What is the current state of the law on admitting evidence of a criminal conviction for impeachment purposes?

Luce, supra , 469 U.S. at pp. 4142, 105 S.Ct. 460.) Under former rule 609(a), the court " shall " admit a defendant's felony conviction for impeachment purposes, if the " probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. " (Luce , at p. 40, fn. 1, 105 S.Ct. 460.) Under section 352, the court "may" in its discretion exclude the evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." Thus, "[e]vidence is not inadmissible under section 352 unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability of a substantial danger of undue prejudice or other statutory counterweights." (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 167, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 713.) Former rule 609(a), on the other hand did not require the probative value to be substantially outweighed by a prejudicial effect or other counterweights; rather it required the probative value to outweigh the prejudicial effect.⁵ Given that under section 352, the prejudicial effect or other counterweights must "substantially outweigh[ ]" the probative value, knowing the precise nature of the defendant's testimony is even more critical for the trial court's balancing and an appellate court's review of the trial court's exercise of discretion.