Rule 609 - Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction(a) In general. Evidence of a criminal conviction offered to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness must be admitted if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect on a criminal defendant or on any party in a civil action if the criminal conviction is: (1) For a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or (2) For any crime if the court can reasonably determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving-or the witness admitting-a dishonest act or false statement. (b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction is admissible under this rule only if: (1) Less than 15 years has passed since the conviction; or (2) Less than 10 years has passed since the witness was released from confinement for the conviction. (c) Effect of a pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure.(d) Juvenile adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication in a public proceeding is admissible under this rule. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication in a proceeding that was closed to the public is admissible only in juvenile proceedings that are also closed to the public.Adopted effective 1/1/2015.Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]
Maine Rule 609 is differs in a number of respects from its federal counterpart. Maine Rule 609 requires all convictions to pass a "reverse Rule 403 " test, i.e. they can be admitted only if their probative value as to credibility outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice to a criminal defendant or any civil party. There are minor differences in time limits and the Maine time bar is absolute. The proposed restyled Rule maintains the substantive differences as they are now.
Federal Restyling Committee Note
The language of Rule 609 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
.