People v. Wheeler
4 Cal. 4th 284, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 841 P.2d 938 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In criminal proceedings, California's Proposition 8 abrogates the statutory rule limiting impeachment evidence to felony convictions, permitting the use of a witness's past misdemeanor conduct involving moral turpitude. However, the judgment of a misdemeanor conviction itself is inadmissible hearsay to prove the underlying conduct if a proper objection is made.
Facts:
- Los Angeles Police Officer Anthony Lopez, working undercover, stopped his car near Jennifer Wheeler.
- According to Lopez, Wheeler approached him and asked what he wanted, to which he replied 'a 20,' meaning $20 worth of rock cocaine.
- Lopez testified that Wheeler then summoned Pauline Burton, repeated his order to her, and Burton went into a nearby apartment building.
- Burton returned and handed Lopez a piece of rock cocaine in exchange for a premarked $20 bill.
- Both Wheeler and Burton were subsequently arrested.
- At Wheeler's trial, Burton testified for the defense, admitting she sold the cocaine but denying any participation by Wheeler.
- Burton claimed she took the order directly from Lopez and that Wheeler was not involved in the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Wheeler was convicted of sale of cocaine following a jury trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court, over a defense objection, permitted the prosecution to impeach a key defense witness, Pauline Burton, with her prior misdemeanor conviction for grand theft.
- Wheeler appealed her conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, ruling that Proposition 8 allows for impeachment with misdemeanor convictions involving moral turpitude.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Proposition 8's 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(d)) allow the use of evidence of a witness's misdemeanor conviction for impeachment in criminal proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baxter
No, the misdemeanor conviction document itself cannot be used, though the underlying conduct can be. Proposition 8's 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision abrogates the statutory rule limiting impeachment evidence to felony convictions, allowing the use of misdemeanor conduct involving moral turpitude for impeachment. Section 28(d) mandates that all relevant evidence be admitted in criminal proceedings unless a specific exception applies. The statutory prohibitions on using non-felony conduct for impeachment (Evid. Code, §§ 787, 788) are not among the preserved exceptions and are therefore superseded. However, a judgment of conviction is hearsay when offered to prove the underlying conduct. While a statutory exception exists for felony convictions (Evid. Code § 788), none exists for misdemeanors, and section 28(d) expressly preserves existing hearsay rules. Thus, while the underlying conduct is admissible if it involves moral turpitude (subject to a balancing test under Evidence Code § 352), the fact of a misdemeanor conviction is inadmissible to prove that conduct if a hearsay objection is raised. In this case, because defendant Wheeler failed to object on hearsay grounds, she waived the claim, and the trial court's admission of the conviction was not an abuse of discretion.
Dissenting - Justice Mosk
No, Proposition 8 did not alter the long-standing rule that misconduct not reduced to a felony conviction is inadmissible for impeachment. The term 'relevant evidence' in section 28(d) should be interpreted according to its established legal meaning, which has historically excluded non-felony misconduct as either non-probative or as unduly prejudicial as a matter of law. The voters are presumed to have intended legal terms to retain their established meaning, and therefore 'relevant evidence' for impeachment purposes remains limited to felony convictions.
Dissenting - Justice Arabian
No, section 28(f) of Proposition 8, which specifically addresses the 'Use of Prior Convictions' and explicitly allows impeachment with felony convictions, should control over the more general language of section 28(d). By expressly permitting felony convictions, the provision implicitly prohibits impeachment with lesser misconduct. The majority's holding will have a chilling effect on witness cooperation, as potential witnesses will fear public embarrassment over trivial past acts. Furthermore, it creates the anomalous result that proving less serious misconduct will require more time-consuming and less reliable evidence (live testimony) because the more reliable evidence (the conviction record) is barred by the hearsay rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of impeachment in California criminal cases by shifting from a bright-line, status-based rule (felonies only) to a discretionary, conduct-based standard (acts involving moral turpitude). It established the critical distinction that the underlying impeaching conduct is admissible, but the fact of a misdemeanor conviction is inadmissible hearsay to prove that conduct. This forces parties to prove the misconduct through other means, such as cross-examination, potentially leading to the 'mini-trials' over collateral issues that the dissenting justices feared.
