Is there a need for a sua sponte instruction on the limited purposes for which evidence of prior crimes is admissible at the penalty phase of a capital case?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 6 Cal.4th 1, 859 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1993):

Generally, the court owes no obligation to instruct on the limited purposes for which evidence of prior crimes is admissible. (See People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 64, 177 Cal.Rptr. 458, 634 P.2d 534.) Defendant acknowledges the general rule, but argues that it should be inapplicable at the penalty phase of a capital case. In light of the instructions that were given here, we fail to discern a need for such a sua sponte instruction.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

Does a jury have to be instructed sua sponte on the limited admissibility of evidence of prior gang membership? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a jury at the penalty phase of a capital trial be allowed to consider evidence of criminal propensity drawn from prior crimes? (California, United States of America)

For the purposes of limiting evidence in a medical malpractice case, is there any error arising from the lack of a limiting instruction? (California, United States of America)

What is the law on unanimity in a criminal case where the evidence of a crime is only a single crime but the evidence supports the theory of the crime? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances of the crime scene evidence will be admitted during the penalty phase of a penalty trial, does the trial court error not to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

In a capital murder case, in what circumstances will the California Supreme Court order that a juror should not submit a questionnaire for the purpose of selecting a jury in capital murder cases? (California, United States of America)

In a criminal case, is there any case law in which a jury has been ordered to conduct cross-examination of evidence in the penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

Is there a need for a sua sponte instruction on the limited purposes for which evidence of prior crimes is admissible at the penalty phase of a capital case?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources