When will a jury consider a defendant's claim that trial counsel ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the baseball bat incident?

We also reject defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the baseball bat incident. First, the baseball bat incident was admitted for impeachment purposes, not as other crimes evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), so an instruction such as CALCRIM No. 375 (evidence of uncharged offenses to prove identity, intent, common plan, etc.) would not have been appropriate. Second, "the decision not to request one was a reasonable tactical choice by defense counsel to avoid directing the jury to focus on the evidence [of the baseball bat incident]." (People v. Ferraez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 925, 934.) Third, as explained above, the evidence of defendant's guilt of first degree murder was overwhelming and thus, even if trial counsel had requested a limiting instruction concerning the baseball bat incident, we conclude the jury would still have reached a first degree murder verdict.

Page 31