Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of California Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward Daniel JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for his part in a liquor store holdup, actually perpetrated by another. This appeal is based on alleged misconduct of the district attorney in alluding to appellant's six prior felonies in cross-examination and argument, and in further assailing the credibility of appellant in argument.
Appellant contends that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in cross-examining him on his conviction of prior felonies, how many, their specific nature, and when these felonies occurred.
While the details and circumstances of felonies may not be shown (People v. Miller, 188 Cal.App.2d 156, 170, 10 Cal.Rptr. 326), the district attorney may properly elicit evidence of a defendant's prior felony convictions, including the number, dates and the specific felonies. (People v. Craig, 196 Cal. 19, 28, 235 P. 721; People v. Renteria, 181 Cal.App.2d 214, 218, 5 Cal.Rptr. 119, 78 A.L.R.2d 1275; People v. Beverly, 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 124, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67; People v. Klavon, 202 Cal.App.2d 765, 770, 21 Cal.Rptr. 99; Code Civ.Proc. § 2051.) The cross-examination was proper.
The remaining contention of appellant based upon an alleged lack of good faith of the district attorney in referring in argument to the jury to defendant's prior convictions, is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN, Justice.
GRIFFIN, P. J., and COUGHLIN, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 1864.
Decided: May 21, 1963
Court: District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)