What is the test for admitting evidence of a prior misdemeanor conviction?

that resulted in personal injury or death." In his reply brief, defendant relies on Mendoza, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th 918 and People v. Muldrow, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 636, to argue that evidence of his prior misdemeanor conviction was unduly prejudicial because the crime, as presented to the jury, was too similar to the charged offense.

A "court need not expressly weigh prejudice against probative value or even expressly state that it has done so, if the record as a whole shows the court was aware of and performed its balancing functions under Evidence Code section 352." (People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1169.) "Our independent review of the record in the present case shows that the court was well aware of its responsibilities under Evidence Code section 352. The court held [a] hearing outside the jury's presence to determine whether to admit [defendant's two prior misdemeanor convictions], and ultimately excluded" one of them. (Ibid.) The court stated it had read the motion. The motion was devoted substantially to a discussion of Evidence Code section 352, and clearly articulated the two requirements for admission of a prior misdemeanor conviction for impeachment purposes, i.e., that the court must find the offense involved moral turpitude and that the evidence is admissible under Evidence Code section 352. Indeed, the court's careful attention to the motion is evidenced by its mentioning of a typographical error in the document, i.e., that the People referred to Vehicle Code section 2002, instead of Vehicle Code section 20002. Under these circumstances, the record adequately reflects the court was aware of and exercised its Evidence Code section 352 discretion.

Page 10

The court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's prior misdemeanor conviction. The "'"identity or similarity of current and impeaching offenses is just one factor to be considered by the trial court in exercising its discretion."'" (Mendoza, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 926.) The greater the similarity between the defendant's offenses, the more relevant and probative the prior conviction may be. A court's ultimate task under Evidence Code section 352 in this context is to balance whether the evidence's probative value in assessing the witness's credibility is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice to the defendant. (Evid. Code, 352; People v. Muldrow, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 644.)