Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 21 (2026)

Proof of conviction of crime to affect credibility

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 21. The conviction of a witness of a crime may be shown to affect his credibility, except as follows:

First, The record of his conviction of a misdemeanor shall not be shown for such purpose after five years from the date on which sentence on said conviction was imposed, unless he has subsequently been convicted of a crime within five years of the time of his testifying.

Second, The record of his conviction of a felony upon which no sentence was imposed or a sentence was imposed and the execution thereof suspended, or upon which a fine only was imposed, or a sentence to a reformatory prison, jail, or house of correction, shall not be shown for such purpose after ten years from the date of conviction, if no sentence was imposed, or from the date on which sentence on said conviction was imposed, whether the execution thereof was suspended or not, unless he has subsequently been convicted of a crime within ten years of the time of his testifying. For the purpose of this paragraph, a plea of guilty or a finding or verdict of guilty shall constitute a conviction within the meaning of this section.

Third, The record of his conviction of a felony upon which a state prison sentence was imposed shall not be shown for such purpose after ten years from the date of expiration of the minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the court, unless he has subsequently been convicted of a crime within ten years of the time of his testifying.

Fourth, the record of his conviction for a traffic violation upon which a fine only was imposed shall not be shown for such purpose unless he has been convicted of another crime or crimes within five years of the time of his testifying.

For the purpose of this section, any period during which the defendant was a fugitive from justice shall be excluded in determining time limitations under the provisions of this section.

Upon order of the court, a party may obtain a witness's criminal offender record information from the department of criminal justice information services.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 231 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1924–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Harris, 825 N.E.2d 58 (Mass. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Harris, 825 N.E.2d 58 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 11× “233, § 21B, precludes introduction of convictions of the complaining witness under G. L. c. 233, § 21, if the convictions are for sex-related offenses, a question addressed but left unresolved by an equally divided court in Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Houston, 722 N.E.2d 942 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 23× “8 (1981), the court left open the question whether, in a case like this, a defendant could introduce in evidence under G. L. c. 233, § 21, records of conviction of prostitution, or other sex-related crimes, to impeach a rape complainant’s credibility.”

Commonwealth v. Saunders, 761 N.E.2d 490 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 8× “799 (1969), to revive a prior (counseled) conviction that was otherwise time-barred under G. L. c. 233, § 21, 1 for the purpose of using the revived conviction to impeach the defendant at trial.”

Commonwealth v. King, 834 N.E.2d 1175 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 3× “Next, the defendant claims *227 that the judge erred in ruling that his prior conviction of armed robbery would be admissible for impeachment purposes if the defendant testified.”

Commonwealth v. Chase, 363 N.E.2d 1105 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 5× “The defendant argues that he was denied due process of law because he was inhibited from testifying by reason of the operation of G. L. c. 233, § 21, which allows evidence of certain prior convictions to be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness.”

Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 45 N.E.3d 94 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 4× “The judge was *621 inclined to admit the evidence because she believed that the five prior convictions at issue were not time-barred under G. L. c. 233, § 21. Defense counsel agreed with the trial judge.”

Commonwealth v. Bly, 830 N.E.2d 1048 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 5× “On appeal he argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because (1) counsel failed to file a motion to exclude his prior conviction of murder and the prior murder conviction of Damien Bonilla, a key defense witness, used to impeach them pursuant to G. L. c. 233, §…”

Commonwealth v. Vitello, 381 N.E.2d 582 (Mass. 1978). · cites it 4× “If the polygraph evidence is favorable, a defendant with a criminal record, see G.L.c. 233, § 21, may elect to testify, where he otherwise would not, on the theory that the impact of the polygraph evidence will offset the prejudicial impact of his criminal history.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 884 N.E.2d 488 (Mass. 2008). · cites it 6× “3 The defendant’s prior convictions are admissible not because of a common-law rule, but by virtue of a statute, G. L. c. 233, § 21. That statute has been in existence, in one form or another, for over a century.”

Commonwealth v. Gladney, 607 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 14× “See G. L. c. 233, § 21, First and Second. 1 “The defendant had no criminal conviction within either five or ten years of the time he testified in the present case in 198 [9] that might have revived the stale [1974] convictions to make *155 them admissible for impeachment…”

Commonwealth v. Eugene, 780 N.E.2d 893 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 4× “The judge sustained the Commonwealth’s objection. There was no error.”

Commonwealth v. Roberts, 389 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 233, § 21. The Commonwealth counters that, "At most, the prosecutor could be charged with trying not only to impeach the defendant’s credibility generally but also to impeach his credibility at important points in his testimony.”

Show all 231 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.