What is the test for admitting prior criminal convictions under section 352 of the Criminal Code?

Here, the trial court was presented with and rejected appellant's arguments that the evidence would involve an undue consumption of time or potentially confuse the jury. Moreover, the trial court expressly balanced the probative value of the evidence against its potential for prejudice by ordering that a limiting instruction be provided. The jury was directed to consider the evidence of appellant's prior convictions for a limited purpose with an instruction providing: "You have heard that a witness in this trial has been convicted of a felony. You were told about the conviction only to help you decide whether you should believe the witness. You must not consider it for any other purpose." Limiting instructions are generally deemed to be effective in restricting or eliminating the prejudice which might otherwise result from potentially inflammatory testimony, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, jurors are presumed to understand and follow the court's instructions. (See People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 255; Piscitelli v. Salesian Society (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.) The trial court's limiting instruction negated the possibility that the evidence would either prejudice appellant or confuse and mislead the jury.

Finally, highlighting one of the factors involved in the trial court's balancing under section 352, appellant contends that his prior convictions were too remote in time to be probative. (See Holley v. J & S Sweeping Co. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 588, 594

Page 11

[remoteness of a prior conviction is one factor to be considered in balancing it probative value].) Courts have acknowledged that "a witness's felony conviction that is remote in time might ordinarily have little or no bearing on the credibility of a witness who has since lived a commendable life, thereby moving the needle closer toward exclusion of the evidence under section 352. [Citation.]" (Piscitelli v. Salesian Society, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 12.) Conversely, "[e]ven a fairly remote prior conviction is admissible if the defendant has not led a legally blameless life since the time of the remote prior. [Citations.]" (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925-926.) Here, the evidence showed that appellant had been convicted of at least six felonies beginning in the 1980's and extending into the 1990's. Thereafter, he suffered another felony conviction in 2004. In view of appellant's criminal history, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting appellant's argument that his prior convictions were too remote in time to be relevant. (See People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 813 [proper exercise of discretion to admit 20-year-old prior conviction where the defendant had not led a legally blameless life]; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 648 ["the systematic occurrence of defendant's priors over a 20-year period creates a pattern that is relevant to defendant's credibility"].)

In any event, even if we could discern some error from the admission of appellant's prior convictions, reversal of the judgment would not be warranted. "The erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal of a judgment only when it results in a 'miscarriage of justice.' [Citation.] The admission of improper evidence results in a miscarriage of justice only if '"it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error."' [Citation.]" (Rappaport v. Gelfand (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229.) Here, the jury received a wealth of other evidence related to appellant's credibility. For example, appellant admitted that following his deposition he changed his answers from "yes" to "no" and vice-versa in 14 different places. Moreover, the jury heard several inconsistencies within appellant's testimony, including whether he drove the truck on a bumpy road, whether he grabbed the rear door strap with his right or left hand when closing the door and whether

Page 12