When will a defendant be impeached for a crime of moral turpitude?

those crimes had minimal relevance to his credibility. We disagree. The offenses are crimes of moral turpitude because they "indicate a ' "general readiness to do evil," ' from which a readiness to lie can be inferred. [Citation.]" (People v. Chavez (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 25, 28.) The crimes "are acts of 'baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 28-29.) Although the inferences regarding credibility are not as direct and strong as in crimes which involve dishonesty, " ' "it is undeniable that a witness's moral depravity of any kind has some 'tendency in reason' [citation] to shake one's confidence in his honesty." ' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 29.) As such, the misdemeanors reflected on defendant's honesty.

Similarly, there is no question the convictions were remote, occurring some 35 years prior to the charges in this case. While their remoteness may lessen their probative value, their age alone does not automatically render evidence of the convictions inadmissible for impeachment purposes. (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 (Mendoza).) "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." (Id. at pp. 925-926) That is the case here. Defendant had multiple convictions in the intervening years, many of which were, in and of themselves, probative on the issue of his honesty and credibility. (Id. at p. 926.) The 1980 convictions were followed by six convictions in the years 1986, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2003, and 2005, and two parole violations in the years 2006 and 2007. Three of the intervening convictions, the 1992 battery, the 1995 assault with a deadly weapon, and the 2003 felony false imprisonment, were also crimes of moral turpitude. On this record, " 'the systematic occurrence' " of defendant's priors over a 35-year period " 'create[d] a pattern that [was] relevant to [his] credibility.' [Citation.]" (Green, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 183.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exclude the 1980 priors on grounds of remoteness.

Page 10