- Rule:609.
- Test:probative vs. prejudice.
- Dishonesty:more readily admitted.
- Affects:whether you testify.
If you testify in your own defense, the prosecution may try to bring up your prior convictions to attack your credibility under Minn. R. Evid. 609. But it isn't automatic — the court must weigh whether the value of the prior conviction in judging your truthfulness outweighs the unfair prejudice of the jury hearing about it. A defense motion can keep some or all priors out, which can be the difference in whether a defendant can safely take the stand. This is a key pretrial and trial issue, tied to your right to testify or remain silent.
The Basic Rule
Rule 609 allows a witness's credibility to be attacked with certain prior convictions. For a testifying defendant, the most common categories are felonies (subject to a balancing test) and crimes involving dishonesty or false statement (treated more readily as relevant to truthfulness). There's also a general time limit — older convictions, typically beyond about ten years, are much harder to use.
The Balancing Test
For a defendant, a felony prior generally comes in only if the court finds its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect. Minnesota courts weigh several factors — including how much the prior bears on truthfulness, how old it is, how similar it is to the charged offense (similar priors are more prejudicial, because the jury may misuse them as propensity), the importance of the defendant's testimony, and the centrality of the credibility issue. The defense argues these factors to keep damaging priors out.
Why It Shapes the Whole Case
This issue often decides whether a defendant testifies at all. If the court rules that several prior convictions will come in, a defendant may reasonably decide not to take the stand — because the jury would hear a list of past convictions. Winning a Rule 609 motion to exclude or limit priors can free the defendant to tell their side without that baggage. That's why this motion is frequently litigated before the defendant decides whether to testify.
Crimes of Dishonesty
Convictions involving dishonesty or false statement — things like fraud or perjury-type offenses — are treated as especially relevant to credibility and are harder to keep out, because they speak directly to whether the witness can be believed. Felonies that don't involve dishonesty get the full balancing analysis.
Updated May 18, 2026 · Law verified as of June 8, 2026. This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the jury hear about my prior convictions?
Only in limited circumstances. If you testify, the State may seek to use certain prior convictions to attack your credibility under Rule 609 — but the court must first weigh probative value against prejudice, and a defense motion can keep some or all of them out.
What is the Rule 609 balancing test?
For a testifying defendant, a felony prior generally comes in only if its value in judging credibility outweighs its prejudice. Courts weigh how much it bears on truthfulness, its age, its similarity to the charge, the importance of the defendant's testimony, and how central credibility is.
Does it matter what the prior conviction was for?
Yes. Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement are treated as especially relevant to credibility and are harder to exclude. Convictions similar to the current charge are more prejudicial, which weighs toward keeping them out.
How does this affect whether I testify?
Significantly. If priors will be admitted, a defendant may choose not to testify to avoid the jury hearing them. Winning a motion to exclude or limit priors can make it safer to take the stand, which is why it's litigated before that decision.
Related guides
Spreigl Evidence: Prior Bad Acts Under Rule 404(b)
Spreigl evidence is the State's attempt to use your prior bad acts against you. Here's the Rule 404(b) notice requirement, the five-step test, and how...
Read the guideThe Accident Defense in Minnesota Criminal Cases
How accident works as a Minnesota criminal defense — when a genuine accident negates criminal intent, how it differs from self-defense, and why it fai...
Read the guideThe Alibi Defense in Minnesota: Proving You Weren't There
How the alibi defense works in Minnesota — the pretrial notice rule, who carries the burden of proof, corroboration, and why "I wasn't there" is reall...
Read the guideThe information on this article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.