Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Elements of Assault

Text: As a factor in aggravation, the prosecution introduced evidence of defendant's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon stemming from his attack on Bonnie Brown in 1976. Defendant now claims the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the elements of assault, which he contends has a technical meaning peculiar to the law . . . not commonly understood by persons familiar with the English language. We have explained, however, that such an instruction is not required because `a defendant for tactical considerations may not want the penalty phase instructions overloaded with a series of lengthy instructions on the elements of alleged 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. Avena, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 435, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000, quoting People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 73, fn. 25, 222 Cal.Rptr. 127, 711 P.2d 423.) In any event, the evidence shows defendant struck Brown on the back of the head with a wooden baseball bat, rendering her momentarily unconscious. This is thus not a case in which the technical definition of the crime of assault was at all relevant, and there is no possibility the jury misunderstood the nature of defendant's crime against Brown. We reject the claim.