Division Two of the Court of Appeal for this appellate district has explained: "To be admissible such evidence must be directed to the general reputation in the community in which the party lives or is generally known. [Citations.] 'Such evidence is properly excluded where the reputation is confined to the vicinity of his place of business or among the members of a restricted group of persons.' [Citations.]" (People v. Carnavacci (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 14, 17; accord, People v. Workman (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 898, 901.) Whether a witness is qualified to express such an opinion is for the trial court to determine within its discretion.

( Commonwealth v. Rogers, 136 Mass. 158; State v. Pickett, 202 Iowa 1321 [ 210 N.W. 782].)" In People v. Workman, 136 Cal.App.2d 898 [ 289 P.2d 514], it was stated at page 901: "There seems to be a difference in the foundation necessary to prove good reputation from that necessary to prove bad reputation. A witness may base good reputation on the fact that he has never heard anything against the person's reputation.

As to the third assignment of error, the determination whether a witness is qualified to testify about reputation is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Gage v. United States, 167 F.2d 122, 125 (9th Cir. 1948); People v. Workman, 136 Cal.App.2d 898, 901, 289 P.2d 514, 515 (1955); 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, supra § 230, at 499. There was no abuse of discretion here, for Wayne Hartzell's knowledge of Simmons' reputation was limited to the opinions of one family and of three other individuals whose opinions he had received several years before Simmons was killed.

The court was justified in ruling that he was sufficiently qualified to give his testimony. ( People v. Cobb, 45 Cal.2d 158, 164 [ 287 P.2d 752]; People v. Cord, 157 Cal. 562, 572 [ 108 P. 511]; People v. Workman, 136 Cal.App.2d 898 [ 289 P.2d 514].) The judgment of conviction and the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial are affirmed.

Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse the trial judge's ruling on the matter. People v. Workman, 136 Cal.App.2d 898, 289 P.2d 514 (1955). The witness worked at the Dunes three nights a week during the period that the defendant was employed as a doorman-bouncer prior to the incident giving rise to criminal charges.

However, when a defendant does put his character in issue by showing a good reputation in the community for truth, honesty or integrity, the prosecution is permitted to rebut that picture by showing that the reputation is bad by other witnesses or by asking the witnesses if they have heard of specific instances that would affect defendant's reputation. Of course the questions propounded must bear upon the traits involved. (People v. Tucker, 164 Cal.App.2d 624, 331 P.2d 160; People v. Workman, 136 Cal.App.2d 898, 901, 289 P.2d 514.) Witkin, California Evidence, at page 682, discusses this subject and cites considerable authority to the effect that: