Opinion ID: 1367717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Failure to Instruct the Jury Regarding Evidence of Prior Unadjudicated Crimes Admitted at the Guilt Phase

Text: During the guilt phase of the trial, evidence was admitted establishing that, while in Arizona, defendant stated to a friend that he had shot someone during a robbery and also had shot an accomplice who chickened out on him during an attempted robbery. Defendant told another friend that he had shot two persons and, during a separate incident, had committed a robbery. (42) Defendant contends the trial court erred at the penalty phase in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that evidence introduced at the guilt phase tending to show [defendant] may have committed other crimes was, as a matter of law, insufficient to prove he committed such crimes and it must not be considered in determining penalty. [I]n the absence of a request, the trial court is under no duty to give such an instruction at the penalty phase in regard to evidence received at the guilt phase. ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1039 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627].) We therefore reject defendant's claim of instructional error.