Opinion ID: 1351576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Unadjudicated Criminal Activity or, in the Alternative, to Impanel a Separate Jury

Text: Prior to the commencement of the penalty phase, defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of unadjudicated criminal activity or, in the alternative, to impanel a separate jury to consider such evidence. The motion was based expressly on the Fourteenth Amendment's guaranty of due process of law and impliedly on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Defendant acknowledged that People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d 144, was fatal to his request. (14) The guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment  Balderas expressly held  did not bar the introduction of other crimes evidence at the penalty phase either absolutely or even before the same jury that sat at the guilt phase; nor  the case impliedly held  did the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment. (41 Cal.3d at pp. 204-205.) In spite of Balderas, defendant proceeded with the matter because this may come up some day.... Thereupon, the court denied the motion on the authority of that case. At the penalty phase, the People introduced other crimes evidence involving the kidnapping of Karen Stange. Defendant contends that the court erred. He concedes that Balderas is controlling. He requests, however, that we reconsider and overrule that decision. We have declined similar invitations in the past. (See People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 906-907 [274 Cal. Rptr. 849, 799 P.2d 1282], collecting cases.) We decline defendant's now.