People?v.?Ashmus?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?932?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?112;?820?P.2d?214
[No.?S004723.Dec?5,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?TROY?ADAM?ASHMUS,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-?15661,?Alan?W.?Haverty,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Linda?F.?Robertson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Charles?Bush?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?Gillette,?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson?and?Ronald?S.?Matthias,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
MOSK,?J.
This?is?an?automatic?appeal?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b))?from?a?judgment?of?death?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?(id.,???190?et?seq.).
On?August?17,?1984,?the?District?Attorney?of?Sacramento?County?filed?an?information?against?defendant?Troy?Adam?Ashmus?in?the?superior?court?of?that?county.
Count?I?charged?that?on?May?19,?1984,?defendant?murdered?Marcella?D.?in?violation?of?Penal?Code?section?187.?It?was?alleged?that?he?committed?the?[54?Cal.3d?952]?offense?under?the?following?special?circumstances:?(1)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?rape?under?Penal?Code?section?261,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(iii);?(2)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?sodomy?under?Penal?Code?section?286,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(iv);?and?(3)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?on?the?person?of?a?child?under?14?years?of?age?under?Penal?Code?section?288,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(v).?Counts?II,?III,?and?IV?charged,?respectively,?that?on?that?same?date?defendant?engaged?in?rape,?sodomy,?and?lewd?or?lascivious?conduct?against?the?same?victim,?in?violation?of?the?statutory?provisions?cited?above-specifically,?as?to?rape,?former?subdivision?(2)?(current?subd.?(a)(2))?of?Penal?Code?section?261?(Stats.?1983,?ch.?949,???1,?p.?3416);?as?to?sodomy,?subdivision?(c)?of?Penal?Code?section?286;?and?as?to?lewd?or?lascivious?conduct,?subdivision?(b)?of?Penal?Code?section?288.
Defendant?pleaded?not?guilty?to?the?charges?and?denied?the?special?circumstance?allegations.?On?his?motion,?the?court?subsequently?changed?venue?from?Sacramento?to?San?Mateo?County.
Trial?was?by?jury.?The?jury?returned?verdicts?finding?defendant?guilty?as?charged,?determined?the?murder?to?be?of?the?first?degree,?and?found?all?the?special?circumstance?allegations?true.?It?subsequently?returned?a?verdict?of?death.?The?court?entered?judgment?accordingly,?sentencing?defendant?to?death?for?the?murder?and?to?full,?separate,?and?consecutive?middle?terms?of?six?years?in?prison?for?each?of?the?three?noncapital?offenses.
As?we?shall?explain,?we?conclude?that?the?judgment?must?be?affirmed.
- Facts
- Guilt?Phase
Most?of?the?basic?facts?relevant?here?were?essentially?undisputed?at?trial.
About?4?o’clock?on?the?afternoon?of?Saturday,?May?19,?1984,?Marcella?(Marcie)?D.,?who?was?seven?years?of?age,?rode?to?Howe?Park?in?Sacramento?on?her?bicycle.?There?she?met?her?brother?Arby,?age?10,?who?was?responsible?for?her,?and?Arby’s?friend?Ernesto?(P.J.)?G.,?age?9.?Arby?and?P.J.?walked?to?a?pond?to?fish?from?a?dock,?and?Marcie?went?to?play?with?some?children?within?a?few?feet?of?the?boys.
Defendant,?who?was?22?years?old,?approached?Arby?and?P.J.?as?they?were?fishing.?For?the?past?few?days?he?had?been?camping?in?an?area?in?adjacent?Santa?Anita?Park?called?Stoner’s?Pit,?a?site?that?was?filled?with?litter?but?also?[54?Cal.3d?953]?secluded?and?covered?with?vegetation.?He?gave?the?boys?advice?and?help?in?their?fishing,?and?stayed?nearby.
About?5?or?5:30?p.m.,?Arby?and?P.J.?walked?to?the?park?clubhouse.?Marcie?soon?rode?up.?She?said?that?she?was?going?off?to?Santa?Anita?Park?with?defendant:?he?had?told?her?that?he?knew?of?a?duck’s?nest?there,?and?that?he?would?give?her?a?duckling?if?any?had?hatched.?The?boys?said?that?she?should?return?in?about?an?hour.
Defendant?and?Marcie?proceeded?to?Stoner’s?Pit.?Once?there,?he?subjected?her?to?a?fatal?attack.?He?raped?her?and?perhaps?also?penetrated?her?with?some?foreign?object,?making?a?very?large?tear?through?the?length?of?her?vagina?to?within?a?quarter?of?an?inch?of?her?rectum.?He?sodomized?her,?inflicting?two?small?wounds?in?the?anal?or?rectal?tissue.?He?possibly?committed?oral?copulation?by?inserting?his?penis?into?her?mouth.?He?evidently?ejaculated?over?her?body.?He?stuffed?into?her?mouth?and?throat?material?including?two?plastic?bags,?a?piece?of?cellophane?about?six?inches?long?and?two?to?three?inches?wide,?and?a?pair?of?red?shorts?she?had?been?wearing;?the?bags?were?wedged?side-by-side?in?separate?tight?wads?deep?in?her?throat?with?the?cellophane?in?between;?the?shorts?were?tightly?compressed?within?her?mouth;?the?bags?obstructed?her?throat?and?caused?her?to?die?by?asphyxiation.?Covering?her?naked?body?with?a?carpet?remnant?he?had?used?for?a?sleeping?mat?during?his?stay?at?Stoner’s?Pit,?he?fled?the?scene.
When?Marcie?did?not?return?as?she?had?been?told,?Arby?and?P.J.?became?concerned.?They?searched?without?success.?Arby?telephoned?his?father.?He?too?searched?without?success.?The?police?were?called?in.?About?8:30?p.m.,?a?neighborhood?man?who?was?assisting?the?officers?found?Marcie’s?body.?Within?a?few?hours,?defendant?was?arrested.?He?had?fresh?abrasions?on?at?least?one?of?his?hands.?It?does?not?appear?that?the?duck’s?nest?of?which?defendant?spoke?had?ever?existed.
Although?most?of?the?basic?facts?were?essentially?undisputed,?one?was?strongly?contested:?intent?to?kill.?The?People?sought?to?prove?intent?by?evidence?including?the?manner?and?means?defendant?used?to?kill?Marcie.?By?contrast,?defendant,?who?took?the?stand?himself,?expressly?denied?intent.?In?his?testimony,?he?generally?confessed?his?culpability,?admitting?that?he?had?lied?in?extrajudicial?statements?to?the?police?and?others?in?which?he?attempted?to?avoid?responsibility?and?even?tried?to?shift?blame?to?his?brother?Tracy,?who?was?three?years?younger.?All?the?same,?he?asserted?that?Marcie’s?death?was?accidental.
Beyond?the?basic?facts?set?out?above,?the?People?and?defendant?disputed?the?proper?characterization?of?the?events.?[54?Cal.3d?954]
The?People?attempted?to?prove?that?defendant?was?especially?cruel?and?his?attack?singularly?brutal.?They?relied?largely?on?the?established?circumstances?of?the?offenses.
For?his?part,?defendant?tried?to?show?the?opposite.?For?example,?he?testified?to?the?following?effect:?he?had?consumed?marijuana?on?the?day?in?question;?not?long?after?reaching?Stoner’s?Pit?with?Marcie,?”something?right?then?and?there?hit?me”;?he?asked?her?to?take?her?clothes?off,?and?she?complied;?he?then?took?off?his?own;?his?intention?was?”[j]ust?to?make?her?happy”;?at?first,?she?did?not?resist?”because?all?I?was?doing?was?I?was?like?a?man?would?regularly?treat?a?woman”;?during?what?he?called?”the?process?of?making?love?to?her,”?he?did?”nothing?that?would?be?harmful”;?”Let’s?put?it?this?way,”?he?continued,?”when?I?make?love?to?a?woman-one?of?my?girlfriends-she?don’t?have?no?complaints?at?all”;?soon,?however,?Marcie’s?eyes?began?to?flow?with?tears?and?she?cried?for?help;?”[a]bout?two?seconds?later?someone?walked?by?and?yelled?out,?’Did?someone?holler?for?help?’?”;?he?then?pushed?the?plastic?bags?into?her?mouth,?but?only?”to?keep?her?quiet”;?after?the?act,?he?cleaned?himself?off?and?dressed;?”I?believe?she?was?still?moving?when?I?finally?left”;?he?did?not?remove?the?bags?from?her?mouth?because?”I?forgot?they?were?there”;?he?covered?her?with?the?carpet?remnant?”out?of?courtesy”;?he?felt?remorse?and?shame,?apparently?from?the?very?moment?he?did?the?deed;?and?he?stated?that?he?preferred?to?refer?to?Marcie?as?a?”person”?because?”I’m?tired?of?people?using?the?word?’child.’?”
- Penalty?Phase
In?their?case?in?aggravation,?the?People?introduced?evidence?to?prove?that?defendant?suffered?two?felony?convictions:?the?first,?in?1981,?for?burglary?in?the?second?degree?in?violation?of?Penal?Code?sections?459?and?460,?in?Kern?County;?and?the?second,?in?1985,?for?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?in?violation?of?Penal?Code?section?220,?in?Sacramento?County.?They?also?presented?evidence?to?establish?the?facts?underlying?the?latter?conviction.?Lisa?Cronin,?the?victim,?testified?that?in?the?early?hours?of?May?19,?1984-the?date?of?the?crimes?against?Marcie-defendant?attacked?her,?and?in?fact?bruised?and?sprained?one?of?her?arms;?he?announced?his?intent?to?commit?rape;?but?he?fled?without?accomplishing?his?purpose?when?bystanders?came?to?her?aid.
In?his?case?in?mitigation,?defendant?introduced?evidence?to?generally?describe?his?background?and?character,?from?before?birth?up?until?the?time?of?trial.?The?testimony,?given?by?lay?witnesses?as?well?as?psychiatric?and?psychological?experts,?painted?the?following?picture:?defendant?suffered?abuse?and?neglect?from?his?earliest?years?at?the?hands?of?his?father?and?mother;?his?parents?had?a?troubled?and?unhappy?marriage,?which?was?dissolved?[54?Cal.3d?955]?when?he?was?about?17?or?18?years?old;?he?was?an?emotionally?and?behaviorally?disturbed?child,?youth,?and?adult;?over?the?years,?he?had?been?cruel?to?animals?and?hurtful?to?his?peers;?he?had?experimented?with?drugs;?he?was?friendless,?angry,?and?refractory;?and?he?may?have?experienced?organic?brain?damage?or?impairment.?Further,?the?evidence?supported?an?inference?that?he?may?have?been?under?the?influence?of?some?mental?or?emotional?disturbance?at?the?time?of?the?crimes.?It?also?showed?that?his?burglary?conviction?arose?from?petty,?nonviolent?criminal?conduct.?In?addition,?it?suggested?that?he?would?not?be?dangerous?in?prison?if?his?life?were?spared.
In?rebuttal,?the?People?introduced?evidence?through?the?testimony?of?a?psychologist,?who?opined?that?defendant?had?not,?in?fact,?experienced?organic?brain?damage?or?impairment.
- Jury-selection?Issues
Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?bearing?on?the?process?of?jury?selection?in?order?to?demonstrate?that?the?judgment?should?be?reversed?as?to?guilt?or?at?least?as?to?penalty.?As?will?be?shown,?none?is?meritorious.
- Introduction
The?prospective?jurors?were?first?examined?for?hardship,?and?some?were?excused?on?that?basis.?Those?who?remained?were?questioned?individually?and?in?sequestration?(following?limited?group?preinstruction?and?voir?dire),?and?some?were?excluded?for?cause.?Those?who?remained?after?that?stage?had?their?names?drawn?randomly?and?listed?in?the?order?drawn;?each?side?was?allotted?26?peremptory?challenges?against?prospective?jurors?and?5?against?prospective?alternates;?prospective?jurors?”1″?through?”12″?were?drawn?into?the?jury?box;?the?People?and?defendant?alternately?struck?(or?passed)?the?prospective?[54?Cal.3d?956]?jurors?in?the?box,?with?prospective?juror?”13″?taking?the?place?of?the?first?person?struck,?prospective?juror?”14″?taking?the?place?of?the?second,?and?so?on;?in?all,?the?People?struck?22?prospective?jurors?and?4?prospective?alternates,?and?defendant?struck?19?of?the?former?and?3?of?the?latter;?neither?side?expressed?any?dissatisfaction?with?any?of?the?persons?selected?as?jurors?or?alternates;?finally,?12?jurors?and?5?alternates?were?sworn.
- Denial?of?Motion?as?to?”Guilt?Phase?Includables”
The?trial?court?denied?the?motion.?It?rested?its?decision,?in?pertinent?part,?on?a?conclusion?that?the?law?did?not?support?the?position?that?defendant?had?taken.
[3]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?erroneous.?We?disagree.The?exclusion?through?”California?death?qualification”?of?”guilt?phase?includables”?does?not?offend?the?Sixth?Amendment?or?article?I,?section?16,?as?to?the?guaranty?of?trial?by?a?jury?drawn?from?a?fair?cross-section?of?the?community.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?342-353?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680]?(plur.?opn.);?id.?at?pp.?374-375?(conc.?opn.?of?Kaus,?J.);?People?v.?Guzman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?915,?948-949?[248?Cal.Rptr.?467,?755?P.2d?917];?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Warren?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?471,?479?[247?Cal.Rptr.?172,?754?P.2d]?[adhering?to?Fields];?see?also?Lockhart?v.?McCree?(1986)?476?U.S.?162,?173-177?[90?L.Ed.2d?137,?147-150,?106?S.Ct.?1758]?[dealing?solely?with?the?federal?constitutional?right].)?[54?Cal.3d?957]
Neither?does?such?exclusion?offend?the?Sixth?Amendment?or?article?I,?section?16,?as?to?the?guaranty?of?trial?by?an?impartial?jury.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?732?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741]?[impliedly?dealing?with?both?federal?and?state?constitutional?rights];?People?v.?Hamilton?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?123,?136?[249?Cal.Rptr.?320,?756?P.2d?1348]?[same];?see?also?Lockhart?v.?McCree,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?pp.?177-184?[dealing?solely?with?the?federal?constitutional?right].)
Defendant?asks?us?to?revisit?these?questions.?We?decline?to?do?so.?To?the?extent?that?he?urges?departure?from?precedent?laid?down?by?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?or?by?this?court,?his?request?is?refused:?we?must?follow?the?former?and?will?follow?the?latter.fn.?3
- Limitation?of?Examination?on?Voir?Dire
From?the?very?beginning?of?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?as?they?extensively?questioned?the?prospective?jurors?on?their?understanding?of?the?two?possible?sentences?at?the?penalty?phase,?defense?counsel?declared?that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?In?so?doing,?they?stated?or?implied?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.?They?contrasted?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole,?which?might?be?imposed?on?defendant,?with?life?imprisonment?simpliciter,?which?had?been?imposed?on?such?notorious?criminals?as?Charles?Manson?and?Sirhan?Sirhan.
After?16?prospective?jurors?had?been?examined,?the?prosecutor?objected?to?defense?counsel’s?examination?on?the?ground?that?the?questioning?”unduly?emphasize[d]”?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?and?was?”in?the?form?of?argument?and?comment?on?the?law.”?He?said,?”One?or?two?questions?on?the?subject?I?think?would?be?sufficient.”
The?trial?court?expressed?a?concern?to?avoid?the?topic?of?possible?postverdict?governmental?actions?bearing?on?execution?of?penalty,?specifically,?commutation?by?the?Governor?of?the?sentence?of?death.?[54?Cal.3d?958]
Defense?counsel?responded?that?the?prospective?jurors?did?not?understand?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole,?and?needed?instruction?thereon.
The?trial?court?stated?that?both?the?prosecutor?and?defense?counsel?were?”entitled?to?ask”?the?prospective?jurors?”how?they?feel?about?the?two?subject?matters.?Namely,?death?or?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole.”?But?it?also?said:?”We?are?not?here?to?instruct?them?on?the?law?at?this?point.?What?we?are?here?to?talk?about?is?their?qualifications.”?Later,?it?reiterated:?”This?is?not?the?time?to?preinstruct?the?jury?or?precondition?them.”
The?trial?court?proceeded?to?rule?as?follows:?”I?will?allow?the?question,?’Do?you?understand?that?life?without?possibility?of?parole?really?means?that?in?California;?no?eligibility?for?parole?’?If?they?say?yes?to?that,?that’s?it.?If?they?want?to?know?more,?you?can?ask?them.?I?don’t?want?any?references?to?Manson?or?Sirhan?or?that?stuff.?It?has?nothing?to?do?with?their?qualifications?to?sit?on?this?case.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)
Thereafter,?eight?more?prospective?jurors?were?examined.?Defense?counsel?continued?to?declare?that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?And?they?continued?to?state?or?imply?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.
When?the?last?of?these?eight?prospective?jurors,?Kenneth?N.?Judnick,?was?passed?for?cause?by?both?sides,?defense?counsel?stated?that?defendant?had?wished?to?examine?Judnick?more?extensively?as?to?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?because?of?what?he?believed?to?be?Judnick’s?possible?lack?of?understanding.?Counsel?added?that?in?his?view,?the?meaning?of?the?penalty?was?generally?a?”very?crucial?point”?and?called?for?more?extensive?questioning.?The?trial?court?responded?that?Judnick?”understood”?the?matter?”very?clearly.”fn.?4
Following?this?interchange,?the?trial?court?undertook?to?instruct?each?of?the?remaining?103?prospective?jurors-and?actually?instructed?almost?all?of?them-that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?In?doing?so,?it?sometimes?suggested?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.?Defense?counsel?continued?as?previously?in?this?regard.?Even?the?prosecutor?occasionally?made?comments?to?similar?effect.
In?People?v.?Williams,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?392,?we?construed?relevant?statutory?provisions,?including?former?Penal?Code?section?1078,?and?reconsidered?[54?Cal.3d?959]?pertinent?cases,?among?them?People?v.?Edwards?(1912)?163?Cal.?752?[127?P.?58].?(29?Cal.3d?at?pp.?398-407.)?[5]?We?”le[ft]?intact?the?considerable?discretion?of?the?trial?court?to?contain?voir?dire?within?reasonable?limits.”?(Id.?at?p.?408.)?But?we?held?that?”counsel?should?be?allowed?to?ask?questions?reasonably?designed?to?assist?in?the?intelligent?exercise?of?peremptory?challenges?whether?or?not?such?questions?are?also?likely?to?uncover?grounds?sufficient?to?sustain?a?challenge?for?cause.”?(Id.?at?p.?407.)?We?proceeded?to?”reaffirm?that?it?is?not?’a?function?of?the?examination?of?prospective?jurors?to?educate?the?jury?panel?to?the?particular?facts?of?the?case,?to?compel?the?jurors?to?commit?themselves?to?vote?a?particular?way,?to?prejudice?the?jury?for?or?against?a?particular?party,?to?argue?the?case,?to?indoctrinate?the?jury,?or?to?instruct?the?jury?in?matters?of?law.’?[Citation.]?Therefore,?a?question?may?be?excluded?if?it?appears?to?be?intended?solely?to?accomplish?such?improper?purpose.”?(Id.?at?p.?408,?fn.?omitted.)
[6]?On?appeal,?as?Williams?itself?makes?plain?(see?29?Cal.3d?at?pp.?409-412),?a?ruling?by?a?trial?court?limiting?examination?of?prospective?jurors?on?voir?dire?is?subject?to?review?under?the?abuse-of-?discretion?standard. [4b]?Applying?that?test?here,?we?find?no?error.?As?noted,?the?trial?court?ruled?as?follows:?”I?will?allow?the?question,?’Do?you?understand?that?life?without?possibility?of?parole?really?means?that?in?California;?no?eligibility?for?parole?’?If?they?say?yes?to?that,?that’s?it.?If?they?want?to?know?more,?you?can?ask?them.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)?In?making?its?determination,?the?court?evidently?recognized,?and?sought?to?follow,?such?relevant?decisions?as?People?v.?Morse?(1964)?60?Cal.2d?631?[36?Cal.Rptr.?201,?388?P.2d?33,?12?A.L.R.3d?810],?and?People?v.?Ramos?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?136?[207?Cal.Rptr.?800,?689?P.2d?430].?In?Morse?we?held?to?the?effect?that?in?deciding?on?penalty?in?a?capital?case,?the?jury?is?to?consider?only?the?criminal?and?his?crime-and?not?possible?postverdict?governmental?actions?bearing?on?execution?of?sentence.?(60?Cal.2d?at?pp.?636-653.)?In?Ramos?we?concluded?that?an?instruction?that?the?Governor?could?commute?both?a?sentence?of?death?and?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?would?”violate?the?state?constitutional?due?process?guarantee?because?its?reference?to?the?commutation?power?invites?the?jury?to?consider?matters?that?are?both?totally?speculative?and?that?should?not,?in?any?event,?influence?the?jury’s?determination.”?(37?Cal.3d?at?p.?155.)In?pertinent?part,?defense?counsel’s?examination?of?the?prospective?jurors?was?apparently?not?designed-and?was?certainly?not?conducted-to?assist?in?the?intelligent?exercise?of?challenges.?Indeed,?as?counsel?themselves?effectively?admitted,?their?questioning?was?intended?to?”instruct”?the?prospective?jurors?that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?[54?Cal.3d?960]?without?possibility?of?parole-and?also,?it?seems,?to?suggest?to?them?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.
The?trial?court?might?properly?have?prohibited?such?examination?altogether.?Instead,?it?merely?imposed?a?limitation.?Its?evident?purpose?was?to?prevent?undue?emphasis?by?defense?counsel?on?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?It?did?so?in?order?not?to?trigger?speculation?by?the?prospective?jurors?as?to?possible?postverdict?governmental?actions?bearing?on?execution?of?penalty.?In?proceeding?as?it?did,?the?court?acted?reasonably.
Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion.?His?point?appears?to?be?as?follows:?he?was?entitled?to?assure?himself?that?the?prospective?jurors?fully?understood,?and?actually?believed,?that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole;?but?the?trial?court’s?ruling?frustrated?his?attempts?to?do?so.?We?doubt?the?entitlement.?The?assurance?defendant?apparently?sought?seems?unattainable.?We?also?doubt?the?effect.?The?ruling?did?indeed?limit?examination?in?this?area,?but?not?unduly?so.?Indeed,?it?appears?to?have?drawn?a?reasonable?line?between?productive?and?counterproductive?questioning.?To?the?extent?that?defendant’s?argument?assumes?that?a?party?has?a?right?to?”instruct”?the?prospective?jurors?on?the?meaning?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole,?it?is?unsupported.?In?Williams?we?declared?all?but?expressly?that?no?such?right?exists.?(29?Cal.3d?at?p.?408.)
It?is?manifest?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?could?not?have?had?any?appreciable?effect?on?the?process?or?outcome?of?the?jury’s?deliberations.
On?its?face,?as?we?have?concluded,?the?ruling?did?not?unduly?limit?defendant’s?examination?of?prospective?jurors?on?voir?dire.?Neither?did?it?impose?any?such?limitation?as?applied.?Defendant?asserts?that?defense?counsel’s?questioning?was?”obviously?chilled.”?The?record?is?otherwise.
More?important,?the?trial?court?and/or?defense?counsel?and/or?the?prosecutor?generally?”instructed”?the?prospective?jurors-including,?specifically,?all?who?were?subsequently?sworn?to?serve?as?jurors?or?alternates-that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?In?so?doing,?they?sometimes?suggested-favorably?to?defendant,?but?inaccurately-that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.fn.?5?Defendant?challenges?the?effectiveness?of?the?”instruction.”?His?attack?[54?Cal.3d?961]?relies?ultimately?on?speculation.?Speculation,?however,?is?insufficient.?To?be?sure,?as?a?group?the?prospective?jurors?did?not?enter?or?leave?voir?dire?with?a?technical?knowledge?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?But?the?record?shows?that?they?obtained?an?understanding?adequate?for?their?purposes.
We?recognize?that?in?the?absence?of?the?trial?court’s?ruling,?defendant?would?probably?have?examined?the?prospective?jurors?more?extensively?and,?as?a?result,?might?possibly?have?discovered?further?useful?information.?But?on?this?record,?such?probabilities?and?possibilities?are?without?consequence.fn.?6
- Excusal?of?Prospective?Jurors?Because?of?Their?Views?Opposing?Capital?Punishment
In?Witherspoon?v.?Illinois?(1968)?391?U.S.?510?[20?L.Ed.2d?776,?88?S.Ct.?1770],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?implied?that?a?prospective?juror?could?not?be?excused?for?cause?without?violating?a?defendant’s?federal?constitutional?right?to?an?impartial?jury?unless?he?made?it?”unmistakably?clear”?that?he?would?”automatically?vote?against?the?imposition?of?capital?punishment?without?regard?to?any?evidence?that?might?be?developed?at?the?trial?of?the?case?before”?him,?or?that?his?”attitude?toward?the?death?penalty?would?prevent?[him]?from?making?an?impartial?decision?as?to?the?defendant’s?guilt.”?(Id.?at?pp.?522-523,?fn.?21?[20?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?785],?italics?in?original.)
In?Wainwright?v.?Witt?(1985)?469?U.S.?412?[83?L.Ed.2d?841,?105?S.Ct.?844],?however,?the?court?”clarif[ied]”?Witherspoon?and?declared?that?the?[54?Cal.3d?962]?proper?standard?for?excusal?was?”whether?the?juror’s?views?would?’prevent?or?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?a?juror?in?accordance?with?his?instructions?and?his?oath.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?424?[83?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?851-852],?quoting?Adams?v.?Texas?(1980)?448?U.S.?38,?45?[65?L.Ed.2d?581,?589,?100?S.Ct.?2521].)
In?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?767?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250],?we?adopted?the?Witt?standard?as?the?test?for?determining?whether?a?defendant’s?state?constitutional?right?to?an?impartial?jury?was?violated?by?an?excusal?for?cause.
Thereafter,?in?People?v.?Coleman?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?749,?765?[251?Cal.Rptr.?83,?759?P.2d?1260],?we?construed?Witt?in?accordance?with?its?plain?terms,?and?beyond?the?factual?context?of?Witherspoon,?to?state?a?measure?of?”partiality”?that?may?be?applied?against?prospective?jurors?in?favor?of?capital?punishment?as?well?as?those?in?opposition.
[8]?On?appeal,?the?trial?court’s?determination?as?to?whether?and?how?the?prospective?juror’s?views?on?capital?punishment?would?affect?his?performance?as?a?juror?is?entitled?to?deferential?review.?(People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1262?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251].)?The?general?standard?is?substantial?evidence.?(People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?771,?809?[281?Cal.Rptr.?90,?809?P.2d?865].)?The?court’s?threshold?finding?on?what?those?views?actually?are?is?examined?under?that?same?test.?Such?a?finding,?we?have?stated,?is?generally?”binding”?”if?the?prospective?juror’s?responses?are?equivocal?…?or?conflicting?….”?(Ibid.;?see?People?v.?Daniels?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?815,?875?[277?Cal.Rptr.?122,?802?P.2d?906]?[to?similar?effect];?see?also?People?v.?Fredericks?(1895)?106?Cal.?554,?559?[39?P.?944]?[a?finding?of?this?sort,?however,?will?be?struck?down?”when?the?evidence?upon?the?examination?of?the?juror?is?so?opposed?to?the?decision?of?the?trial?court?that?the?question?becomes?one?of?law”].)The?exclusion?of?a?prospective?juror?in?violation?of?Witherspoon?and?Witt?requires?automatic?reversal-but?only?as?to?penalty?and?not?as?to?guilt.?(Gray?v.?Mississippi?(1987)?481?U.S.?648,?666-667?[95?L.Ed.2d?622,?638-639,?107?S.Ct.?2045]?(opn.?of?the?court);?id.?at?pp.?667-668?[95?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?638-639]?(plur.?opn.);?id.?at?p.?672?[95?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?642]?(conc.?opn.?of?Powell,?J.);?see?Witherspoon?v.?Illinois,?supra,?391?U.S.?at?pp.?521-523?[20?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?784-786]?[antedating?Witt].)
[7b]?At?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?the?People?challenged?prospective?jurors?Sullivan,?Giffin,?and?Van?Giesen?because?of?their?views?opposing?capital?punishment.?Defendant?presented?opposition.?The?trial?court?sustained?the?challenges?and?excused?Sullivan,?Giffin,?and?Van?Giesen.?[54?Cal.3d?963]After?review,?we?find?no?error.
Prospective?juror?Sullivan’s?views?on?capital?punishment?would,?at?the?very?least,?have?substantially?impaired?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?a?juror.?To?be?sure,?as?the?trial?court?determined,?he?apparently?could?consider?the?death?penalty?as?a?reasonable?possibility.?But?on?more?than?one?occasion?during?voir?dire,?he?made?plain?that?his?feelings?about?the?ultimate?sanction?would?lead?him?to?apply?to?the?question?of?guilt?or?innocence?a?standard?of?proof?higher?than?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.
Next,?prospective?juror?Giffin’s?views?on?capital?punishment?would?likely?have?prevented-and?would?certainly?have?substantially?impaired-the?performance?of?her?duties?as?a?juror.?Through?the?beginning?and?middle?of?voir?dire,?she?was?reluctant?to?state?her?opposition?to?the?death?penalty?categorically.?But?near?the?end,?she?declared?without?qualification:?”My?decision?is?not?going?to?be?the?death?penalty.”?She?proceeded?to?affirm?that?”under?no?circumstances”?would?she?impose?the?ultimate?sanction.
Lastly,?prospective?juror?Van?Giesen’s?views?on?capital?punishment?would?almost?surely?have?prevented-and?would?surely?have?substantially?impaired-the?performance?of?her?duties?as?a?juror.?Throughout?voir?dire,?she?revealed?that?she?would?all?but?automatically?reject?the?death?penalty?and?choose?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?Like?Giffin,?she?was?reluctant?to?state?her?opposition?categorically.?But?she?asserted?unreservedly:?”The?way?I?feel?now?and?the?way?I?was?raised?and?what?I?have?always?believed?that?nobody?has?the?right?to?take?a?life.?The?judge?says?the?state?does,?but?if?I’m?on?this?jury,?you?make?me?the?state.?You?make?me?responsible?for?taking?someone?else’s?life.?I?can’t?be?responsible?for?taking?another?life.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)
Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion,?but?he?is?not?persuasive.?He?asserts?that?if?a?prospective?juror?”aver[s]”?that?he?will?apply?the?standard?of?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?”yet?…?frankly?concede[s]?that?the?prospects?of?the?death?penalty?may?affect?…?what?[he]?may?deem?to?be?a?reasonable?doubt”?(Adams?v.?Texas,?supra,?448?U.S.?at?p.?50?[65?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?593]),?he?could?adequately?perform?his?duties?as?a?juror.?Defendant?claims?that?prospective?juror?Sullivan?made?such?an?averment.?The?record?is?otherwise.?He?also?asserts?that?if?a?prospective?juror?could?simply?consider?imposing?the?death?penalty,?he?could?adequately?perform?his?duties?as?a?juror.?He?claims?that?prospective?jurors?Giffin?and?Van?Giesen?could?give?such?consideration.?[9]?But?a?juror?must?be?able?to?do?more,?specifically,?to?consider?imposing?the?death?penalty?as?a?reasonable?possibility.?Giffin?and?Van?Giesen?revealed?an?inability?to?do?so.?[54?Cal.3d?964] [7c]?Throughout?his?argument,?defendant?maintains?that?the?record?does?not?support?our?result.?We?do?not?agree?that?voir?dire?was?insufficient.?We?do?agree,?however,?that?prospective?jurors?Sullivan,?Giffin,?and?Van?Giesen?each?made?certain?statements?that?might?be?characterized?as?equivocal?or?ambiguous.?Such?statements,?however,?were?relatively?few,?isolated,?and?unemphatic.?Certainly,?the?trial?court?considered?them?insignificant.?It?effectively?concluded?that?each?of?the?three?held?views?that?would?prevent?or?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?or?her?duties?as?a?juror.?We?find?no?reason?to?disagree.fn.?7
- Refusal?to?Excuse?Prospective?Jurors?Because?of?Their?Views?Favoring?Capital?Punishment
At?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?defendant?challenged?prospective?jurors?Trapani,?Chadwick,?Wong,?and?Wisecarver,?as?relevant?here,?because?of?their?views?favoring?capital?punishment.?The?People?presented?opposition.?The?trial?court?overruled?the?challenges.
It?turned?out?that?prospective?jurors?Trapani,?Chadwick,?Wong,?and?Wisecarver?were?not?among?those?chosen?to?serve?as?jurors?or?alternates.?Chadwick?and?Wisecarver?were?not?drawn?into?the?jury?box?as?potential?jurors?or?alternates.?Trapani?and?Wong?were?drawn?as?potential?jurors,?but?were?removed?by?defendant’s?peremptory?challenge.?When?the?selection?of?the?jurors?was?completed,?defendant?had?seven?peremptory?challenges?remaining?out?of?twenty-six;?when?the?selection?of?the?alternates?was?completed,?he?had?two?remaining?out?of?five.
Defendant?now?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?overruling?his?”for?cause”?challenges?against?prospective?jurors?Trapani,?Chadwick,?Wong,?and?Wisecarver.?[11]?(See?fn.?8.)?For?purposes?here,?we?shall?assume-against?the?People’s?argument-that?the?point?is?preserved?for?review?and?is?in?fact?meritorious.fn.?8?But?as?will?be?shown,?reversal?is?not?required.?[54?Cal.3d?965] [12]?”It?appears?that?with?the?exception?of?an?improper?’Witherspoon?exclusion’?”-which,?of?course,?is?not?presented?here-“an?erroneous?ruling?on?a?’for?cause’?challenge?is?not?automatically?reversible?but?is?subject?to?scrutiny?for?prejudice?under?harmless-error?analysis.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1247.)?This?principle?applies?generally:?it?matters?not?whether?the?error?merely?offends?state?law?or?amounts?to?a?violation?of?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?ibid.)?Prejudice?turns?on?whether?the?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?affected.?That?is?certainly?true?when?state?law?is?implicated.?(People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1087?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659].)?It?is?also?true,?we?believe,?when?a?federal?constitutional?violation?is?involved.
State-law?error?of?this?sort,?bearing?as?it?does?on?penalty?in?a?capital?case,?is?reviewed?under?the?”reasonable?possibility”?standard?of?People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?446-448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].?Error?of?federal?constitutional?dimension,?by?contrast,?is?scrutinized?under?the?”reasonable?doubt”?standard?of?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710-711,?87?S.Ct.?824].?(People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?768.)?The?two?tests?are?the?same?in?substance?and?effect.?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?at?p.?467?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.)?[citing?Chapman?v.?California,?supra,?at?p.?24?(17?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?710-711),?which?treats?as?equivalent?the?federal?constitutional?”reasonable?possibility”?and?”reasonable?doubt”?standards].)?[54?Cal.3d?966] [10b]?After?review,?we?can?discern?no?prejudice?flowing?from?the?”erroneous”?overruling?of?defendant’s?”for?cause”?challenges?against?prospective?jurors?Trapani,?Chadwick,?Wong,?and?Wisecarver.?It?is?evident?that?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?not?affected?thereby.?None?of?the?foregoing?persons?served?as?a?juror?or?even?as?an?alternate.?On?this?record,?none?could?have?tainted?the?panel’s?members?with?his?or?her?alleged?bias.?Accordingly,?none?could?have?influenced?the?process?or?result?of?the?deliberations.?That?an?allegedly?biased?juror?might?have?sat?had?he?or?she?not?been?removed?by?peremptory?challenge?does?not?implicate?the?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?in?any?substantial?way.
Defendant?disagrees?with?our?conclusion?that?reversal?is?not?required.?He?argues?against?the?applicability?of?harmless-error?analysis.?In?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?page?1247,?we?rejected?such?a?point.?He?relies?on?language?in?Gray?v.?Mississippi,?supra,?481?U.S.?at?page?665?[95?L.Ed.2d?at?page?637],?that?”the?relevant?inquiry?is?’whether?the?composition?of?the?jury?panel?as?a?whole?could?possibly?have?been?affected?by?the?trial?court’s?error.’?”?(Italics?in?original.)?But?as?we?explained?in?Gordon,?”that?language?was?all?but?disapproved?in?Ross?v.?Oklahoma?(1988)?487?U.S.?81?….”?(50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1247.)?”It?is?the?merest?speculation?whether?an?erroneous?ruling?on?a?’for?cause’?challenge?might?actually?have?had?any?significant?effect?and,?if?so,?whether?such?effect?might?have?helped?or?harmed?the?defendant.?Hence,?the?inquiry?identified?by?the?Gray?court?cannot?serve?as?a?principled?basis?on?which?to?conclude?that?the?error?should?be?deemed?automatically?reversible?as?a?general?matter,?or?even?that?it?caused?any?harm?in?an?individual?case.”?(Ibid.)
Defendant?then?argues?against?the?application?of?harmless-error?analysis?here.?But?any?”harm”?he?may?have?suffered?is?conjectural?at?best.?He?effectively?conceded?the?point?below:?as?noted,?he?did?not?express?any?dissatisfaction?with?any?of?the?persons?selected?as?jurors?or?alternates.
Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?the?fact?that?the?trial?court-at?his?own?request-employed?a?modified?version?of?the?struck-jury?system?is?of?no?consequence?for?the?applicability?of?harmless-error?analysis?or?even?the?actual?application?of?such?analysis?in?this?case.?Under?the?method?of?jury?selection?employed?here,?each?side?was?able?to?exercise?its?peremptory?challenges?with?knowledge?of?the?state?of?mind?of?the?prospective?jurors?who?might?be?drawn?into?the?jury?box?and?also?with?knowledge?of?the?order?in?which?they?would?be?drawn-knowledge?that?it?would?not?have?had?if?the?jury-box?method?had?been?used.?Accordingly,?each?side?could?”calculate,”?in?some?rough?way,?the?relative?cost?and?benefit?of?any?given?peremptory:?the?possible?benefit?was,?of?course,?the?present?removal?of?a?prospective?juror?[54?Cal.3d?967]?whom?the?party?considered?objectionable;?the?possible?cost?was?the?inability?to?remove?at?a?later?time?a?prospective?juror?whom?the?party?considered?more?objectionable?still.?We?do?not?believe-and?certainly?defendant?does?not?show-that?the?method?of?jury?selection?employed?here?calls?for?a?rule?or?result?different?from?that?stated?above.fn.?9?F.?Excusal?of?Prospective?Jurors?on?the?People’s?Peremptory?Challenge?Assertedly?in?Violation?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions
[13]?During?voir?dire,?as?noted?above,?the?People?removed?22?prospective?jurors?and?4?prospective?alternates?by?peremptory?challenge.?Now?for?the?first?time,?defendant?asserts?that?the?prosecutor?used?his?peremptories?to?systematically?exclude?all?prospective?jurors?and?prospective?alternates-totaling?10?in?number-who?expressed?reservations?about?capital?punishment?but?were?apparently?not?excludable?for?cause?on?the?basis?of?actual?bias.Defendant?effectively?contends?that?by?acting?as?he?did,?the?prosecutor?violated?the?following?provisions?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions-specifically,?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15;?the?Sixth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?16,?with?their?guaranties?of?trial?by?an?impartial?jury?and?trial?by?a?jury?drawn?from?a?fair?cross-section?of?the?community;?and?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?17.
But?”?'[W]e?see?no?…?constitutional?infirmity?in?permitting?peremptory?challenges?by?both?sides?on?the?basis?of?specific?juror?attitudes?on?the?death?penalty.?While?a?statute?requiring?exclusion?of?all?jurors?with?any?feeling?against?the?death?penalty?produces?a?jury?biased?in?favor?of?death?[citation],?we?have?no?proof?that?a?similar?bias?arises,?on?either?guilt?or?penalty?issues,?when?both?parties?are?allowed?to?exercise?their?equal,?limited?numbers?of?peremptory?challenges?…?against?jurors?harboring?specific?attitudes?they?reasonably?believe?unfavorable.?[Citation.]?[?]?We?recognize?that?a?jury?shorn?of?significant?community?viewpoints?on?an?issue?in?the?case?is?not?ideally?suited?to?the?”purpose?and?functioning?of?a?jury?in?a?criminal?trial.”?[Citation.]?That,?however,?is?a?result?inherent?in?the?parties’?historic?and?important?right?to?exclude?a?limited?number?of?jurors?for?fear?of?bias.’?”?(Italics?in?original.)?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1263,?quoting?People?v.?Turner?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?302,?315?[208?Cal.Rptr.?196,?690?P.2d?[54?Cal.3d?968]?669]?(plur.?opn.),?overruled?on?another?point?in?People?v.?Anderson?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1104,?1149?[240?Cal.Rptr.?585,?742?P.2d?1306].)
III.?Guilt?Issues
Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?for?reversal?of?the?judgment?as?to?guilt.?As?will?appear,?none?succeeds.
- Denial?of?Motion?to?Suppress?Defendant’s?Extrajudicial?Statement
Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?to?suppress?evidence?of?a?statement?he?made?to?the?police?during?custodial?interrogation?after?his?arrest.?At?the?beginning?of?the?interview,?he?was?advised?of,?and?waived,?his?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602],?including?his?right?to?remain?silent.?The?People?proposed?to?introduce?at?trial?the?opening?part?of?the?statement,?which?contained?admissions?serving?to?link?defendant?to?the?scene?of?the?crime.?The?final?portion?of?that?part?is?as?follows.
“[Police?Officer]:?Um,?well?see?when?[one?of?defendant’s?acquaintances]?said?he?saw?you?and?he?was?talkin’?to?you?at?the,?there?was?a?little?girl?standin’?next?to?you.?And?he’s?walkin[‘]?…
“Ashmus:?(Interrupting)?you’re?gonna?try?to?con-,?now?I?ain’t?saying?no?more.
“[Police?Officer]:?Pardon?
“Ashmus:?You?ain’t?gonna,?no.?I’m?not?gonna?get?accused?of?somethin’.?I?love?people?too?much.
“[Police?Officer]:?Um?hum.
“Ashmus:?I?wouldn’t?even?kill?a?fly,?I’m?sorry.
“[Police?Officer]:?Who?said?anything?about?killing?anybody?
“Ashmus:?I?wouldn’t?even?hurt?a?fly?or?kill?a?fly,?I’m?sorry,?don’t?say?no?more?(inaudible)?[-]
“[Police?Officer]:?(Interrupting)?Troy,?who?said?any-,?who?said?anything?about?killing?anybody?
“Ashmus:?The?way?you?guys?are?talkin’?to?me,?I’m?sorry,?it’s?what?it?sounds?like.?[54?Cal.3d?969]
“[Police?Officer]:?Nobody?said?anything?about?that.?How?come?you’re?bringing?that?up[?]
“Ashmus:?He?told?me?there’s?a?serious?offense.
“[Police?Officer]:?Who?told?you?what’s?a?serious?offense?
“Ashmus:?The?cop?that?told,?brought?me?in.
“[Police?Officer]:?The?uniformed?officer?
“Ashmus:?Yeah.
“[Police?Officer]:?What?did?he?tell?you?
“Ashmus:?He?told,?I?asked?him?what?is?my?charge??He?says?there’s?been?a?serious?offense?occurred?and?you?were?a?suspect,?a?sus-,?suspect.
“[Police?Officer]:?Um?hum.”
As?relevant?here,?defendant?moved?to?suppress?the?final?portion?of?the?statement,?from?and?including?his?interruption?to?the?end.?He?claimed?as?follows:?through?the?words,?”now?I?ain’t?saying?no?more,”?and?”don’t?say?no?more,”?he?effectively?invoked?his?right?to?silence;?as?a?result,?the?final?portion?of?the?statement-together?with?the?asserted?invocations?themselves-was?inadmissible?under?Miranda?and?its?progeny.
The?trial?court?conducted?an?evidentiary?hearing.?The?People?offered?the?testimony?of?witnesses,?including?the?police?officer?whose?questions?and?comments?are?quoted?above.?They?also?presented?the?part?of?the?statement?they?proposed?to?introduce?at?trial,?both?as?audiotape-recorded?and?as?transcribed.?Defendant?did?not?offer?any?evidence.
Determining?in?substance?that?defendant?did?not?effectively?invoke?his?right?to?silence,?the?trial?court?denied?the?motion.?The?People?later?introduced?the?part?of?the?statement?they?had?proposed,?including?its?final?portion,?through?both?audiotape?and?transcript.
[14]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?to?suppress?the?final?portion?of?the?statement.?His?claim?rises?or?falls?with?whether?he?effectively?invoked?his?right?to?silence.?On?appeal,?a?trial?court’s?resolution?of?such?a?question?is?reviewed?independently.?(People?v.?Jennings?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963,?979?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475].)?So?scrutinized,?the?court’s?determination?here?is?sound.?Within?their?context-?[54?Cal.3d?970]?clearly?in?the?transcript?and?more?clearly?still?on?the?audiotape-defendant’s?words?cannot?reasonably?be?deemed?an?invocation?of?his?right?to?silence.?He?spoke?to?his?interrogators;?he?uttered?the?words?in?question;?and?without?hesitation?he?proceeded?to?speak?to?them?further.?He?evidently?sought?to?alter?the?course?of?the?questioning.?But?he?did?not?attempt?to?stop?it?altogether.?B.?Denial?of?Motion?to?Exclude?Electrophoretic?Evidence?Relating?to?Dried?Semen?Stains [15a]?Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?in?limine?to?exclude?evidence?linking?him?to?the?attack?on?Marcie?D.?through?the?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?semen?stains?discovered?on?her?body.?He?claimed?that?such?evidence?was?inadmissible?under?the?Kelly-Frye?rule.?(People?v.?Kelly?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?24?[130?Cal.Rptr.?144,?549?P.2d?1240];?Frye?v.?United?States?(D.C.Cir.?1923)?293?Fed.?1013?[34?A.L.R.?145].) [16a]?Under?the?Kelly-Frye?rule?as?strictly?defined,?”admissibility?of?expert?testimony?based?upon?the?application?of?a?new?scientific?technique”?depends?on?”a?preliminary?showing?of?general?acceptance?of?the?new?technique?in?the?relevant?scientific?community.”?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?17?Cal.3d?at?p.?30,?following?Frye?v.?United?States,?supra,?293?Fed.?at?p.?1014.)?Under?the?rule?as?more?broadly?stated,?the?admissibility?of?such?evidence?also?requires?(1)?testimony?as?to?general?acceptance?given?by?a?person?”properly?qualified?as?an?expert?to?give?an?opinion?on?the?subject”?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?at?p.?30,?italics?deleted),?and?(2)?testimony?as?to?the?use?of?”correct?scientific?procedures?…?in?the?particular?case”?(ibid.)?given,?of?course,?by?a?person?properly?qualified?as?an?expert?to?give?an?opinion?on?that?subject.Of?course,?the?party?offering?the?evidence?has?the?burden?of?proving?its?admissibility.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?206.)?The?weight?of?his?burden?is?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence.?That?is?the?general?burden?of?proof?”[e]xcept?as?otherwise?provided?by?law?….”?(Evid.?Code,???115.)?No?exception?appears.
[15b]?The?trial?court?conducted?an?evidentiary?hearing.?The?electrophoretic?evidence?in?question?showed?that?the?semen?found?on?Marcie’s?body?could?have?been?deposited?by?about?1.5?percent?of?the?male?Caucasian?population,?including?defendant.The?People?introduced?evidence?to?satisfy?the?Kelly-Frye?rule?both?as?strictly?defined?and?as?more?broadly?stated,?and?made?argument?in?support.?They?called?two?expert?witnesses:?Robert?E.?Garbutt,?a?criminalist?with?the?[54?Cal.3d?971]?Sacramento?County?District?Attorney’s?Laboratory?of?Forensic?Services;?and?Brian?Wraxall,?a?forensic?serologist?with?the?Serological?Research?Institute?in?Emeryville.?By?contrast,?defendant?offered?no?evidence?and?set?forth?virtually?no?argument.
The?question?was?litigated?in?light?of?our?decision?in?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440],?reversed?on?other?grounds?sub?nomine?California?v.?Brown?(1987)479?U.S.?538?[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837],?which?had?been?handed?down?more?than?three?months?earlier.?In?Brown,?we?concluded?that?the?trial?court?therein?erred?by?ruling?admissible,?against?a?Kelly-Frye?objection,?certain?evidence?of?the?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?semen?stains?offered?by?the?People.?(40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?528-535.)?Our?reason?was?that?the?People?failed?to?meet?their?burden?in?that?particular?proceeding?as?to?the?general?acceptance?of?such?analysis?in?the?relevant?scientific?community,?which?we?implied?was?forensic?chemistry.?(Ibid.)
After?the?evidentiary?hearing,?the?trial?court?denied?defendant’s?motion.?It?concluded,?in?substance,?that?the?Kelly-Frye?rule?applied?to?the?electrophoretic?evidence?in?question,?that?the?People?met?their?burden,?and?hence?that?the?evidence?was?admissible?under?the?rule.?Called?at?trial?by?the?People,?Garbutt?subsequently?testified?on?the?basis?of?the?electrophoretic?analysis?that?the?semen?found?on?Marcie’s?body?could?have?been?deposited?by?about?1.5?percent?of?the?male?Caucasian?population,?including?defendant.
Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?erroneous.
[16b]?On?appeal,?a?Kelly-Frye?ruling?is?reviewed?independently.?The?reason?is?this:?the?core?issue?of?the?general?acceptance?of?the?new?scientific?technique?in?the?relevant?scientific?community?is?scrutinized?under?that?standard?(People?v.?Reilly?(1987)?196?Cal.App.3d?1127,?1134-1135?[242?Cal.Rptr.?496]).?The?resolution?of?each?of?the?other?questions?underlying?the?ruling?is?reviewed?under?the?test?appropriate?thereto.?As?relevant?here,?the?determination?on?the?qualifications?of?an?expert?is?examined?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?17?Cal.3d?at?p.?39.)?This?evidently?extends?to?the?expert?who?gives?testimony?on?general?acceptance-including?the?issues?of?his?credentials?and?impartiality?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?p.?530).?The?determination?on?the?use?of?correct?scientific?procedures?in?the?particular?case?is?also?examined?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(See?People?v.?Reilly,?supra,?at?pp.?1154-1155.) [15c]?After?independent?review,?we?conclude?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?proper.?The?People?effectively?conceded?for?purposes?of?defendant’s?[54?Cal.3d?972]?motion?that?the?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?semen?stains?was?a?new?scientific?technique.?They?then?proceeded?to?establish?all?that?was?required?of?them?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence.?They?showed?the?general?acceptance?of?such?analysis?in?the?relevant?scientific?community?of?forensic?chemistry.?They?offered?the?expert?testimony?of?Wraxall?to?prove?this?point.?They?also?offered?the?expert?testimony?of?Garbutt?to?prove?the?use?of?correct?scientific?procedures?in?this?case.?Their?evidence?was?sufficient.Defendant?challenges?the?ruling.?As?will?appear,?he?is?unsuccessful.
Defendant’s?attack?is?directed?broadly?at?the?determination?of?the?general?acceptance?of?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?semen?stains?in?the?relevant?scientific?community?of?forensic?chemistry.?But?on?the?record?made?by?the?parties,?the?trial?court?expressly?found?such?acceptance,?and?we?independently?agree.
Defendant’s?attack?is?directed?specifically?at?Wraxall’s?qualifications?to?give?an?opinion?on?the?subject.?He?finds?fault?with?the?witness’s?credentials?and?more?fault?still?with?his?impartiality.
[17]?On?this?record,?we?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?trial?court’s?implicit?determination?that?Wraxall?was?sufficiently?credentialed.?What?is?required?here?are?”academic?and?professional?credentials?which?equip?[the?witness]?to?understand?both?the?scientific?principles?involved?and?any?differences?of?view?on?their?reliability.”?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?p.?530.)?The?court?could?reasonably?have?found?such?credentials.?Wraxall?had?extensive?professional?achievements?and?associations.?Evidently,?he?had?not?earned?all?the?academic?degrees?usually?held?by?scientists?in?the?field.?But?he?had?in?fact?done?significant?scientific?work.?Indeed,?he?had?published?several?papers?in?refereed?scientific?journals.On?this?record,?we?also?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?trial?court’s?express?determination?that?Wraxall?was?impartial.?For?present?purposes,?impartiality?turns?on?whether?the?expert?is?”so?personally?invested?in?establishing?the?technique’s?acceptance?that?he?might?not?be?objective?about?disagreements?within?the?relevant?scientific?community.”?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?p.?530.)?The?court?could?reasonably?have?resolved?the?issue?in?the?negative.?[18,?19]?(See?fn.?10.)?To?be?sure,?Wraxall?had?been?involved?in?the?development?and?promotion?of?electrophoretic?analysis?since?the?middle?1960’s,?both?intellectually?and?financially.?But?such?involvement?does?not?appear?fatal?to?the?requisite?objectivity.fn.?10?[54?Cal.3d?973]
- Denial?of?Motions?to?Exclude?Photographic?Evidence
Outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?defendant?made?a?motion?to?exclude?certain?photographs,?some?showing?Marcie?D.?in?life?not?long?before?the?crimes,?the?others?revealing?defendant?himself?shortly?thereafter.?He?made?a?separate?motion?to?exclude?certain?photographs?and?slides?of?Marcie?in?death,?as?she?appeared?at?the?crime?scene?and?during?autopsy.?In?support?of?each,?he?claimed?that?the?challenged?evidence?was?not?relevant?under?Evidence?Code?section?210?and,?in?any?event,?was?excludable?as?unduly?prejudicial?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.?The?People?presented?opposition,?denying?defendant’s?claims.
The?trial?court?conducted?a?hearing?on?the?photographs?of?Marcie?in?life?and?defendant?himself.?It?reviewed?the?challenged?evidence.?Finding?relevance?and?no?undue?prejudice,?it?denied?the?motion,?ruled?the?photographs?admissible,?and?subsequently?received?the?items?into?evidence.
The?trial?court?later?conducted?a?hearing?on?the?photographs?and?slides?of?Marcie?in?death.?Here?too?it?reviewed?the?challenged?evidence.?Although?it?apparently?found?all?the?items?relevant,?it?found?some?unduly?prejudicial.?It?granted?the?motion?as?to?the?items?it?found?unduly?prejudicial?and?ruled?them?inadmissible.?Otherwise,?it?denied?the?motion,?ruled?the?other?items?admissible,?and?subsequently?received?them?into?evidence.
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?rulings?were?erroneous.
[20]?”The?appropriate?standard?of?review?is?abuse?of?discretion.?[Each?of]?[t]he?ruling[s]?comprises?determinations?as?to?relevance?and?undue?prejudice.?The?former?is?reviewed?under?that?standard.?So?is?the?latter.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?786,?citation?omitted.)?[54?Cal.3d?974] [21]?As?to?the?photographs?and?slides?of?Marcie?in?death-which?we?have?ourselves?reviewed-we?discern?no?error.The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?when?it?found?the?evidence?relevant.?”Because?one?of?the?theories?on?which?the?prosecution?tried?the?case?and?on?which?the?jury?was?instructed?was?premeditated?murder,?malice?was?material?and?the?photographs?[and?slides]?were?relevant?to?that?issue.”?(People?v.?Hendricks?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?584,?594?[238?Cal.Rptr.?66,?737?P.2d?1350].)?Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?we?think?it?plain?that?these?items?had?at?least?some?tendency?to?prove?malice.
Neither?did?the?trial?court?abuse?its?discretion?when?it?found?the?evidence?not?unduly?prejudicial.?As?stated,?the?photographs?and?slides?were?relevant.?Although?unpleasant,?they?were?not?gruesome.?The?court?could?reasonably?have?concluded?that?their?prejudicial?effect?did?not?substantially?outweigh?their?probative?value.
[22]?As?to?the?photographs?of?Marcie?in?life?and?defendant?himself-which?we?have?also?reviewed-we?arrive?at?the?same?result.The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?when?it?found?the?evidence?relevant.?At?the?time?of?the?ruling,?the?People?intended?to-and?subsequently?did-call?a?number?of?witnesses?to?give?testimony?bearing?directly?on?identity?and?indirectly?on?intent?to?kill.?They?intended?to-and?did-use?the?photographs,?at?least?in?part,?to?support?the?witnesses’?credibility.?The?testimony?would-and?did-link?defendant?and?Marcie.?The?former?had?changed?in?appearance?since?the?time?of?the?crimes.?The?latter,?of?course,?was?dead.?Obviously,?identity?and?intent?to?kill?were?material.?So?was?the?credibility?of?the?witnesses?testifying?thereon.?The?items?in?question?had?at?least?some?tendency?to?prove?those?issues.?Defendant?argues?that?in?his?opening?statement?(which?preceded?both?the?receipt?of?any?evidence?and?also?the?ruling?in?question)?counsel?conceded?identity?and?thereby?removed?the?issue?from?dispute.?The?concession,?however,?was?ineffective.
Neither?did?the?trial?court?abuse?its?discretion?when?it?found?the?evidence?not?unduly?prejudicial.?As?stated,?the?photographs?were?relevant.?Moreover,?they?threatened?no?unfair?detriment?to?defendant.?The?court?could?reasonably?have?concluded?that?their?prejudicial?effect?did?not?substantially?outweigh?their?probative?value.fn.?11?[54?Cal.3d?975]
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
In?his?summation,?the?prosecutor?explained?to?the?jury?why?he?called?many?witnesses?and?introduced?many?exhibits?even?though?defense?counsel?conceded?the?issue?of?identity?in?his?opening?statement.
One?reason,?he?said,?was?that?the?People?bore?the?burden?of?proof?and?defense?counsel’s?admission?was?not?evidence?and?hence?could?not?be?used?to?meet?that?burden.
A?second?reason,?he?continued,?was?to?disprove?intoxication?and?its?possible?effect?on?the?formation?of?intent?to?kill,?if?any?such?issue?was?raised.
“A?third?reason,”?he?went?on,?was?that?”all?that?evidence?…?really?puts?Mr.?Ashmus’?defense?in?context.?The?strength?of?all?the?identification?evidence?explains?why?he?changed?his?defense.”
At?this?point,?defense?counsel?objected?that?the?prosecutor?was?”getting?into?an?area?here?which?is?totally?improper?for?closing?argument.”?The?prosecutor?responded:?”Well,?he?changed?his?story.?I’ll?use?the?word?’story’?if?that’s?more?palatable.”?Counsel?replied:?”My?objection?is?in?my?opinion?it?is?not?more?palatable?and?I?am?not?acceding?to?the?fact?that?the?statement?that?it?is-“?The?trial?court?interrupted:?”I?understand?your?objection.?Objection?overruled.”
“My?point,”?said?the?prosecutor?as?he?returned?to?his?argument,?”is?that?the?reason?that?Mr.?Ashmus?had?changed?his?story,?the?initial,?the?story?of?complete?and?total?denial?of?one?of?basically?conforming?his?testimony?to?most?of?the?evidence?but?denying?the?mental?state,?the?last?refuge?of?the?hopelessly?guilty,?is?because?the?evidence?of?his?identification?that?he?is?in?fact?the?person?responsible?for?this?crime?was?overwhelming.”?(Italics?added.)
[23]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?by?uttering?the?italicized?phrase.?He?argues?that?the?words?amounted?to?an?incorrect?statement?that?the?presumption?of?innocence-to?which?he?was?entitled?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution,?as?well?as?under?Penal?Code?section?1096-was?inapplicable?in?his?case.?[54?Cal.3d?976]We?reject?defendant’s?claim?on?procedural?grounds.?”It?is,?of?course,?the?general?rule?that?a?defendant?cannot?complain?on?appeal?of?misconduct?by?a?prosecutor?at?trial?unless?in?a?timely?fashion”-and?on?the?same?ground-“he?made?an?assignment?of?misconduct?and?requested?that?the?jury?be?admonished?to?disregard?the?impropriety.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?794.)?In?this?case,?defendant?made?no?such?assignment?and?request.?We?recognize?that?counsel?objected?to?the?prosecutor’s?comments?concerning?the?alleged?change?in?the?defense.?But?that?objection?cannot?reasonably?be?construed?to?extend?to?the?later?remark?complained?of?here.?”It?is?true?that?the?rule?does?not?apply?when?the?harm?could?not?have?been?cured.”?(Ibid.)?Such?a?situation,?however,?was?not?present?here:?any?harm?threatened?was?certainly?curable.
We?also?reject?the?point?on?the?merits.?”What?is?crucial?to?a?claim?of?prosecutorial?misconduct?is?not?the?good?faith?vel?non?of?the?prosecutor,?but?the?potential?injury?to?the?defendant.?[Citation.]?When,?as?here,?the?claim?focuses?on?comments?made?by?the?prosecutor?before?the?jury,?a?court?must?determine?at?the?threshold?how?the?remarks?would,?or?could,?have?been?understood?by?a?reasonable?juror.?[Citations.]?If?the?remarks?would?have?been?taken?by?[such]?a?juror?to?state?or?imply?nothing?harmful,?they?obviously?cannot?be?deemed?objectionable.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?793.)
A?reasonable?juror?would?have?construed?the?complained-of?phrase?to?mean?that?a?”mental”?defense?can?be?asserted?by?all?criminal?defendants,?even?those?for?whom?no?defense?is?actually?available.?There?is?no?cognizable?harm?in?a?remark?like?this.?Such?a?juror?would?also?have?taken?the?words?as?a?comment?that?defendant?himself?was?guilty.?”Comment?of?that?sort?is?permitted?if?it?is?reasonably?fair?in?light?of?the?evidence.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?795.)?The?remark?here?was?such.
A?reasonable?juror,?however,?could?not?possibly?have?construed?the?phrase-by?itself?or?in?context-to?refer?to?the?presumption?of?innocence,?either?expressly?or?impliedly,?directly?or?indirectly.?If?such?a?juror?had?somehow?adverted?to?the?issue,?he?would?have?taken?the?words?to?mean?that?the?presumption?had?been?rebutted?by?the?evidence?presented?by?the?People-surely?a?fair?comment-and?not?that?it?was?inapplicable?in?the?first?instance.
- Instruction?on?Consciousness?of?Guilt
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?”If?you?find?that?before?this?trial?the?defendant?made?willfully?false?or?deliberately?misleading?statements?concerning?the?charge?upon?which?he?is?now?being?tried,?you?may?consider?such?[54?Cal.3d?977]?statements?as?a?circumstance?tending?to?prove?a?consciousness?of?guilt?but?i[t]?i[s]?not?suffic[i]ent?of?itself?to?prove?guilt.?The?weight?to?be?given?to?such?a?circumstance?and?its?significance,?if?any,?are?matters?for?your?determination.”
[24]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?as?it?did.?He?argues?that?the?language?quoted?above?defines?a?permissive?inference,?and?that?the?permissive?inference?so?defined?is?violative?of?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.In?part,?we?agree?with?defendant.?Plainly,?the?instruction?under?challenge?defines?a?permissive?inference-to?the?effect?that?if?the?defendant?lied?about?the?crime,?it?may?be?inferred?that?he?himself?believed?he?was?responsible?therefor.
Otherwise,?however,?we?disagree.?”A?permissive?inference?violates?the?Due?Process?Clause?only?if?the?suggested?conclusion?is?not?one?that?reason?and?common?sense?justify?in?light?of?the?proven?facts?before?the?jury.”?(Francis?v.?Franklin?(1985)?471?U.S.?307,?314-315?[85?L.Ed.2d?344,?353-354,?105?S.Ct.?1965],?citing?Ulster?County?Court?v.?Allen?(1979)?442?U.S.?140,?157-163?[60?L.Ed.2d?777,?792-796,?99?S.Ct.?2213].)?That?condition?is?not?met?here.?The?conclusion?suggested?by?the?instruction-the?defendant?himself?believed?he?was?responsible?for?the?crime-is?altogether?justified?on?proof?of?the?predicate?fact-the?defendant?lied?about?the?crime.
Defendant?claims?that?the?challenged?instruction?did?indeed?define?a?permissive?inference?violative?of?the?federal?due?process?guaranty.?His?premise?is,?substantially,?that?the?quoted?language?implied?that?if?he?lied?about?the?attack?on?Marcie?D.,?it?might?be?inferred?that?he?acted?with?intent?to?kill.
In?deciding?whether?the?point?is?sound,?we?must?ascertain?the?meaning?of?the?instruction.?To?do?so,?we?must?determine?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?could?have,?understood?its?words.?(See?Cage?v.?Louisiana?(1990)?498?U.S.?___,?___?[112?L.Ed.2d?339,?341,?111?S.Ct.?328,?329]?(per?curiam)?[“could?have”];?Francis?v.?Franklin,?supra,?471?U.S.?at?pp.?315-316?[85?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?354-355]?[same];?People?v.?Warren,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?487?[“would?[have]”];?cf.?Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370,?378,?380?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?328,?329,?110?S.Ct.?1190,?1197,?1198]?[holding?that?”[t]he?legal?standard?for?reviewing?jury?instructions?claimed?to?restrict?impermissibly?a?jury’s?consideration?of?relevant?evidence”?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?”is?whether?there?is?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?has?applied?the?challenged?instruction?in?a?way?that?prevents?the?consideration?of”?such?evidence].)?[54?Cal.3d?978]
Such?a?juror?could?not?have?understood?the?quoted?language?in?conformity?with?defendant’s?premise.?That?defendant?had?effectively?chosen?to?contest?only?intent?to?kill?is?of?no?consequence?here.?A?reasonable?juror?simply?could?not?have?taken?the?words?of?the?instruction?to?mean?that?lies?by?defendant?supported?an?inference?of?intent?to?kill?on?his?part.?(Compare?People?v.?Griffin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1011,?1026-?1027?[251?Cal.Rptr.?643,?761?P.2d?103]?[rejecting?a?similar?challenge?against?a?similar?instruction].)fn.?12
- Death-eligibility?Issues
Defendant?challenges?the?determination?that?he?was?subject?to?the?death?penalty.?As?relevant?here,?death?eligibility?is?established?when?the?defendant?is?convicted?of?murder?in?the?first?degree?under?at?least?one?special?circumstance.?(Pen.?Code,???190.3.)?Defendant?was?so?convicted.?As?shown?above,?he?has?not?successfully?attacked?the?jury’s?guilty?verdict.?And?as?shown?below,?he?does?not?successfully?attack?its?special?circumstance?findings.
- Denial?of?Motion?to?Compel?Discovery?of?the?People’s?Capital?Prosecution?Policies?and?Practices
Prior?to?the?change?of?venue?from?Sacramento?to?San?Mateo?County,?defendant?moved?the?court?for?an?order?compelling?the?People?to?provide?discovery?of?the?following?information?and?material.
“(a)?The?name?and?case?number?of?all?murder?complaints?and?informations?filed?in?the?Sacramento?Municipal?Court?and?the?Sacramento?Superior?Court,?respectively,?in?the?last?seven?years.
“(b)?A?detailed?description?of?how?the?prosecution?generally?decided?to?plead?the?aforementioned?category?of?cases?(i.e.,?how?it?chose?to?allege?either?second?degree?murder,?first?degree?murder?without?special?circumstances,?or?first?degree?murder?with?special?circumstances).
“(c)?A?detailed?description?of?how?the?prosecution?generally?decided?what?to?allow?the?defendants?to?plead?guilty?to?in?the?aforementioned?category?of?cases.
“(d)?Copies?of?all?written?matter?of?any?sort?that?discuss?or?describe?how?murder?cases?should?be?plead?[sic]?or?how?murder?cases?should?be?resolved?by?plea.?[54?Cal.3d?979]
“(e)?The?nature?of?the?murder?charges?in?the?complaints?and?informations?noted?in?paragraph?1?[sic]?above?(e.g.,?second?degree?murder,?first?degree?murder?without?special?circumstances,?or?first?degree?murder?with?special?circumstances),?and?the?plea?bargain?last?offered?by?the?prosecution?to?the?defendant?in?each?of?these?cases.”
Defendant?made?his?motion?under?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions-specifically,?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?17;?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15;?and?the?equal?protection?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?7.
Defendant?based?his?motion?on?a?claim?to?the?following?effect:?the?policies?(if?any)?and?practices?of?the?Sacramento?County?District?Attorney?with?regard?to?the?filing?of?special?circumstance?allegations?and/or?the?seeking?of?the?death?penalty?were,?or?at?least?might?be,?arbitrary?and?capricious.?Subsequently,?he?purported?to?expand?the?ground?of?the?motion?to?include?a?claim?that?these?policies?and?practices?revealed,?or?at?least?suggested,?invidious?discrimination-for?example,?against?defendants,?like?himself,?charged?with?the?murder?of?a?Caucasian?victim.?(As?noted,?defendant?himself?is?Caucasian.)
Defendant?sought?the?information?and?material?described?above?in?order?”to?sensibly?present?a?motion?to?dismiss?the?special?circumstances?alleged?herein,?or?to?prohibit?the?prosecution?from?seeking?death.”
In?aid?of?the?showing?he?set?out?to?make?in?support?of?his?motion,?defendant?requested?that?the?court?order?an?evidentiary?hearing,?at?which?he?intended?to?call,?among?other?witnesses,?the?Sacramento?County?District?Attorney?and?present?and?former?members?of?his?office.
The?People?opposed?defendant’s?motion?for?discovery?and?his?request?for?an?evidentiary?hearing.
After?argument,?the?court?denied?both?the?motion?and?the?request.
Defendant?now?contends?that?by?so?doing,?the?court?erred.
[25]?A?ruling?on?a?motion?to?compel?discovery-like?that?here-is?subject?to?review?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(See,?e.g.,?Hill?v.?Superior?Court?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?812,?816-?823?[112?Cal.Rptr.?257,?518?P.2d?1353,?95?A.L.R.3d?820].) [26]?We?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?this?case.?Of?course,?the?party?moving?to?compel?discovery?must?provide,?inter?alia,?a?”plausible?justification”?[54?Cal.3d?980]?for?the?information?and/or?material?he?seeks.?(Ballard?v.?Superior?Court?(1966)?64?Cal.2d?159,?167?[49?Cal.Rptr.?302,?410?P.2d?838,?18?A.L.R.3d?1416];?accord,?Griffin?v.?Municipal?Court?(1977)?20?Cal.3d?300,?306?[142?Cal.Rptr.?286,?571?P.2d?997].)?The?court?could?reasonably?have?concluded?that?defendant?failed?in?this?regard.?Further,?it?could?reasonably?have?concluded?that?he?could?not?have?supplied?what?was?lacking?after?an?evidentiary?hearing.?To?be?sure,?the?facts?that?he?proffered?showed?that?the?Sacramento?County?District?Attorney?treated?different?defendants?differently.?But?those?facts?were?simply?insufficient?to?support?a?claim?that?the?district?attorney’s?policies?and?practices?might?be?arbitrary?and?capricious?or?invidiously?discriminatory.Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary,?but?he?is?unpersuasive.?For?example,?he?attacks?the?basis?of?the?court’s?ruling.?In?denying?his?motion,?the?court?stated?that?it?was?doing?so?”solely”?under?Kennan?v.?Superior?Court?(1981)?126?Cal.App.3d?576?[177?Cal.Rptr.?841].fn.?13
Defendant?says?that?Kennan?is?factually?inapposite.?He?is?wrong.?The?record?here,?as?summarized?above,?and?the?record?there,?as?described?on?pages?579?to?581?of?126?Cal.App.3d,?are?similar.
Defendant?then?says?that?Kennan?is?legally?unsound.?Here?too?he?is?wrong.?Contrary?to?his?assertion,?that?opinion?does?not?hold?that?prosecutorial?policies?and?practices?relating?to?the?death?penalty?are?immune?from?federal?or?state?constitutional?scrutiny.?Given?a?reasonable?reading,?it?simply?stands?for?the?unobjectionable?proposition?that?the?exercise?of?discretion?in?this?area?does?not?amount?per?se?to?a?constitutional?violation.?(Compare?People?v.?Kennan?(1988)46?Cal.3d?478,?504-?507?[250?Cal.Rptr.?550,?758?P.2d?1081]?[stating?at?p.?505?that?”[a]s?the?opinion”?in?Kennan?v.?Superior?Court?”noted,?prosecutorial?discretion?to?select?those?eligible?cases?in?which?the?death?penalty?will?actually?be?sought?does?not?in?and?of?itself?evidence?an?arbitrary?and?capricious?capital?punishment?system?or?offend?principles?of?equal?protection,?due?process,?or?cruel?and/or?unusual?punishment”?under?either?the?federal?or?state?charter].)
- Instruction?on?Intent?to?Kill?as?to?the?Felony-murder?Special?Circumstances
In?considering?defendant’s?claim,?we?must?address?the?following?crucial?question:?Did?the?instructions?adequately?inform?the?jury?of?the?requirement?of?intent?to?kill??To?resolve?this?issue,?as?stated?above,?we?must?determine?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?could?have,?understood?the?charge.
In?our?view,?the?instructions?more?than?adequately?informed?the?jury?of?the?requirement?of?intent?to?kill.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?charge?as?containing?that?requirement,?and?could?not?have?construed?it?otherwise.?The?trial?court?declared?in?words?whose?meaning?could?hardly?have?been?plainer:?”To?find?that?the?special?circumstances?referred?to?in?these?instructions?are?true,?it?must?be?proved”?”That?the?defendant?intended?to?kill?a?human?being”;?and,?”in?each?of?the?three?special?circumstances?…,?a?necessary?element?is?the?existence?in?the?mind?of?the?defendant?of?the?specific?intent?to?unlawfully?kill?a?human?being?….”
Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary.?But?nothing?to?which?he?points?in?the?record-including?the?charge?as?a?whole?and?the?arguments?of?counsel-is?sufficient?to?undermine?our?conclusion.?Certainly,?nothing?obscures?the?plain?meaning?of?the?words?quoted?above.
- Penalty?Issues
Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?for?reversal?of?the?judgment?as?to?penalty.?As?will?appear,?none?succeeds.
- Admission?of?Evidence?of?Defendant’s?Conviction?of?the?Felony?of?Assault?With?Intent?to?Commit?Rape?and?the?Underlying?Facts
Immediately?before?the?commencement?of?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?moved?in?limine?to?bar?the?introduction?of?evidence?that?he?had?been?[54?Cal.3d?982]?convicted?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?against?Lisa?Cronin.?The?judgment?in?that?case?was?entered?after?the?commission?of?the?capital?and?other?offenses?against?Marcie?D.?(The?attack?on?Cronin?preceded?the?attack?on?Marcie?by?only?hours.)?At?the?time?relevant?here,?the?judgment?in?the?Cronin?case?was?on?appeal.?It?was?subsequently?affirmed,?and?is?now?final.?The?existence?vel?non?of?prior?felony?convictions?is?an?issue?material?to?punishment?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?specifically?Penal?Code?section?190.3?(hereafter?sometimes?section?190.3).?In?support?of?his?motion,?defendant?argued?that?a?not-yet-?final?felony?conviction?is?not?a?prior?felony?conviction?within?the?meaning?of?section?190.3.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion.
In?their?case?in?aggravation,?the?People?called?Cronin?to?present?evidence?relevant?to?another?of?the?issues?material?to?punishment?under?section?190.3-the?existence?vel?non?of?other?violent?criminal?activity.?Cronin?testified?to?the?facts?briefly?and?without?apparent?emotion.?Defendant?objected?to?Cronin’s?testimony?as?it?was?being?given?and?moved?to?strike?it?when?it?was?completed.?His?ground?was?in?substance?that?the?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?did?not?embrace?such?activity?that?resulted?in?a?felony?conviction.?The?trial?court?overruled?the?objection?and?denied?the?motion.
At?the?close?of?their?case?in?aggravation,?the?People?moved?into?evidence?an?abstract?of?judgment?showing?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape.?In?response,?defendant?stated,?”No?objection.”?The?trial?court?granted?the?motion?and?admitted?the?evidence.
[29]?The?law?relevant?here?is?as?follows.?The?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?covers?all?such?activity-whether?or?not?it?results?in?a?conviction.?(People?v.?Balderas?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?144,?201?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480].)?The?conduct,?however,?must?violate?a?penal?statute.?(People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?772?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782].)?”The?presence?of?such?activity?suggests?that?the?capital?offense?is?the?product?more?of?the?defendant’s?basic?character?than?of?the?accidents?of?his?situation,?whereas?its?absence?suggests?the?opposite.”?(People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?208-209,?fn.?1?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169]?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)The?issue?of?prior?felony?convictions?includes?all?such?convictions-whether?or?not?the?offense?was?violent.?(People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?201.)?The?conviction,?however,?must?be?”entered?before?the?capital?crime?was?committed.”?(Id.?at?p.?203.)?Like?the?presence?or?absence?of?other?violent?criminal?activity,?”the?existence?or?nonexistence?of?previous?convictions?reflects?on?the?relative?contributions?of?character?and?situation.?Further,?the?existence?of?such?convictions?reveals?that?the?defendant?had?been?taught,?[54?Cal.3d?983]?through?the?application?of?formal?sanction,?that?criminal?conduct?was?unacceptable-but?had?failed?or?refused?to?learn?his?lesson.”?(People?v.?Gallego,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?209,?fn.?1?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)
The?issues?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?and?prior?felony?convictions,?of?course,?are?not?mutually?exclusive.?As?stated?above,?other?violent?criminal?activity?covers?activity?even?if?it?results?in?a?conviction.?And?prior?felony?convictions?include?convictions?even?if?the?underlying?criminal?activity?was?violent.?(See?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?787-788;?People?v.?Karis?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?612,?640?[250?Cal.Rptr.?659,?758?P.2d?1189];?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?764.)
[30a]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?admitting?the?evidence?of?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape.?He?argues?that?the?evidence?in?question?was?inadmissible?on?the?ground?that?a?felony?conviction?entered?after?the?capital?offense-like?that?here-is?not?a?prior?felony?conviction?within?the?meaning?of?section?190.3.We?reject?the?claim?at?the?threshold.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?objection?was?not?satisfied:?at?trial,?defendant?did?not?object?on?the?ground?that?underlies?his?point?here.?Moreover,?no?exception?to?the?rule?is?applicable-nor?does?defendant?maintain?otherwise.
We?shall?nevertheless?address?the?merits.?The?determination?crucial?to?the?trial?court’s?ruling?is?purely?legal,?dealing?as?it?does?with?the?coverage?of?section?190.3.?As?such,?it?is?subject?to?the?standard?of?independent?review.?(People?v.?Louis?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?969,?985?[232?Cal.Rptr.?110,?728?P.2d?180],?following?United?States?v.?McConney?(9th?Cir.?1984)?728?F.2d?1195,?1202?(in?bank).)?Applying?that?test,?we?find?error.?As?stated,?prior?felony?convictions?within?the?meaning?of?section?190.3?are?such?convictions?”entered?before?the?capital?crime?was?committed.”?(People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?203.)?The?conviction?here?is?not?in?this?class.
Having?found?error,?we?must?then?consider?its?consequences.?[31]?In?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?432,?we?declared?the?following?general?rule:?”state-law?error?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial”?(id.?at?p.?448)?is?not?automatically?reversible,?but?is?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis?under?the?”reasonable?possibility”?standard.?(See?id.?at?pp.?446-448.)?The?rule?applies?to?the?kind?of?error?here.?(See?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?567?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244]?[recognizing?the?applicability?of?harmless-error?analysis?to?this?sort?of?error?without?expressly?employing?the?reasonable-possibility?test].)?[54?Cal.3d?984]
In?conducting?harmless-error?analysis,?we?must?ascertain?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?could?have,?been?affected.?(Cf.?Yates?v.?Evatt?(1991)?500?U.S.?___,?___?[114?L.Ed.2d?432,?111?S.Ct.?1884,?1893]?[concluding?that?”to?say?that?an?[erroneous]?instruction”?was?harmless?under?Chapman?v.?California,?supra,?386?U.S.?18,?”is?to?make?a?judgment?about?the?significance?of?the?[instruction]?to?reasonable?jurors”].)
[30b]?The?record?here?discloses?the?following.?Evidence?of?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?burglary?was?properly?admitted?as?relevant?to?the?issue?of?prior?felony?convictions.?More?important-as?we?shall?presently?show-evidence?of?the?facts?underlying?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?was?properly?admitted?as?relevant?to?the?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity.A?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?given?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?any?appreciable?weight?independent?of?its?underlying?facts.
[32]?(See?fn.?14.)?Accordingly,?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?error?here?affected?the?outcome.?(Compare?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?567?[finding?a?similar?error?harmless].)fn.?14 [33]?Defendant?also?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?admitting?evidence?of?the?facts?underlying?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape.?He?argues?that?the?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?covers?only?the?existence?of?such?criminal?activity?and?not?the?circumstances?thereof.?He?then?argues?that?even?if?the?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?does?embrace?the?circumstances,?such?circumstances?cannot?include?the?result?of?the?conduct-here,?the?fact?that?his?attack?caused?a?bruise?and?sprain?to?one?of?Cronin’s?arms.?He?then?argues?that?the?evidence?[54?Cal.3d?985]?that?may?be?used?to?prove?other?violent?criminal?activity?is?limited?and?does?not?extend?to?testimony?by?a?live?witness.Again,?we?reject?the?claim?at?the?threshold.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?objection?was?not?met,?and?no?exception?appears.
Again,?we?shall?nevertheless?address?the?merits.?The?determination?crucial?to?the?trial?court’s?ruling?is?purely?legal,?dealing?as?it?does?with?the?coverage?of?section?190.3?and?the?permissible?manner?of?proof.?As?such,?it?is?reviewed?independently.?So?reviewed,?it?reveals?itself?to?be?proper.?The?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?embraces?not?only?the?existence?of?such?activity?but?also?all?the?pertinent?circumstances?thereof.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?788.)?Such?circumstances?may?include?the?result?of?the?conduct-and?certainly?include?the?bruise?and?sprain?Cronin?suffered?here.?Also,?the?evidence?that?may?be?used?to?prove?other?violent?criminal?activity?is?subject?to?no?special?limitation.?(Ibid.)?Surely,?testimony?by?a?live?witness?is?not?barred.fn.?15[54?Cal.3d?986]
- Discharge?of?a?Juror
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?discharging?a?juror?at?the?juror’s?request?in?the?midst?of?the?penalty?phase.
Penal?Code?section?1089?provides?in?relevant?part?that?”If?at?any?time,?whether?before?or?after?the?final?submission?of?the?case?to?the?jury,?…?a?juror?requests?a?discharge?and?good?cause?appears?therefor,?the?court?may?order?him?to?be?discharged?and?draw?the?name?of?an?alternate,?who?shall?then?take?his?place?in?the?jury?box?….”
About?8:05?a.m.?one?day?during?the?penalty?phase,?one?of?the?jurors,?Fred?C.?Godfrey,?telephoned?the?trial?court.?He?requested?discharge?from?jury?service?because?of?the?unexpected?death?of?his?mother?the?previous?night.?The?court?granted?his?request?and?ordered?him?discharged.?(At?that?time,?four?of?the?five?alternate?jurors?originally?sworn?remained?available?for?service.)?Evidently,?the?communication?between?the?court?and?Godfrey?was?effected?through?the?court?clerk.
Within?the?hour,?the?trial?court?notified?the?People?and?defendant?of?the?foregoing?events?in?chambers.?Immediately?thereafter,?in?open?court?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?defendant?objected?to?the?discharge?of?Juror?Godfrey?and?moved?for?reconsideration.?In?his?argument,?counsel?stated?the?grounds?to?the?following?effect:?although?the?death?of?Godfrey’s?mother?did?indeed?provide?good?cause?to?continue?the?trial?to?accommodate?Godfrey,?it?might?not?provide?good?cause?to?excuse?him?outright.?He?suggested?that?the?court?speak?directly?with?Godfrey?to?determine?whether?a?continuance?of?about?a?week?would?enable?him?to?stay?on.?He?made?plain?that?he?wanted?Godfrey?to?remain-and?that?he?believed?the?prosecutor?wanted?him?to?go.
The?trial?court?impliedly?overruled?defendant’s?objection?and?expressly?denied?his?motion?to?reconsider.?It?stated?that?its?”ruling?with?respect?to?Mr.?Godfrey?is?made?without?consideration?as?to?anyone’s?desire?for?him?as?a?juror,?favorable?or?unfavorable?to?either?side.?It?matters?not?to?the?court.”?It?added:?”Seems?unreasonable?to?think?that?we?should?delay?this?case?any?further,?considering?its?rather?chopped?up?time?sequence,?another?four?[court]?days?simply?to?satisfy?someone’s?desire?for?a?certain?juror?when?we?have?four?alternates.”
Thereupon,?in?open?court?in?the?presence?of?the?jury,?the?trial?court?ordered?the?court?clerk?to?draw?the?name?of?one?of?the?alternate?jurors?at?random.?The?[54?Cal.3d?987]?name?drawn?was?that?of?Jerome?N.?Severance.?The?court?directed?Severance?to?take?Juror?Godfrey’s?place?in?the?jury?box.?Defendant?did?not?attempt?to?challenge?Severance?and?raised?no?objection?whatever.?During?jury?selection,?he?had?made?no?”for?cause”?challenge?against?Severance.?Neither?had?he?made?a?peremptory?challenge,?although?he?had?such?challenges?remaining.
[34]?As?stated,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?discharging?Juror?Godfrey?at?Godfrey’s?request.?A?ruling?of?this?sort?is?subject?to?review?under?the?abuse-of-discretion?standard.?(See?In?re?Mendes?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?847,?852?[153?Cal.Rptr.?831,?592?P.2d?318].)?Applying?that?test,?we?find?no?error.?It?was?not?unreasonable?for?the?court?to?act?as?it?did.?As?a?general?matter?at?least,?the?death?of?a?juror’s?mother?constitutes?good?cause?to?discharge?the?juror-and?not?merely?to?continue?the?trial-when,?as?here,?he?so?requests.?As?defense?counsel?observed,?a?mother’s?death?is?”obviously?…?a?tragic?and?disturbing?event.”?Defendant?now?challenges?the?record?on?which?the?court?acted?and?the?procedures?that?it?followed.?But?after?close?consideration,?we?conclude?that?his?attack?fails:?the?record?was?sufficient?and?the?procedures?adequate.?The?court?conducted?itself?well?within?its?discretion.?(Compare?In?re?Mendes,?supra,?at?p.?852?[rejecting?a?similar?claim?based?on?the?court’s?discharge?of?a?juror?at?her?own?request?following?the?death?of?her?brother].)fn.?16- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?on?three?occasions?during?his?summation.?We?shall?consider?his?complaints?seriatim.
- Comments?on?Defendant’s?Past?Sexual?Activity
At?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?called?as?his?last?witness?Richard?Michael?Yarvis,?M.D.,?a?psychiatrist,?to?give?expert?opinion?testimony?regarding?his?background?and?character.?In?forming?his?views,?Dr.?Yarvis?relied?on?face-?to-face?meetings?with?defendant?and/or?counsel?and?on?the?review?of?documents?of?various?sorts?and?the?live?testimony?of?other?witnesses.?[54?Cal.3d?988]
On?direct?examination,?Dr.?Yarvis?purported?”to?provide?a?kind?of?overview?or?synthesis?or?explanatory?vehicle,?if?you?will,?a?chronology?of?the?symptoms?and?impairments?on?the?one?hand,?and?the?list?of?what?…?can?be?reasonably?construed?to?be?relevant?factors,?…?on?the?other?hand,?nothing?more,?nothing?less.”
On?cross-examination,?Dr.?Yarvis?declined?an?invitation?by?the?prosecutor?to?diagnose?defendant?as?a?sadist?or?sado-masochist.?During?the?questioning,?he?was?probed?as?to?his?knowledge?of?various?alleged?instances?of?sexual?activity?on?defendant’s?part-of?which?there?was?no?evidence?in?the?record-including?the?following:?defendant?handcuffed?and?spanked?a?girl?named?Wendy?B.?against?her?will?when?she?was?about?15?years?old;?he?whipped?another?girl?named?Kim?S.,?who?bore?him?a?child,?and?asked?her?to?whip?him?in?return;?he?requested?Kim?S.?to?insert?a?table?leg?into?his?rectum;?and?he?manipulated?the?anus?of?an?18-month-old?child.
In?the?course?of?his?summation,?the?prosecutor?made?the?following?comments.
“When?the?defendant?testified?he?noted?that?Marcie?had?tears?in?her?eyes?while?he?was?assaulting?her,?…?and?that?raises?a?question?in?my?mind?and?I?hope?in?yours.
“As?the?defendant?was?assaulting?Marcie,?as?he?was?sexually?raping?her?and?sodomizing?her,?was?he?watching?and?enjoying?what?he?was?doing?
“Was?he?getting?sadistic?satisfaction?in?what?he?was?doing??What?was?his?motivation?in?doing?those?horrible?and?cruel?things?to?her?
“I?asked?Dr.?Yarvis?about?that.?I?asked?him?what?he?thought?of?it?in?light?of?the?past?history?which?he?acknowledged?in?cross-examination?consists?of?molestation?of?an?eighteen?month-old?[sic]?and?spanking?the?other[,]?Wendy?[B.],?…?the?whipping?he?asked?of?and?did?to?Kim?[S.],?the?mother?of?his?child.
“I?think?there?is?considerable?evidence?in?this?case,?evidence?that?Dr.?Yarvis?was?happy?to?gloss?over?but?evidence,?nevertheless,?that?the?defendant?does?and?did?take?sadistic?satisfaction?in?what?he?did?to?Marcie?[D.].
“I?found?it?very?interesting?that?there?was?so?many?semen?over?Marcie’s?abdomen.?There?was?semen?in?her?vagina?as?well?and?in?her?rectum,?but?it?is?apparent?that?the?defendant?did?not?ejaculate?fully?inside?Marcie.
“He?ejaculated?at?least?one?time?over?her;?how?else?can?we?explain?the?semen?on?her?abdomen??[54?Cal.3d?989]
“What?was?the?defendant?looking?at?and?thinking?about?as?he?ejaculated?over?Marcie?[D.]?onto?her?abdomen?
“I?don’t?believe?it?is?an?unfair?inference?or?a?stretching?of?the?evidence?to?suggest?to?you?that?the?defendant?was?using?Marcie?in?a?perverse?way.
“He?didn’t?think?that?Marcie?was?a?girlfriend.?He?was?not?making?love?to?her?as?though?he?would?make?love?to?a?girlfriend.”
[35a]?Defendant?now?contends?that?through?the?comments?about?his?”past?history,”?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct.?He?argues?that?the?remarks?went?beyond?the?evidence?in?the?record?in?contravention?of?California?law;?they?thereby?offended?the?Sixth?Amendment,?with?its?right?of?confrontation;?and?as?a?result,?they?violated?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment.We?reject?the?claim?at?the?threshold.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?assignment?of?misconduct?and?request?for?admonition?was?not?satisfied.?To?be?sure,?after?the?prosecutor’s?summation?defense?counsel?did?in?fact?make?an?unsuccessful?assignment?and?request?on?the?ground?that?the?complained-of?comments?incorrectly?stated?or?implied?that?crimes?other?than?burglary?and?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?could?be?considered?in?aggravation.?But?he?did?not?make?the?assignment?and?request?on?the?ground?that?underlies?his?point?here.fn.?17?Moreover,?the?exception?to?the?rule?is?inapplicable.?Any?harm?threatened?by?the?remarks-which?were?relatively?isolated?and?unemphatic-was?certainly?curable.
We?shall?also?address?the?merits.
The?question?does?not?appear?to?be?difficult?so?far?as?the?United?States?Constitution?is?concerned.?The?complained-of?comments?seem?not?to?have?offended?defendant’s?Sixth?Amendment?confrontation?right.?Apparently,?”the?prosecutor?here?…?introduced?no?statements?made?by?persons?unavailable?for?questioning?at?trial.”?(Donnelly?v.?DeChristoforo?(1974)?416?U.S.?637,?643,?fn.?15?[40?L.Ed.2d?431,?437,?94?S.Ct.?1868];?accord,?People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?534?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129].)?Neither?do?the?remarks?seem?to?have?violated?the?Eighth?Amendment?prohibition?against?cruel?and?unusual?punishments.?As?noted,?they?were?relatively?isolated?and?unemphatic.
By?contrast,?the?question?is?somewhat?closer?so?far?as?California?law?is?concerned.?[36]?It?is?settled?that?”a?prosecutor?may?not?go?beyond?the?[54?Cal.3d?990]?evidence?in?his?argument?to?the?jury.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?794.)?[35b]?The?prosecutor?here?seems?to?have?done?so.?It?is?certainly?conceivable?that?a?reasonable?juror?could?have?understood?the?comments?as?stating?or?implying-incorrectly-that?there?was?evidence?in?the?record?supporting?the?mentioned?instances?of?sexual?activity?on?defendant’s?part.
But?even?if?we?were?to?find?misconduct,?we?would?not?reverse.?Certainly,?any?failing?here?is?not?prejudicial?per?se,?but?rather?is?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis.?Whether?it?violates?state?law?only?or?implicates?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?is?immaterial.?It?is?harmless?under?both?Brown’s?”reasonable?possibility”?standard?and?Chapman’s?”reasonable?doubt”?test-which,?as?noted,?are?the?same?in?substance?and?effect.?The?gist?of?the?prosecutor’s?argument?was?that?defendant?”does?and?did?take?sadistic?satisfaction?in?what?he?did?to?Marcie?[D.].”?Comment?of?that?sort?was?permissible:?it?was?reasonably?fair?in?light?of?the?evidence.?Considered?in?their?context,?the?remarks?here?challenged?were?brief?and?essentially?inconsequential.?Defendant?argues?that?some?standard?stricter?still?than?Chapman’s?applies?to?Eighth?Amendment?violations.?[37]?(See?fn.?18.)?That?is?not?the?case.?(See?People?v.?Lucero?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?1006,?1031-1032?[245?Cal.Rptr.?185,?750?P.2d?1342].)fn.?18
- Comments?Relating?to?the?Victim
We?reject?the?point?on?procedural?grounds?insofar?as?it?is?based?on?section?190.3.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?assignment?of?misconduct?and?request?for?admonition?was?not?satisfied.?Defense?counsel?did?indeed?make?an?unsuccessful?assignment?and?request?on?the?ground?that?the?prosecutor?incorrectly?presented?the?”sentiments”?and?”[o]utrage”?of?the?Sacramento?community?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?But?he?did?not?make?an?[54?Cal.3d?991]?assignment?and?request?on?the?ground?that?underlies?his?point?here.fn.?19?Moreover,?the?exception?to?the?rule?is?inapplicable.?We?cannot?conclude?that?any?harm?threatened?by?the?comments?here?was?incurable.?Indeed,?the?remarks?focused?on?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?crime?and?the?effect?on?the?victim-topics?that?were?altogether?proper?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?797).
We?reject?the?point?on?the?merits?insofar?as?it?is?based?on?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment.
In?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496,?502-509?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?448-453,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?concluded?that?the?introduction?of?evidence?concerning?such?matters?as?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family,?and?the?opinions?of?family?members?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal-except?to?the?extent?it?related?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime-was?violative?of?a?criminal?defendant’s?rights?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause,?and?that?accordingly?such?evidence?was?inadmissible?per?se.?In?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805,?810-812?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?882-884,?109?S.Ct.?2207],?the?court?followed?Booth?and?concluded?that?the?presentation?of?argument?relating?to?such?matters?was?violative?of?those?same?rights?and?as?such?was?improper?per?se.
But?recently,?in?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597],?the?court?overruled?Booth?and?Gathers?to?the?extent?that?they?held?that?evidence?or?argument?relating?to?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?or?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?was?inadmissible?or?improper?per?se.?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?730,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2611].)?[39]?Of?course,?”a?new?[federal?constitutional]?rule?for?the?conduct?of?criminal?prosecutions?is?to?be?applied?retroactively?to?all?cases,?state?or?federal,?pending?on?direct?review?or?not?yet?final,?with?no?exception?for?cases?in?which?the?new?rule?constitutes?a?’clear?break’?with?the?past.”?(Griffith?v.?Kentucky?(1987)?479?U.S.?314,?328?[95?L.Ed.2d?649,?661,?107?S.Ct.?708].)?[40]?(See?fn.?20.),?[38b]?Payne?is?such?a?rule?and?this?is?such?a?case.fn.?20?[54?Cal.3d?992]
- Comments?on?Remorse
At?the?guilt?phase,?defendant?testified?to?the?effect?that?he?felt?remorse?and?shame?for?his?attack?on?Marcie?D.,?apparently?from?the?very?moment?he?did?the?deed.
In?the?course?of?his?summation,?the?prosecutor?commented?that?”When?we?consider?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?crime,?we?should?also?look?to?the?matter?of?remorse?and?shame.?The?defendant?testified?that?he?was?ashamed?of?what?he?had?done.?Certainly,?that?is?something?for?you?to?consider,?whether?you?believe?it?or?not,?so?let’s?look?at?this?conduct?after?the?crime.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)?The?prosecutor?then?went?on?to?review?that?conduct.?He?drew?the?inference?therefrom?that?defendant’s?testimony?on?remorse?and?shame?was?a?lie.?In?transition,?he?stated,?”I’d?like?to?turn,?for?a?few?moments,?to?the?other?aggravating?factors?in?this?case,”?and?proceeded?to?discuss?defendant’s?felony?convictions?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?and?burglary?and?the?underlying?facts.
[41]?Defendant?claims?that?through?the?transitional?comment?quoted?above,?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?under?California?law?by?arguing?that?the?absence?of?remorse?amounted?to?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?Such?an?argument?would,?of?course,?have?been?improper.?The?presence?of?remorse?is?mitigating?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Dyer?(1988)45?Cal.3d?26,?82?[246?Cal.Rptr.?209,?753?P.2d?1].)?Its?absence,?however,?is?generally?not?aggravating.?(See?People?v.?Gonzalez?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1231-?1232?[275?Cal.Rptr.?729,?800?P.2d?1159];?People?v.?Kennan,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?510.)?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?to?argue?that?contrary?to?defendant’s?claim,?remorse?was?lacking?as?a?circumstance?in?mitigation.?Such?an?argument?is?[54?Cal.3d?993]?proper.?(People?v.?McLain?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?97,?112?[249?Cal.Rptr.?630,?757?P.2d?569].)?A?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?taken?the?challenged?comment?to?carry?the?meaning?defendant?assertedly?discovers?therein.?Such?a?juror?would?have?heard?the?words?for?what?they?were:?a?transition?between?the?aggravating?circumstance?involving?the?capital?offense?itself?and?the?aggravating?circumstances?involving?other?violent?criminal?activity?and?prior?felony?convictions.fn.?21- Instructions?on?the?Determination?of?Penalty
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?committed?various?errors?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did?on?the?determination?of?penalty.?We?shall?consider?the?claims?seriatim.
- Instruction?on?Sympathy,?Pity,?or?Mercy
Nevertheless,?defendant?now?claims?that?the?instruction?was?erroneous.?His?argument?is?that?at?least?on?the?facts?of?this?case,?its?words?were?ambiguous:?Did?they?cover?only?defendant??Or?did?they?extend-impermissibly-to?the?victim?and?perhaps?others?as?well?
We?disagree.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?instruction?under?challenge?to?allow?consideration?of?sympathy,?pity,?or?mercy?only?for?defendant?in?deciding?whether?to?take?or?spare?his?life.?Such?a?juror?could?not?have?taken?the?language?to?carry?the?meaning?defendant?asserts?it?suggested.?The?”defendant?only”?coverage?of?the?instruction?is?practically?declared?by?the?words?themselves.?It?is?also?confirmed?by?their?context.?Indeed,?one?of?the?instructions,?which?was?given?at?defendant’s?request,?stated?that?the?listed?circumstances?in?aggravation-which?did?not?include?sympathy,?pity,?or?mercy?for?the?victim?or?others-were?exclusive.
Defendant?concedes?that?”There?was?nothing?wrong?with?the?sympathy?instruction”?in?itself.?But?he?goes?on?to?assert?that?there?was?something?wrong?when?it?was?set?against?the?prosecutor’s?comments?relating?to?the?[54?Cal.3d?994]?victim.?We?are?not?persuaded.?The?remarks?were?simply?insufficient?to?preemptively?undermine?the?instruction.fn.?22?2.?Refusal?to?Give?a?Requested?Instruction?on?the?Meaning?of?Life?Imprisonment?Without?Possibility?of?Parole
Defendant?requested?the?trial?court?to?give?”Defendant’s?Proposed?Instruction?No.?23″:?”A?sentence?of?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole?means?that?the?defendant?will?remain?in?state?prison?for?the?rest?of?his?life?and?will?not?be?paroled?at?any?time.”?In?support,?counsel?stated:?”I?think?it’s?an?area?that?the?court?covered?with?every?juror?in?voir?dire,?and?I?think?that?it’s?concise?enough?that-and?not?confusing?enough?that?they?should-it’s?a?proper?instruction.”?The?prosecutor?objected.?The?court?refused:?”I?think?this?is?a?matter?with?respect?to?imprisonment,?what?it?means,?and?what?death?penalty?means,?and?commutation?and?all?that,?what?all?of?that?means.?I?think?it?would?run?afoul?of?the?Ramos?decision.?We?will?confront?that?situation?if?and?when?it?occurs,?if?requested?by?the?jury.”?(Italics?added,?paragraphing?omitted.)
[43]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?the?requested?instruction.?Not?so.?A?court?may?not?give?an?instruction?that?is?incorrect.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1275.)?And?it?is?incorrect?to?declare?that?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?will?inexorably?be?carried?out.?(People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?130.)?The?instruction?here?would?effectively?have?made?just?such?a?declaration.Defendant?argues?that?the?requested?instruction?was?in?fact?correct?in?its?entirety.?He?says?that?it?would?have?done?no?more?than?explain?and?clarify?the?meaning?of?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?It?would?have?done?much?more.?It?would?have?stated?all?but?expressly?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.
Defendant?then?argues?that?the?requested?instruction?was?correct?at?least?in?part:?”A?sentence?of?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole?means?that?the?defendant?…?will?not?be?paroled?at?any?time.”?The?quoted?language?is?arguably?ambiguous.?To?determine?its?meaning,?as?noted?above,?we?must?determine?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?[54?Cal.3d?995]?could?have,?understood?its?words.?Such?a?juror?apparently?would?have-and?certainly?could?have-taken?the?language?to?mean?that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.
Finally,?defendant?may?be?understood?to?argue?that?because?he?requested?the?trial?court?to?instruct?on?the?meaning?of?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole,?the?court?was?obligated?to?give?an?instruction?of?that?kind.?Before?today,?we?have?never?held?that?such?a?request?triggers?such?an?obligation.?And?we?decline?to?so?hold?now.?We?recognize?that?in?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?page?131,?we?implied?in?dictum?that?if?the?defendant?tenders?an?instruction?that?”correctly?inform[s]?the?jury?that?whether?or?not?there?[are]?circumstances?that?might?preclude?either?the?death?penalty?or?life?without?possibility?of?parole?from?being?carried?out,?they?should?assume?it?would?be?carried?out?for?purposes?of?determining?the?appropriate?sentence?for?this?defendant,?such?instruction?should?[be]?given.”?Defendant?did?not?tender?an?instruction?of?this?kind?here.
Defendant?goes?on?to?claim?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?instruct?sua?sponte?on?the?meaning?of?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?In?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?698?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217],?we?concluded?that?a?similar?omission?was?not?erroneous.?We?come?to?the?same?conclusion?here.?In?our?view,?the?court?was?under?no?obligation?to?give?an?instruction?on?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?on?its?own?motion.?Its?failure?to?do?so,?therefore,?was?not?error.?(See?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?799?[implying?that?it?is?not?error?for?a?court?to?fail?or?refuse?to?give?an?instruction?it?is?not?required?to?give].)
Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary.?In?so?doing,?he?relies?on?People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?659.?He?reads?our?opinion?to?stand?for?the?proposition?that?if?the?”jurors?share?a?’common?and?widespread?misconception’?that?the?sentence?of?’confinement?in?the?state?prison?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole’?does?not?actually?mean?confinement?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole,”?they?”should?be?instructed?on?the?court’s?own?motion?that?’without?possibility?of?parole’?means?’without?possibility?of?parole.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?698,?italics?in?original.)?He?proceeds?to?interpret?the?record?to?reveal?that?the?jurors?here?shared?just?such?a?”common?and?widespread?misconception.”
We?are?not?persuaded.?Defendant’s?reading?of?Bonin?is?not?supported.?Our?opinion?simply?does?not?stand?for?the?proposition?referred?to.?Rather,?it?addresses?and?rejects?an?argument?in?which?the?defendant?urged?us-unsuccessfully-to?adopt?that?”rule.”?Similarly?unsupported?is?defendant’s?[54?Cal.3d?996]?interpretation?of?the?record?here.?Recall?that?at?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?the?trial?court?and/or?defense?counsel?and/or?the?prosecutor?generally?”instructed”?the?prospective?jurors-including,?specifically,?all?who?were?subsequently?sworn?to?serve?as?jurors?or?alternates-that?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?meant?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?Also?recall?that?in?so?doing,?they?sometimes?suggested-favorably?to?defendant,?but?inaccurately-that?the?penalty?would?inexorably?be?carried?out.?We?acknowledge,?as?noted?above,?that?as?a?group?the?prospective?jurors?did?not?enter?or?leave?voir?dire?with?a?technical?knowledge?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole.?But?as?also?noted,?the?record?shows?that?they?obtained?an?understanding?adequate?for?their?purposes.?We?cannot?conclude?that?the?jurors?here?shared?the?”common?and?widespread?misconception”?defendant?asserts?they?did.fn.?23
- Failure?to?Instruct?on?”Overlapping”?Special?Circumstances
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?in?determining?penalty,?they?should?consider,?inter?alia,?”The?circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?defendant?has?been?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?and?the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true.”?The?ultimate?source?of?the?foregoing?language?is,?of?course,?section?190.3.?As?also?noted,?the?jury?found?all?three?special?circumstance?allegations-which?arose?out?defendant’s?single?attack?on?Marcie?D.-to?be?true:?felony-murder-rape,?felony-murder-sodomy,?and?felony-murder-lewd?conduct.
[44]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?they?should?not?take?into?account?the?felony-murder-lewd?conduct?special?circumstance.?We?disagree.The?legal?premise?of?defendant’s?argument?fails.?Contrary?to?his?assertion,?neither?California?law?nor?the?United?States?Constitution?bars?the?consideration?of?special?circumstances?that?”overlap,”?i.e.,?that?arise?out?of?a?single?course?of?conduct.?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?765-768.)
The?factual?premise?of?defendant’s?argument?fails?as?well.?Again?contrary?to?his?assertion,?the?felony-murder-lewd?conduct?special?circumstance?here?is?not?necessarily?reducible?to?either?or?both?of?the?other?special?circumstances,?[54?Cal.3d?997]?viz.,?felony-murder-rape?and?felony-murder-sodomy.?At?the?guilt?phase,?the?People?introduced?evidence?that?defendant?may?have?committed?forcible?oral?copulation?on?Marcie?by?inserting?his?penis?into?her?mouth.?We?recognize?that?the?evidence-the?presence?of?a?single?sperm?cell?in?her?mouth-was?not?overwhelming.?But?it?was?sufficient.?Indeed,?defendant?testified?that?although?he?did?not?”think”?that?he?had?done?the?act,?”it?may?have?been?a?possibility?….”
[45]?Next,?defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?they?should?not?consider?the?acts?comprising?rape,?sodomy,?and?lewd?conduct?under?both?”[t]he?circumstances?of?the?crime”?and?”the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true.”The?trial?court’s?instructional?omission?in?this?case?was?not?error.?”[W]hen?…?the?instruction?under?challenge?is?adequate,?the?court?is?under?no?obligation?to?amplify?or?explain?in?the?absence?of?a?request.”?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?700.)?The?instruction?here?was?such.?Of?course,?as?defendant?argues,?the?same?conduct?may?not?be?”counted”?under?both?”[t]he?circumstances?of?the?crime”?and?”the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true”?without?offense?to?section?190.3.?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?768.)?Strictly?speaking,?it?is?under?the?heading?of?”[t]he?circumstances?of?the?crime”?that?section?190.3?covers?the?conduct?underlying?a?special?circumstance;?under?the?heading?of?”the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true,”?it?reaches?merely?the?presence?of?any?such?special?circumstances.?We?believe?that?as?a?general?matter?at?least,?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?understand?an?instruction?like?the?present?to?allow?only?”single?counting.”?We?further?believe?that?such?a?juror?would?have?so?understood?the?instruction?here.?The?language?directs?attention?to?”[t]he?circumstances?of?the?crime”?and?”the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true”-but?not?to?the?”circumstances?of?the?special?circumstances.”?(Italics?added.)
All?the?same,?an?instruction?such?as?that?given?by?the?trial?court?in?this?case?”might?conceivably”?be?taken?by?a?jury?to?permit?”double-?count[ing]”?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?768)?if?its?language?were?construed?loosely?to?refer?to?”the?circumstances?of?the?special?circumstances”?as?well?as?”the?circumstances?of?the?crime.”?(Italics?added.)?In?view?of?such?an?eventuality,?we?have?stated?that?”On?defendant’s?request,?the?trial?court?should?admonish?the?jury?not?to?[double-count].”?(Ibid.)?Here,?defendant?made?no?such?request.
- Instruction?of?the?Circumstances?of?the?Crime,?Other?Violent?Criminal?Activity,?and?Prior?Felony?Convictions
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?in?determining?penalty,?they?should?consider,?inter?alia,?(1)?”The?circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?[54?Cal.3d?998]?defendant?has?been?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?and?the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true”;?(2)?”The?presence?or?absence?of?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?which?involved?the?use?or?attempted?use?of?force?or?violence,?or?the?express?or?implied?threat?to?use?force?or?violence”;?and?(3)?”The?presence?or?absence?of?any?felony?convictions.”?The?ultimate?source?of?the?foregoing?language?is,?of?course,?section?190.3.?The?words?of?the?instruction?differ?from?those?of?the?statute?on?only?one?point?significant?here:?the?former?refer?to?”any”?felony?convictions,?the?latter?to?”any?prior”?felony?convictions?(italics?added).
[46]?The?scope?of?the?three?applicable?penalty?factors?defined?by?section?190.3?is?established.?Plainly,?the?factor?involving?the?circumstances?of?the?present?crimes?covers?the?offenses?of?which?the?defendant?is?convicted?in?the?capital?proceeding.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?703.)?By?contrast,?the?factor?relating?to?other?violent?criminal?activity?embraces?such?activity?other?than?that?underlying?the?offenses?in?the?capital?proceeding.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?105-?106?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)?Similarly,?the?factor?pertaining?to?prior?felony?convictions?includes?such?convictions?other?than?those?in?the?capital?proceeding?(ibid.)-so?long?as?they?were?”entered?before?the?capital?crime?was?committed”?(People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?203). [47]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?instruction?on?the?penalty?factors?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?and?prior?felony?convictions?was?erroneous.?Specifically,?he?argues?that?the?instruction?incorrectly?or?at?least?inadequately?delimited?the?scope?of?each?of?those?factors.As?explained?above,?in?deciding?whether?a?claim?such?as?the?present?is?sound,?we?must?ascertain?the?meaning?of?the?instruction?and?to?do?so,?we?must?determine?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?could?have,?understood?its?words.
After?close?consideration,?we?find?no?error?in?the?instruction?on?the?penalty?factor?of?other?violent?criminal?activity.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?its?words?to?refer?to?violent?criminal?activity?other?than?that?underlying?the?offenses?in?the?present?proceeding.?Such?a?juror?could?not?have?taken?the?language?to?reach?further.?The?instruction?on?the?penalty?factor?of?the?circumstances?of?the?present?crimes?allowed?full?consideration?of?each?and?every?one?of?those?offenses.?A?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?believed?that?the?instruction?in?question?allowed?any?reconsideration?whatever.?(Compare?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?457?[arriving?at?substantially?the?same?conclusion?regarding?substantially?the?same?instruction].)?[54?Cal.3d?999] [48]?We?reach?the?opposite?result?as?to?the?instruction?on?the?penalty?factor?of?prior?felony?convictions.
To?be?sure,?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?words?of?the?instruction-even?without?the?statutory?adjective?”prior”-to?refer?to?felony?convictions?other?than?those?in?the?present?proceeding,?and?could?not?have?been?led?to?expand?their?compass.?As?stated?above,?the?instruction?on?the?penalty?factor?of?the?circumstances?of?the?present?crimes?allowed?full?consideration?of?those?offenses,?and?a?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?believed?that?the?instruction?here?allowed?reconsideration.?(Compare?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?106?[arriving?at?a?similar?conclusion?regarding?a?similar?instruction].)
A?reasonable?juror,?however,?would?undoubtedly?have?understood?the?instruction’s?language?to?embrace?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape.?But?that?conviction,?entered?as?it?was?after?the?commission?of?the?capital?offense,?is?outside?the?scope?of?the?penalty?factor?here.
Having?found?error?on?this?point,?we?must?consider?its?consequences.?Just?as?the?improper?admission?of?prior-felony-conviction?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?is?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis?under?the?”reasonable?possibility”?standard,?so?too,?we?believe,?is?improper?instruction?thereon.?Evidence?of?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?burglary?was?properly?admitted?on?the?issue?of?prior?felony?convictions.?More?important,?evidence?of?the?facts?underlying?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?was?properly?admitted?on?the?issue?of?other?violent?criminal?activity.?We?presume,?as?we?must,?that?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?improperly?considered?the?latter?conviction?under?the?instruction?here?determined?erroneous.?But?we?simply?cannot?conclude?that?such?a?juror?could?have?given?that?conviction?any?appreciable?weight?independent?of?its?underlying?facts.?Accordingly,?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?error?affected?the?outcome.fn.?24?[54?Cal.3d?1000]?5.?Alleged?Failure?to?Instruct?on?the?People’s?Burden?of?Proof?Beyond?a?Reasonable?Doubt?as?to?Other?Violent?Criminal?Activity
[49a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by-allegedly-failing?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?the?People?had?the?burden?to?prove?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?he?committed?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?before?they?could?consider?such?crime?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation. [50]?At?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial,?the?court?must?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?they?may?consider?evidence?of?other?crimes?in?aggravation?only?if?such?other?crimes?are?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?809.)?For?present?purposes,?other?crimes?clearly?refer?to?other?violent?criminal?activity-more?particularly,?other?unadjudicated?violent?criminal?activity?(see?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?566).?The?reason?for?the?rule?is?that?undue?prejudice?is?threatened?by?evidence?of?violent?criminal?activity,?and?sufficient?probativeness?is?assured?without?a?previous?conviction?only?through?the?requirement?of?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt. [49b]?Turning?to?defendant’s?claim,?we?find?no?error.?It?appears?that?a?reasonable-doubt?instruction?is?not?required?when,?as?here,?the?defendant?has?already?been?convicted?of?the?crime?in?question.?(People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?566.)?In?arguing?to?the?contrary,?defendant?asserts?that?his?conviction?had?not?been?entered?before?commission?of?the?capital?and?other?offenses?against?Marcie?D.?True,?as?stated?above,?the?time?of?entry?controls?the?question?whether?defendant’s?felony?conviction?is?a?”prior?felony?conviction”?within?the?meaning?of?section?190.3.?But?such?chronology?is?of?no?consequence?here.?All?that?matters?is?that?the?conviction?was?in?fact?entered.Be?that?as?it?may,?we?believe?that?the?trial?court?adequately?instructed?that?the?People?had?the?burden?of?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?defendant’s?commission?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?before?that?crime?could?be?considered?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.
The?trial?court?expressly?instructed?on?the?People’s?burden?as?to?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape:?”Evidence?has?been?introduced?for?the?purpose?of?showing?that?the?defendant?has?been?convicted?of?the?crime[?]?of?…?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?….?Before?you?may?consider?any?…?such?alleged?crime[?]?as?an?aggravating?circumstance?in?this?case,?you?must?first?be?unanimously?satisfied?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?defendant?was?in?fact?convicted?of?such?prior?crime[?].”?(Italics?added,?paragraphing?omitted.)?[54?Cal.3d?1001]
By?contrast,?the?trial?court?did?not?instruct?expressly?on?the?People’s?burden?as?to?the?crime?supporting?the?conviction.?But-at?defendant’s?request-it?did?instruct?on?that?matter?impliedly:?”The?burden?of?proof?upon?the?prosecution?to?prove?the?existence?of?aggravating?circumstances?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?does?not?apply?to?mitigating?circumstances.?If?you?find?that?reasonable?evidence?supports?the?existence?of?a?mitigating?circumstance,?you?shall?find?that?such?mitigating?circumstances?exist.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)?It?is?plain?that?the?People?sought?to?prove?that?defendant?had?in?fact?committed?the?crime?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?And?it?is?plain-albeit?implicit-that?their?burden?in?this?regard?was?”beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.”fn.?25
- Instruction?on?Extreme?Mental?or?Emotional?Disturbance
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?in?determining?penalty,?they?should?consider,?among?other?circumstances,?”Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?while?the?defendant?was?under?the?influence?of?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance.”?(Italics?added.)?The?ultimate?source?of?the?foregoing?language?is,?of?course,?section?190.3.
[51]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?delete?the?adjective?”extreme”?sua?sponte.?He?argues?in?substance?that?the?instructions?as?given,?without?the?deletion,?amounted?to?an?incorrect?statement?of?the?law:?(1)?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?”the?sentencer?…?[may]?not?be?precluded?from?considering,?as?a?mitigating?factor,?any?aspect?of?a?defendant’s?character?or?record?and?any?of?the?circumstances?of?the?offense?that?the?defendant?proffers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death”?(Lockett?v.?Ohio?(1978)?438?U.S.?586,?604?[57?L.Ed.2d?973,?990,?98?S.Ct.?2954],?italics?in?original?(plur.?opn.?by?Burger,?C.?J.);?accord,?Eddings?v.?Oklahoma?(1982)?455?U.S.?104,?110?[71?L.Ed.2d?1,?8,?102?S.Ct.?869];?Skipper?v.?South?Carolina?(1986)?476?U.S.?1,?4?[90?L.Ed.2d?1,?6-7,?106?S.Ct.?1669]);?(2)?defendant?proffered?mental?or?emotional?disturbance,?nonextreme?as?well?as?extreme,?as?a?basis?for?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole;?and?(3)?contrary?to?the?constitutional?principle?stated?above,?the?challenged?instruction?implied?that?the?[54?Cal.3d?1002]?jurors?could?not?consider?mental?or?emotional?disturbance?less?than?extreme?in?mitigation?of?penalty.Defendant’s?claim?is?without?merit.?To?be?sure,?the?major?premise?of?his?argument?is?sound.?But?a?crucial?minor?premise?is?not:?the?instructions?as?given,?without?the?deletion?of?the?adjective?”extreme,”?did?not?carry?the?preclusive?implication?defendant?asserts?they?did.
“What?is?crucial”?for?the?Eighth?Amendment’s?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?”is?the?meaning?that?the?instructions?communicated?to?the?jury.?If?that?meaning?was?not?objectionable,?the?instructions?cannot?be?deemed?erroneous.?It?now?appears?that?we?are?to?determine?the?meaning?of?the?instructions?not?under?the?strict?’reasonable?juror’?test-i.e.,?could?a?reasonable?juror?have?understood?the?charge?as?the?defendant?asserts-but?rather?under?the?more?tolerant?’reasonable?likelihood’?test-i.e.,?is?there?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?so?understood?the?charge.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?801,?italics?in?original,?citations?omitted.)
Here,?the?jury?was?broadly?instructed?on?the?scope?of?potentially?mitigating?evidence,?including?evidence?relating?to?background?and?character.?Specifically,?they?were?told?that?they?could?consider?”Any?…?circumstance?which?diminishes?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?of?the?crime?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.”
The?jury?was?also?told?that?they?could?take?into?account,?”as?a?mitigating?circumstance,”?both?”evidence?that?the?defendant?may?have?a?biological?brain?impairment”?and?”evidence?that?a?child?raised?in?a?family?where?physical?abuse?and?emotional?deprivation?occurred,?may,?as?a?result,?suffer?emotional?harm.”
The?jury?was?further?told?that?”The?mitigating?circumstances?which?I?have?read?for?your?consideration?are?given?to?you?as?examples?of?some?of?the?factors?that?you?may?take?into?account?as?reasons?for?deciding?not?to?impose?a?death?sentence?upon?the?defendant.?You?should?pay?careful?attention?to?each?of?those?factors.?Any?one?of?them?may?be?sufficient,?standing?alone,?to?support?a?decision?that?death?is?not?the?appropriate?punishment?in?this?case.?But?you?should?not?limit?your?consideration?of?mitigating?circumstances?to?these?specific?factors.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)
In?our?view,?there?is?no?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?would?have?been?led?by?the?instructions?to?entertain?the?erroneous?belief?that?they?could?not?consider?mental?or?emotional?disturbance?of?any?degree?whatever?in?[54?Cal.3d?1003]?mitigation?of?penalty.?Quite?the?contrary.?Under?the?instruction?of?which?defendant?now?complains,?they?would?have?understood?that?they?could?take?account?of?disturbance?that?was?extreme.?Under?the?instructions?quoted?in?the?three?paragraphs?immediately?preceding,?they?would?have?inferred?that?they?could?weigh?disturbance?that?was?less?than?extreme.?(Compare?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?804?[rejecting?a?claim?similar?to?defendant’s?involving?the?trial?court’s?refusal?to?delete?the?adjective?”extreme”?from?the?phrase?”extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”].)?7.?Alleged?Failure?to?Adequately?Instruct?on?the?Scope?of?Potentially?Mitigating?Evidence
[52]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by-allegedly-failing?to?adequately?instruct?the?jury?on?the?scope?of?potentially?mitigating?evidence?as?defined?by?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?as?construed?in?Lockett?v.?Ohio,?supra,?438?U.S.?586,?and?its?progeny,?which?includes?”any?aspect?of?a?defendant’s?character?or?record?and?any?of?the?circumstances?of?the?offense?that?the?defendant?proffers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death”?(id.?at?p.?604?[57?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?990]?(plur.?opn.?by?Burger,?C.?J.).We?reject?the?point?out?of?hand.?Again,?what?is?crucial?for?the?Eighth?Amendment’s?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?is?the?meaning?that?the?instructions?communicated?to?the?jury.?In?light?of?the?instructions?quoted?in?the?preceding?part,?there?is?no?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jurors?would?have?been?led?to?entertain?an?erroneously?narrow?belief?about?the?scope?of?potentially?mitigating?evidence.
Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?did?in?fact?err.?He?argues?that?the?jury?was?not?adequately?instructed?to?consider?his?”background,”?as?opposed?to?his?”character”?and?”record.”?We?think?that?”background”?is?embraced?by?”character”?and,?especially,?”record.”?There?is?no?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jurors?would?have?believed?otherwise.?In?view?of?the?fact?that?the?jurors?were?broadly?instructed?on?the?scope?of?potentially?mitigating?evidence,?including?evidence?relating?to?background,?defendant’s?argument?proves?to?be?altogether?unpersuasive.
- Refusal?to?Give?a?Requested?Instruction?on?Future?Nondangerousness
Defendant?contends?that?by?doing?so?the?trial?court?erred.?We?disagree.?[54]?”A?court?may-and,?indeed,?must-refuse?an?instruction?that?is?argumentative,?i.e.,?of?such?a?character?as?to?invite?the?jury?to?draw?inferences?favorable?to?one?of?the?parties?from?specified?items?of?evidence.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1276.)?The?same?is?true?of?an?instruction?that?is?incorrect.?(See?id.?at?p.?1275.)?[53b]?The?requested?instruction?was?plainly?argumentative.?And?to?the?extent?it?implied?that?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?would?inexorably?be?carried?out,?it?was?also?incorrect.
Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?did?indeed?err.?He?argues?that?he?was?entitled?to?the?requested?instruction?under?People?v.?Sears?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?180,?189-190?[84?Cal.Rptr.?711,?465?P.2d?847].?He?is?wrong.?Under?that?case,?a?criminal?defendant?has?a?right?to?an?instruction?that?pinpoints?the?theory?of?the?defense.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1276.)?The?instruction?here?did?not?do?so.?He?also?argues?that?he?was?entitled?to?the?requested?instruction?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?as?construed?in?Lockett?v.?Ohio,?supra,?438?U.S.?586,?and?its?progeny.?Again?he?is?wrong.?Under?those?cases,?a?criminal?defendant?has?a?right?to?clear?instructions?that?guide?and?focus?the?jury’s?consideration?of?the?offense?and?the?offender.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?at?p.?1277.)?Defendant?received?such?instructions.?But?under?those?cases,?a?criminal?defendant?does?not?have?a?right?to?an?instruction-like?the?one?here-that?invites?the?jury?to?draw?favorable?inferences?from?the?evidence.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?at?p.?1277.)
- Refusal?to?Give?a?Requested?Instruction?on?Aggravating?and?Mitigating?Circumstances
Defendant?requested?the?trial?court?to?give?”Defendant’s?Proposed?Instruction?No.?10″:?”If?a?factor?is?not?found?to?be?by?you?a?mitigating?factor,?that?in?and?of?itself?does?not?make?that?factor?an?aggravating?factor.”?The?court?refused,?stating?that?the?proposed?instruction?was?”covered”?in?other?instructions.
[55]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?refusal?was?error?under?California?law.?He?argues?that?the?court?should?have?told?the?jurors?that?the?absence?of?a?circumstance?in?mitigation?did?not?constitute?the?presence?of?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?But?through?the?charge?as?a?whole,?the?court?adequately-albeit?only?impliedly-made?that?very?point.?Surely,?the?words?actually?used?by?the?court?were?far?clearer?than?those?proposed?by?defendant.?A?court?may?refuse?an?instruction?that?is?confusing?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?[54?Cal.3d?1005]?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1275)?or?duplicative?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?805,?fn.?12).?The?requested?instruction?was?both.?There?was?no?error.fn.?26- Failure?to?Give?a?Collins?Instruction
In?Collins,?we?”construe[d]?[Penal?Code]?section?1089?to?provide?that?the?court?instruct?the?jury?to?set?aside?and?disregard?all?past?deliberations?and?begin?deliberating?anew.”?(17?Cal.3d?at?p.?694.)?We?declared?that?in?support?of?such?an?instruction,?the?court?”should?…?further?advise[]”?the?jury?”that?one?of?its?members?has?been?discharged?and?replaced?with?an?alternate?juror?as?provided?by?law;?that?the?law?grants?to?the?People?and?to?the?defendant?the?right?to?a?verdict?reached?only?after?full?participation?of?the?12?jurors?who?ultimately?return?a?verdict;?that?this?right?may?only?be?assured?if?the?jury?begins?deliberations?again?from?the?beginning;?and?that?each?remaining?original?juror?must?set?aside?and?disregard?the?earlier?deliberations?as?if?they?had?not?been?had.”?(Ibid.)
The?trial?court’s?failure?to?give?a?Collins?instruction?sua?sponte?was?not?error.?California?law?does?not?demand?such?an?instruction?under?the?circumstances?here.?”Collins?requires?the?trial?court?to?instruct?the?jurors?to?begin?deliberation?anew?if?substitution?becomes?necessary?after?the?jury?has?begun?its?deliberations.?[Citation.]?Here,?the?alternate?juror?joined?the?panel?of?jurors?…?before?the?penalty?phase?deliberations?began.”?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?461;?accord,?People?v.?Wright,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?420.)?Neither?does?the?United?States?Constitution?demand?such?an?instruction?in?the?present?situation.?Certainly-contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion-the?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?have?nothing?significant?to?say?about?a?Collins-like?instruction?in?a?case?of?this?sort.?[54?Cal.3d?1006]
- Effect?of?Guilt?Phase?Errors
Defendant?contends?that?such?errors?as?were?committed?at?the?guilt?phase?require?reversal?of?the?judgment?of?death.?We?disagree.?As?defendant?impliedly-and?rightly-concedes,?these?errors?are?not?automatically?reversible?either?singly?or?together,?but?are?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis.?Further,?even?under?Chapman’s?”reasonable?doubt”?standard,?for?whose?applicability?defendant?strongly?argues,?the?errors?must?each?and?all?be?deemed?harmless:?as?the?pertinent?discussion?demonstrates,?they?were?few?in?number?and?minimal?in?significance.
- “Cumulative”?Prejudice
Defendant?contends?that?when?considered?together,?such?errors?as?were?committed?at?trial,?especially?those?bearing?directly?on?penalty,?require?reversal?of?the?judgment?of?death.?His?argument,?in?substance,?is?that?the?errors?undermined?the?fairness?of?the?penalty-determining?process?and?vitiated?the?reliability?of?its?result.?Having?reviewed?the?record?in?its?entirety,?we?cannot?agree.?The?errors?at?trial?as?a?whole-like?those?at?the?guilt?phase?only-were?few?in?number?and?minimal?in?significance.?Neither?singly?nor?together?could?they?have?affected?the?process?or?the?result?to?defendant’s?detriment.
- Denial?of?Verdict-modification?Application
Defendant?made?an?application?for?modification?of?the?verdict?of?death?under?Penal?Code?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e)?(hereafter?section?190.4(e)).?The?trial?court?denied?the?request.?[57a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?by?so?doing.
[58]?”In?ruling?on?a?verdict-modification?application,?the?trial?judge?is?required?by?section?190.4(e)?to?’make?an?independent?determination?whether?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?upon?the?defendant?is?proper?in?light?of?the?relevant?evidence?and?the?applicable?law.’?That?is?to?say,?he?must?determine?whether?the?jury’s?decision?that?death?is?appropriate?under?all?the?circumstances?is?adequately?supported.?And?he?must?make?that?determination?independently,?i.e.,?in?accordance?with?the?weight?he?himself?believes?the?evidence?deserves.”?(People?v.?Marshall,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?942,?citations?omitted.)?Obviously,?the?evidence?that?he?considers?is?that?which?was?properly?presented?to?the?jury?(e.g.,?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1329?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221])-no?more,?no?less?(People?v.?Jennings,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?995).On?appeal,?we?subject?a?ruling?on?a?verdict-modification?application?to?independent?review:?the?decision?resolves?a?mixed?question?of?law?and?fact;?[54?Cal.3d?1007]?a?determination?of?this?kind?is?generally?examined?de?novo?(see?generally?People?v.?Louis,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?987,?following?United?States?v.?McConney,?supra,?728?F.2d?at?p.?1202?(in?bank)).?Of?course,?when?we?conduct?such?scrutiny,?we?simply?review?the?trial?court’s?determination?after?independently?considering?the?record.?We?do?not?ourselves?decide?the?verdict-modification?application.
[57b]?Prior?to?taking?up?defendant’s?verdict-modification?application?on?the?date?set?for?hearing,?the?trial?court?allowed?Donna?D.,?Marcie?D.’s?mother,?to?make?a?statement.?Mrs.?D.?spoke?of?such?matters?as?Marcie’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crimes?on?the?family,?and?her?own?opinion?about?defendant?and?his?offenses;?in?conclusion,?she?requested?imposition?of?the?ultimate?sanction.?Defendant?made?no?objection?to?the?foregoing?statement.?Also,?the?court?indicated?that?it?had?reviewed?a?presentence?report.?Defendant?moved?to?strike?the?report?in?its?entirety?as?unduly?prejudicial?and?unreliable.?The?court?denied?the?request.?It?did,?however,?expressly?invite?defendant?to?challenge?portions?of?the?report,?and?stated?its?inclination?to?sustain?such?an?attack.?Defendant?expressly?declined.Thereupon,?the?trial?court?proceeded?to?hear?defendant’s?verdict-?modification?application.?After?argument,?it?denied?the?request?and?stated?its?reasons?in?support.?It?determined,?in?short,?that?”the?totality?of?the?aggravating?evidence?outweighed?the?mitigating?evidence?offered?by?the?defense.”?As?it?explained?after?sentencing,?”All?I?can?tell?you,?Mr.?Ashmus,?is?if?there?was?ever?a?case?where?factually?[the?death?penalty]?was?deserved,?this?is?it.”
Defendant?claims?that?in?ruling?on?his?verdict-modification?application,?the?trial?court?erred?by?allegedly?considering?evidence?that?it?ought?not?have-viz.,?Mrs.?D.’s?statement?and?the?presentence?report.?He?argues?that?the?report?was?outside?the?compass?of?review?under?section?190.4(e)?because?it?had?not?been?presented?to?the?jury.?He?further?argues?that?the?statement?was?similarly?outside?the?compass?of?review?and?also?inadmissible?in?and?of?itself?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?principles?of?Booth?v.?Maryland,?supra,?482?U.S.?496,?and?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers,?supra,?490?U.S.?805,?and?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?guaranty?of?due?process?of?law.
There?was?no?error.?To?the?extent?it?rests?on?the?Eighth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments,?the?point?fails.?”[T]he?broad?holding?of?Booth?and?Gathers?does?not?extend?to?proceedings?relating?to?the?application?for?modification?of?a?verdict?of?death?under?section?190.4(e).”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?812.)?Moreover,?as?noted?above,?in?large?part?Booth?and?Gathers?are?no?more.?Further,?no?due?process?violation?appears.?And?to?the?extent?it?[54?Cal.3d?1008]?rests?on?section?190.4(e),?the?result?is?no?different.?”From?[its]?statement?[of?reasons]?it?is?manifest?that?the?court?made?its?decision?solely?in?light?of?the?applicable?law?and?the?relevant?evidence”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?at?p.?812)-and?did?not?take?anything?else?in?account.?Certainly,?the?reasons?the?court?gave?do?not?reflect?Mrs.?D.’s?statement?or?the?presentence?report.?It?is?clear?that?the?court?allowed?the?statement?not?as?evidence?or?argument?relating?to?the?application,?but?merely?as?a?kind?of?allocution?before?sentencing.?It?is?also?clear?that?the?court?did?not?review?the?report?for?purposes?of?its?determination.?True,?immediately?prior?to?sentencing,?the?court?stated?that?it?”ha[d]?read?and?considered?the?presentence?report?….”?But?as?the?context?of?its?words?reveals,?it?had?evidently?done?so?”solely?for?the?permitted?purpose?of?sentencing?on?the?noncapital?offenses?….”?(People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1044?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627].)fn.?27
Next,?defendant?claims?that?in?ruling?on?his?verdict-modification?application,?the?trial?court?erred?by?allegedly?refusing?to?consider-or?at?least,?refusing?to?give?effect?to-certain?potentially?mitigating?evidence.
As?stated?above,?Lockett?v.?Ohio,?supra,?438?U.S.?586,?and?its?progeny?teach?that?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?the?scope?of?potentially?mitigating?evidence?includes?”any?aspect?of?a?defendant’s?character?or?record?and?any?of?the?circumstances?of?the?offense?that?the?defendant?proffers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death.”?(Id.?at?p.?604?[57?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?990]?(plur.?opn.?by?Burger,?C.?J.).)?Such?evidence?may?carry?potentially?mitigating?weight?whether?or?not?it?has?any?tendency?to?extenuate?the?defendant’s?guilt.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Marshall,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?933,?fn.?5.)
In?support?of?his?point,?defendant?argues?that?the?trial?court?refused?to?consider?or?give?effect?to?the?evidence?he?presented?in?mitigation?bearing?on?his?background?and?character?solely?because?it?deemed?that?evidence?”nonextenuating.”
We?believe?that?the?trial?court?understood?that?potentially?mitigating?evidence?embraces?”nonextenuating”?as?well?as?”extenuating”?background?[54?Cal.3d?1009]?and?character?evidence.?Recall?that?it?had?instructed?the?jury?that?they?could?”consider?sympathy,?pity,?or?mercy”;?that?they?could?take?into?account?”Any?…?circumstance?which?diminishes?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?of?the?crime?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial”;?and?that?they?could?weigh,?”as?a?mitigating?circumstance,”?both?”evidence?that?the?defendant?may?have?a?biological?brain?impairment”?and?”evidence?that?a?child?raised?in?a?family?where?physical?abuse?and?emotional?deprivation?occurred,?may,?as?a?result,?suffer?emotional?harm”-evidence?that?was?plainly?”nonextenuating.”?There?is?no?reason?to?think?that?the?court?had?not?itself?learned?the?lesson?it?had?taught?the?jurors.
We?also?believe?that?the?trial?court?actually?considered,?and?gave?some?weight?to,?all?of?defendant’s?mitigating?background?and?character?evidence,?”nonextenuating”?as?well?as?”extenuating.”?At?one?point,?it?declared:?”Overall,?the?court?evaluates?the?mitigating?evidence?as?presenting?a?picture?of?a?defendant?with?a?tortured?and?unstable?and?rebellious?personality?and?early?life,?adverse?to?discipline,?unfortunately?being?raised?by?two?parents?who?were?less?than?capable?of?recognizing?the?defendant’s?developmental?problems.”?At?another:?”This?court?agrees?that?Mr.?Ashmus?has?truly?lived?a?torturous?life?for?a?man?his?age.”
We?recognize?that?the?trial?court?concluded?in?effect?that?the?evidence?that?defendant?presented?in?mitigation?relating?to?his?background?and?character?did?not?extenuate?his?guilt.?But?that?conclusion?does?not?imply?a?belief?that?only?”extenuating”?evidence?could?be?mitigating.?Neither?does?it?suggest?a?decision?to?deny?effect?to?”nonextenuating”?evidence.?It?merely?reveals?a?determination-which,?in?our?view,?is?sound-that?the?evidence?at?issue?was?not?in?fact?extenuating.
- Constitutionality?of?the?1978?Death?Penalty?Law
- Sentencing?on?the?Noncapital?Offenses
The?trial?court?sentenced?defendant?to?full,?separate,?and?consecutive?middle?terms?of?six?years?in?prison?for?his?convictions?of?the?noncapital?offenses?of?rape,?sodomy,?and?lewd?conduct?(to?run?consecutively?to?a?previously?imposed?sentence?for?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?against?Lisa?Cronin).?The?People?had?effectively?requested?(1)?that?the?court?impose?sentence?for?the?noncapital?offenses?under?the?harsher?provisions?of?Penal?Code?section?667.6,?subdivision?(c)?(hereafter?section?667.6(c)),?instead?of?the?less?harsh?provisions?of?Penal?Code?section?1170.1?(hereafter?section?1170.1),?and?(2)?that?pursuant?to?section?667.6(c),?the?court?impose?full,?separate,?and?consecutive?upper?terms?of?eight?years?in?prison.
Defendant?contends?that?the?sentence?imposed?for?the?noncapital?offenses?is?invalid.?In?support,?he?puts?forth?several?arguments.
[61]?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?sentencing?on?all?the?noncapital?offenses?generally.In?determining?punishment?for?convictions?such?as?the?present,?a?court?must?make?the?following?sentencing?choices:?whether?to?sentence?concurrently?or?consecutively;?and?if?consecutively,?whether?to?sentence?under?section?1170.1?or?section?667.6(c).?(People?v.?Belmontes?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?335,?342-349?[193?Cal.Rptr.?882,?667?P.2d?686];?see?People?v.?Coleman?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?112,?161-?162?[255?Cal.Rptr.?813,?768?P.2d?32].)?For?each?choice,?it?must?state?its?reasons?on?the?record.?(People?v.?Belmontes,?supra,?at?pp.?347-349;?see?People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?at?pp.?161-162.)
The?trial?court?here?evidently?chose?to?impose?consecutive?sentences?for?the?noncapital?offenses?and?to?do?so?under?section?667.6(c).?[54?Cal.3d?1011]
Defendant?argues-unpersuasively-that?the?trial?court?failed?to?state?its?reasons.?It?effectively?did?so?in?its?ruling?on?defendant’s?verdict-modification?application.?Its?failure?to?make?a?separate?statement?under?a?separate?label?is?manifestly?not?fatal.
Defendant?then?claims?that?the?trial?court?imposed?a?full,?separate,?and?consecutive?sentence?for?the?offense?of?sodomy?under?section?667.6(c),?as?it?then?stood,?contrary?to?the?requirements?of?a?line?of?cases?culminating?in?People?v.?Ramirez?(1987)?189?Cal.App.3d?603?[233?Cal.Rptr.?645].?The?Ramirez?court?held?that?such?a?sentence?is?authorized?only?when,?as?relevant?here,?a?defendant?has?been?found?guilty?of?the?offense?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?”by?…?threat?of?great?bodily?harm.”?(Id.?at?pp.?630-632.)?In?view?of?the?theories?advanced?at?trial?and?the?evidence?presented,?the?jury?must?be?deemed?to?have?made?just?such?a?finding?when?it?rendered?its?verdict?here.
Defendant?also?claims?that?the?trial?court?imposed?sentence?for?the?offense?of?lewd?conduct?in?violation?of?Penal?Code?section?654.?He?relies?on?People?v.?Siko?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?820?[248?Cal.Rptr.?110,?755?P.2d?294],?but?to?no?avail.?In?that?case,?we?held?that?the?defendant,?who?had?been?convicted?of?rape,?sodomy,?and?lewd?conduct,?could?not?be?punished?for?all?three?offenses.?There,?we?were?able?to?conclude?that?the?lewd?conduct?consisted?solely?of?the?rape?and?the?sodomy:?”the?charging?instrument?and?the?verdict?both?identify?the?lewd?conduct?as?consisting?of?the?rape?and?the?sodomy?rather?than?any?other?act.”?(Id.?at?p.?826.)?[62]?(See?fn.?29.)?Here,?we?are?unable?to?come?to?a?similar?conclusion.fn.?29
- Disposition
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?conclude?that?the?judgment?must?be?affirmed.?[54?Cal.3d?1012]?It?is?so?ordered.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?In?People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221],?we?explained?the?difference?between?the?jury-box?and?struck-jury?methods.?”?’In?the?”jury?box”?system?…,?the?parties?exercise?their?challenges?against?jurors?already?seated?in?the?box,?and?who?will?remain?on?the?jury?unless?challenged.’?[Citation.]?This?is?the?system?utilized?in?California.?However,?’the?”struck?jury”?method?…?[is]?where?the?trial?judge?tenders?to?each?party?a?list?of?qualified?veniremen?and?each?side?exercises?its?peremptories?against?the?names?on?the?list.?If,?after?each?side?exercises?its?strikes,?there?remains?more?than?12?persons?on?the?list,?the?trial?judge?must?decide?which?twelve?will?constitute?the?jury.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?396.)
FN?2.?”California?death?qualification”?limits?”[t]he?pool?of?jurors?eligible?to?serve?in?a?capital?trial?in?California”?to?”those?persons?eligible?to?serve?in?a?noncapital?case?whose?attitudes?toward?capital?punishment?would?place?them?in?either?the?’favor?death?penalty,’?’indifferent,’?or?’oppose?death?penalty’?group.”?(Hovey?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?1,?63?[168?Cal.Rptr.?128].)?”[G]uilt?phase?includables”?(id.?at?p.?17,?fn.?36)?are?those?persons?who?would?”automatically?vote?against?death?at?the?penalty?phase”?but?could?be?”fair?and?impartial”?at?the?guilt?phase?(id.?at?p.?17,?italics?deleted).
FN?3.?In?attacking?the?trial?court’s?ruling,?defendant?claims?perfunctorily?that?the?exclusion?through?”California?death?qualification”?of?”guilt?phase?includables”?violates?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution.?This?point?is?at?best?a?restatement?of?those?addressed?and?rejected?above.
FN?4.?We?note?in?passing?that?prospective?juror?Judnick?was?subsequently?excused?on?the?People’s?peremptory?challenge.
FN?5.?In?People?v.?Thompson?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?86?[246?Cal.Rptr.?245,?753?P.2d?37],?we?observed?that?”It?is?…?incorrect?to?tell?the?jury?the?penalty?of?death?or?life?without?possibility?of?parole?will?inexorably?be?carried?out?….”?(Id.?at?p.?130.)?On?that?basis?we?concluded?that?it?would?be?error?for?a?trial?court?to?instruct?to?that?effect?at?the?penalty?phase.?(Id.?at?pp.?130-131.)?Our?premise?was?that?a?court?may?not?give?an?instruction?that?is?incorrect.?(See?ibid.)?We?went?on?to?state?in?dictum:?”In?general,?impressing?the?jury?with?the?weight?of?its?responsibility?is?beneficial.?Hence?it?[is]?not?necessarily?error?[for?the?court]”-or?impropriety?for?counsel-“to?suggest?to?them?on?voir?dire?that?the?sentence?they?decide?on?will?be?carried?out.”?(Id.?at?p.?131.)?To?be?sure,?the?end?is?good.?Whether?the?means?are?as?well?is?open?to?question.?Be?that?as?it?may,?the?dictum?does?not?figure?in?our?analysis.?Therefore,?it?need?not?be?scrutinized?further.
FN?6.?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?violated?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution;?the?Sixth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?16,?with?their?impartial-jury?guaranties;?and?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?17.?In?our?view,?the?ruling?did?not?implicate?any?of?the?cited?constitutional?provisions.?Indeed,?as?explained?above,?it?could?not?have?had?any?appreciable?effect?on?the?process?or?outcome?of?the?jury’s?deliberations.
FN?7.?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court’s?allegedly?erroneous?excusal?of?prospective?jurors?Sullivan,?Giffin,?and?Van?Giesen?violated?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?17,?of?the?California?Constitution.?But?no?error,?no?violation.
FN?8.?To?preserve?a?claim?of?error?relating?generally?to?the?composition?of?the?jury?and?specifically?to?the?denial?of?a?challenge?for?cause,?the?defendant?must?usually?exhaust?his?peremptory?challenges.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?770.)?This?has?”?’…?long?been?the?rule?in?California?….’?”?(Ibid.,?quoting?Kimbley?v.?Kaiser?Foundation?Hospitals?(1985)?164?Cal.App.3d?1166,?1169?[211?Cal.Rptr.?148].)?The?rationale?is?in?substance?that?the?defendant?may?not?complain?of?error?when?he?himself?had?the?opportunity?and?the?ability?to?prevent?any?ensuing?harm.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Goldberg?(1952)?110?Cal.App.2d?17,?23?[242?P.2d?116].)?The?rule?applies?when?the?struck-jury?system?is?employed?as?well?as?when?the?jury-box?method?is?used.?(People?v.?Morris?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?152,?184-186?[279?Cal.Rptr.?720,?807?P.2d?949].)
It?seems?that?the?claim?here?is?not?preserved:?as?noted,?defendant?did?not?exhaust?his?peremptory?challenges.
Defendant?argues?that?the?rule?of?exhaustion?may?properly?be?applied?to?the?jury-box?system?but?not?to?the?struck-jury?system.?He?is?not?persuasive.?The?rationale?of?the?rule?appears?applicable?to?both.?It?is?true,?as?defendant?states,?that?in?the?jury-box?system?the?parties?exercise?their?peremptory?challenges?in?ignorance?of?the?state?of?mind?of?the?prospective?jurors?who?may?be?drawn?into?the?jury?box,?whereas?in?the?struck-jury?system?they?do?so?with?knowledge?thereof.?That?difference,?however,?seems?immaterial?for?purposes?here.?We?recognize?that?a?struck-jury?defendant?may?have?a?reason?to?save?a?peremptory,?viz.,?to?defend?against?the?selection?of?a?prospective?juror?whom?he?presently?considers?objectionable.?But?a?jury-?box?defendant?may?have?a?similar?reason?to?save?a?peremptory,?viz.,?to?defend?against?the?selection?of?a?prospective?juror?whom?he?might?later?discover?to?be?objectionable.?We?have?never?deemed?the?reason?of?the?jury-box?defendant?to?be?sufficient?to?excuse?compliance?with?the?rule?of?exhaustion.?We?do?not?view?the?reason?of?the?struck-jury?defendant?to?be?more?powerful.
FN?9.?In?addition?to?the?foregoing,?defendant?raises?a?number?of?related?claims.?As?a?general?matter,?each?is?substantially?reducible?to,?or?dependent?on,?the?point?addressed?and?rejected?above.?None?establishes?reversibility.
FN?10.?Defendant?claims?in?substance?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?erroneous?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?the?Kelly-Frye?rule-specifically,?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination?of?the?Fifth?Amendment;?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment;?and?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.
We?reject?the?point.?”It?is,?of?course,?’the?general?rule?that?questions?relating?to?the?admissibility?of?evidence?will?not?be?reviewed?on?appeal?in?the?absence?of?a?specific?and?timely?objection?in?the?trial?court?on?the?ground?sought?to?be?urged?on?appeal.’?”?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?786,?fn.?7?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330],?quoting?People?v.?Rogers?(1978)?21?Cal.3d?542,?548?[146?Cal.Rptr.?732,?579?P.2d?1048].)?Defendant?failed?to?make?any?objection?whatever?below?based?on?any?federal?constitutional?provision.?In?any?event,?the?admission?of?the?evidence?did?not?substantially?implicate?any?of?the?cited?federal?constitutional?protections,?and?surely?did?not?implicate?the?privilege?against?self-?incrimination?at?all.
We?note?in?passing?that?in?People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?152,?206-208,?we?held?to?the?effect?that?the?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?bloodstains?had?obtained?general?acceptance?in?the?relevant?scientific?community?of?forensic?chemistry?by?the?middle?to?late?1980’s-which?is,?roughly,?the?time?of?the?ruling?under?challenge.?In?this?case,?we?need?not?and?do?not?decide?whether?the?same?is?true?of?the?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?semen?stains.?We?conclude?only?that?the?ruling?here?was?proper?on?the?record?made?by?the?parties.
FN?11.?Defendant?claims?in?effect?that?the?trial?court’s?rulings?were?erroneous?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?the?Evidence?Code-specifically,?the?Sixth?Amendment,?with?its?impartial-jury?guaranty;?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment;?and?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?We?reject?the?point.?At?trial,?defendant?failed?to?make?any?objection?whatever?based?on?any?federal?constitutional?provision.?Be?that?as?it?may,?as?explained?above,?all?the?photographs?and?slides?were?relevant?and?none?was?unduly?prejudicial.?In?our?view,?the?admission?of?these?items,?whether?considered?separately?or?together,?did?not?substantially?implicate?any?of?the?cited?federal?constitutional?protections.
FN?12.?Defendant?claims?that?the?”error”?under?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment,?which?bears?on?guilt,?entails?”error”?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?which?bears?on?penalty.?But?as?explained?above,?there?was?no?error?under?the?former?provision.
FN?13.?It?appears?that?the?court?denied?the?motion?as?to?paragraph?(a)?on?the?separate?and?independent?ground?that?the?information?requested?was?”as?readily?available?to?[defendant]?as?to?the?district?attorney’s?office?….”
FN?14.?Defendant?claims?that?the?admission?of?evidence?of?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?was?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?California?law.?He?argues?in?substance?that?the?admission?of?evidence?inadmissible?under?state?law?is?ipso?facto?offensive?to?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?He?also?argues?that?the?admission?of?evidence?of?a?not-yet-final?conviction?contravenes?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment.?The?point?is?not?preserved?for?review.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?objection?was?not?met,?and?no?exception?appears.?In?any?event,?the?point?is?without?merit.?Each?of?the?supporting?arguments?is?based?on?a?premise?that?is?manifestly?unsound.?A?state-law?violation?is?not?automatically?a?violation?of?federal?constitutional?due?process-and?certainly,?the?violation?here?does?not?offend?that?guaranty.?Also,?the?admission?of?evidence?of?a?not-yet-final?conviction?does?not,?as?a?general?matter,?threaten?a?significant?detrimental?effect?on?the?determination?of?penalty-nor?did?the?evidence?here?pose?such?a?threat.
FN?15.?Defendant?claims?that?the?admission?of?evidence?of?the?facts?underlying?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?was?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?California?Law.
The?point?is?not?preserved?for?review.?The?rule?of?timely?and?specific?objection?was?not?met,?and?no?exception?appears.
Be?that?as?it?may,?the?point?lacks?merit.?In?our?view,?the?admission?of?evidence?of?the?kind?challenged?here-whether?or?not?testimonial-does?not?offend?any?provision?of?the?United?States?Constitution.?Heretofore,?we?have?found?no?violation?as?to?the?Fifth?Amendment,?with?its?prohibition?against?double?jeopardy?(e.g.,?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?756,?fn.?17);?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?(e.g.,?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?788-?789);?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?(ibid.);?and?the?equal?protection?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?(ibid.).?Today,?we?find?no?violation?as?to?any?other?federal?constitutional?provision.
Defendant?again?maintains?that?the?admission?of?evidence?inadmissible?under?state?law?is?ipso?facto?offensive?to?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?But?again?we?note?that?a?state-law?violation?is?not?automatically?a?violation?of?federal?constitutional?due?process.?In?any?event,?the?evidence?here?was?not?inadmissible?under?state?law.
Defendant?also?claims?that?the?admission?of?evidence?of?the?facts?underlying?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?was?error?under?the?California?Constitution.?The?point?is?not?properly?raised:?it?is?perfunctorily?asserted?without?argument?in?support.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?945,?fn.?9?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676].)
In?a?related?point,?defendant?claims?that?the?court?erred?by?ordering?him?to?participate?in?a?corporeal?lineup?for?possible?identification?by?Lisa?Cronin.?The?court?entered?the?order,?on?the?People’s?motion,?early?in?the?life?of?this?action,?before?venue?was?changed?from?Sacramento?to?San?Mateo?County.?Defendant’s?present?claim?is?reducible?to?an?assertion?that?the?admission?of?evidence?of?both?his?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?and?the?underlying?facts?was?error?under?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?on?the?ground?that?the?identification?procedure?was?unduly?suggestive?and?unnecessary.
The?point?is?not?preserved:?the?rule?of?timely?and?specific?objection?was?not?met,?and?no?exception?appears.?It?is?true?that?defendant?expressed?misgivings?about?the?identification?procedure?in?opposing?the?People’s?lineup?motion.?But?he?did?so?only?briefly?and?more?than?a?year?and?a?half?before?the?evidence?was?offered?at?the?penalty?phase.?On?this?record,?such?an?”objection”?is?insufficient.
FN?16.?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court’s?discharge?of?Juror?Godfrey?was?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?California?law.?The?point?is?not?preserved.?As?a?general?rule,?a?defendant?may?properly?raise?in?this?court?a?point?involving?a?trial?court’s?allegedly?improper?discharge?of?a?juror?only?if?he?made?the?same?point?below.?(Cf.?People?v.?Gallego,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?166?[applying?the?requirement?of?a?contemporaneous?and?specific?objection?to?a?claim?involving?a?prosecutor’s?alleged?use?of?peremptory?challenges?to?remove?prospective?jurors?on?the?sole?ground?of?group?basis?in?violation?of?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???16].)?Plainly,?defendant?does?not?satisfy?the?rule?as?to?the?claim?resting?on?the?United?States?Constitution:?he?made?no?objection?whatever?on?federal?constitutional?grounds.?Neither?does?he?show?that?any?exception?to?the?requirement?is?available.
FN?17.?We?note?in?passing?that?in?its?penalty?phase?charge,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?”You?may?not?consider?any?evidence?of?any?…?crime”?other?than?burglary?and?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?”as?an?aggravating?circumstance.”
FN?18.?In?a?related?point,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?to?admonish?or?instruct?the?jury?to?the?effect?that?questions?and?answers?about?matters?not?in?evidence?did?not?constitute?evidence-or?more?specifically,?that?the?prosecutor’s?questions?and?Dr.?Yarvis’s?answers?about?defendant’s?alleged?sexual?activity?did?not?constitute?evidence.?There?was,?however,?no?request.?He?then?claims?that?the?court?erred?by?failing?to?give?such?an?admonition?or?instruction?sua?sponte.?In?our?view,?no?requirement?to?so?admonish?or?instruct?is?imposed?by?California?law?or?the?United?States?Constitution.?Whether?or?not?such?a?requirement?exists?under?federal?statutory?and?decisional?law-as?defendant?argues?that?it?does-is?not?dispositive:?that?law?simply?does?not?govern?here.
FN?19.?We?note?in?passing?that?in?its?penalty?phase?charge,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?on?the?circumstances?in?aggravation?it?deemed?applicable?to?this?case-which?did?not?include?the?”sentiments”?and?”[o]utrage”?of?the?Sacramento?community-and?then?added?at?defendant’s?request:?”I?have?previously?read?to?you?the?list?of?aggravating?circumstances?which?the?law?permits?you?to?consider?if?you?find?that?any?of?them?is?established?by?the?evidence.?These?are?the?only?aggravating?circumstances?that?you?may?consider.?You?are?not?allowed?to?take?account?of?any?other?facts?or?circumstances?as?the?basis?for?deciding?that?the?death?penalty?would?be?an?appropriate?punishment?in?this?case.”?(Italics?added,?paragraphing?omitted.)
FN?20.?Defendant?also?claims?that?the?prosecutor’s?comments?misstated,?conflicted?with,?or?went?beyond?the?evidence?in?certain?particulars,?and?as?a?result?amounted?to?misconduct.?We?disagree.?Each?of?the?remarks?here?challenged?constituted?a?reasonable?inference?from?the?evidence,?or?a?fair?comment?thereon,?or?both.?As?noted?above,?fair?comment?is?proper.?So?too?is?reasonable?inference.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Bandhauer?(1970)?1?Cal.3d?609,?616?[83?Cal.Rptr.?184,?463?P.2d?408].)
Defendant?then?broadly?claims?in?effect?that?the?misconduct?he?discerns?”arbitrar[ily]?depriv[ed]”?him?of?a?”substantial?and?legitimate?expectation”?arising?from?section?190.3?that?he?would?be?”deprived?of?his?[life?or]?liberty?only?to?the?extent?determined?by?the?jury?in?the?exercise?of?its?statutory?discretion”?(Hicks?v.?Oklahoma?(1980)?447?U.S.?343,?346?[65?L.Ed.2d?175,?180,?100?S.Ct.?2227]),?and?hence?violated?his?right?to?due?process?of?law?under?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?There?was?simply?no?such?deprivation,?arbitrary?or?otherwise.
In?a?related?point,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?admonish?or?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?to?the?effect?that?in?determining?penalty,?they?should?not?consider?such?matters?as?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family,?and?the?opinions?of?family?members?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal-or?more?specifically,?that?they?should?not?take?into?account?any?evidence?or?argument?bearing?on?these?topics.?No?requirement?to?so?admonish?or?instruct?is?imposed?by?California?law?or?the?United?States?Constitution.?In?any?event,?as?noted?the?court?instructed?that?the?listed?aggravating?circumstances-which?did?not?include?the?foregoing?matters-were?exclusive.
FN?21.?Defendant?claims?that?the?prosecutor’s?comment?under?challenge?here?was?misconduct?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?California?law.?He?argues?that?the?presentation?of?argument?improper?under?California?law?is?ipso?facto?offensive?to?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?But?as?noted,?a?state-law?violation?is?not?automatically?a?violation?of?federal?constitutional?due?process.?In?any?event,?the?argument?here?was?not?improper?under?California?law.
FN?22.?Defendant?also?broadly?claims?in?effect?that?the?”error”?”arbitrar[ily]?depriv[ed]”?him?of?a?”substantial?and?legitimate?expectation”?arising?from?section?190.3?that?he?would?be?”deprived?of?his?[life?or]?liberty?only?to?the?extent?determined?by?the?jury?in?the?exercise?of?its?statutory?discretion”?(Hicks?v.?Oklahoma,?supra,?447?U.S.?at?p.?346?[65?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?180]),?and?hence?violated?his?right?to?due?process?of?law?under?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?But?there?was?no?error.?Hence,?there?was?no?such?deprivation,?arbitrary?or?otherwise.
FN?23.?Defendant?claims?in?substance?that?the?omission?of?an?instruction?on?the?meaning?of?the?sentence?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?violated?the?Sixth?Amendment,?with?its?impartial-jury?guaranty;?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment;?and?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?In?our?view,?the?meaning?of?the?penalty?is?pellucid.?The?lack?of?further?explanation?did?not?implicate?any?of?the?cited?provisions.
FN?24.?Defendant?claims?that?the?instruction?on?the?penalty?factor?of?prior?felony?convictions?was?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution-and?perhaps?also?the?California?Constitution-as?well?as?California?statutory?law.?But?he?fails?to?persuade?us?that?any?of?the?provisions?of?either?the?federal?or?state?charter?is?implicated.
We?note?in?passing?that?in?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?page?106,?footnote?28,?we?stated?that?”Although?we?doubt?that?a?jury?would?believe?that”?an?instruction?in?the?language?of?section?190.3?covering?other?violent?criminal?activity?and?prior?felony?convictions?”embrace[s]?the?guilt?phase?offenses,?in?order?to?avoid?any?possible?confusion?on?this?point?or?the?application?of?the?factors,?the?trial?court?in?the?future?should?expressly?instruct?that”?those?factors?”refer?to?crimes?other?than?those?underlying?the?guilt?determination.”?(Italics?added.)?This?case?was?tried?after?Miranda.
FN?25.?A?question?arises?whether?a?reasonable-doubt?instruction?remains?necessary?when?the?People?seek?to?prove?conduct?underlying?the?conviction?other?than?the?facts?necessarily?established.?It?appears?that?the?answer?would?be?affirmative.?(See?People?v.?Kaurish?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?648,?707?[276?Cal.Rptr.?788,?802?P.2d?278];?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?566.)?Surely,?the?conviction?itself?does?not?assure?sufficient?probativeness?as?to?such?other?facts.?The?issue,?however,?need?not?be?resolved?here.?The?People?did?not?seek?to?prove?conduct?underlying?defendant’s?conviction?of?the?felony?of?assault?with?intent?to?commit?rape?appreciably?beyond?the?least?adjudicated?facts.?More?important,?as?explained?above,?the?trial?court?adequately?instructed?on?the?People’s?burden.
FN?26.?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court’s?refusal?of?the?instruction?he?requested?was?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?as?California?law.?He?argues?that?instructional?error?under?state?law?is?ipso?facto?offensive?to?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?But?yet?again?we?note?that?a?state-law?violation?is?not?automatically?a?violation?of?federal?constitutional?due?process.?In?any?event,?there?was?no?instructional?error?here?under?state?law.
Defendant?may?be?understood?to?claim?that?because?the?prosecutor-assertedly-presented?improper?argument?on?remorse,?the?trial?court?erred?under?both?the?United?States?Constitution?and?California?law?by?failing?to?expressly?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?the?absence?of?mitigation?did?not?amount?to?the?presence?of?aggravation.?But?as?explained,?the?argument?was?not?improper.
FN?27.?Defendant?claims?that?the?”introduction”?of?Mrs.?D.’s?statement?and?the?presentence?report?on?the?matter?of?the?verdict-modification?application?was?erroneous?under?California?law-and?ipso?facto?offensive?to?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?But?as?noted,?a?state-law?violation?is?not?automatically?a?violation?of?federal?constitutional?due?process.?In?any?event,?there?was?no?state-law?violation:?the?trial?court?did?not?receive?either?the?statement?or?the?report?on?the?question?here.
In?a?related?and?overlapping?point,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?under?the?United?States?Constitution?and?also?under?California?law?when?it?allegedly?considered?the?presentence?report?in?ruling?on?his?verdict-?modification?application.?But?as?explained?above,?the?court?did?not?take?the?report?into?account?in?making?its?decision.
FN?28.?Having?reviewed?the?record?in?its?entirety,?we?conclude?that?the?jury?found?that?defendant?actually?killed,?and?intended?to?kill,?Marcie?D.?within?the?meaning?of?Enmund?v.?Florida?(1982)458?U.S.?782,?788-801?[73?L.Ed.2d?1140,?1145-1154,?102?S.Ct.?3368].?We?also?conclude?that?these?findings?are?amply?supported?and?adopt?them?as?our?own.?Accordingly,?we?hold?that?imposition?of?the?penalty?of?death?on?defendant?does?not?violate?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?Cabana?v.?Bullock?(1986)?474?U.S.?376,?386?[88?L.Ed.2d?704,?716-717,?106?S.Ct.?689].)
FN?29.?In?a?supplemental?brief?filed?before?oral?argument,?defendant?contends?that?to?the?extent?that?any?claim?herein?is?not?preserved?for?review?as?a?result?of?any?of?trial?counsel’s?acts?or?omissions,?counsel?provided?ineffective?assistance?in?violation?of?the?Sixth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?15,?of?the?California?Constitution.?Defendant?asserts?the?point?perfunctorily.?We?deny?it?in?the?same?fashion.?”Defendant?has?the?burden?of?establishing,”?on?the?basis?of?”the?record?on?appeal”?and?by?means?of?”facts,?not?speculation,”?that?”counsel?rendered?ineffective?assistance.”?(People?v.?Mattson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?826,?876-877?[268?Cal.Rptr.?802,?789?P.2d?983].)?He?has?not?done?so.