What is the test for admitting prior convictions of sexual abuse?

As Defendant did not object to the admission of the prior convictions, we must apply the "plain error" doctrine on appeal. That is, reversal is required only if the error is plain and if the unobjected-to error is "seriously prejudicial" to the defendant. United States v. Lopez, 575 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1978); Reisman v. United States, 409 F.2d 789, 791 (9th Cir. 1969).

As to the first leg of the above-stated test, we think that the error was plain. Under F.R.E. Rule 609(a)(1), evidence of conviction of a crime, not involving dishonesty or false statement, cannot be admitted for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness unless the crime was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year and the court determines that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Although a trial judge has " 'wide discretion in deciding whether to exclude evidence of prior convictions as more prejudicial than probative of lack of credibility,' " United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Prewitt, 534 F.2d 200, 201 (9th Cir. 1976), we conclude that the trial judge erred in not excluding the child molesting convictions in this case. The fact that a defendant has been convicted of child molesting bears only nominally on credibility; there was nothing in the circumstances of this case to increase the probative value of this defendant's prior convictions of this crime.