People v. Spencer

I dissent.

Before discussing the problem of applying People v. Johnson (1968) 68 Cal.2d 646 [68 Cal.Rptr. 599, 441 P.2d 111] the instant facts, I feel compelled to point out that the he; say testimony in question should not have been admitted f any purpose, and thus the Johnson error should not ha' occurred. As we emphasized recently in People v. Sam (1969) ante, p. 194 [77 Cal.Rptr. 804, 454 P.2d 700], prior statements may be admitted under Evidence Code section 123 only if they are in fact inconsistent with trial testimony, such inconsistency appears from the record in this case.

The majority…