§706-666  Definition of proof of conviction. 
(1)  An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant
committed a crime constitutes a conviction for purposes of sections 706-606.5,
706-662, and 706-665, although sentence or the execution thereof was suspended,
provided that the defendant was not pardoned on the ground of innocence.



(2)  Prior conviction may be proved by any
evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest,
conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies the court that the
defendant was convicted. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1982, c 246, §1]



 



COMMENTARY ON §706-666



 



  Section 706-666 is addressed to the problems of the
definition and proof of former convictions.  The Code takes the position that,
in determining whether the defendant is a persistent offender, conviction per
se is sufficient provided the time for appeal has expired and the defendant has
not been pardoned on the ground of innocence.  The fact that the disposition of
the defendant resulted in a suspended sentence or a suspended execution of a
sentence should not be held material for purposes of extended terms.



  Subsection (2) provides for a non-restrictive approach to
admitting evidence on prior convictions.  Since (1) the evidence relied upon is
largely official records, (2) the issue is tried to the court, and (3) the
court is not compelled to find the defendant a persistent offender, or to
impose an extended term even if the minimal requirements are established, no
sound purpose would be served by adopting a restrictive evidentiary approach.



 



SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §706-666



 



  Act 246, Session Laws 1982, clarified the definition of a
conviction by providing that an adjudication by a court of competent
jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction.



 



Case Notes



 



  In State v. Kamae, 56 H. 32, 526 P.2d 1200 (1974), the court
held that an appeal in forma pauperis was not frivolous when it sought to raise
the question of whether the trial court's reliance on a pre-sentence diagnosis
and report was sufficient under §706-666(2) to establish that the defendant was
a multiple offender warranting an extended term under §706-662(4).  The court
did not reach the ultimate question.



  Pre-sentence report held insufficient evidence of prior
conviction.  56 H. 628, 548 P.2d 632.



  Evidence of defendant's prior conviction reasonably satisfied
the court.  9 H. App. 583, 854 P.2d 238.