Is a child pornography conviction a crime of moral turpitude that may be impeached under section 352 of the California Criminal Code?

Appellant does not dispute his child pornography conviction is a crime of moral turpitude that may be used to impeach him. (See People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 931 ["A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction, subject to the trial court's exercise of discretion under . . . section 352."].) Nevertheless, he argues under section 352 that "admission of such a felony conviction for impeaching a criminal defendant's testimony at his jury trial is excessively prejudicial." It is undoubtedly true that admission of appellant's conviction exposed him to risk of undue prejudice, given the repugnancy of the offense. However, the offense was appellant's only felony conviction, and to exclude it as impeachment "would have given [appellant] a ' "false aura of veracity." ' " (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 888; accord People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 932.) Neither was the trial court required to "sanitize" the conviction by limiting the prosecutor to a reference to a "felony involving possession of pornography," or some similar statement.¹³ Such a characterization would have been confusing to the jury and

Page 21