Is there any case law where a jury was instructed to only consider threat evidence for the purpose of assessing witness credibility?

In all events, this claim is meritless. As noted above, the trial court clearly and unambiguously instructed the jury that it could only consider the threat evidence for the purpose of assessing witness credibility. The court's instruction strictly limited the jury's consideration of the threat evidence at issue. Whereas the court, at defendant's request, could have added an express admonition that the jury should not infer defendant was behind the threats, it was not required to do so where its instruction was otherwise adequate. Further, none of the cases cited by defendant hold that if a limiting instruction on threat evidence admitted under Evidence Code section 780 does not include an express admonition that the jury should not attribute a threat to defendant, then it is defective as a matter of law.⁵ (See People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1071 ["It is

Page 8