Opinion ID: 1205096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Unadjudicated Battery

Text: (40) As noted above, the prosecution presented evidence that defendant committed a battery in an altercation following a traffic accident on July 19, 1980. (ง 243.) The trial court overruled a defense objection to the testimony on the ground that the limitations period for battery had expired. Defendant contends this ruling was incorrect. We have repeatedly rejected this contention, as defendant acknowledges. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 192 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; accord, People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 981-982 [251 Cal. Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475].) Defendant argues that decisions of the United States Supreme Court stressing the need for reliability in capital sentencing procedures dictate a different conclusion. ( Johnson v. Mississippi (1988) 486 U.S. 578 [100 L.Ed.2d 575, 108 S.Ct. 1981]; Gardner v. Florida (1977) 430 U.S. 349 [51 L.Ed.2d 393, 97 S.Ct. 1197].) Contrary to defendant's claim, the Eighth Amendment's aim of ensuring the reliability of penalty determinations is furthered, not frustrated, by the admission of his prior violent criminal activity. (See People v. Douglas, supra, 50 Cal.3d 468, 529-530.) Moreover, the evidence was not particularly stale, the battery having occurred only seven years before trial. Defendant does not suggest specific ways in which the passage of time may have prejudiced his ability to respond to it. (Cf. ibid. ) The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the unadjudicated battery. 3. Miscellaneous Contentions (41) Defendant makes the following additional arguments in support of his claim that other-crimes evidence should not have been introduced. a. He contends that having the same jury decide both guilt and penalty phases violates rights guaranteed by the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We rejected this argument in People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 204-205 [222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480], and in subsequent cases. b. Defendant urges the penalty determination is unreliable because the sentencing jury was never provided with facts from which it could fairly determine that defendant was the person who committed the voluntary manslaughter of Vernon Hood. The argument lacks merit; the prosecution introduced into evidence certified copies of the verdict and abstract of judgment in the prior trial. Moreover, defendant did not contest killing Vernon Hood, but presented mitigating evidence indicating he did so only after Hood beat defendant's sister and her children. c. Defendant contends the penalty determination violates the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the jury was never instructed that before considering the manslaughter and battery as aggravating evidence it must agree unanimously that defendant committed those crimes. We have rejected this contention in numerous cases. ( People v. Taylor (1990) 52 Cal.3d 719, 749 [276 Cal. Rptr. 391, 801 P.2d 1142].)