Does the answer to the jury in a sexual assault case need to be reduced to a limiting instruction like CALCRIM No. 375?

Defendant insists that the trial court's answer to the jury was insufficient because the trial court did not inform the jury of the specific purposes that it was permitted to use the other crimes evidence, and the jury was not told to disregard the other crimes evidence if the prosecutor failed to prove the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant argues that the trial court's comments to counsel during the proceedings confirmed that the evidence was not cross-admissible as to identity. (See People v. Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 300 [highest degree of similarity required to prove identity].) Thus, defendant insists that a limiting instruction like CALCRIM No. 375, the standard limiting instruction given when admitting character evidence, was required.