What is the test for a motion to exclude evidence of a prior forgery conviction?

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of a prior felony conviction for forgery. We review the grant or denial of a motion to exclude a witness's prior conviction under the abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259.) A trial

Page 6

court has abused its discretion when it has acted in "an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citations.]" (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.)

Plaintiff fails to establish any abuse of discretion. Neither his motion in limine nor the trial court's order denying that motion is part of the record on appeal. The only evidence in the record regarding the trial court's ruling is the trial court's statement on the record that plaintiff's prior conviction involved a crime "of moral turpitude" that was "not remote in time" and that defense counsel could use the fact that plaintiff had suffered a felony conviction, the date of the conviction, and the charge for which he had been convicted for the purpose of impeaching plaintiff's credibility. Nothing in the record establishes that the trial court's ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (People v. Jordan, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 316.)