State v. Hardy
Washington Supreme Court
946 P.2d 1175 (1997)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Patrick Hardy (defendant) was charged with robbing Shamsa Wilkins of her jewelry. Hardy and Wilkins each had different stories about how Hardy came to possess the jewelry, making witness credibility a key part of the trial. Hardy had a prior felony conviction for a drug crime. At trial, the trial court found that this prior drug conviction had very little impeachment value and that evidence of a prior felony could be highly prejudicial to Hardy. However, instead of excluding the prior drug conviction, the trial court excluded only the fact that the conviction was for a drug crime and allowed evidence of the bare fact that Hardy had an unnamed prior felony conviction as impeachment evidence. Hardy was convicted and appealed. On appeal, Hardy argued that the felony-conviction evidence was highly prejudicial and should have been excluded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sanders, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
