Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to instruct on elements of unadjudicated criminal activity

Text: Defendant contends that when, as here, jurors are presented with evidence of unadjudicated criminal acts under section 190.3, factor (b), and instructed that they may consider such evidence in aggravation only after finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal acts occurred, it is error not to inform them also how the alleged activity constitutes a crime. He notes that his trial counsel did not request such instructions, but he asks us to reexamine our prior decisions holding, as a general rule, that a trial court need not, on its own initiative, instruct on the elements of unadjudicated criminal activity. Although defendant devotes a considerable portion of his appellate brief to elaborating the grounds for his challenge to the existing rule, we have previously considered and rejected each of his arguments. Instructions to the jury on the elements of unadjudicated crimes are not required by logic or by the constitutional guarantees of due process, fundamental fairness, right to a fair trial, equal protection, or reliability of penalty. ( People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1175, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384; People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 704, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 206-207, 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 773, 239 Cal.Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250.) Nor does the state or federal Constitution require a defendant's personal waiver when, for tactical reasons, counsel refrains from requesting that the trial court instruct the jury on the elements of unadjudicated crimes. ( People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1175, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 49, 23 Cal. Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673; People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 827-828, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865.) Defendant contends trial counsel's failure to request jury instructions on the elements of the unadjudicated criminal activity in his case constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The rule imposing no duty on a trial court to instruct on the elements of crimes offered as incidents of violent criminal activity under section 190.3, factor (b) recognizes that a defendant for tactical considerations may not want the penalty phase instructions overloaded with a series of lengthy instructions on the elements of ... other crimes, perhaps because he fears that such instructions could result in the jury placing undue significance on such other crimes rather than on the central question of whether he should live or die. ( People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 72, fn. 25, 222 Cal.Rptr. 127, 711 P.2d 423.) Here, in light of the number of prior violent incidents the prosecution presented at the penalty phase, defense counsel reasonably may have been concerned that instruction on the elements of the various criminal activities would place undue focus on such crimes. ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 651, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683; People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 592, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) Because the record fails to show defense counsel lacked any rational tactical reason for not requesting instruction on the elements of the factor (b) crimes, defendant has not established deficient performance by his counsel. ( People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 426, fn. 16, 152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859.)