3.05. Impeachment by Proof of Conviction of Crime

3.05 Impeachment by Proof of Conviction of Crime The credibility of a witness may be attacked by introducing evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime. Evidence of this kind may be considered by you in connection with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence in deciding the weight to be given to the testimony of that witness. Comment Proof of conviction for purposes of impeachment is no longer limited to proof of infamous crimes. In People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill.2d 510, 516, 268 N.E.2d 695, 698 (1971), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1971 draft of Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (51 F.R.D. 315, 393 (1971)) would henceforth be the test for determining the admissibility of prior convictions used for impeachment. After Montgomery, such crimes include those punishable by imprisonment for a term in excess of one year (felonies) and crimes involving dishonesty or false statement. Thus, impeachment is now proper with misdemeanors, such as theft, that have as their basis lying, cheating, deceiving, or stealing. People v. Spates, 77 Ill.2d 193, 201, 32 Ill.Dec. 333, 337-38, 395 N.E.2d 563, 567-68 (1979); People v. McKibbins, 96 Ill.2d 176, 187, 70 Ill.Dec. 474, 479, 449 N.E.2d 821, 826 (1983); People v. Malone, 78 Ill.2d 34, 38, 34 Ill.Dec. 311, 313, 397 N.E.2d 1377, 1379 (1979); People v. Dalton, 91 Ill.2d 22, 31-32, 61 Ill.Dec. 530, 535, 434 N.E.2d 1127, 1132 (1982); People v. Poliquin, 97 Ill.App.3d 122, 135, 52 Ill.Dec. 290, 300, 421 N.E.2d 1362, 1372 (1st Dist. 1981); People v. Elliot, 274 Ill.App.3d 901, 909, 211 Ill.Dec. 174, 182, 654 N.E.2d 636, 642 (1st Dist. 1995). Montgomery limits the time which a conviction can be used for impeachment to a period within 10 years of the date of the conviction or the release from confinement, whichever is later. However, in each case, the judge must exercise his discretion as to whether or not to allow the impeachment by weighing the probative value of the evidence of the crime against the danger of unfair prejudice. People v. Ramey, 70 Ill.App.3d 327, 332, 26 Ill.Dec. 572, 575, 388 N.E.2d 196, 199 (1979); People v. Tribett, 98 Ill.App.3d 663, 675, 53 Ill.Dec. 897, 906, 424 N.E.2d 688, 697 (1st Dist. 1981); People v. Jones, 155 Ill.App.3d 641, 647, 108 Ill.Dec. 196, 200, 508 N.E.2d 357, 361 (1st Dist. 1987). Impeachment by use of prior criminal convictions is proper in civil as well as criminal cases. Knowles v. Panopoulos, 66 Ill.2d 585, 589, 6 Ill.Dec. 858, 861, 363 N.E.2d 805, 808 (1977); People v. Stover, 89 Ill.2d 189, 194-95, 59 Ill.Dec. 678, 681, 432 N.E.2d 262, 265 (1982); Taylor v. Village Commons Plaza, Inc., 164 Ill.App.3d 460, 464-5, 115 Ill.Dec. 478, 481, 517 N.E.2d 1164, 1167 (2d Dist. 1987) (burglary and misdemeanor retail theft convictions properly used); Ryan v. Mobil Oil Corp., 157 Ill.App.3d 1069, 1082, 110 Ill.Dec. 131, 139-40, 510 N.E.2d 1162, 1170-71 (1st Dist. 1987) (discretion properly exercised to exclude 9-year-old drug conviction). A good review of the law concerning this subject is found in People v. Kellas, 72 Ill.App.3d 445, 449-452, 389 N.E.2d 1382, 1386-1389, 28 Ill.Dec. 9, 13-16 (1st Dist. 1979); People v. Stover, 89 Ill.2d 189, 199-201, 59 Ill.Dec. 678, 682-83, 432 N.E.2d 262, 268-69 (1982); People v. Williams, 161 Ill.2d 1, 39, 45, 204 Ill.Dec. 72, 641 N.E.2d 296, 312 (1994); People v. Kunze, 193 Ill.App.3d 708, 728, 140 Ill.Dec. 648, 661, 550 N.E.2d 284, 297 (4th Dist. 1990); People v. Atkinson, 288 Ill.App.3d 102, 107, 223 Ill.Dec. 493, 496, 679 N.E.2d 1266, 1269 (4th Dist. 1997); Housh v. Bowers, 271 Ill.App.3d 1004, 1006-7, 208 Ill.Dec. 449, 450-51, 649 N.E.2d 505, 506-07 (3d Dist. 1995).