past comin back to bite me?

i recently got arrested for DUI in oregon. DA is trying to use my DUI in military 15 years ago as a Prior conviction for my recent arrest and punishment. Can they use military justice convictions from that long ago to add on to current case?

If they do so successfully, then the answer is yes.

I don't know why they wouldn't be able to "use" it. A DUI is a DUI.

I'm not versed on Oregon Evidence Rules (or Military Justice), but here are somethings that you could argue:

Oregon Rules of Evidence - 40.160 Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or undue delay. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

-Argue that a past conviction for the same crime is unfairly prejudicial to you because of the amount of time that has passed between your current situation and your former conviction. If you are going to trial in front of a jury, be sure to make this motion in limine so that the jury will not hear the evidence of your past conviction. Try to get this evidence excluded before any jury hears it.


Oregon Rules of Evidence - 40.170 Rule 404 (3) - Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

-So, the evidence is not admissible to prove your character (the character for DUI), nor for showing that you may have acted in conformity with that character trait. However, the prosecution can offer the evidence to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Not sure how they would go about arguing this, perhaps by arguing that b/c of your previous DUI, this DUI could not have been a mistake b/c you allegedly knew what was going on.

In any case, Oregon law prohibits evidence of crimes that are more 15 years old from being introduced to challenge a witness's credibility (look up the rule # online). From this, you may have a good argument that this rule was put in place to avoid unfair prejudice against a witness for crimes committed more than 15 years previously. In your case, you could argue that the admission of your previous DUI would be unfairly prejudicial against you (Rule 403) and that this prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence when used by the prosecution, and it should be excluded because it is unfairly prejudicial to you.