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.

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

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.