Understanding Impeachment With Prior Felony under California Law

As noted by Darren Chaker focuses on impeachment with prior felony 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 Admitting Impeachment With Prior Felony

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.

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 with prior felony conviction 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. Darren Chaker finds this practice is grounded in the belief that impeachment with 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).)  On a side note since this article was first posted, despite the demonization of those with felonies, we now have a president who stands convicted of 34 felonies involving moral turpitude – however the overwhelming majority of American’s voted for him. Hence, the presumptive labeling of being as an untrustworthy felon appears to have dissipated.

The Significance of Witness Impeachment With Prior Felony Conviction in Fair Trials

In addition, 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).

Impeachment of a Witness with a Prior Felony Conviction in California

In California, the credibility of a witness can be challenged through impeachment with a prior felony conviction, including the use of prior felony convictions. Under California Evidence Code § 788, a prior felony conviction may be introduced to attack the credibility of a witness, provided the conviction involves moral turpitude. This article explores the legal framework for impeachment with a prior felony conviction and cites five published opinions by the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that address the exclusion or admissibility of such evidence.

Legal Framework: California Evidence Code § 788

California Evidence Code § 788 states:

“For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown that the witness has been convicted of a felony, provided that the felony involves moral turpitude.”

Moral turpitude refers to conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to societal standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. Courts have discretion to exclude prior felony convictions if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice under California Evidence Code § 352.

Key Cases on Impeachment with Prior Felony Convictions

Below are five published opinions by the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that address the exclusion or admissibility of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes:

1. People v. Castro, 38 Cal.3d 301 (1985)

In People v. Castro, the California Supreme Court held that only prior felony convictions involving moral turpitude may be used for impeachment. The court emphasized that the trial judge must determine whether the prior conviction reflects on the witness’s honesty and integrity.

2. People v. Mendoza, 78 Cal.App.4th 918 (2000)

In People v. Mendoza, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code § 352 to exclude prior felony convictions if their prejudicial effect outweighs their probative value. The court upheld the exclusion of a prior robbery conviction due to its potential to inflame the jury.

3. People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal.4th 284 (1992)

In People v. Wheeler, the court clarified that the age of a prior conviction is a relevant factor in determining its admissibility for impeachment. Older convictions may be excluded if they have minimal relevance to the witness’s current credibility.

4. People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856, 932 (2011)

In People v. Clark, the California Supreme Court emphasized the broad discretion of trial courts in admitting or excluding impeachment evidence. The court stated:

“Because the court’s discretion to admit or exclude impeachment evidence ‘is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises’ [citation], a reviewing court ordinarily will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion [citations].”

5. People v. Anderson, 5 Cal.5th 372, 407 (2018)

In People v. Anderson, the California Supreme Court outlined the factors for determining whether to exclude the criminal history of a witness other than the defendant. The court stated:

“In determining whether to exclude criminal history of a witness other than the defendant, ‘[t]he main factors for the court to consider . . . are whether the conviction (1) reflects on honesty and (2) is near in time.'”

Conclusion

Impeachment of a witness with a prior felony conviction is a powerful tool in California courts, but it is subject to strict limitations. Courts must ensure that the prior conviction involves moral turpitude and that its probative value is not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. The cases cited above illustrate the careful balancing act required under California Evidence Code §§ 788 and 352.

For attorneys, understanding these principles is critical to effectively challenging or defending a witness’s credibility. Properly navigating the admissibility of prior convictions can significantly impact the outcome of a case.