People v. Rosemond CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that voluntary manslaughter is “not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude” and therefore inadmissible for impeachment purposes. He also argues the court abused its discretion in refusing to sanitize his prior convictions because the convictions were remote in time, not helpful in evaluating his honesty, too dissimilar from the current crimes with which he was charged, and highly prejudicial. Defendant, however, failed to preserve these contentions for appeal because he did not raise them below. (People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 228 [specific grounds for objecting to admission of prior convictions for impeachment were forfeited because they were not raised at trial].) As noted in defendant’s opening brief, defendant “moved in limine to identify whether the prosecution intended to impeach [defendant] with prior convictions” (italics added), and the People moved to impeach defendant with three specific convictions, a 1990 attempted robbery, a 1992 voluntary manslaughter, and a 1992 attempted murder. Defendant filed no written opposition to this motion and offered no oral argument at the hearing on the motion. Defendant’s only reference to…