Amendments to New Jersey Evidence Rule 609
|
Like
Like
|
0
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-35, attached is the
Supreme Court's Order of September 16, 2013 adopting amendments to N.J.R.E.
609 of the New Jersey Rules of Evidence as recommended by the Supreme Court
Committee on the Rules of Evidence. The amendments relate to impeachment by
evidence of conviction of crime. In addition to amending the current text
of the rule, the amendments also adopt a new paragraph regarding use of
evidence of prior convictions ten or more years old. The Committee
addressed this topic as requested by the Supreme Court in State v.
Harris, 209 N.J. 431, 445 (2012).
The amendment proposal was presented and discussed
at a Judicial Conference on September 3, 2013 in accordance with the
requirements of N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-34. The proposal, as recommended by the
Supreme Court Committee on the Rules of Evidence, was previously announced
by public notice dated July 26, 2013.
The Court's Order notes that the effective date of
the amendments is July 1, 2014. The action of the Court is subject to the
terms of N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-36.
Mark Neary
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Dated: September 16, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
It is ORDERED that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:84-33
through 2A:84A-36, the attached amendments to N.J.R.E. 609 of the New
Jersey Rules of Evidence are adopted to be effective July 1, 2014.
For the Court,
Stuart Rabner
Chief Justice
Dated: September 16, 2013
N.J.R.E. 609. Impeachment by Evidence of
Conviction of Crime
(a) In General
(1) For the purpose of affecting the credibility of any witness, the
witness's conviction of a
crime, subject to Rule 403, must [shall]
be admitted unless excluded by the judge pursuant
to Section (b) of this rule [as remote or for other causes].
(2) Such conviction may be proved by examination, production of the
record thereof, or by other competent evidence [.] , except in a criminal case, when the defendant
is the witness, and
(i) the prior
conviction is the same or similar to one of the offenses charged, or
(ii) the court determines
that admitting the nature of the offense poses a risk of undue prejudice to
a defendant,
the State may only introduce
evidence of the defendant's prior convictions limited to the degree of the
crimes, the dates of the convictions, and the sentences imposed, excluding
any evidence of the specific crimes of which defendant was convicted,
unless the defendant waives any objection to the non-sanitized form of the
evidence.
(b) Use of Prior Conviction Evidence After Ten
Years
(1) If, on the date the trial
begins, more than ten years have passed since the witness's conviction for
a crime or release from confinement for it, whichever is later, then
evidence of the conviction is admissible only if the court determines that
its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, with the
proponent of that evidence having the burden of proof.
(2) In determining whether the
evidence of a conviction is admissible under Section (b)(1) of this rule,
the court may consider:
(i) whether there are
intervening convictions for crimes or offenses, and if so, the number,
nature, and seriousness of those crimes or offenses,
(ii) whether the conviction
involved a crime of dishonesty, lack of veracity or fraud,
(iii) how remote the
conviction is in time,
(iv) the seriousness of the
crime.
Note: Adopted September 15, 1992 to be effective
July 1, 1993; text amended and designated
as paragraph (a), paragraph (a) caption added, new paragraph (b) caption
and text added September 16, 2013 to be effective July 1, 2014.
