Which option correctly identifies a NOT-required condition for admissibility of juvenile adjudication under Rule 609(c)?

Which option correctly identifies a NOT-required condition for admissibility of juvenile adjudication under Rule 609(c)?

• A. It is offered in a criminal case.
• B. The adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant.
• C. An adult's conviction for the same offense would be admissible.
• D. The adjudication occurred in a civil case.

Answer: (D)

Under Rule 609(c), using a juvenile adjudication to impeach a witness is allowed only if several specific criteria line up. The key ones are that the witness being impeached is not the defendant, and that the juvenile adjudication concerns an offense that would be admissible if it had been committed by an adult (the parity requirement). The court also weighs probative value against potential prejudice. The origin of the adjudication in a civil proceeding is not a required condition for admissibility. In other words, whether the juvenile adjudication came from a civil case does not determine whether it can be admitted under these impeachment rules; the decisive factors are who the witness is, what offense the adjudication concerned, and the balancing of probative value versus prejudice.

Under Rule 609(c), using a juvenile adjudication to impeach a witness is allowed only if several specific criteria line up. The key ones are that the witness being impeached is not the defendant, and that the juvenile adjudication concerns an offense that would be admissible if it had been committed by an adult (the parity requirement). The court also weighs probative value against potential prejudice. The origin of the adjudication in a civil proceeding is not a required condition for admissibility. In other words, whether the juvenile adjudication came from a civil case does not determine whether it can be admitted under these impeachment rules; the decisive factors are who the witness is, what offense the adjudication concerned, and the balancing of probative value versus prejudice.