Opinion ID: 1190325
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contentions Regarding Other Crimes Evidence

Text: Defendant raises a number of contentions regarding the evidence of other crimes, most of which we have already rejected. Admission of prior unadjudicated crimes does not deny him due process or a reliable death judgment. ( People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 906-907 [274 Cal. Rptr. 849, 799 P.2d 1282]; People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 204-205 [222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480].) The court is not required to instruct the jury that it could consider other crimes evidence only if it unanimously found such crimes had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1273 [270 Cal. Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251].) The court is not required to enumerate the other crimes that the jury should consider or to instruct on the elements of those crimes. ( People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 205-207 [5 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781].) The court told the jury at the penalty phase that it would be given the guilt phase instructions in the jury room to use if applicable in the penalty phase of this trial. It also instructed, As to evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant not charged in this case, such offenses before they can be considered must be proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, as has previously been defined to you. The court refused defendant's request to repeat the entire reasonable doubt instructions. Such instructions were given at the guilt phase. Defendant contends the court was required to repeat all of the reasonable doubt instructions at the penalty phase. We disagree. The specific reference to the guilt phase instructions, which were made available to the jury, sufficed. (See People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 846; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 460 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)