In what circumstances will the trial court allow a defendant to introduce the entire audio recording of an impeached declaration to the jury?

Appellant's assertion that he would not have sought admission of the declaration "had he known he would be sandbagged with impeachment" directly contradicts defense counsel's admission in response to the trial court's inquiry that he would have introduced the entire audio recording himself if the prosecution had not done so. We further find that the trial court's thorough and contemporaneous limiting instruction avoided any potential for unfair prejudice, and we presume the jury understood and followed the court's instruction. (People v. Clark

Page 10

(2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 573 [recognizing the "usual presumption that a jury will follow limiting instructions"]; People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 453.) In short, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the limited evidence of appellant's prior felony convictions for impeachment in this case.