Dossman

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

ANDERSON, P.J.

A jury found appellant Lawrence L. Dossman guilty of one count of assault (Pen. Code, [1] § 240, a lesser included offense included within § 220, assault with intent to commit rape), one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)) and one count of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for three years with credit for time served.

Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction contending that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of aggravated assault; (2) the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his motion to preclude impeachment with his prior felony convictions in the event he testified ( People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ]); (3) the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying his Buford motion ( People v. Buford (1982) 132 Cal. App.3d 288 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 288 , 182 Cal. Rptr. 904 ]); and (4) the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct sua sponte on his theory of self defense. We affirm the judgment.

At…

A jury found appellant Lawrence L. Dossman guilty of one count of assault (Pen. Code, 1 § 240, a lfesser included offense included within § 220, assault with intent to commit rape), one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)) and one count of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for three years with credit for time served.

Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction contending that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of aggravated assault; (2) the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his motion to preclude impeachment with his prior felony convictions in the event he testified (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ]); (3) the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying his Buford motion (People v. Buford (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 288 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 182 Cal.Rptr. 904 ]); and (4) the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct sua sponte on his theory of self defense. We affirm the judgment.

Statement of Facts

At approximately 11 a.m. on October 14, 1982, Patsey B.…

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion finding harmless the trial court’s errors under People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 696 P.2d 111 ]. I agree with the majority, however, that two errors were committed: (1) determining that defendant’s prior conviction of possession of a controlled substance was admissible for impeachment purposes; and (2) failing to exercise its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 with respect to the only prior conviction which was admissible for that purpose: possession of a controlled substance for sale. I view the effect of those errors quite differently from that of my colleagues.

I cannot agree with their presumption of what defendant’s testimony would have been “i.e., that appellant [would have] denied the allegations against him.” (Maj. opn. ante, p. 850.) How do they know that? Because the arresting officer testified to his conversations with defendant. Thus the law now is, once you talk to the police, you are limited to testifying in court to what you told them. And you need not bother testifying for if you do, it will be merely “corroborative and cumulative” of the arresting officer’s…