The Use of Juvenile Adjudications for Impeachment Purposes

Issue:

Can a witness’ record of juvenile delinquency be used to impeach him?

Short Answer:

Generally, no. Texas Rule of Evidence 609 allows a witness to be impeached with convictions involving moral turpitude which are final and are not too remote in time. But juvenile adjudications are not convictions and cannot be used to impeach a witness unless either the Texas Constitution or the United States Constitution requires it. The Texas Constitution allows the use of a pending juvenile adjudication to show motive or bias for the witness to testify for the State. The United States Constitution allows the use of juvenile adjudications to show bias when the witness is still on probation for the juvenile adjudication and is assisting the State.

Discussion:

A witness’ convictions involving moral turpitude which are final and not too remote in time can be used to impeach him during his testimony. Tex. R. Evid. 609; Rivas v. State, 501 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Foster v. State, 25 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). But juvenile adjudications are not convictions and cannot be used to impeach a witness for general character impeachment purposes. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.13(a) (Vernon 2002); Foster, 25 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 319-20 (1974); Warren v. State, 514 S.W.2d 458, 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)). Yet there are two situations in which prior juvenile adjudications can be used for impeachment purposes: 1) to impeach a witness during a criminal proceeding when either the Texas Constitution or the United States Constitution requires it and 2) to impeach a defendant who decides to take the stand during his own juvenile adjudication. Tex. R. Evid. 609(d); Foster, 25 S.W.3d at 794. The Texas Constitution allows the use of a pending juvenile adjudication to show motive or bias for the witness to testify for the State. Foster, 25 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Carmona v. State, 698 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex. Crim. App.1985). The United States Constitution allows the use of juvenile adjudications to show bias when the witness is still on probation for the juvenile adjudication and is assisting the State. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317-18 (1974).

Foster v. State illustrates the operation of the exception under the Texas Constitution. In Foster, the defendant was on trial for capital murder. Foster, 25 S.W.3d at 794. During trial, the defendant’s accomplice in the murder testified against him. Id. The accomplice had been adjudicated as a juvenile for aggravated robbery, and the defendant wanted to use that adjudication for impeachment purposes. Id. at 795. But the trial court did not allow it. Id. The defendant argued he had been deprived of the right to effectively cross examine the witness. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the defendant had not been deprived of the right to effectively cross examine the witness because the defendant failed to show the witness had pending juvenile charges against him. Id. at 796.[1]

And the United States Constitution also allows the use of a witness’ juvenile delinquency records for impeachment purposes to show the witness is biased against the defendant, but the exception only applies when the juvenile is on probation for the juvenile adjudication when he testifies. Davis, 415 U.S. at 317-18; Foster, 25 S.W.3d at 795. In Davis, the defendant and an accomplice burglarized a local bar, stealing the bar’s safe. Davis, 415 U.S. at 309. The safe was later found on the property of a boy who was on juvenile probation for the burglary of two habitations. Id. at 309-11. When the police talked to him, the boy told them he had spoken with two men on the day the safe was stolen. Id. at 309. The police took the boy to the police station where the boy identified the two men with whom he had spoken from a photo lineup. Id. at 310. At trial, the defendant wanted to use the boy’s juvenile adjudications for burglary to suggest the boy’s identification was “hasty or faulty” because he feared the police would suspect him of the burglary as the result of his status as a probationer if he did not make a prompt identification. Id. at 311. The defendant further limited his request to use the boy’s juvenile record to show the bias or prejudice resulting from it and not for general character impeachment purposes. Id. The trial court did not allow the defendant to use the boy’s juvenile delinquency record in any way. Id. The United States Supreme Court reversed and held the boy’s “vulnerable status” of being on probation for two burglary of a habitation juvenile adjudications while assisting the State allowed the defendant to use the boy’s juvenile record to show the boy may have been under “undue pressure” and harbored bias or prejudice which motivated him to testify for the State. Id. at 317-18.

Conclusion:

A witness’ juvenile delinquency record can only be used for impeachment purposes in three specific situations:

1) The witness is testifying as a defendant at his own juvenile adjudication proceeding.

2) The witness currently has pending juvenile charges against him, and these charges show motive or bias for the witness to testify for the State.

3) The witness is on juvenile probation at the time he is assisting the State and his status as a probationer biases the witness in favor of the State.

Endnote:

[1] The court also addressed the defendant’s claim under the United States Constitution but held the witness did not harbor bias or prejudice which motivated him to testify favorably for the State as the result of the prior adjudication