People v. Means

California Court of Appeal

People v. Means

177 Cal. App. 3d 138, 222 Cal. Rptr. 735, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2534

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 4, 1986

DocketA030169

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 177 Cal. App. 3d 138 (People v. Means) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Means, 177 Cal. App. 3d 138, 222 Cal. Rptr. 735, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

Defendant Brenda Joyce Means was found guilty by a jury’s verdicts of arson (Pen. Code, § 451), and filing a fraudulent insurance claim (Ins. Code, § 556, subd. (a)(1)). And she had thereafter admitted, or was found to have suffered, two prior convictions of assault with a deadly weapon. She appeals from a judgment which was entered upon the jury’s verdicts.

The first of defendant Means’ two appellate contentions follows: “The trial court improperly denied appellant’s motion to preclude use of her prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon for impeachment purposes.”

On a so-called Beagle (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]) motion, the trial court ruled that one of defendant’s prior felony convictions of assault with a deadly weapon might be used for impeachment, were she to take the witness stand on her own behalf. That ruling is the basis of the instant contention.

The issue is whether such a prior conviction involved “moral turpitude.”

The question is answered by People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315 [211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111], which announced a rule that a felony indicating its perpetrator’s “general readiness to do evil,” involves “moral turpitude. ” Few would agree that an unlawful assault upon a fellow human being with a deadly weapon, indicates other than a “general readiness to do evil.”

We find the instant contention meritless.

(The remainder of this opinion will not be published. See rule 976(b), Cal. Rules of Court.)

*140 The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Racanelli, P. J., and Holmdahl, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

Defendant Brenda Joyce Means was found guilty by a jury’s verdicts of arson (Pen. Code, § 451), and filing a fraudulent insurance claim (Ins. Code, § 556, subd. (a)(1)). And she had thereafter admitted, or was found to have suffered, two prior convictions of assault with a deadly weapon. She appeals from a judgment which was entered upon the jury’s verdicts.

The first of defendant Means’ two appellate contentions follows: “The trial court improperly denied appellant’s motion to preclude use of her prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon for impeachment purposes.”

On a so-called Beagle (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]) motion, the trial court ruled that one of defendant’s prior felony convictions of assault with a deadly weapon might be used for impeachment, were she to take the witness stand on her own behalf. That ruling is the basis of the instant contention.

The issue is whether such a prior conviction involved “moral turpitude.”

The question is answered by People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315 [211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111], which announced a rule that a felony indicating its perpetrator’s “general readiness to do evil,” involves “moral turpitude. ” Few would agree that an unlawful assault upon a fellow human being with a deadly weapon, indicates other than a “general readiness to do evil.”

We find the instant contention meritless.

(The remainder of this opinion will not be published. See rule 976(b), Cal. Rules of Court.)

*140 The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Racanelli, P. J., and Holmdahl, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Cal. App. 3d 138, 222 Cal. Rptr. 735, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-means-calctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack