Opinion ID: 844251
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Undue prejudice; inadequate admonition

Text: Defendant finally argues that evidence of Robin's threat should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352 because it posed a substantial danger the jury would speculate that defendant authorized the attack and threat. To the contrary, as stated above, the trial court admonished the jurors that the evidence was admitted as bearing on Hunt's credibility, and that there was no evidence of defendant's involvement in the threat and attack on Hunt. Defendant nonetheless contends the admonition was inadequate because it did not instruct the jurors that they could not infer defendant was involved in the threat and attack, that they could not consider the evidence in any way against defendant, and that they could consider the evidence to determine only whether Hunt feared testifying because he was threatened. His contentions lack merit. (17) We credit jurors with intelligence and common sense ( People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 594 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081]) and presume they generally understand and follow instructions ( Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 662). We think it highly unlikely the jurors understood they could infer defendant authorized or orchestrated the threat and attack, because there was no evidence from which the jurors reasonably could draw this inference, and they were instructed evidence of his involvement did not exist. Further, because the trial court instructed them the evidence was admitted as bearing on Hunt's state of mind and demeanor in testifying, the jurors also understood from the instruction that, logically, the evidence was not relevant to Hunt's credibility unless they found the preliminary fact that he was afraid to testify because he was threatened and attacked. In any event, a defendant who believes an instruction requires clarification or modification must request it. ( People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1140 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1] ( Rodrigues ).) Defendant neither objected to, nor sought clarification of, the off the cuff limiting instruction his counsel requested. Finally, we note that the prosecutor did not argue the jury should consider the evidence of Robin's threat and assault for any improper purpose. Under all these circumstances, defendant manifestly fails to show a reasonable likelihood the jury misinterpreted and misapplied the limiting instruction. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude evidence that Robin threatened and attacked Hunt in an effort to intimidate him from testifying.