April 13, 2024

Darren Chaker Laws of Attraction

Darren Chaker, California Law and First Amendment blogger

Witness Impeachment With Prior Felony Conviction

7 min read

Impeachment with a felony by Darren Chaker.

Witness Impeachment with Felony Convictions: Basic Insight 

Understanding Impeachment under California Law

As noted by Darren Chaker focuses on impeachment under California law. The California Constitution plays a pivotal role in the realm of legal proceedings, especially when it comes to impeaching a witness. Article I, section 28, subdivision (f) of the California Constitution firmly states, “Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding, whether adult or juvenile, shall subsequently be used without limitation for purposes of impeachment or enhancement of sentence in any criminal proceeding.” This constitutional provision sets the stage for understanding the depth and breadth of impeachment in criminal cases.

The Role of Judicial Discretion in Felony Impeachment

However, the story doesn’t end with the constitutional provision. The California Supreme Court has carved out a nuanced approach to this rule. While a felony conviction can be a powerful tool for impeachment, the courts also recognize the potential for prejudice. This is where Evid. Code, § 352 comes into play, allowing judges to exclude prior felony convictions if they find them more prejudicial than probative. Landmark cases such as People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 and People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 highlight this delicate balance. These rulings specifically address the impeachment of criminal defendants, acknowledging that the fear of being impeached by prior convictions might deter them from testifying in their defense.

Article by Darren Chaker looks at impeachment.
Impeachment with a felony by Darren Chaker.

Differentiating Between Witness Impeachment: Defendants and Prosecution Witnesses

The legal landscape changes significantly when the focus shifts from a criminal defendant to a prosecution witness. The pivotal difference lies in the impact of impeachment on the overall case, particularly in scenarios where a defendant is facing severe penalties like life imprisonment without parole. An illuminating example is In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 525 (conviction reversed when the prosecution failed to disclose that one of the chief prosecution witnesses had suffered a federal felony conviction for taking a stolen vehicle across state lines (Dyer Act) (Id. at 530.) . This case underscores the crucial role credibility plays in the justice system, especially when it involves a prosecution witness with a felony conviction.

The Right to Impeach Witness and its Impact on Credibility

The right of a criminal defendant to impeach a prosecution’s main witness is an established principle in the legal domain. This practice is grounded in the belief that prior felony convictions may be indicative of a witness’s veracity. A classic interpretation by Justice Holmes in People v. Castro elucidates this perspective, suggesting that a felony conviction might reflect a general propensity for dishonesty. Impeachment under California law is clear on this point in that unless, “[e]vidence is not inadmissible under section 352 unless the probative value is ‘substantially’ outweighed by the probability of a ‘substantial danger’ of undue prejudice or other statutory counterweights.”  (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 167.)

Tellingly, in the event a defendant intends to appeal the admission of a felony conviction, then the defendant must have been prejudiced, thus must have testified. The United States Supreme Court long ago held a defendant must testify to preserve for appeal his challenge to a trial court’s ruling allowing impeachment by prior convictions.  (Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38, 43 [83 L.Ed.2d 443, 448] (Luce).)

The Significance of Witness Impeachment in Fair Trials

Lastly, it’s crucial to acknowledge the broader implications of impeachment in the context of a fair trial. If a trial attorney overlooks this avenue of impeachment, it could infringe upon the Sixth Amendment’s right of an accused to confront witnesses against them. This constitutional right is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial in criminal prosecutions, as emphasized in Pointer v. Texas (1965) and reinforced by the California Constitution, Article I, section 15, and Penal Code, section 686, subsection (3).

In conclusion, the legal framework surrounding the impeachment of witnesses with felony convictions, as highlighted by Darren Chaker, is complex yet fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process. Understanding this framework is crucial for legal professionals and those interested in the nuances of criminal law.

About The Author