What are the consequences of using prior theft-related convictions as evidence in a criminal case?

Appellant contends the use of the additional prior theft-related convictions were more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352 because they would have been used by the jury as evidence of his general criminal propensity. He characterizes his trial as a credibility contest between himself and Galvao, and argues the three felony convictions initially introduced for impeachment, combined with the numerous drug convictions he concedes were properly admitted, were more than sufficient to eliminate any " 'false aura of veracity' " emanating from his testimony. (See People v. Kwolek (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1533.) We are not persuaded.

Though appellant's argument on appeal targets the numerosity of the theft-related prior felony convictions, his counsel's objection at trial was focused on the prior robbery conviction and its potential for prejudice given that appellant was charged with robbery. A strong argument can be made that appellant has forfeited his challenge to all but the prior robbery conviction. (See People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 229.)