Does a defendant have any tactical purpose for failing to request a limiting instruction on the evidence of a prior murder conviction?

defendant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of any rational tactical purpose for failing to request the instruction. Counsel could have reasonably concluded that under these circumstances, a further limiting instruction was inapplicable, was of no added benefit or may have called further unwanted attention to the evidence. (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 878 [failure to request limiting instruction on the defendant's prior murder conviction not ineffective where jury adequately instructed on use of prior conviction and counsel may have decided it unwise to draw further attention to conviction]; People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1053 [no showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding gang evidence].) Indeed, in denying the new trial motion, the court observed in relevant part that defense counsel "could very well have made a tactical decision not to shine more light on this evidence by asking for that limiting instruction, and I find that well within the professional norm for conduct." Therefore, we conclude that trial counsel's failure to request an additional limiting instruction under CALCRIM No. 375 did not constitute deficient performance.