What is the effect of prior convictions on the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case?

[8] In exercising its discretion, the trial court should take into account factors similar to those that must be considered when the admissibility of a prior conviction is under consideration: "(1) whether the [conduct] reflects adversely on an individual's honesty or veracity; (2) the nearness or remoteness in time of [the conduct]; (3) whether the conduct is for the same or substantially similar conduct to the charged offense; and (4) what the effect will be if the defendant does not testify out of fear of being prejudiced because of the impeachment by prior convictions. [Citation.]" ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 216.) Defendant does not contend the conduct fails to reflect adversely upon his veracity. It does. ( People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 608, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224 ["theft crimes necessarily involve an element of deceit"].) The third above listed factor is not an issue. Defendant testified. The court could have permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence that defendant committed burglaries, but did not do so because of the similarity with the present alleged conduct, instead limiting impeachment to generic thefts. The only factor at issue is remoteness.