Is a prior conviction of counterfeiting an aggravating factor in determining a sentence?

In response, the Attorney General first contends that because it was defendant himself who--during the testimony of his parole officer as a favorable defense witness--brought the counterfeiting prior to the jury's attention, he should not be able to complain about potential prejudice flowing from that conviction. While it is not clear that defendant was the first to breach the subject, ²⁰ even if he was, he plainly did not "invite" the trial court's instruction which erroneously advised the jury that the prior conviction was a statutorily designated aggravating factor which should be considered in determining sentence. (See, e.g., People v. Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d 303, 317-322, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153.) Accordingly, he is entitled to object to the improper instruction here.