed robbery and four counts of kidnapping. D indicated that he would testify in his own defense. P moved to admit D's prior criminal record for purposes of impeachment. The trial court admitted three of D's four prior armed robbery convictions. D denied any involvement in the robbery. D's counsel elicited testimony regarding D's prior convictions for armed robbery. P likewise questioned D about his prior convictions. The trial judge issued a jury instruction that they only consider the evidence of his prior convictions in deciding whether D's testimony is believable and for no other purpose. D was convicted and appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. It held that D's prior armed robbery convictions, without more, did not constitute crimes of dishonesty, and therefore, the trial court should have conducted a balancing test prior to admitting testimony regarding D's prior armed robbery convictions. P appealed.