R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-17-15 (2026)

Effect of conviction for crime

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall be deemed an incompetent witness because of his or her conviction of any crime, or sentence to imprisonment therefor; but shall be admitted to testify like any other witness, except that conviction or sentence for any crime or misdemeanor may be shown to affect his or her credibility.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1960–2013 · leading case: State v. Bennett, 405 A.2d 1181 (R.I. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bennett, 405 A.2d 1181 (R.I. 1979). · cites it 4× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) *279 §9-17-15. Admission of evidence of a conviction or sentence for impeachment purposes is generally mandatory under this section.”
State v. Pailin, 576 A.2d 1384 (R.I. 1990). · cites it 8× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-15 and R.I. R. Evid. 609. Section 9-17-15 provides, “No person shall be deemed an incompetent witness because of his conviction of any crime, or sentence to imprisonment therefor; but shall be admitted to testify like any other witness, except that…”
State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 1992). · cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-15). In July of 1987 this court adopted the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, which consequently casted § 9-17-15 “in a new light.”
State v. Rollins, 359 A.2d 315 (R.I. 1976). · cites it 4× “The defendant argues that in so ruling the trial justice committed reversible error because the challenged question was barred from consideration by the jury under the provisions of §9-17-15 which provides that: “No person shall be deemed an incompetent witness because of his…”
State v. Roderick, 403 A.2d 1090 (R.I. 1979). · cites it 4× “2d 315, 319 (1976), we construed §9-17-15, 3 which provides for the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes, to encompass any conviction, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal.”
State v. Lombardi, 727 A.2d 670 (R.I. 1999). · cites it 2× “G.L.1956 § 9-17-15; R.I.R.Evid. 609. Moreover, pursuant to Rule 609, “the determination of what is remote so as to create undue prejudice in a particular case remains an issue properly left to the discretion of the trial justice.”
State v. Moretti, 521 A.2d 1003 (R.I. 1987). · cites it 3× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-15. The practice in Rhode Island is that a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction, regardless of the possible prejudice or of whether the conviction was for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.”
State v. Simpson, 606 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1992). · cites it 3× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-15, which provides that a witness’s credibility may be impeached by showing a conviction or sentence for any crime or misdemeanor.”
State v. Coleman, 909 A.2d 929 (R.I. 2006). · cites it 2× “The adoption of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence in 1987 cast “in a new light” the preexisting statutory right to impeach the credibility of a trial witness with evidence of prior convictions, found in G.L. 1956 § 9-17-15. State v. Maxie, 554 A.”
State v. Maxie, 554 A.2d 1028 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 2× “Regarding the multiple convictions of his witnesses, Maxie claims that either they were too remote or they had no bearing upon the witnesses' truth and veracity.”
State v. Wilson, 568 A.2d 764 (R.I. 1990). · cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-15 is applicable. 2 This court has held that remoteness is the sole basis upon which a trial justice can prohibit the use of a prior conviction of any crime to impeach the credibility of a witness.”
State v. Young, 456 A.2d 739 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 3× “The defendant’s second contention is that the trial justice erred when he ruled that defendant could not introduce evidence of Virginia Ralph’s prior plea of nolo con-tendere followed by a disposition of probation, in an unrelated proceeding, for the purpose of impeaching her…”
Show all 28 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.