Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Conviction for Marijuana Possession

Text: Over defense objection, the prosecution introduced evidence of defendant's 1967 felony conviction in this state for possession of marijuana. (102) Defendant contends that this prior conviction could not be used in aggravation under section 190.3, factor (c) (The presence or absence of any prior felony conviction), because at the time of trial the offense of marijuana possession was no longer punishable as a felony and because any record of a marijuana possession conviction cannot be considered accurate, relevant, timely, or complete for any purposes if the record is more than two years old (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361.7, subd. (a)). The latter provision makes any record falling within its terms `useless and for all intents and purposes nonexistent.' ( People v. Boyd (1979) 24 Cal.3d 285, 293 [155 Cal. Rptr. 367, 594 P.2d 484] [record of prior felony conviction for marijuana possession will not support a charge of possession of a firearm by an ex-felon].) Defendant is correct that the evidence was inadmissible, but there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the penalty verdict. ( People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].) In his penalty phase testimony, defendant admitted both possession and sale of marijuana, and the offense of marijuana possession is insignificant in light of the evidence of far more serious violent offenses committed by defendant ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 191 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]). Because the erroneously admitted evidence was inconsequential in the context of the evidence properly received, the error did not deprive defendant of any right under the federal Constitution.