California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hall, 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 (Cal. App. 2018):
We do not think Washington is the last word on the subject. It is one thing to postpone a ruling on the admissibility of prior conviction evidence until after the defendant testifies; it is another thing altogether to definitively rule prior conviction evidence inadmissible inevitably influencing how defense counsel advises his client about the choice whether to testify or remain silentonly to completely reverse the ruling after the defendant has made the irrevocable choice to testify. And the record reflects no basis for the trial court's ruling change. In our view, the distinction is a critical one that implicates the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel, to testify, not to testify, and the overall fairness of the trial. "When a trial judge makes a clear nontentative ruling on such an issue, the defendant is entitled to rely upon that ruling." ( State v. Latham (1983) 100 Wash.2d 59, 667 P.2d 56, 66.)
[232 Cal.Rptr.3d 884]
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.