Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1
EvidenceProf Blog
Editor: Colin Miller

Opinion Shows Supreme Court of New Jersey Has Rejected U.S. Supreme Court’s Luce Ruling

By Colin Miller

Similar to its federal counterpart, New Jersey Rule of Evidence 609 allows for parties to impeach witness, including testifying defendants, with evidence of some of their prior convictions. So, let’s say that a defendant is on trial for robbery, the judge makes a pre-trial ruling that the defendant’s prior felony larceny conviction would be admissible if he testifies at trial, the defendant therefore chooses not to testify, the defendant is convicted, and the defendant seeks to appeal. Should the defendant be able to appeal the Rule 609 issue? In Luce v. United States, the United States Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. So, how have New Jersey courts ruled on the issue?

In State v. Hedgespeth, 2021 WL 6108969 (N.J. 2021), Tywaun S. Hedgespeth was convicted  of unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and unlawful possession of a weapon without a permit. Before trial, the judge concluded that Hedgespeth’s two prior Controlled Dangerous Substance convictions would be admissible to impeach him if he testified. As a result, Hedgespeth didn’t testify, and he later appealed the issue.

On appeal, the State acknowledged that Hedgespeth’s prior convictions were improperly admitted. The Supreme Court of New Jersey thus concluded that there was reviewable error because it had previously rejected the holding in Luce and held that nontestifying defendants can appeal adverse Rule 609 rulings. The court then found this error to be reversible error, accepting the defendant’s argument that, if he testified,

he could have more forcefully challenged the detectives’ credibility as to whether they saw [a] gun on his waistband. By not testifying, defendant was only able to cast doubt on the officers’ accounts through cross-examination; he was unable to effectively offer a counter theory of the case. Moreover, the jury was not able to consider Hedgespeth’s demeanor and credibility in delivering his theory of the case.

-CM