State v. Utter

OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge.

This appeal arises from the criminal conviction of appellant, who argues that the district court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of his unspecified prior conviction for impeachment purposes. Because the district court erred in admitting evidence of appellant’s unspecified prior conviction for impeachment purposes under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1), and this error was not harmless, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

In April 2005, L.S. received a call from appellant Thomas Edward Utter, Jr., who asked L.S. to meet him at a certain home-improvement store so that…