How have the courts treated the issue of proof of a previous conviction at trial?

jury. The course of the administration of justice was regular in all respects. When it is said that the presumption of the defendant's innocence was destroyed by the introduction of proof of his former conviction, the proposition is based upon mere assumption, and it is the error in that assumption which affects the appellant's argument. The statute has not abrogated the rule as to the presumption of innocence. It is expressly preserved to the defendant by section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the defendant had the benefit of it upon his trial, in that the court distinctly instructed the jury to that effect. It will not be presumed that the jurors failed to obey the instruction, or that they did not accord to the accused the benefit of every reasonable doubt upon the evidence. There can be no legal presumption that the presumption of the defendant's innocence will be prejudiced. The legislature can do as the English parliament has done by changing the rule of procedure. But that rests in the legislative discretion, and, until it is exercised in that direction, the established procedure must be followed, and the proof must be such as to meet the charge and bring the case within the statute. Nor is there force in the argument that a discrimination is made in the trials of persons charged with the same crime. The discrimination is made between first and second offenders and the punishments which are visited upon them. The legislature has made the conviction of the commission of a former offense an ingredient of the guilt of the defendant upon a second offense being committed. If it were not so, there would be no warrant for the infliction of the increased punishment. The objection that proof of the former conviction might affect the prisoner's character was considered in Johnson v. People, supra, and it was held to have no force when such evidence relates to the issue to be tried. I think enough has been said upon the question presented, and that the judgment of conviction was properly sustained below, and should be affirmed by this court.