P. v. Broughton

Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Broughton CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Arthur M. Lew, Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judges. Affirmed.

Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Glenn Alton Broughton appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury for selling cocaine. He contends the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior convictions for purposes of impeachment. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Broughton was charged by information with sale of cocaine after an undercover narcotics officer purchased .25 grams of cocaine base from Broughton in a public park (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The $10 transaction, in which Broughton acted as an intermediary between the actual seller and the undercover officer, was witnessed by a partner officer. Both officers testified at trial.

Testifying in his own defense, Broughton insisted that, after telling the officer no one was selling rock cocaine in the park, he was arrested for no reason. The arresting officer told Broughton he would release him if Broughton disclosed where to obtain rock cocaine. When Broughton continued to deny any knowledge of narcotics activity in the park, he was transported to the police station.

The jury found Broughton guilty as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding Broughton admitted he had suffered a prior drug-related conviction and had served five separate prison terms for a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Broughton was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of eight years, consisting of the five-year upper term for the sale of cocaine, plus a three-year enhancement for the prior drug-related conviction. The trial court struck the remaining prior-prison-term enhancements.

DISCUSSION

1. The Trial Court's Ruling on the Admissibility of Broughton's Prior Convictions as Impeachment Evidence

Before the defense case began, the prosecutor stated she intended to impeach

Broughton with his prior felony convictions for sale of a controlled substance (in 1987) and elder abuse (in 1998) if Broughton chose to testify. Broughton's counsel acknowledged the prior drug offense was a crime of moral turpitude, but maintained its age and similarity to the current charge would unduly prejudice Broughton if used for impeachment. Defense counsel also argued elder abuse was not a crime of moral turpitude and Broughton's 1998 conviction was therefore inadmissible as impeachment evidence.

The trial court overruled both objections. The People were permitted to use the drug conviction for impeachment purposes in sanitized form: â€