California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Thomas, E064888 (Cal. App. 2017):
Uncharged Sex Offense].) However, he does not argue that this was, in itself, reversible error. It was not; such a limiting instruction is required only on request (Evid. Code, 355; People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 293), and defense counsel did not request one. Defendant merely argues that the prejudice from the asserted evidentiary error was compounded by the lack of a limiting instruction. Because we find no such error, we need not consider prejudice.
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.