on-the-record balancing test in South Carolina

2014See State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 222 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for an on-the-record balancing test weighing the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions against their prejudicial effect); Scriven, 339 S.C. at 344 , 529 S.E.2d at 77 (remanding to the trial court "with instructions to hold a hearing on the admissibility of [the defendant's] prior convictions, applying the proper burden of establishing admissibility, and carefully weighing the probative value for impeachment of the prior convictions against the prejudice to [the defendant]").

2014See State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 222 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for an on-the-record balancing test weighing the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions against their prejudicial effect); Scriven, 339 S.C. at 344 , 529 S.E.2d at 77 (remanding to the trial court "with instructions to hold a hearing on the admissibility of [the defendant's] prior convictions, applying the proper burden of establishing admissibility, and carefully weighing the probative value for impeachment of the prior convictions against the prejudice to [the defendant]").

2009An on-the-record balancing test is particularly important for prior similar convictions under Rule 609(a)(1) because the “similarity of a prior crime to the crime charged heightens the prejudicial value of the crime.” State v. Elmore, 368 S.C. 230, 239 , 628 S.E.2d 271, 275 (Ct.App.2006). *222 The trial court ruled Howard’s convictions for ABHAN from November 1995, April 2004, and December 2004 were within the ten-year rule and the probative value of their admission outweighed the prejudicial effect to Howard.

2009An on-the-record balancing test is particularly important for prior similar convictions under Rule 609(a)(1) because the “similarity of a prior crime to the crime charged heightens the prejudicial value of the crime.” State v. Elmore, 368 S.C. 230, 239 , 628 S.E.2d 271, 275 (Ct.App.2006). *222 The trial court ruled Howard’s convictions for ABHAN from November 1995, April 2004, and December 2004 were within the ten-year rule and the probative value of their admission outweighed the prejudicial effect to Howard.

2024On appeal, Milam argues the trial court erred by admitting Milam's prior convictions for petit larceny and shoplifting as crimes of dishonesty and failing to conduct the on-the-record balancing test required by State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622 , 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000), which would have shown that the unfair prejudice of admitting the prior convictions outweighed any probative value.

2024On appeal, Milam argues the trial court erred by admitting Milam's prior convictions for petit larceny and shoplifting as crimes of dishonesty and failing to conduct the on-the-record balancing test required by State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622 , 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000), which would have shown that the unfair prejudice of admitting the prior convictions outweighed any probative value.

2024See State v. Smith, 391 S.C. 353, 365 , 705 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating the defendant has the duty to raise arguments regarding an improper Rule 403 analysis to the trial court), rev'd on other grounds, 406 S.C. 215 , 750 S.E.2d 612 (2013).

2024See State v. Smith, 391 S.C. 353, 365 , 705 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating the defendant has the duty to raise arguments regarding an improper Rule 403 analysis to the trial court), rev'd on other grounds, 406 S.C. 215 , 750 S.E.2d 612 (2013).

2024See State v. Smith, 391 S.C. 353, 365 , 705 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating the defendant has the duty to raise arguments regarding an improper Rule 403 analysis to the trial court), rev'd on other grounds, 406 S.C. 215 , 750 S.E.2d 612 (2013).

2024See State v. Smith, 391 S.C. 353, 365 , 705 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating the defendant has the duty to raise arguments regarding an improper Rule 403 analysis to the trial court), rev'd on other grounds, 406 S.C. 215 , 750 S.E.2d 612 (2013).

2014See State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 222 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for an on-the-record balancing test weighing the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions against their prejudicial effect); Scriven, 339 S.C. at 344 , 529 S.E.2d at 77 (remanding to the trial court "with instructions to hold a hearing on the admissibility of [the defendant's] prior convictions, applying the proper burden of establishing admissibility, and carefully weighing the probative value for impeachment of the prior convictions against the prejudice to [the defendant]").

2014See State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 222 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for an on-the-record balancing test weighing the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions against their prejudicial effect); Scriven, 339 S.C. at 344 , 529 S.E.2d at 77 (remanding to the trial court "with instructions to hold a hearing on the admissibility of [the defendant's] prior convictions, applying the proper burden of establishing admissibility, and carefully weighing the probative value for impeachment of the prior convictions against the prejudice to [the defendant]").