# People v. Carpenter

> California Supreme Court · November 29, 1999 · 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558657

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID JOSEPH CARPENTER, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 29, 1999
- **Citations:** 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607; 21 Cal. 4th 1016; 99 Daily Journal DAR 11927; 988 P.2d 531; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9267; 1999 Cal. LEXIS 7788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Chin, Kennard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 171 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558657

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558657. Public record. Not legal advice.