When will a defendant be found guilty of a charge of assault with intent to pervert the course of justice?

remote in time are not "automatically inadmissible for impeachment purposes. Even 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.)

Following his 1999 conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, defendant sustained numerous convictions: In 2003, he was convicted of two drug related charges and a firearm possession offense, resulting in a 10-year prison sentence. Six years later, in 2009, defendant received a four-year prison term for another drug related conviction. In 2012, he earned another felony drug conviction which resulted in a formal probation sentence. Two years later, defendant committed the present offenses. In light of defendant's extensive history of crime, the prior convictions are not too remote in time to be probative of his credibility. (See People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 183 [20-year-old prior conviction, followed by additional convictions in 1978, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989, created a pattern relevant to defendant's credibility].)

Defendant argues that the similarity of the prior convictions to the charged offenses renders them unduly prejudicial. However, similarity is but one factor to be considered by the trial court in its exercise of discretion. (See People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 932.) "'"Where multiple convictions of various kinds can be shown, strong reasons arise for excluding those which are for the same crime because of the inevitable pressure on lay jurors to believe 'if he did it before he probably did so this time.' As a general guide, those convictions which are for the same crime should be admitted sparingly. . . ." [] . . . No witness including a defendant who elects to testify in his own

Page 18

behalf is entitled to a false aura of veracity.' [Citation.]" (People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 646.) The decision whether to admit identical or similar priors rests within the discretion of the trial court. (See People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 412, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Hinks (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1161-1165.)