Opinion ID: 2618245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 76

Heading: Elements of Other Crimes

Text: (83b) Defendants argue the trial court should have instructed, sua sponte, on the elements of the alleged other crimes falling within factor (b). Although defendants concede such is not the law ( Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 99), they characterize Miranda (and other precedents) as outlining the limits of state law. Thus, they contend failure to instruct on the elements of other crimes violates their rights under the federal Constitution to due process, equal protection, a jury trial, and a reliable penalty determination. (U.S. Const., Amends. V, VI, VIII, XIV.) As we previously explained, a criminal defendant may have tactical reasons to forgo lengthy instructions on the elements of alleged other crimes. ( Phillips, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 72-73, fn. 25.) We fail to see how forcing a capital defendant to forgo this tactical option vindicates his federal constitutional rights. As we made clear in Phillips, supra, if a defendant requests an instruction explaining the elements of the other crimes at issue, he is entitled to have the jury so instructed. ( Ibid. )