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
MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I would have affirmed the judgment of the superior court on habeas corpus, in which, on the facts there disclosed, it granted relief to David Joseph Carpenter from its earlier judgment of death because the jury foreperson was demonstrably biased against him at trial. (In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 660-687 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
Therefore, I cannot now join in affirming the judgment of death on appeal.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 19, 2000. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.