This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Brackeen (D) robbed three different banks on three separate days in July 1990. During the first robbery, D was accompanied by Moore, who used a pistol during commission of the robbery. In the other two robberies, D was apparently unarmed and acting alone. D was indicted for the three robberies and pleaded guilty to the last two. He went to trial on the first robbery, charged with aiding and abetting Moore. During the trial, D indicated he would take the stand, and objected to use of the guilty pleas to impeach his testimony. The trial court expressly refused to admit the pleas as felony convictions under 609 (a)(1), ruling them admissible as crimes involving dishonesty under 609(a)(2). The court noted that, since they were crimes of dishonesty, the prosecution had an absolute right to use them to impeach D. D appeals, claiming among other things, that bank robbery is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement as required by 609(a)(2).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.