Robbins

Robbins v. Wong

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 769·27 Cal. App. 4th 261·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337·94 Daily Journal DAR 10409·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5741
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 1994H009887California5,100 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

I.

Plaintiffs appeal from judgments in their favor in these two consolidated personal injury actions. (Robbins v. Wong (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, No. 663024) and Robbins v. Schmelzer (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, No. 691893)) They claim that evidentiary rulings and attorney misconduct tainted the trial, resulting in jury verdicts which failed to compensate them for their damages.

In the published portion of this opinion, we address the question of the admissibility of a prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes in a civil trial. As the parties have framed the issue, does article I, section 28, subdivision (f), added to the California Constitution in 1982 by Proposition 8, apply in civil proceedings? We find it does not. Nor do the decisions which have developed rules for admissibility of felony impeachment evidence in criminal cases apply as binding precedent in civil proceedings, although they may provide guidelines for civil trial judges. We hold that felony impeachment evidence is admissible in civil cases under Evidence Code section 788. Under Evidence Code section 352, however, the trial court is required to balance probative value against potential…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.