Court Opinion

ID: 9727955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:53:35.734651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.549743
License: Public Domain

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the result.
I agree with part I of the majority opinion that the refusal to admit the tape recording was error and prejudicial error requiring a reversal.
However, I do not agree with the rest of the opinion dealing with Proposition 8. Except for a small number of malum prohibitum offenses, every felony necessarily involves “moral turpitude.” If we are to gain anything from the various opinions in Castro, it is the same as we concluded in our original opinion, namely that you can impeach only by an offense involving dishonesty such as, for example, perjury or obtaining money under false pretenses. Arson, the prior offense herein involved, does not involve that kind of dishonesty.
*483Assuming that the tape recording would have indicated the nature of defendant’s prior crime, that crime also had no impeaching value and to have permitted trial counsel to argue impeachment is error.