For 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 unless:
(a)A pardon based on his innocence has been granted to the witness by the jurisdiction in which he was convicted.
(b)A certificate of rehabilitation and pardon has been granted to the witness under the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code.
(c)The accusatory pleading against the witness has been dismissed under the provisions of Penal Code Section 1203.4, but this exception does not apply to any criminal trial where the witness is being prosecuted for a subsequent offense.
(d)The conviction was under the laws of another jurisdiction and the witness has been relieved of the penalties and disabilities arising from the conviction pursuant to a procedure substantially equivalent to that referred to in subdivision (b) or (c).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
181
cases (
32 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case:
People v. Harris, 767 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1989).
People v. Harris, 767 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1989).
· cites it 6× “In context, the import of the statement appears to have been nothing more than an explanation that while the prosecutor intended to introduce evidence of defendant's confession through some witnesses whose credibility could be impeached with *1080 evidence of prior felony…”
People v. Woodard, 590 P.2d 391 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 6× “(Evid. Code, § 788.) [1] In enacting section 788 the Legislature considered and rejected a proposal that would have changed California law by limiting impeachment to proof of a crime in which "an essential element" is "dishonesty or false statement.”
People v. Balderas, 711 P.2d 480 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The court replied that it saw no relevance in the "custody" issue unless defendant could show Hix received some consideration on that sentence. However, it left the matter open to further discovery on whether Hix's custody might have been related to a deal with the authorities.”
People v. Ray, 914 P.2d 846 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 788.) But unless it comes within at least one of these exceptions, a prior felony conviction is, indeed, inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove that the defendant actually engaged in the underlying conduct.”
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborn, 503 P.3d 668 (Cal. 2022).
“(Evid. Code, § 788.) As relevant here, in evaluating credibility, the fact finder is also permitted to consider the witness’s demeanor while testifying and the manner in which he testifies; the character of his testimony; his opportunity to perceive any matter about which he…”
People v. Allen, 729 P.2d 115 (Cal. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The court went to great lengths to explain to defense counsel that if at any time he could suggest any relevance to such evidence, the court would permit him to pursue the subject on cross-examination.”
People v. Gurule, 51 P.3d 224 (Cal. 2002).
“(Evid. Code, § 788 [felony conviction may be used to attack witness’s credibility].”
In re Andrews, 52 P.3d 656 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “(Evid.Code, § 788.) Many had themselves engaged in brutality while in prison and escaped with some frequencyagain, in negative respects similar to petitioner.”
People v. Hinton, 126 P.3d 981 (Cal. 2006).
“” But the statute governing impeachment, Evidence Code section 788, contains no such limitation.”
People v. Fries, 594 P.2d 19 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Evidence Code section 788 expressly permits introduction of a prior felony conviction for the purpose of impeachment.”
People v. Lassell, 108 Cal. App. 3d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Evidence Code section 788 governs the admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, providing that for "attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown .”
People v. Little, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As the appellate court in Jacobs observed, if Jacobs had chosen to testify, Evidence Code section 788 would have permitted the prosecution to challenge his credibility with prior conviction evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.