holding that defendant’s challenge to pretrial ruling to permit admission of his prior convictions should he testify was cognizable on appeal even though defendant did not renew pretrial objection at trial and elicited convictions himself on direct examination; explaining that “[d]efendant obviously believed it was better for the jury to hear of the convictions from him first rather than from the prosecution later” and that “[h]e did not have to take this step at the cost of losing his right to appeal the ruling that caused it”
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant’s challenge to pretrial ruling to permit admission of his prior convictions should he testify was cognizable on appeal even though defendant did not renew pretrial objection at trial and elicited convictions himself on direct examination; explaining that “[d]efendant obviously believed it was better for the jury to hear of the convictions from him first rather than from the prosecution later” and that “[h]e did not have to take this step at the cost of losing his right to appeal the ruling that caused it”
- holding that defendant could introduce the convictions first rather than wait until presented by prosecution and still appeal; under California law, however, pre-trial objection need not be renewed at trial to preserve error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNARD, J., Concurring.
In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], I joined Justice Mosk’s dissenting opinion, which concluded that this court should grant defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacate the judgment in its entirety on the ground that Jury Foreperson Barbara Durham was biased against him; (Id. at pp. 660-687 (dis. *1065 opn. of Mosk, J., concurred in by Lucas, C. J., and Kennard, J.).) Although I have not departed from that view, the question whether Juror Durham was biased is not at issue here. As Justice Chin’s majority opinion explains, none of the claims defendant raises in his appeal is meritorious. I therefore concur in the majority’s reasoning and result.