offense charged, when considered with the witness’ subsequent criminal history, the greater is its probative value for impeachment. See id. Butler’s prior conviction not only occurred more than ten years prior to his trial but, as noted above, is presumed to be too remote to be admissible. Although the prosecutor told the court that two other children would testify that Butler had sexually abused them in 1988, the record contains no such evidence. Again, the State had the burden of proving that Butler’s subsequent criminal history made the otherwise too-remote conviction admissible under Rule 609(b). Moreover, the similarity between Butler’s prior crime and the offense charged — both involving sexual contact with children— weighs heavily against admitting the prior conviction. See id. (<HOLDING>). Butler’s defense was essentially that the
holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime holding that admission of prior crime similar to the one charged increases likelihood that jury will convict based on past pattern of behavior rather than on facts of charged offense holding that courts should look to the statutory definition of the crime charged rather than the actual facts of the individuals prior conviction to determine whether the crime qualifies as a violent felony under the acca holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt