Is there any reason to reopen the question of whether a violent crime committed by a defendant is a felonies or misdemeanor?

Defendant nonetheless urges that we reconsider our prior pronouncements because without instruction on the crimes defendant committed, he argues, a jury would not know whether the acts were felonies or misdemeanors and therefore lacked guidance on deciding whether the violent acts weighed in favor of death. Defendant's argument provides no compelling reason to reopen the question. This court observed in People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347 that "[t]he California capital sentencing scheme does require that violent conduct be criminal in fact in order to constitute valid penalty evidence." (Id . at p. 588, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.) "Moreover, because evidence that the

[396 P.3d 553]