CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Limited Admissibility
.........Necessity of Request for Instruction
4 Cards On This Topic:

D forfeited claim that the purpose of his incriminating statement to W should have been limited to W’s state of mind where he and counsel chose not to accept an instruction offered by the court or to request any other limiting instruction.

Trial court had no duty to give CALJIC 2.10 limiting instruction where psychiatrist testified for the ••defense•• at the ••penalty•• phase not at guilt phase after D placed mental condition in issue.

No sua sponte duty to give limiting instruction.

No duty to request instruction where request futile.