Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument is denied.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV-90-4603-HLH; Harry L. Hupp, District Judge, Presiding.
C.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Girard Tucker appeals pro se the jury's verdict in favor of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Officer David Furmanski in Tucker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the use of excessive force during his arrest. Tucker contends that the district court erred by ruling that evidence of his conviction for manufacturing PCP was admissible to impeach his testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 609(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Furmanski contends that Tucker waived his right to appeal the motion in limine ruling because Tucker himself introduced the evidence of this conviction. In United State v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.1991), we addressed this issue and held that the defendant waived his right to appeal the in limine ruling by bringing out the fact of the prior conviction during direct testimony. Id. at 725.
Williams controls this case. Tucker cannot contest on appeal the district court's in limine ruling on the admissibility of the conviction for impeachment purposes because Tucker alerted the jury to his prior conviction. Tucker made a "strategic decision to introduce the evidence preemptively, to soften its anticipated effect on the jury." Id. at 724. Any objection to the introduction of the prior conviction was waived. See id.; cf. Shorter v. United States, 412 F.2d 428, 431 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 970 (1969).
To the extent that Tucker is appealing the district court's admission of his earlier PCP convictions, any error committed by the district court was harmless. Tucker failed to show how the admission of the earlier convictions prejudiced a substantial right in light of the fact that evidence of the conviction arising out of this incident was before the jury. See United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 488 (9th Cir.1985) (error in admitting prior felony conviction is reversible only if the party demonstrates that a substantial right has been prejudiced by the court's decision), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1023 (1986).
AFFIRMED.