Can a witness be impeached with the fact of their prior juvenile adjudication?

A witness may not be impeached with the fact of a prior juvenile adjudication because it is not a "conviction." Evidence of the underlying conduct, however, is admissible, if the conduct involved moral turpitude. (People v. Lee (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1740.)

Whether appellant's possession of a gun on school grounds constituted a crime of moral turpitude is of no consequence because appellant was not impeached with his prior juvenile adjudication. The record reveals that appellant testified on cross-examination that he did not carry firearms, i.e. "walk with guns." The prosecutor questioned the existence of this fact by asking appellant if he carried a gun on school grounds. Appellant readily admitted that he did and no further questions on the subject were asked. "When a defendant voluntarily testifies, the district attorney may fully amplify his testimony by inquiring into the facts and circumstances surrounding his assertions, or by introducing evidence through cross-examination which explains or refutes his statements or the inferences which may necessarily be drawn from them." (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 822.) Furthermore, the prosecutor made no reference to appellant's prior juvenile adjudication in closing arguments.

In sum, appellant's contention fails because the prosecutor did not impeach appellant with his prior juvenile adjudication.

Appellant further contends that the errors alleged in his previous arguments cumulatively amounted to reversible error. This contention is without merit because the foregoing discussion demonstrates "there was . . . no error to cumulate" (People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 244).

Relying on People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 (Rodriguez), appellant asserts the trial court erred in imposing a five-year term for the street terrorism

Page 21