The first purpose for which landlord seeks to offer this evidence is to
rebut tenant’s claim of retaliatory eviction. See Houle v. Quenneville, 173
Vt. 80, 90–91 (2001). The relevance of this evidence as rebuttal, however,
is undercut by the fact that this eviction process began before landlord ever
knew about the convictions. That the criminal convictions do not amount
to a breach of the lease and do not relate to the problems that arose between
landlord and tenant concerning habitability issues further raise questions
about its relevance. To the extent that the convictions might give some post
hoc rationale, its probative value is far outweighed by its prejudice to the
tenant and its potential to mislead the jury. V.R.E. 403. Despite the
landlord’s present feelings, the objective facts of this case are that he was
not aware of this incriminating evidence when he began to evict tenant.
This evidence will not dispute those facts, but it will provoke the jury to
consider tenant in an unfair light. State v. Bruyette, 158 Vt. 21 (1992). The
evidence of tenant’s prior criminal convictions is therefore not admissible
under V.R.E. 403.