As to landlord’s second proposed use of the evidence as
impeachment or character evidence. The applicable rule, V.R.E. 609 (a),
states that “evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be
admitted if elicited from the witness or, if denied . . . by extrinsic
evidence.” The conditions on using such evidence require that the
underlying crime be either one of untruthfulness—i.e., one whose statutory
elements necessarily involve untruthfulness—or a felony. Id. The court
must also apply a balancing test to determine whether the prejudicial effect
of the conviction outweighs its probative value. See, e.g., State v. Ashley,
160 Vt. 125, 128 (1993) (listing four factors to consider). This is
essentially the same analysis as before for Rule 403. The potential
probative value of this evidence, to discredit tenant’s testimony, is far
outweighed by the potential prejudice to tenant. This proposed use is akin
to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It would certainly discredit tenant
but not necessarily for the right reasons. Much of the power of using
tenant’s crime comes from the social stigma that attaches to the crime. It is
not a crime of particular untruthfulness, nor is it relevant to tenant’s
testimony. Its power is one of shock value and promises only to mislead.
For these reasons, the evidence of tenant’s convictions is not admissible for
impeachment or character evidence.