State v. Koloske

Both petitioners in these consolidated cases challenge their convictions, alleging trial court error in making rulings under ER 609. Petitioner Austin also claims that the trial court erred in denying his new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. While we disagree with certain of the Court of Appeals pronouncements in these cases, we dismiss petitioner Koloske's petition for review and affirm petitioner Austin's conviction for the reasons discussed below.

I

State v. Koloske

Koloske was convicted in April 1981 of first degree theft in a…