California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Collins, 228 Cal.Rptr. 899, 42 Cal.3d 378, 722 P.2d 173 (Cal. 1986):
We conclude that the Luce rule, when properly understood, is not inconsistent with any constitutional mandate (accord, Vaupel v. State, supra, 708 P.2d 1248, 1250), and should be part of the law of this state.
It does not follow, however, that the Luce rule governs the case at bar. Under our prior decisions on this question a defendant was not required to testify in order to preserve for appeal a claim of improper impeachment by prior conviction; indeed, he was not even asked to make an offer of proof (People v. Fries (1979) 24 Cal.3d 222, 232-234, 155 Cal.Rptr. 194, 594 P.2d 19). And no such sweeping procedural change was stated or implied in either Proposition 8 or its supporting ballot materials. Thus our decision to adopt the Luce requirement establishes a new rule of law when there was a previous rule in this state to the contrary; in such circumstances we have the option of giving it prospective effect on policy grounds. (People v. Guerra (1984)
Page 906
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.