California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Prather, 267 Cal.Rptr. 605, 50 Cal.3d 428, 787 P.2d 1012 (Cal. 1990):
In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the phrase "without limitation" must be construed to mean--if it can be construed to mean anything at all--"without judicially created limitation." Such an interpretation accords with what we can infer to have been the intent of the voters, i.e., to overrule and preempt judicial decisions limiting the use of prior felony convictions for enhancement. It also avoids an untenable result, i.e., a construction that would undermine the existence of enhancements at the same time that it would bar limitation on their use. (Cf. People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 312, 211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111 (plur. opn.) [effectively construing the phrase to mean "without judicially created limitation" insofar as it qualifies the applicability of art. I, 28(f), to the use of prior felony convictions "for purposes of impeachment"].)
Page 617
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.