Opinion ID: 2581358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Other Criminal Acts

Text: The trial court instructed the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 8.87 that it could consider as evidence in aggravation (§ 190.3, factor (b)) four instances of defendant's unadjudicated crimes involving force or violence. ( People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1070, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68.) Although the court specifically described each instance (exhibiting a deadly weapon, a gun, to Geraldine Cook in a threatening manner; battering the coach and Markus Hallgrimson at a basketball game in Germany; and threatening and obstructing Officer Phillip Johnson at a crime scene in East Palo Alto), defendant argues the court erred by not setting out the elements of each of those crimes. Defendant, however, did not request an instruction on the elements of the offenses, and a trial court has no duty on its own initiative to instruct on the elements of unadjudicated offenses. ( People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1227, 135 Cal. Rptr.2d 553, 70 P.3d 981.) In the past, we have held that an instruction on the elements of crimes adduced as evidence in aggravation is 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. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 668, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err in not instructing the jury on the elements of unadjudicated crimes offered as circumstances in aggravation.