Altobello v. Borden Confectionary Products, Inc.
Facts
At trial, Borden impeached Altobello by asking whether he had been convicted in 1978 of tampering with electric meters of Commonwealth Edison, and Altobello answered yes. The conviction was a misdemeanor, so it was admissible, if at all, only under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2). In the district court Altobello argued exclusion under Rule 403, but on appeal he instead argued that Borden had to show that the specific acts underlying the conviction involved deceit. The record contained the trial question, a sidebar on admissibility, and the indictment, all referring to tampering with electric meters.
Issue
Whether a prior misdemeanor conviction for tampering with electric meters was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) to impeach Altobello's credibility. More specifically, the question was whether a crime that may or may not involve deceit can be admitted without detailed proof of the underlying acts when the deceitful nature of the offense is apparent.
Rule
Rule 609(a)(2) permits impeachment by prior conviction when the crime involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of punishment. For crimes in which deceit is not always an element but may be present depending on the manner of commission, the conviction is admissible if the deceitful nature of the crime is admitted or is plain on the face of the indictment or other official record; the trial judge should not be sidetracked into relitigating the details of the earlier conviction. Rule 403 does not apply to Rule 609(a)(2) in this circuit.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Should the trial court admit the conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2)?