Court Opinion

ID: 9771961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:03:34.875748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:40.617529
License: Public Domain

ONION, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached, but would add my remarks as to the disposition of ground of error #2.
Appellant claims that a 1947 felony conviction from the State of Louisiana, void under the rationale of Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319, was used to impeach his credibility while testifying in his own behalf. We need not reach the question of whether Burgett bars the use of such conviction for impeachment purposes in view of the facts. Prior to taking the stand the appellant objected to the use of such conviction because he was without counsel, but did not claim he was indigent at the time. After his motion was overruled he took the stand and on direct examination admitted such felony conviction.
Only recently in Shorter v. United States, 9 Cir., 412 F.2d 428, the defendant took the stand and admitted his 1958 and 1959 Louisiana convictions, claimed to be infirm, as a part of trial strategy “to soften the anticipated blow” without waiting to see whether the prosecutor would change his mind as to his announced intention to use such convictions for impeachment. Under such circumstances the Ninth Circuit avoided the question of whether the rationale of Burgett extends to the impeachment of an accused testifying in his own behalf. Since the appellant himself injected the conviction into evidence as a part of his trial strategy, I concur in the overruling of ground of error #2.