Other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, specific instances of conduct of a witness are not admissible for the purpose of attacking the witness' credibility. The witness admitted her guilt of forgery (a felony) under 12.45 during the sentencing hearing at her aggravated assault trial and the court took that conduct into account in determining her sentence for the assault. The pending forgery indictment was dismissed as barred (presumably under the multiple punishments provision of the 8th amendment). That would seem to be the basis for 12.45(c). Is the judgment (sentence) in the aggravated assault case considered to be a "conviction" for the forgery that can be inquired about when this person testifies as a witness in the future? Or is it still governed by Rule 608(b)? Seems to me the court could not take this forgery conduct into account in assessing a punishment without making a final determination of the person's guilt (which sounds a lot like a conviction to me).

Working under the assumption that there must be a court adjudication for a conviction to be "609 final," I have always believed that a "plea in bar" was no good for 609 but could be proved up under 37.07 in punishment just like any other actual final conviction. No cases, just gut reaction.

Martin, you don't say with what kind of a case the forgery was barred. It had to be a felony, no? So that you could impeach with that offense?

Certainly her conviction for aggravated assault would normally be admissible to impeach her credibility. But, I have to wonder how much influence such a conviction has for impeachment purposes. Anyway, I would like the jury to also know that the witness (testifying at the guilt-innocence phase of another's trial) has engaged in further felony conduct involving deceit and fraud. The defense argues I am breaching rule 608 and I argue she was "convicted" of forgery.

If the rule is as you suggest, and the witness was "convicted" of forgery, then you should also be able to use this type of "conviction" for enhancement purposes, right? I think the forgery could NOT be used for enhancement (repeat or habitual offender, etc.), so it cannot be used for impeachment. I'm guessing the CCH for the witness does not reflect a conviction for the forgery. That being said, can you get the judgment from the prior case into evidence? Then the jury can see that the witness has a prior forgery that she admitted guilt to, and the forgery was "considered" in assessing the punishment for the agg. assault.

Not a bunch of cases on the subject but Perea v. State 870 s.w.2d 314 says you can impeach with the 12.45

Thanks Phil. The situation probably does not arise very often, but it is nice to know there is support in the case law for my argument.