Following a jury trial, Nolan Love was convicted on one count of burglary1 and one count of misdemeanor criminal trespass.2 He appeals his convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in i allowing testimony that impermissibly placed his character into evidence, ii allowing the State to impeach his testimony with his prior convictions, despite the prejudicial effect of those convictions outweighing their probative value, and iii allowing the State to use his prior convictions for purposes beyond mere impeachment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Davis v. State ,3 the evidence shows that in the early afternoon of March 31, 2008, a police officer, who was investigating an unrelated homicide, was walking the grounds of an apartment complex with the complex’s manager when he observed Love walking near the rear of the complex and carrying a large trash bag over his shoulder. As the officer approached Love, he noticed that the trash bag was partially torn and that it contained electronics of some sort. When the officer asked Love what he was doing, Love responded that he was moving the items from one apartment to another. Based on his suspicion that Love had burglarized one of the apartments, the officer detained Love and called for an officer responsible for investigating burglaries to report to the scene.
Upon arriving at the apartment complex, the burglary investigator searched the trash bag that Love was carrying and found that it contained a small television and a DVD player. Love told the investigator that he took the items from apartment number 687. He also admitted to the investigator that the apartment’s resident, who was out of town, did not give him permission to move the items but claimed that a former roommate of the resident had given him such permission. Thereafter, the investigator went to the apartment and saw that the back kitchen window had been broken and that the back door had been unlocked from the inside. During the course of his investigation, he also spoke with the security guard for the apartment complex, who informed the investigator that he had previously issued a criminal trespass warning to Love and had warned him to stay away from the complex.
