Sunday, January 29, 2012

Exclude Felony by Darren Chaker

Exclude Felony by Darren Chaker

As the Supreme Court in People v. Woodard (1979) 23 Cal 3d 329, explained: "Evidence of traits of his character other than honesty or veracity, or their opposites, is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. If a prior felony conviction does not involve the character trait of truthfulness, it must be excluded as irrelevant at the outset, since section 350 unequivocally provides that "[no] evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." See Id. at 335  The Supreme Court upheld this standard repeatedly. See People v. Fries, (1979) 24 Cal 3d 222; People v. Spearman, (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 107.
As noted by the Supreme Court in People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 301, provided clarity to prior fractured decision. In response, the legislature enacted California Constitution article I, section 28. See Id. at 308-9. The legislature was careful to leave the law "as is" with regard to civil cases, and the law on felony impeachment changed only in regard to criminal proceedings: "Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding..."  Thereafter, in criminal cases, Castro held that felony convictions were "prima facie admissible" subject to the trial court's discretion to exclude the felony only if it did not involve "moral turpitude," i.e., evidences a "readiness to do evil." See Castro at 316.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Darren Chaker – Exclude Conviction

Darren Chaker – Exclude Conviction

California expunged records are inadmissible pursuant to the constitution. See, Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (f) (prior felonies usable for impeachment) do not have any effect because once a conviction has been expunged, it no longer is a viable conviction for impeachment purposes. By virtue of expungement, there no longer is a prior conviction. People v. Field (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 31 Cal App 4th 1778, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 803, 1995 Cal App LEXIS 87, review denied (1995, Cal) 1995 Cal LEXIS 3255.
There are very limited circumstances in criminal court where an expunged conviction may be admitted. Unless those circumstances are present, any reference to an expunged, dismissed, or excluded conviction often requires reversal:
·         People v. Anderson, supra [evidence of the defendant's prior arrest was inadmissible (20 Cal.3d at p. 650.)];

·        Peoplev. Vindiola (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 370, 384 [use of booking photo improper because it implied "previous arrests and perhaps conviction"];

·         People v. Morgan(1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 59, 66 [reference to defendant's "parole officer" improper];

·         People v. Allen (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 924 [testimony that defendant was "on parole" improper and justified reversal];

·         People v. Ozuna (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 338, 339 [police officer testimony that defendant was an "ex-convict" was improper and grounds for reversal];

·         People v. Stinson (1963.) 214 Cal.App.2d 476, 479 [reference to defendant's "parole officer" improper];

·        People v. Figuieredo (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 498, 505-506 [reversible error because of testimony that defendant "did time" in San Quentin];

·         People v. Bentley(1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 687, 689 [reversal required due to reference to the defendant as a "suspect in another case"];

·         People v. Harris, supra,22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 [reference to defendant having a parole officer improper].

·         People v. Stinson, supra, 214 Cal.App.2d at p. 481.) Whether the offending reference is deliberate or accidental has no bearing on its impropriety.