What is the test for admitting evidence of a defendant's prior criminal conviction?

We cannot conclude the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's prior conviction after weighing its probative value against its potential for prejudice. The uncharged act resulted in a criminal conviction, and the limited evidence admitted was "no stronger or more inflammatory" than the evidence of the charged offenses, which included a murder charge. (People v. Tran, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1047.) Additionally, such evidence was probative of defendant's veracity and, as the People argue, it provided some evidence of defendant's prior relationship with Lekxai. While the prior conviction occurred many years before trial, it only occurred five years before the shooting giving rise to the instant charges. On this record, we cannot conclude the court abused its broad discretion by determining that the potential prejudicial effect of defendant's prior conviction did not substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value.

Defendant relies on People v. Felix (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 997 to argue such evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) to establish identity. (People v. Felix, supra, at pp. 1004-1005.) In Felix, the defendant and his codefendant were charged with robbery. (Id. at pp. 1000-1002.) The Felix court held the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior robbery conviction, committed with the same codefendant, because it could be used as improper character evidence. (Id. at pp. 1004-1005.) It held "[t]he fact that both crimes were committed by two men is grossly insufficient as a criminal signature" for such evidence to be

Page 58