Opinion ID: 588155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The erroneous impeachment ruling

Text: 10 The government contends that Galindo cannot raise the claim that the trial court erroneously ruled that he could be impeached with his prior felony. The government is correct. In Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43, 105 S.Ct. 460, 464, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), the Supreme Court held that in order to preserve an objection to a trial court's ruling that a prior felony conviction could be admitted, a defendant must actually testify at trial. Galindo did not do so, and thus waived any federal constitutional claim he might otherwise have had. 11 We, of course, understand that Luce was laid down as a federal rule of procedure, but it surely follows that its requirements do not violate the United States Constitution. As the Court indicated, a federal court's preliminary ruling on a question not reaching constitutional dimensions--such as a decision under Rule 609(a)--is [not] reviewable on appeal. 469 U.S. at 42-43, 105 S.Ct. at 464. Thus, at the time of Galindo's conviction, the California courts simply gave additional procedural protections to defendants. Those courts have explained the limits of the added protections, limits which cannot themselves violate the United States Constitution. The Constitution was complied with here. 3 12 AFFIRMED.