Luce v. United States
Citation and Court
469 U.S. 38 (1984), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Luce was charged with drug offenses. He filed a motion in limine to prevent the government from using a prior conviction to impeach him if he testified. The district court denied the motion, and Luce chose not to testify. He was convicted and argued on appeal that the in limine ruling was erroneous.
Issue
Whether a defendant who does not testify at trial may challenge on appeal an in limine ruling that would have allowed the government to use a prior conviction for impeachment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that a defendant must testify at trial in order to preserve for appellate review a claim that the district court erred in ruling that a prior conviction would be admissible for impeachment.
Rule / Doctrine
To preserve a claim that a prior conviction ruling under FRE 609 was erroneous, the defendant must actually testify and be impeached, or at least attempt to testify. A defendant who elects not to testify after an adverse in limine ruling waives any appellate challenge to that ruling because the reviewing court cannot conduct a proper FRE 403 balancing without knowing the full trial context, and the decision not to testify may have been based on other factors.
Significance
Luce v. United States is the foundational case on the requirement that a defendant testify to preserve a FRE 609 impeachment challenge. It illustrates the interaction between in limine rulings and the preservation of error for appeal, and is important for understanding trial strategy regarding prior conviction impeachment.