Court Opinion

ID: 9721650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:04:27.243528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.944476
License: Public Domain

HANSON (P. D.), Acting P. J., Concurring.
The majority opinion has discussed fairly the exercise of the trial court’s discretion within the Beagle case in ruling on the admissibility of the prior conviction. The trial judge could not, under the Spearman case, admit the prior burglary; however, as to the admission of the prior robbery, under the total circumstances before the judge and present case law, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion. The dissent appears to be an attack upon Evidence Code section 788 and should be directed to the Legislature rather than to the trial judge. (See People v. Hickman (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 365, 370, 372 [179 Cal.Rptr. 541].)