Should Molly's previous conviction be admissible in court to impeach her testimony?

Molly's previous conviction is admissible in court to impeach her testimony primarily because it involves a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. Under the Florida Evidence Code, specifically, a conviction for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude can be used to challenge a witness's credibility. Since the conviction carries a maximum penalty exceeding one year, it fits within the criteria allowing it to be presented for impeachment purposes. This usage serves the court's interest in assessing the reliability and truthfulness of witnesses, including Molly.

The other options presented do not align with the relevant laws surrounding the admissibility of prior convictions. For instance, a nolo contendere plea does not automatically prevent a conviction from being used for impeachment, especially if it is a felony. Additionally, the idea that a conviction can only be used if she testifies about it is misleading, as the conviction stands as an independent measure of her credibility. Lastly, an adjudicated suspension refers to a condition affecting a license and typically does not affect the admissibility of a felony conviction for impeachment purposes. Thus, the emphasis on the crime's maximum penalty is what solidifies the admissibility of the conviction in court.