Skip to Content
Law Office of Daniel Horowitz Law Office of Daniel Horowitz
Call Us Today! 925-291-5388
Top

DUI Case with Multiple Prior Convictions

Lady justice holding scale of justice amid law books
|

DUI Case with Multiple Prior Convictions

When a defendant faces a new DUI charge in California, prosecutors may allege prior DUI convictions to increase potential penalties. Those allegations trigger specific procedural options and evidentiary considerations that can significantly affect trial strategy.  

If you are charged with a DUI with prior convictions you need to develop a strategy early in the process.  You can simply concede the point but what if you don't agree that the prior convictions took place and are valid?  Here are your options.

Stipulating to Prior DUI Convictions

First is the concession route.

A defendant may stipulate to the fact of prior qualifying DUI convictions to keep the details of those priors from the jury deciding the current offense. California courts have recognized the propriety of such stipulations to avoid undue prejudice stemming from the jury learning about prior criminal conduct while deciding the current charge. See People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69.

A stipulation typically concedes only what is legally necessary for the prior-conviction allegation (for example, that the defendant suffered a conviction on a particular date in a particular case that qualifies as a sentencing prior), without admitting the underlying facts of the prior incident. Defense counsel should ensure the stipulation is narrowly tailored to the elements of the alleged prior and that the court instructs the jury appropriately to avoid misuse.

Bifurcation of Prior-Conviction Allegations

Either party may move to bifurcate trial of the prior-conviction allegations from trial of the current DUI charge. Bifurcation separates (a) the jury’s determination of guilt on the current offense from (b) the court’s or a jury’s determination whether the prior convictions are true. The California Supreme Court has endorsed the trial court’s discretion to bifurcate prior allegations to minimize prejudice while preserving the People’s right to prove priors. See People v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69; see also People v. Cline (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327.

Practical points regarding bifurcation motions:

  1. Who may request: Either the prosecution or defense may move; defense typically seeks to prevent the jury hearing about priors while deciding the new DUI.                                                                                       
  2. Timing: The request should be made pretrial to allow orderly structuring of jury selection, evidentiary presentation, and instructions.                              
  3. Standard: The court weighs potential prejudice against probative value and judicial efficiency, mindful that priors for sentencing purposes are generally not elements of the new offense.                                                     
  4. Mode of proof: If bifurcated, the truth of the priors can be tried to the jury in a second phase, or submitted to the court by stipulation, records, or both.

If No Stipulation and No Bifurcation: CALCRIM No. 2125

Note: CALCRIM is a book (found easily online) with standard instructions to be read to a jury.

If the defendant does not stipulate to the priors and the court declines to bifurcate, the jury deciding the current DUI charge may also hear evidence on the prior-conviction allegations. In that circumstance, CALCRIM No. 2125 governs. CALCRIM No. 2125 instructs the jury on how to evaluate and decide whether the prosecution has proved the alleged prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt, while limiting consideration of prior-conviction evidence to its proper purpose and cautioning against using it as evidence of guilt on the new offense.

Counsel should request pinpoint limiting language, ensure the verdict forms segregate findings on the current offense and the priors, and consider tailored admonitions during the evidentiary phase to reduce prejudice.

If Bifurcation Is Granted: CALCRIM No. 2126

When the court grants bifurcation, the jury first decides guilt on the current DUI charge without hearing about prior convictions. Only if the jury returns a guilty verdict (or as otherwise procedurally appropriate) does the proceeding move to the prior-conviction phase. CALCRIM No. 2126 applies in the bifurcated setting. It explains that the jury is now to decide whether the alleged prior convictions are true, sets out the burden of proof, and confines the jury’s use of prior-conviction evidence to that discrete determination.

In practice:

  1. Phase one: The jury hears only evidence relevant to the current DUI charge; no mention of priors is made, and no prior-related exhibits are introduced.                                                                                                         
  2. Transition: If needed, the court instructs the jury that it will now hear additional evidence solely on the truth of the prior allegations.                         
  3. Phase two: The prosecution typically proves priors via certified court records, DMV abstracts, fingerprints, or other identity-linking evidence. Defense may challenge identity, validity, or qualifying nature of the prior.                                                                                                                  
  4. Findings: The jury returns separate true/not true findings on each alleged prior.

When Prior Convictions Should Not Be Disclosed to the Jury

Even outside of bifurcation, California law recognizes that disclosure of priors can unfairly prejudice the jury deciding the new offense. The court must guard against admitting or disclosing prior-conviction information when its probative value for any permissible purpose is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, confusion, or misuse. People v. Hall (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 128 underscores the principle that prior convictions, especially when not elements of the current offense, should not be presented to the jury deciding guilt unless and until necessary and with appropriate safeguards.

Practically, this means:

  1. If a defendant stipulates to the existence of priors sufficient for any legal consequence, the jury should not hear the stipulation or any details while deciding the current offense, absent a legally required element to be proved to the same jury.                                                           
  2. If bifurcation is granted, jurors should not be exposed to any prior-conviction evidence during the first phase.                                                       
  3. Even where priors become relevant in a later phase, the court should limit the evidence to what is necessary to prove the fact of the prior and identity, avoiding inflammatory details of the earlier incident.

Strategic Considerations for Defense and Prosecution

Defense:

  1. Move to bifurcate early to keep prior-conviction evidence from the guilt phase.
  2. Offer a narrowly drawn stipulation to the fact of qualifying priors to avoid unnecessary prejudice.
  3. Prepare to contest identity or the legal sufficiency of alleged priors in the prior phase, using court records and expert testimony as needed.

Prosecution:

  1. Be prepared to prove priors with certified records and reliable identity linkage.
  2. Consider agreeing to bifurcation to protect the record from prejudice issues.
  3. Seek accurate CALCRIM instructions and tailored limiting directions to ensure the jury understands the distinct roles of each phase.

Conclusion

When prior DUI convictions are alleged, the defense may stipulate to the priors, and either party may move to bifurcate the trial of prior allegations from the current charge. If the case proceeds without stipulation and without bifurcation, CALCRIM No. 2125 governs jury consideration of priors in a single phase. If bifurcation is granted, CALCRIM No. 2126 applies to the separate prior-conviction phase. Courts should avoid disclosing priors to the guilt-phase jury where doing so risks unfair prejudice, consistent with People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, People v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69, People v. Cline (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327, and People v. Hall (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 128

The Best DUI Defense

The best DUI defense comes from experienced criminal defense lawyers.  When dealing with priors your lawyer needs to aggressively review and challenge prior convictions and map a strategy for your defense.   The Law Office of Daniel Horowitz is expert in DUI and criminal defense.   To schedule in an initial consultation, call the office at (925) 283-1863.  We have only live people on site answering our calls - no AI, no offshore message takers - Real People who know your case.