## Facts

- Shamsa Wilkins reported that Patrick Eldon Hardy approached her on a downtown Seattle street corner around 4:30 a.m., spoke with her briefly, and took her jewelry.
- Officer Stewart arrived within about a minute; he testified that Wilkins and Margaret Smith were distraught and relayed what happened.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted Stewart’s recounting of Wilkins’s and Smith’s statements as excited utterances under ER 803(a)(2); Wilkins later testified, but Smith did not.
- Police located Hardy nearby, passed out in his car, with Wilkins’s jewelry in his pockets.
- Hardy testified that Wilkins and Smith were pushing and shoving and that he only picked up jewelry from the ground; he did not deny having the jewelry.
- The State sought to impeach Hardy with a prior felony drug conviction if he testified.
- The trial court found the conviction’s impeachment value “almost nil” and recognized substantial prejudice if the jury learned it was a drug crime, but allowed impeachment using only an “unnamed felony.”
- Hardy was convicted of second-degree robbery; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether ER 609(a)(1) permits impeachment of a testifying defendant with a prior felony drug conviction, presented as an “unnamed felony,” when the trial court found minimal probative value and substantial prejudice in a credibility-centered trial.
2. Whether admitting the prior conviction for impeachment was harmless error.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion under ER 609(a)(1) by admitting the prior drug felony for impeachment, even in “unnamed felony” form.
- The error was not harmless because credibility was central and the impeachment evidence could have affected the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Under ER 609(a)(1), a prior felony conviction is admissible for impeachment only if its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, based on an on-the-record balancing.
- Drug convictions generally have little probative value regarding a witness’s veracity and are weak impeachment evidence absent additional justification.
- Admitting an “unnamed felony” does not satisfy ER 609(a)(1) where the conviction has minimal credibility value; concealing the offense’s nature does not eliminate prejudice and may invite speculation.
- When the defendant’s testimony and witness credibility are central to the case, improper impeachment with a prior felony is less likely to be harmless.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that admitting a prior drug felony to impeach a defendant—especially where the trial court found the impeachment value nearly nonexistent—violates ER 609(a)(1)’s probative-value-versus-prejudice requirement, and the resulting error required reversal in a credibility-driven robbery trial.


State v. Hardy, 133 Wn.2d 701, 946 P.2d 1175 (Wash. 1997)