This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Fearwell (D) was convicted for conspiracy to violate the Food Stamp Act. The prosecution (P) notified D before trial that if D testified, P would impeach his credibility by entering into evidence his prior conviction of petit larceny. The trial court ruled that it would allow this admission. D argued on appeal that admission of this crime should not have been allowed because under Rule 609, the prior crime must have involved dishonesty of a false statement for impeachment purposes, and his petit larceny was not such a crime.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.