Ohler v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Evidence

529 U.S. 753 (2000)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencepreemptive impeachmentRule 609Rule 103impeachmentprior convictionin limine rulingwaiver

Facts

Ohler was charged with importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after inspectors found about 81 pounds of marijuana in a van she drove from Mexico to California. Before trial, the Government sought to admit her prior felony conviction both as character evidence and as impeachment evidence. The District Court denied admission as character evidence but ruled that if Ohler testified, the conviction would be admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) for impeachment. Ohler then testified in her own defense and admitted on direct examination that she had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine in 1993.

Issue

When a defendant loses an in limine motion on the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(1), then takes the stand and introduces the conviction on direct examination, may the defendant still challenge that in limine ruling on appeal?

Rule

A party who introduces evidence cannot ordinarily complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. Accordingly, a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that admission of that evidence was error, even when the trial court previously ruled in limine that the Government could use the conviction for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(1).

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Denver, Caleb Moreno moved before trial to exclude a 6-year-old felony conviction that the prosecution sought to use to impeach him if he testified. The judge ruled in limine that the conviction would be admissible under Rule 609(a)(1). Caleb then took the stand and, during direct examination, told the jury about the conviction to soften its impact.

After conviction, may Caleb appeal the in limine ruling admitting the prior conviction for impeachment?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a party who introduces evidence cannot ordinarily complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. The majority held that this applies when a defendant, after an adverse in limine Rule 609 ruling, preemptively introduces the conviction on direct examination. Rule 103 does not answer the waiver question, so Caleb cannot obtain appellate review.