Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Defendant's Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachment

Text: (20) On defendant's motion in limine, the trial court ruled that defendant's prior convictions for kidnapping, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and car theft would be admitted for impeachment, but that his conviction for escape would not. Defendant maintains that the court did not properly weigh the probative value of his prior convictions for impeachment against their prejudicial effect. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 307 [211 Cal. Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111].) Defendant initially argues the trial court did not make an adequate record of the weighing process preceding its ruling to admit the convictions. To the contrary, the court entertained the arguments of counsel bearing on probative value and prejudice, made several remarks from the bench about remoteness and relevancy, and reviewed each conviction separately during the course of its ruling. Although the court did not specifically articulate all of the factors identified in case law in making its ruling, defendant cites no authority imposing such a requirement. The trial court's ruling was adequately stated and supported by the record. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [208 Cal. Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207]; People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 181, 187 [251 Cal. Rptr. 40].) Moving to the merits of the trial court's ruling, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court distinguished among defendant's convictions by excluding escape and admitting the others. The admitted convictions were seven and nine years old at the time of trial and thus not so remote in time as to preclude their relevance for impeachment. The offenses were crimes of moral turpitude, i.e., they evinced a general readiness to do evil, and could therefore properly be considered by the jury as impeachment. ( People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 314). They were not identical to the charges against defendant in this case so as to suggest present guilt merely because of past conduct. Recent case authority supports the trial court's decision to admit the convictions. ( People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal. App.3d 636, 646-647 [248 Cal. Rptr. 891]; People v. Castro (1986) 186 Cal. App.3d 1211, 1216-1217 [231 Cal. Rptr. 269]; People v. Lewis (1987) 191 Cal. App.3d 1288, 1297 [237 Cal. Rptr. 64].) Defendant cites no contrary authority.