Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealhearingtrialtestimonyfelony
defendantappealobjection

Related Cases

Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205, 59 USLW 4443, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 225
View Case »
State v. Navarette, 294 P.3d 435, 2013 -NMSC- 003
View Case »
Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 310, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,206, 49 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 49
View Case »
People v. Pasch, 152 Ill.2d 133, 604 N.E.2d 294, 178 Ill.Dec. 38
View Case »
United States v. Dockins, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 4414790
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ohler v. U.S., 529 U.S. 753, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826, 68 USLW 4396, 53 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 965, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3963, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5301, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 2787, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 323

Facts

Maria Ohler drove a van from Mexico to California, where customs inspectors discovered approximately 81 pounds of marijuana hidden in the vehicle. She was arrested and charged with importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute. Before the trial, the government sought to admit evidence of her prior felony drug conviction for impeachment purposes, which the District Court allowed. Ohler testified in her defense and admitted to the prior conviction during direct examination, leading to her conviction by the jury.

Maria Ohler drove a van from Mexico to California in July 1997. As she passed through the San Ysidro Port of Entry, a customs inspector noticed that someone had tampered with one of the van's interior panels. Inspectors searched the van and discovered approximately 81 pounds of marijuana. Ohler was arrested and charged with importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

Issue

Whether a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may challenge the admission of such evidence on appeal.

Held: A defendant who pre-emptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not challenge the admission of such evidence on appeal.

Rule

A defendant who introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination waives the right to appeal the admission of that evidence.

Generally, a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.

Analysis

The Supreme Court reasoned that Ohler's decision to introduce her prior conviction herself meant she could not later claim that its admission was erroneous. The Court emphasized that both the defendant and the government must make strategic choices during a trial, and allowing Ohler to appeal would undermine the government's right to decide whether to use the conviction for impeachment after hearing her testimony.

Ohler's submission would deny to the Government its usual right to decide, after she testifies, whether or not to use her prior conviction against her. She seeks to short circuit that decisional process by offering the conviction herself (and thereby removing the sting) and still preserve its admission as a claim of error on appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, concluding that Ohler could not challenge the admission of her prior conviction because she had introduced it herself during her testimony.

For these reasons, we conclude that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision that Ohler waived her right to appeal the admission of her prior conviction by introducing it during her testimony.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Ohler waived her objection by introducing evidence of the conviction during her direct examination.

You must be