prior convictions for forgery and unsworn falsification could be used to impeach Gray if he testified. In essence, Gray asserts that the court abused its discretion by indicating that it would allow the use of the convictions by the State to impeach Gray even though it results in some prejudice to Gray’s defense. In addition, Gray claims that the cumulative effect of all fourteen prior convictions was unfairly prejudicial. We disagree. [¶ 23] It is settled law that, in order to preserve on appeal an issue regarding the denial of a motion in limine to exclude the use of prior convictions to impeach the defendant in a criminal trial, the defendant must testify. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); State v. Huntley, 681 A.2d 10, 13 (Me.1996) (<HOLDING>) (quoting State v. Dunn, 480 A.2d 788, 790
holding that when defendant has not testified we review the denial of the motion only for obvious error affecting substantial rights and will vacate the judgments of convictions only if the convictions were produced by a fundamentally unfair trial holding that even if a trial court errs in a ruling on the admissibility of evidence we will reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice and that the error was harmless holding gaudin dictates that we vacate defendants convictions holding that we will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms