A ruling on a pre-trial motion in limine is interlocutory and can be reversed during trial. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Mo.App. 1985); State v. Hemphill, 669 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo.App. 1984). The issue here, however, is the method by which the court's pre-trial ruling is to be tested during trial.
However, the prosecutor may "elicit the nature, dates and places of the [prior offenses] and the sentences resulting therefrom." State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Mo. App. 1985). We have allowed more thorough examinations when the questioning revolves around the court proceedings, not the facts of the crime.
On cross-examination, the State has an absolute right to demonstrate prior convictions and the nature and kind thereof for the purposes of impeachment, limited only by the restriction that the cross-examiner shall not go into details of the crimes leading to prior convictions. State v. Frison, 775 S.W.2d 314, 318–19 (Mo.App. E.D.1989) ( citing State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Mo.App. E.D.1985)). The State may inquire into the nature, date, and place of prior convictions and the resulting sentences.
However, given the purpose of such evidence, the details of the admitted prior convictions are unnecessary. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Mo. App. 1985). When the state questions a defendant about prior convictions, it is permitted to elicit the nature, dates, and places of the occurrence, as well as the sentences resulting therefrom.
However, given the purpose of this evidence, the details of the admitted prior convictions are unnecessary. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Mo. App. 1985). When the state questions a defendant about his prior convictions, it is permitted to elicit the nature, dates, and places of the occurrence, as well as the sentences resulting therefrom.
However, a court cannot go into detail of the crimes leading to past convictions. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Mo.App. 1985). These limitations are in place due to the risk that a jury will believe that prior convictions and misconduct are a sign of bad character, which is probative of guilt.
State v. Lane, 613 S.W.2d 669, 679 (Mo.App. 1981). In literary terms who, what, when and where are in order but why and how are not. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Mo.App. 1985). We find no error in allowing cross examination which included the gender of prior victims.
Defendant's second point concerns the prosecution's cross-examination of defendant about a prior weapons charge and conviction. There is no question that prior convictions are the proper subject of cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching a witness. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 756-57 (Mo.App. 1985). There is also no question that evidence of the nature and kind of prior conviction may be elicited from a witness without going into the details of the offense.
In a criminal trial the state has an absolute right to demonstrate, on cross-examination, prior convictions and the nature and kind thereof for the purposes of impeachment, limited only by the restriction, that the cross-examiner should not be permitted to go into details of the crimes leading to prior convictions. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Mo.App. 1985). The state may inquire into the nature, date and place of prior convictions and the resulting sentences.
A motion in limine does not relieve a defendant of the duty to make a timely objection at trial. State v. Silcox, 694 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Mo.App. 1985). Because appellant did not object at trial, our review is restricted to plain error.