BISBEE — A Cochise County Superior Court judge denied a motion on Thursday to allow a defense attorney to call into question the integrity of a shooting victim during an upcoming jury trial.

Ronald D. Koch, 50, is charged with two counts of aggravated assault and three counts of endangerment. Koch shot his neighbor, Joshawa Liest, twice in Elfrida on Aug. 13 during a disagreement.

A four-day jury trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 25.

Koch’s attorney, Joseph DiRoberto, filed a motion on Jan. 10 asking the court to allow him to impeach Liest at trial for being convicted of a felony for receiving stolen property in Riverside County Superior Court in California on May 9, 1996.

A court is not supposed to admit evidence of a witness’ prior felony conviction if it is more than 10 years old, according to the Arizona Rules of Evidence, “unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect.”

DiRoberto’s motion also lists other cases against Liest, including a misdemeanor burglary conviction from 1996, six traffic violations committed during the last seven years, two applications for injunctions against harassment that were denied in 2006 and two more injunctions that were obtained in late November.

During the hearing on Thursday, DiRoberto said the credibility of Liest and Koch are at issue in this case.

In particular, they disagree over the facts and circumstances leading up to the shooting.

“The jury should be able to evaluate Liest’s credibility through the prism of his prior felony conviction,” he states in the motion.

Deputy County Attorney Roger Contreras filed a motion Jan. 23 asking the court to deny the motion to impeach Liest.

He points out that the mere fact that the credibility of the witness is in issue does not justify the admission of conviction evidence more than 10 years old.

According to his motion, in a similar case the Arizona Supreme Court listed factors to consider before admitting a prior conviction for impeachment, such as the remoteness of the conviction, the nature of the prior felony and the conduct of the witness since the prior offense.

He also notes the rules permit the admission of remote prior convictions on rare occasions and only in exceptional circumstances.

During the hearing on Thursday, Contreras said the circumstances would be different if the prior felony conviction had a bearing on the facts of the case.

But,  he  said,  receiving stolen  goods  is  not  related.

He said Liest may have lived a “less than stellar life” since the felony conviction, but traffic violations and injunctions against harassment are not related to the case either.

Judge Wallace Hoggatt denied DiRoberto’s motion. He said arguing with people or driving poorly do not have a connection with the felony conviction from 1996 or the current charges.

He  said  an  exception could be made if the Liest was convicted of perjury or making false statements or  had  several  repetitive felony convictions on his record.