Is a defendant's prior drug conviction relevant to the credibility of the witness?

felony drug conviction which resulted in a formal probation sentence. Two years later, defendant committed the present offenses. In light of defendant's extensive history of crime, the prior convictions are not too remote in time to be probative of his credibility. (See People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 183 [20-year-old prior conviction, followed by additional convictions in 1978, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989, created a pattern relevant to defendant's credibility].)

Defendant argues that the similarity of the prior convictions to the charged offenses renders them unduly prejudicial. However, similarity is but one factor to be considered by the trial court in its exercise of discretion. (See People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 932.) "'"Where multiple convictions of various kinds can be shown, strong reasons arise for excluding those which are for the same crime because of the inevitable pressure on lay jurors to believe 'if he did it before he probably did so this time.' As a general guide, those convictions which are for the same crime should be admitted sparingly. . . ." [] . . . No witness including a defendant who elects to testify in his own behalf is entitled to a false aura of veracity.' [Citation.]" (People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 646.) The decision whether to admit identical or similar priors rests within the discretion of the trial court. (See People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 412, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Hinks (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1161-1165.)