Under what conditions can the state cross-examine a defendant about their criminal history?

The state can cross-examine a defendant about their criminal history under specific circumstances guided by the rules of evidence. This is particularly true when the conviction pertains to a dishonest crime, such as fraud, theft, or perjury, that is punishable by more than a year in prison. The rationale behind this allowance is that such convictions can be relevant to the credibility of the defendant, reflecting on their character and truthfulness.

For the court to permit this line of questioning, it must also determine that the probative value of the evidence—that is, its ability to support or provide significant insight into an issue in the case—outweighs the potential for prejudice against the defendant. The goal is to ensure that while the evidence may be relevant, it does not unfairly bias the jury against the defendant, thereby maintaining the integrity of the trial process.

This balance of probative value versus prejudicial impact is crucial, as it helps ensure that while the jury can consider the defendant's past to evaluate their credibility, they are also protected from being influenced solely by that past in a way that could affect their impartial judgment on the current charges.