outset by the relevance requirement in California

2022Defendant challenges the use of his prior conviction for forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object for impeachment purposes by suggesting that conviction was not one of moral turpitude and otherwise failed to meet other factors. '""[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude."' [Citation.] Beyond this, the "'trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude prior convictions for impeachment purposes ...."' [Citation.] 'When determining whether to admit a prior conviction for 25 impeachment purp

2021(People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 408 .) “‘“[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.”’” (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 722 .) “Immoral conduct is admissible for impeachment even though the witness was not convicted, or even if the conduct did not constitute a criminal offense. [Citation.] Admission of such prior misconduct evidence remains subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, which ‘empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into n

2023“When the witness subject to impeachment is not the defendant, [the relevant] factors prominently include whether the conviction (1) reflects on honesty and (2) is near in time.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629 , 654−655 (Clair), italics added.) As the California Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “ ‘[t]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude” but “[b]eyond this, the latitude [Evidence Code] section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad.’ ” (Clark, supra, 52 C

2023“When the witness subject to impeachment is not the defendant, [the relevant] factors prominently include whether the conviction (1) reflects on honesty and (2) is near in time.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629 , 654−655 (Clair), italics added.) As the California Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “ ‘[t]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude” but “[b]eyond this, the latitude [Evidence Code] section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad.’ ” (Clark, supra, 52 C

2021Hence, courts may and should consider with particular care whether the admission of such evidence might involve undue time, confusion, or prejudice which outweighs its probative value.” (People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 296-297 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1459 .) We review the trial court’s rulings on impeachment evidence for an abuse of discretion.

2014Beyond this, the latitude [Evidence Code] section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad.’ [Citations.] When determining whether to admit a prior conviction for impeachment purposes, the court should consider, among other factors, whether it reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity, whether it is near or remote in time, whether it is for the same or similar conduct as the charged offense, and what effect its admission would have on the defendant’s decision to testify.” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 .) A misdemeanor is “a less forceful i

2018(People v. Collins, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 389 [a conviction is inadmissible under Castro if it does not necessarily involve moral turpitude].) In People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592 , the court reaffirmed the connection between moral turpitude and relevance for impeachment by stating that the misdemeanor convictions “reflected a crime of moral turpitude and therefore were relevant to the witnesses’ honesty and veracity.” (Id. at p. 626, italics added; see also Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 295 [“[m]isconduct involving moral turpitude may suggest a willingness to lie . . . .”].) 22 Cali

2018(People v. Collins, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 389 [a conviction is inadmissible under Castro if it does not necessarily involve moral turpitude].) In People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592 , the court reaffirmed the connection between moral turpitude and relevance for impeachment by stating that the misdemeanor convictions “reflected a crime of moral turpitude and therefore were relevant to the witnesses’ honesty and veracity.” (Id. at p. 626, italics added; see also Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 295 [“[m]isconduct involving moral turpitude may suggest a willingness to lie . . . .”].) 22 Cali

2021(People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 408 .) “‘“[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.”’” (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 722 .) “Immoral conduct is admissible for impeachment even though the witness was not convicted, or even if the conduct did not constitute a criminal offense. [Citation.] Admission of such prior misconduct evidence remains subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, which ‘empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into n

2021(People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 408 .) “‘“[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.”’” (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 722 .) “Immoral conduct is admissible for impeachment even though the witness was not convicted, or even if the conduct did not constitute a criminal offense. [Citation.] Admission of such prior misconduct evidence remains subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, which ‘empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into n

2021Code, § 788; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 453 .) “Misdemeanor convictions themselves are not admissible for impeachment, although evidence of the underlying conduct may be admissible subject to the court’s exercise of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 373 .) “‘[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.

2016Code, § 210) to shake one’s confidence in [a witness’s] honesty.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Campbell (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1496 .) The conviction was five years old—not excessively remote in time.

2015(People v. Gray (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 635, 641 ; People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395 ; People v. Dillingham (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695 .) A defendant’s prior convictions for robbery, burglary, and other theft-related offenses “are probative on the issue of the defendant’s credibility. [Citations.]” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 .) “ ‘[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.

2015(People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 995 .) Because the court’s application of Evidence Code section 352 was within its discretion, we find no infringement of Caudillo’s constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, or due process of law.

2015Beyond this, the latitude [Evidence Code] section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad.’ [Citations.] When determining whether to admit a prior conviction for impeachment purposes, the court should consider, among other factors, whether it reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity, whether it is near or remote in time, whether it is for the same or similar conduct as the charged offense, and what effect its admission would have on the defendant’s decision to testify. [Citations.]” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 .) “A trial court’s exerc

2015(People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1103 .) “Evidence of a witness’s drug use is inadmissible unless the testimony ‘tends to show that the witness was under the influence thereof either (1) while testifying, or (2) when the facts to which he testified occurred, or (3) that his mental faculties were impaired by the use of such narcotics.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 478 ; see People v. Ortega (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 902 , overruled on another ground in People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 846 .) “Evidence of habitual narcotics … use is not admissible to impea

2015(People v. Gray (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 635, 641 ; People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395 ; People v. Dillingham (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695 .) A defendant’s prior convictions for robbery, burglary, and other theft-related offenses “are probative on the issue of the defendant’s credibility. [Citations.]” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 .) “ ‘[T]he admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.

2015Moreover, under People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284 , “the admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.” (Id. at p. 296, fn. omitted.) Caudillo has not provided us with published case authority establishing that illegal immigration is a crime involving moral turpitude, and the California Supreme Court recently decided that the presence of an undocumented immigrant in the United States without lawful authorization “does not 10 itself involve moral turpitude.” (In re Garcia (2014) 58 Cal.4th 440, 460 .) Thus, th

2015(People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1103 .) “Evidence of a witness’s drug use is inadmissible unless the testimony ‘tends to show that the witness was under the influence thereof either (1) while testifying, or (2) when the facts to which he testified occurred, or (3) that his mental faculties were impaired by the use of such narcotics.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 478 ; see People v. Ortega (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 902 , overruled on another ground in People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 846 .) “Evidence of habitual narcotics … use is not admissible to impea

2014(People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 705 ; People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395 .) Further, “any felony conviction evincing moral turpitude, as here, ‘has some “tendency in reason” (Evid.

2013However, because of her contradictory statements about when the rape had occurred and because there was no corroborating evidence from the SART examination her statement about being raped could not. 15 "[m]isconduct involving moral turpitude may suggest a willingness to lie . . . ." (Id. at p. 295.) "Of course, the admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude. [Fn. omitted.] Beyond this, the latitude section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad." (Id. at p. 296.) Similarly,