What is the standard of review for a failure to give a cautionary instruction?

"The standard of review for erroneous failure to give the cautionary instruction is 'the normal standard of review for state law error: whether it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached a result more favorable to defendant had the instruction been given. [Citations.]'" (People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 905.) "'Since the cautionary instruction is intended to help the jury to determine whether the statement attributed to the defendant was in fact made, courts examining the prejudice in failing to give the instruction examine the record to see if there was any conflict in the evidence about the exact words used, their meaning, or whether the admissions were repeated accurately. [Citations.]' [Citation.] [] Where there was no such conflict in the evidence, but simply a denial by the defendant that he made the statements attributed to him, we have found failure to give the cautionary instruction harmless. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 905-906.) "Further, when the trial court otherwise has thoroughly instructed the

Page 13

jury on assessing the credibility of witnesses, we have concluded the jury was adequately warned to view their testimony with caution. [Citation.]" (People v. McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 680; see also People v. Dickey, supra, at pp. 906-907.)