People v. Clark

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of armed robbery with a firearm, on theory of accountability; his co-hort, Nesbit, used a gun. Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prosecution witness's conviction of armed robbery with a firearm. Because Defendant conceded that he committed the robbery, the sole issue for jury was whether gun used by Nesbit was a real firearm. Nesbit's conviction of a recent armed robbery with a firearm was relevant to that issue. Probative value of that conviction was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)