Court Opinion

ID: 9549077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:12:55.905606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:48.447841
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
With all respect, I find the majority’s reading of subdivision (f) unpersuasive. As the majority concede (ante, p. 310), the language of subdivision (f) does not on its face suffer from any lack of clarity or directness. Indeed, if the electorate wished to assure categorically that any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding is to be used for purposes of impeachment or enhancement of sentence in any criminal proceeding “without limitation,” it is difficult to conceive how they could have found better language, appropriate for a Constitution, to express that purpose.
My colleagues, however, find a conflict between the unequivocal language of subdivision (f) and that portion of subdivision (d) which refers to Evidence Code section 352, and on the basis of accommodation to that asserted conflict, they conclude that the electorate had a much narrower intent. According to this view, the phrase “without limitation” refers only to “the rigid, black letter rules of exclusion which we had grafted onto the [Evidence] [C]ode by the Antick [15 Cal.3d 79 (123 Cal.Rptr. 475, 539 P.2d 43)] line of decisions” (ante, p. 312), and in no way precludes trial courts from excluding evidence of a prior conviction on the basis that its relevance is outweighed by its potential prejudice.
I find the majority’s argument unpersuasive for several related reasons. First, any inconsistency between subdivisions (f) and (d) would be subject to the statutory rule of construction that “when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859.) This rule, like other canons of statutory construction, *320applies to initiative measures and constitutional provisions as well as statutes, since it is directed to ascertaining and implementing the intent of the body which adopted the measure under consideration. (Winchester v. Mabury (1898) 122 Cal. 522, 527 [55 P. 393]; Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658 [194 Cal.Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17]; Perry v. Jordan (1949) 34 Cal.2d 87, 93 [207 P.2d 47].) Subdivision (f) is here the specific provision, evidencing a clear and unambiguous intent that there be no limitation upon the admissibility of certain evidence. That intent should be given effect over the more general policies reflected in subdivision (d).
Second, any inconsistency between the two subdivisions can readily be avoided by reading the word “section” in subdivision (d) to mean “subdivision.” As the majority recognize, the drafters of Proposition 8 used the word “section” at other times when they must have meant “subdivision,” just as they used the word “subdivision” at times when they meant “section.” It seems quite apparent that is what happened here. The savings clause in subdivision (d) must be read in the context in which it appears. It is, in its totality, a qualification of the general proposition in subdivision (d) that “relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding The other cited provisions of the Evidence Code (§§ 782 & 1103) and the other rules of evidence to which the savings clause refers (“any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay”) have bearing only upon that proposition. It thus seems to me far more plausible to read the savings clause as a limitation upon subdivision (d) only, than to read one part of it as a qualification to the otherwise absolute language of subdivision (f).
Finally, reading the section 352 reference in subdivision (d) as a qualification of the “without limitation” language in subdivision (f) leaves the latter with a meaning which I doubt the electorate intended. Trial courts will be free to exclude evidence of prior convictions without appellate review. On the other hand, if a trial court decides to admit such evidence, I assume that its decision will remain reviewable on appeal by the defendant from any conviction, since “no discretion is so unbounded that it cannot be abused” (ante, p. 307). And, I assume that the trial court in exercising its discretion, and the appellate court in reviewing its exercise, are both to be guided by the four factors enunciated in Beagle [6 Cal.3d 441 (99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1)]. (Ante, p. 307.) It thus seems inevitable that in some cases appellate courts will reverse trial courts for admitting evidence of a prior conviction for failure properly to weigh and consider those factors. The line between doing that and “delineating the boundaries of permissible discretion” (ante, p. 307) is subtle indeed.
In People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1] this court confronted the relationship between Evidence Code sections 352 *321and 788. The latter section provides in part that “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown by the examination of the witness or by the record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a felony . . . .” Relying upon the permissive word “may” rather than a mandatory word such as “shall,” we concluded that “the choice of language leaves the trial court with discretion to exclude proof of prior felony convictions offered in impeachment.” (6 Cal.3d at p. 452.) We found support for that construction in a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Luck v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1965) 348 F.2d 763, 767-768, which construed language in a similar statute to the same effect.
After the decision in Luck, supra, Congress amended the applicable statute to provide that the prior convictions of a witness, with certain specified exceptions, “shall be admitted if offered.” (Act of July 29, 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473.)1 The District of Columbia Court of Appeals subsequently held that Congress, by the new language, had overruled the Luck doctrine, and that trial courts no longer had discretion to limit or prohibit impeachment of witnesses with their prior convictions. (Taylor v. United States (D.C. 1971) 280 A.2d 79, 81.) Whether we like it or not, it seems to me that Proposition 8 was intended to have similar effect in this state.
I will deal briefly with the constitutional issue posed by my interpretation. A good argument can be made—indeed, has been made by the State Public Defender as amicus curiae—that unlimited use of prior convictions may deprive a defendant of his federal constitutional right to due process of law. This argument is based, principally, upon language in Spencer v. Texas (1967) 385 U.S. 554, 561 [17 L.Ed.2d 606, 612, 87 S.Ct. 648], to the effect that when a criminal defendant’s prior convictions are introduced for one of several accepted purposes, his interests are protected both by limiting instructions and by “the discretion residing with the trial judge to limit or forbid the admission of particularly prejudicial evidence even though admissible under an accepted rule of evidence.” Remove that discretion, amicus argues, and you have removed a constitutionally essential condition to introduction of prior convictions in evidence.
*322This argument was considered and rejected, however, by the very court which decided Luck, after Congress reversed that decision by statute, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. (Dixon v. United States, supra, 287 A.2d 89, 92-96.) Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, reached the same conclusion in an opinion written by Judge McGowan, who had been the author of Luck. (United States v. Belt (D.C.Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 837.) Judge McGowan’s opinion observed that the unsuccessful petition for certiorari in Dixon “emphasized strongly the significance of the language about judicial discretion” in Spencer, and that “Dixon was a case which on its facts raised a very serious question indeed about prejudicial effect.” (Id., at p. 848, fn. 18.) “What Spencer does appear to contemplate,” the opinion concluded, “is that a legislature may, without impingement upon the Constitution, conclude that the public interest in getting before the jury this evidence bearing upon the credibility of the defendant-witness outweighs its inescapably prejudicial effect. A belief that such constitutional latitude exists is reflected in the fact that [in] many states, as in a few federal circuits . . ., the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes is treated as a mandatory matter.” (Id., at p. 849.) In light of this history, it seems quite clear that the argument of amicus will not fly.
I agree with the majority, however, that evidence so potentially prejudicial must at least meet a threshold constitutional standard of “relevance,” and in the absence of legislative guidance I accept the “moral turpitude” test which the majority proposes. I suspect, though, that both the moral turpitude test and the standards by which appellate courts are to review the exercise of that discretion which the majority concludes trial courts retain will give rise to difficult problems of judicial administration; and I suggest that the optimum solution may lie in action by the Legislature enumerating or defining the offenses which it believes to have sufficient relevance to veracity to be admissible for purposes of impeachment.
I agree with the majority that admission into evidence of the conviction for possession of heroin was harmless error, and so concur in the result.

The new statute, which is set forth in an appendix to the court’s opinion in Dixon v. United States (D.C. 1972) 287 A.2d 89, certiorari denied, 407 U.S. 926 [32 L.Ed.2d 813, 92 S.Ct. 2474], provided for admission into evidence of any criminal offense which “(A) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which [the defendant] was convicted, or (B) involved dishonesty or false statement (regardless of punishment). ...” (Id., at p. 100.) Exceptions were made for a conviction more than 10 years old, and convictions which had been the subject of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation. .