P. v. Rutledge
Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of sexual penetration with a foreign object (Pen. Code, 289, subd. (a)),[1] three counts of forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), kidnapping to commit rape ( 209, subd. (b)(1)), robbery ( 211), and sodomy by use of force ( 286, subd. (c)(2)), along with associated enhancements for commission of sex offenses upon multiple victims ( 667.61, subd. (e)(5)), commission of multiple sex offenses upon each victim ( 667.6, subd. (c)), commission of multiple violent sex offenses against separate victims ( 667.6, subd. (d)), and kidnapping that substantially increased risk of harm to the victim ( 667.61, subd. (d)(2)). The trial court found that defendant suffered prior convictions ( 261.5, subd. (d), 484/666, 667, subd. (a)(1), 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). He received a determinate term of 42 years, and an indeterminate term of 90 years to life in state prison.
In this appeal, defendant claims that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 (hereafter section 352) to exclude prior convictions as impeachment evidence. We conclude that the record shows the trial court properly weighed the probative value of the impeachment evidence against its prejudicial effect, and did not err by admitting two of defendants prior convictions to impeach his testimony. Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Rutledge