People v. Sanghera, 6 Cal. App. 5th 365

Defendant Mangal Singh Sanghera was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245(a)(1)) and found to have personally inflicted great bodily injury; sentenced to five years.
Incident: a multi-person fight at a Sikh temple; victim Balbir Bains was stabbed and identified defendant as the assailant.
Prosecution planned to use testimony about defendant’s 2009 misdemeanor assault (conduct involving a metal bracelet used as a weapon) to impeach defendant if he testified; prosecutor did not seek to introduce the underlying 2009 misconduct initially but reserved the right.
Defense moved in limine to exclude the 2009 conviction and underlying conduct under Evidence Code §§ 1101 and 352, arguing prejudice, remoteness, expungement, jury confusion, and that admission could chill defendant’s decision to testify.
After a chambers discussion the trial court ruled the 2009 misconduct was admissible for impeachment if defendant testified; defense counsel asserted this ruling would lead defendant not to testify; defendant did not testify and defense rested.
On appeal defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion under § 352 by failing to weigh probative value vs. prejudice and specifically failed to consider the impact on his decision to testify; the appellate court held the claim was procedurally barred because defendant did not testify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion under Evid. Code § 352 by admitting prior-misconduct impeachment evidence	The court properly exercised discretion; admission for impeachment was permissible and standard balancing applies	The court failed to properly weigh § 352 factors (age, similarity, expungement, jury confusion) and failed to consider effect on defendant’s decision to testify, requiring exclusion	Court held defendant’s challenge is procedurally barred because he did not testify; absent testimony review is speculative and Collins/Luce rule applies
Whether failure to consider impact on defendant’s decision to testify creates reversible structural error	Admission of impeachment evidence is an evidentiary ruling subject to harmless-error review, not structural error	The court’s failure to consider the effect on defendant’s choice to testify implicates constitutional rights and should be per se reversible	Court held any claim raises a trial (not structural) error and is reviewable only if defendant testifies; Collins/Luce procedural bar applies

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (defendant must testify at trial to preserve claim that prior-conviction impeachment was improperly allowed)
People v. Collins, 42 Cal.3d 378 (Cal. adoption of Luce rule; appellate review barred if defendant did not testify)
People v. Sims, 5 Cal.4th 405 (extension of Collins rule to prior-misconduct impeachment evidence)
People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441 (factors for admitting prior convictions, including effect on defendant’s decision to testify)
People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (continuing application of Beagle factors and § 352 considerations)
People v. Allen, 44 Cal.4th 843 (denial of right to testify is trial error amenable to harmless-error review, not structural error)