How have the courts treated evidence of prior criminal convictions in the impeachment proceedings?

During the testimony of Page, evidence was introduced of statements made by appellant during the commission of the various crimes charged against him. The trial court was required to give CALJIC 2.71 under these circumstances because of the dangers which are inherent whenever a witness is permitted to testify as to the oral statements of an accused. (See People v. Ramirez (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 347, 352-353, 114 Cal.Rptr. 916.

[87 Cal.App.3d 687]

Appellant concludes that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting evidence of three prior felony convictions. Trial counsel attempted unsuccessfully to suppress evidence of two prior convictions and to limit the prosecutor to proof of a prior burglary conviction. We know of no authority which would restrict the impeachment of a defendant as suggested by appellant. Each of the prior felonies come with the limitations imposed by People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 452, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1. Each prior conviction had a strong probative value for impeachment purposes and each was highly relevant on the issue of honesty and truthfulness. The order of the court denying appellant's motion was error free.