How have courts dealt with a motion in limine where a witness made an inadvertent and improper statement to a jury?

The trial court's timely and specific admonition, which the jury is presumed to have followed, cured any prejudice resulting from the witness's inadvertent and improper statement. (People v. Rosoto (1962) 58 Cal.2d 304, 352, 23 Cal.Rptr. 779, 373 P.2d 867; People v. Eads (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 393, 402, 268 P.2d 561.) In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see pt. XXIII, post ), there was no prejudice requiring reversal.

IX. Admission of Defendant's Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachment

On defendant's motion in limine, the trial court ruled that defendant's prior convictions for kidnapping, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and car theft would be admitted for impeachment, but that his conviction for escape would not. Defendant maintains that the court did not properly weigh the probative value of his prior convictions for impeachment against their prejudicial effect. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 307, 211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111.)