Judge denies bid to admit into evidence defendant’s prior convictions

Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja yesterday denied the government’s motion to admit into evidence the eight prior convictions of a man accused of beating up and robbing a 65-year-old masseur.

In an 11-page order, Naraja ruled, however, that if suspect Nestor C. Taitano chooses to testify at trial, he will then make a ruling at that time on the government’s motion as to the admissibility of the same evidence.

“Because defendant may choose not to testify at trial, a ruling on the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Rule 609 is premature at this time,” Naraja said.

Taitano and Joshua Basaliso were arrested in April 2011 for the alleged beating and robbing of Guoxi Liang, a Chinese national, outside his house in San Antonio. Liang sustained multiple injuries in the face and head. His right eye had massive swelling.

Basaliso entered a plea agreement with the government. The trial of Taitano is currently set for Feb. 21, 2012. The Office of the Attorney General charged him with robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace.

The government through assistant attorney general Eileen E. Wisor filed a motion to admit into evidence Taitano’s eight prior convictions and two charges dismissed per plea agreements.

Taitano, through assistant public defender Matthew Meyer, opposed the motion.

In his order denying in part the motion, Naraja said it appears that the government wishes to introduce the prior acts as signature crimes because they all “were committed with the help of a co-conspirator and involve crimes of theft and /or violent assault and battery just like the offenses charged.

Naraja said it is clear that Taitano’s prior convictions and the instant case do not represent signature crimes.

Naraja said the mere fact that the prior convictions include acts of “theft” and “violent assault and battery” is far too general to constitute signature crimes.

The government, the judge pointed out, failed to prove that the prior convictions are sufficiently similar to the offenses charged; thus, they are not relevant as to intent, motive, plan or preparation.

Naraja said it is difficult to imagine how any juror could render a fair verdict on the merits of the case after gaining insight into Taitano’s expansive criminal history of violence and thievery.

Naraja, however, cited the Commonwealth Rules of Evidence 609 that permits the admissibility of prior convictions, under certain conditions, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness.