What is the difference between knowing that a defendant in a theft case has a prior conviction for theft and not knowing?

While defendant correctly notes that at least one court has found that the difference between knowing that a defendant in a theft case has a prior conviction for theft and not knowing "is huge" (People v. Fritz (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 949, 961-962), defendant's point ignores the fact that this is not a case about admissibility of such evidence. Here, the court properly admitted evidence of defendant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes. Thus, the fact of defendant's prior convictions would have come in regardless of any Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (b) or 352 analyses. The question here is not whether the jury should have been exposed to defendant's convictions, but what use they were permitted to make of that knowledge. Based on the testimony of all the witnesses, we believe it reasonably probable that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been correctly instructed by the court.