Opinion ID: 1236383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Admissibility of Prior Conviction for Impeachment.

Text: (8) Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior conviction for assault with intent to commit murder would be admissible for impeachment purposes. We do not agree. The court followed the analysis set forth in People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 [211 Cal. Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111], interpreting article I, section 28, subdivision (f) of the California Constitution, which was enacted as part of Proposition 8 in 1982. It properly concluded that defendant's reliance on pre- Castro cases was not determinative and that defendant's conviction for assault with intent to commit murder involved moral turpitude. ( People v. Olmedo (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 1085, 1097-1098 [213 Cal. Rptr. 742].) The court then exercised its discretion under Evidence Code section 352, concluding that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. The court noted that it could not assess the impact of the prior conviction on defendant's testimony because no offer of proof as to that testimony had been made. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not state that an offer of proof was required and, indeed, noted that California law did not then require an offer of proof. [3] Because of the similarity of the prior to one of the charged crimes, the court offered to sanitize the prior by allowing reference to the conviction only as a prior felony conviction. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. (See People v. Massey (1987) 192 Cal. App.3d 819, 825 [237 Cal. Rptr. 734].) Defendant's reliance on pre- Castro and Proposition 8 cases is unpersuasive. (9) As we noted in People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at page 312, the intention of the drafters of Proposition 8 was to restore trial court discretion as visualized by the Evidence Code and to reject the rigid, black letter rules of exclusion which had been grafted onto the code by our decisions. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling.