People?v.?Bacigalupo?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?103?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?335;?820?P.2d?559
[No.?S004764.Dec?9,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MIGUEL?ANGEL?BACIGALUPO,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?93351,?Thomas?C.?Hastings,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.J.,?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment.)
COUNSEL
Cliff?Gardner?and?Melissa?Johnson,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?[1?Cal.4th?118]?Gillette?and?Christopher?J.?Wei,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
KENNARD,?J.
This?is?an?automatic?appeal?from?a?judgment?of?death.?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b);?unless?otherwise?indicated?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code.)?A?jury?convicted?defendant?Miguel?Angel?Bacigalupo?of?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(??187)?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?to?be?true?allegations?of?a?multiple-?murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3))?and,?as?to?each?count?of?murder,?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?The?jury?also?found?that?defendant?had?personally?used?a?firearm?in?committing?the?murders?and?robberies.?(??12022.5.)
Defendant?waived?the?right?to?a?jury?trial?on?a?charge?of?possession?of?a?concealed?firearm?by?an?ex-felon?(??12021)?and?on?two?allegations?that?he?had?suffered?prior?felony?convictions.?After?hearing?testimony,?the?trial?court?convicted?defendant?of?the?charge,?found?one?prior?felony?allegation?to?be?not?true,?but?sustained?the?allegation?that?defendant?previously?had?been?convicted?and?sentenced?to?prison?in?New?York?for?selling?cocaine?(??667.5,?subd.?(b)).
We?affirm?the?judgment?in?its?entirety.
- Facts
- Guilt?Phase?Evidence
Orestes?Guerrero,?a?Peruvian?immigrant,?owned?a?jewelry?store?in?San?Jose.?Defendant’s?mother,?Dina?Padilla?Golden,?who?is?also?from?Peru,?met?Orestes?through?friends?in?the?Peruvian?community?in?early?1983.?When?defendant’s?mother?learned?that?defendant?was?moving?from?New?York?to?Palo?Alto,?she?asked?Guerrero?to?give?him?a?job?in?the?store?and?to?train?him?in?the?jewelry?trade.
In?October?1983,?defendant?moved?from?New?York?to?California,?where?he?lived?with?his?mother?and?stepfather?in?their?Palo?Alto?apartment.?He?found?work?as?a?dishwasher?at?a?restaurant,?but?soon?left?for?another?job.?On?the?morning?of?December?29,?1983,?defendant?told?his?mother?and?stepfather?he?had?quit?this?second?job.
Carlos?Valdiviezo?lived?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store.?He?had?left?Peru?and?entered?the?United?States?illegally?with?Orestes’s?brother,?Jose?Luis?[1?Cal.4th?119]?Guerrero.?On?the?morning?of?December?28,?1983,?Valdiviezo?saw?defendant?in?the?jewelry?store?with?Orestes?and?Jose?Guerrero.?Valdiviezo?heard?Orestes?say?that?defendant?was?the?son?of?a?Peruvian?woman?and?that?he?had?been?recommended?to?work?in?the?jewelry?store.?fn.?1
The?next?morning,?Valdiviezo?and?Orestes?Guerrero?put?jewelry?into?the?jewelry?cases?in?the?front?area?of?the?store.?The?two?men?then?left?the?store?to?pick?up?some?diamonds;?they?returned?shortly?before?noon.?Half?an?hour?later,?defendant?arrived?at?the?jewelry?store;?he?was?given?the?task?of?operating?a?silverthreading?machine?used?in?making?jewelry.?While?assisting?defendant,?who?seemed?to?be?having?trouble?operating?the?machine,?Valdiviezo?noticed?that?defendant?was?quite?nervous.?Valdiviezo?then?left?the?jewelry?store?to?change?the?spark?plugs?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?car.
When?Valdiviezo?returned?an?hour?later,?defendant?pointed?a?handgun?at?him?and?ordered?him?to?lie?down.?Defendant?put?the?gun?next?to?Valdiviezo’s?head?and?tried?to?shoot,?but?the?gun?jammed.?Valdiviezo?ran?and?hid?in?the?store’s?bathroom.
About?20?minutes?later,?Valdiviezo?left?his?hiding?place?after?he?heard?someone?leave?through?the?front?door?of?the?store.?Valdiviezo?discovered?the?dead?bodies?of?Orestes?and?Jose?Guerrero;?both?had?been?shot.?The?jewelry?cases?at?the?front?of?the?store?were?all?empty.
Valdiviezo?immediately?contacted?Orestes?Guerrero’s?wife?and?told?her?what?had?happened.?Because?of?his?fear?of?deportation,?he?did?not?talk?with?the?police?until?several?hours?after?the?killings.
Later?that?evening,?the?police?arrested?defendant?at?his?mother?and?stepfather’s?apartment?in?Palo?Alto,?just?as?his?stepfather?was?preparing?to?take?defendant?to?the?airport.?Defendant’s?suitcases?contained?the?jewelry?taken?from?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store.?After?advisement?and?waiver?of?his?constitutional?rights,?defendant?admitted?killing?the?Guerrero?brothers,?but?claimed?he?had?done?so?under?threat?of?death?by?the?Colombian?Mafia.
Defendant?presented?no?evidence?at?the?guilt?phase?of?the?trial.
- Penalty?Phase?Evidence
As?evidence?of?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?involving?force?or?violence?(??190.3,?factor?(b))?the?prosecution?presented?testimony?from?two?[1?Cal.4th?120]?witnesses,?Maggie?Granell?and?Dominic?DiGregorio,?about?defendant’s?1978?participation?in?an?armed?robbery?of?a?grocery?store?and?the?subsequent?shootout?with?police?in?New?York.?In?addition,?the?prosecution?offered?evidence?that?defendant?had?suffered?two?prior?felony?convictions?(??190.3,?factor?(c))?for?sale?of?a?controlled?substance?and?possession?of?a?firearm?in?New?York.
In?mitigation,?the?defense?presented?the?testimony?of?defendant’s?mother?and?two?other?witnesses?(a?minister?and?a?psychologist),?both?of?whom?had?met?with?defendant?in?jail?after?his?arrest?on?this?case.
Defendant’s?mother?testified?that?defendant?was?the?youngest?of?three?children.?His?parents?separated?when?he?was?seven?years?old;?shortly?thereafter,?defendant?and?his?mother?moved?from?Peru?to?Mexico?City.?Eventually?they?came?to?New?York?City?where?defendant’s?mother?worked?long?hours?and?left?defendant?unattended.?As?a?teenager,?defendant?visited?his?sister?in?Spain.?After?the?two?had?a?quarrel,?defendant?spent?one?year?in?a?Spanish?orphanage?until?his?return?to?the?United?States?could?be?arranged.?In?1980,?when?defendant?was?in?prison?in?New?York,?his?older?brother?was?killed?during?a?robbery.
Reverend?Richard?Lyon?testified?that?he?had?met?with?defendant?about?a?dozen?times?since?the?arrest?in?this?case.?He?showed?the?jury?some?religious?drawings?that?defendant?had?made?for?him,?and?said?that?defendant?was?attempting?to?gain?personal?insight?through?religion.
Based?on?his?examination?of?defendant,?Dr.?John?Brady,?a?clinical?psychologist,?concluded?that?defendant?suffered?from?chronic?depression.?He?based?that?conclusion?on?defendant’s?conduct,?which?included?attempts?at?self-mutilation.?In?his?view,?younger?offenders?such?as?defendant?might?be?rehabilitated?through?the?penal?system.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?questioned?Dr.?Brady?about?defendant’s?disciplinary?problems?while?in?prison?in?New?York.?Brady?attributed?those?problems,?which?included?assaultive?conduct,?to?defendant’s?efforts?to?protect?himself.
- Guilt?Phase?Issues
- Validity?of?the?Warrantless?Arrest?and?Search
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?committed?reversible?error?in?admitting?evidence?obtained?as?the?result?of?his?warrantless?arrest.
The?relevant?facts?are?as?follows:?At?8:30?p.m.?on?the?day?of?the?killings,?based?on?information?provided?by?Valdiviezo?and?members?of?the?Guerrero?[1?Cal.4th?121]?family,?officers?of?the?San?Jose?and?Palo?Alto?police?departments?arrived?at?the?apartment?defendant?shared?with?his?mother?and?stepfather?to?arrest?him?for?the?murders?of?the?Guerrero?brothers?a?few?hours?earlier.?Because?the?murders?occurred?in?San?Jose,?but?defendant?lived?in?Palo?Alto,?officers?of?both?the?San?Jose?and?Palo?Alto?police?departments?participated?in?the?arrest.
San?Jose?homicide?Detective?James?Smith?was?in?charge.?He?had?no?arrest?or?search?warrant.?He?did?not?learn?defendant’s?identity?and?address?until?after?6:30?p.m.,?and?believed?that?the?extra?time?involved?in?obtaining?a?warrant?after?regular?working?hours?increased?the?likelihood?that?defendant?would?leave?California?or?dispose?of?evidence.?He?did?consider?obtaining?a?telephonic?warrant?(see????1526,?subd.?(b),?1528,?subd.?(b)),?but?concluded?that?it?would?be?too?time?consuming?and?too?”risky”?under?the?circumstances.
Detective?Smith?and?two?other?officers?went?to?the?front?door?of?the?apartment.?Smith?knocked?on?the?door?and?defendant’s?mother,?Mrs.?Golden,?answered.?Smith?asked?if?defendant?was?at?home;?Mrs.?Golden?answered,?”Yes,”?and?stepped?back.?As?she?did?so,?the?officers?entered?the?apartment.
Officer?Moises?Reyes?ordered?defendant?to?come?out?of?a?locked?bathroom,?arrested?him,?took?him?outside,?and?had?him?sit?in?the?back?of?a?police?car.?Reyes?then?advised?defendant?of?his?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436,?479?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?726,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974].?After?waiving?his?rights,?defendant?admitted?killing?the?two?Guerrero?brothers.
Defendant’s?stepfather,?Don?Golden,?gave?written?authorization?for?the?officers?to?search?the?apartment.?Golden?removed?from?his?car?suitcases?belonging?to?defendant?and?handed?them?to?the?police.
On?the?way?to?the?police?station,?defendant?led?Officer?Reyes?to?some?bushes?near?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store?where?defendant?had?abandoned?the?gun?used?in?the?killings.?At?the?station,?defendant?signed?a?written?authorization?for?a?search?of?his?suitcases.?They?contained?jewelry?taken?from?the?display?cases?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?store.
[1a]?Before?trial,?defendant?moved?under?section?1538.5?to?suppress?the?jewelry,?the?empty?jewelry?boxes,?the?gun?used?in?the?killings,?and?the?statements?he?had?made?to?the?police?(see?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Zolnay)?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?729,?733?[125?Cal.Rptr.?798,?542?P.2d?1390]),?claiming?that?the?evidence?was?the?product?of?his?unlawful?arrest?without?a?warrant.?The?prosecution?argued?that?the?arrest?was?valid?based?on?either?of?two?exceptions?to?the?warrant?requirement:?exigent?circumstances?or?the?consent?of?[1?Cal.4th?122]?defendant’s?mother?to?the?officers’?entry?into?the?apartment.?The?trial?court?agreed?there?were?exigent?circumstances?and?denied?defendant’s?suppression?motion.?The?court?also?determined?that?the?written?consents?to?search?by?defendant?and?his?stepfather?were?voluntarily?given.?We?find?no?error?in?these?rulings.The?Fourth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?prohibits?”unreasonable?searches?and?seizures.”?[2]?”[T]he?arrest?of?a?person?is?’quintessentially?a?seizure’?”?within?the?meaning?of?the?Fourth?Amendment.?(Payton?v.?New?York?(1980)?445?U.S.?573,?585?[63?L.Ed.2d?639,?650,?100?S.Ct.?1371],?citation?omitted.)?Although?a?warrantless?arrest?in?a?public?place?does?not?offend?the?Fourth?Amendment?so?long?as?the?arresting?officer?has?reasonable?cause?to?believe?that?the?person?to?be?arrested?has?committed?a?felony?(United?States?v.?Watson?(1976)?423?U.S.?411,?422[46?L.Ed.2d?598,?608,?96?S.Ct.?820];?see???836,?subd.?3;?People?v.?Campa?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?870,?878?[206?Cal.Rptr.?114,?686?P.2d?634]),?an?arrest?in?a?person’s?home?requires?an?arrest?warrant.?(Payton?v.?New?York,?supra,?at?pp.?589-590?[63?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?653];?People?v.?Ramey?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?263,?275?[127?Cal.Rptr.?629,?545?P.2d?1333].)?The?warrant?requirement?is?excused,?however,?when?exigent?circumstances?require?prompt?action?by?the?police?”to?prevent?imminent?danger?to?life?…?or?to?forestall?the?imminent?escape?of?a?suspect?or?destruction?of?evidence.”?(16?Cal.3d?at?p.?276.)
Although?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?recognized?exigent?circumstances?as?an?exception?to?the?Fourth?Amendment’s?warrant?requirement?(Payton?v.?New?York,?supra,?445?U.S.?at?pp.?588-590?[63?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?652-653]),?it?has?yet?to?delineate?the?precise?contours?of?that?exception.?The?court?has,?however,?described?an?in?bank?opinion?by?a?federal?appeals?court,?Dorman?v.?United?States?(D.C.?Cir.?1970)?435?F.2d?385,?as?”a?leading?federal?case?defining?exigent?circumstances?….”?(Welsh?v.?Wisconsin?(1984)?466?U.S.?740,?751,?752?[80?L.Ed.2d?732,?744,?104?S.Ct.?2091].)
[3]?To?determine?whether?exigent?circumstances?support?the?decision?to?make?an?arrest?without?first?obtaining?a?warrant,?Dorman?v.?United?States,?supra,?435?F.2d?at?pages?392-393,?sets?out?the?following?pertinent?factors:?the?gravity?of?the?offense?involved;?whether?the?subject?of?the?arrest?is?reasonably?believed?to?be?armed;?whether?probable?cause?is?clear;?whether?the?suspect?is?likely?to?be?found?on?the?premises?entered;?and?the?likelihood?that?the?suspect?will?escape?if?not?promptly?arrested.?We?recently?applied?the?Dorman?factors?in?People?v.?Williams?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1139?[259?Cal.Rptr.?473,?774?P.2d?146]. [1b]?Here,?application?of?the?factors?specified?in?Dorman?v.?United?States,?supra,?435?F.2d?at?pages?392-393,?establishes?the?existence?of?exigent?[1?Cal.4th?123]?circumstances,?thus?justifying?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?in?his?home.?Detective?Smith?knew?that?two?men?had?just?been?shot?to?death.?Information?from?eyewitness?Valdiviezo?and?from?other?members?of?the?Peruvian?community?provided?the?police?with?strong?probable?cause?to?believe?that?defendant?was?the?killer,?that?he?was?likely?to?be?armed,?and?that?he?would?be?at?the?apartment?he?shared?with?his?mother?and?stepfather.?The?police?also?knew?that?defendant?was?a?Peruvian?national?who?had?recently?come?to?California?from?New?York,?and?that?he?was?aware?that?Valdiviezo?could?identify?him,?which?increased?the?likelihood?that?defendant?would?flee.?These?circumstances,?when?considered?together,?were?”more?than?sufficiently?urgent?to?justify”?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?at?home.?(People?v.?Williams,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1139.)?Accordingly,?the?trial?court’s?admission?of?evidence?resulting?from?that?arrest?was?proper.Because?of?our?conclusion?that?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?was?valid,?we?need?not?address?the?prosecution’s?alternative?theory?of?consent.
- Failure?to?Disclose?Confidential?Informant
Defendant?contends?that?the?informant?could?have?provided?material?evidence?beneficial?to?the?defense?(see?People?v.?Borunda?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?523,?527?[113?Cal.Rptr.?825,?522?P.2d?1]),?and?that?therefore?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?disclosure.?After?a?careful?review?of?the?sealed?transcript?of?the?in?camera?hearing?held?by?the?trial?court,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim.
- Alleged?Instructional?Errors
- Requested?Instructions?on?Duress
Immediately?after?his?arrest,?defendant?talked?to?Officer?Reyes?after?waiving?his?constitutional?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona,?supra,?384?U.S.?436,?479?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?726].?At?first,?defendant?denied?his?involvement?in?the?jewelry?store?incident,?but?later?he?admitted?killing?the?Guerrero?brothers.?Defendant?made?vague?reference?to?a?group?he?called?the?”Colombian?Mafia,”fn.?2?which?he?said?had?”contracted”?him?to?commit?the?double?murder?and?threatened?to?kill?him?and?his?family?if?he?did?not?do?so.?[1?Cal.4th?124]?Defendant?said?he?was?to?turn?the?stolen?jewelry?over?to?the?Colombian?Mafia?in?New?York.
At?trial,?Officer?Reyes?testified?to?defendant’s?admissions?made?about?the?killings?and?defendant’s?comments?about?the?Colombian?Mafia.?Defendant?did?not?testify.
The?prosecution?offered?alternative?theories?to?support?defendant’s?guilt?of?first?degree?murder:?the?killings?were?premeditated?and?deliberate,?and?they?occurred?in?the?course?of?a?robbery.?(??189.)?The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?on?both?of?these?theories.?At?the?prosecution’s?request,?the?court?also?instructed?the?jury?on?the?defense?of?duress?as?defined?in?CALJIC?No.?4.40?(4th?ed.?1979,?bound?vol.;?unless?otherwise?indicated,?all?further?references?to?CALJIC?are?to?this?edition),?and?it?gave?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?4.41,?fn.?3?informing?the?jury?that?duress?was?not?a?defense?to?a?charge?of?homicide.
The?defense?acknowledged?that?duress?would?not?be?a?complete?defense?to?murder,?but?argued?that?it?should?reduce?criminal?culpability?by?negating?the?ability?to?premeditate?and?deliberate.?Accordingly,?defense?counsel?requested?the?court?to?instruct?the?jury?on?this?theory?of?duress?and?to?give?an?additional?instruction?on?manslaughter.?Counsel?also?asked?for?permission?to?argue?this?theory?to?the?jury.?The?court?denied?each?of?these?requests.
[5]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?refusing?to?instruct?the?jury?that?duress?could?negate?the?elements?of?premeditation?and?deliberation,?and?that?the?court’s?ruling?denied?him?the?effective?assistance?of?counsel?by?improperly?limiting?counsel’s?argument?to?the?jury.?Defendant?posits?that?the?threats?of?harm?would?negate?the?mental?states?necessary?for?first?degree?murder,?thereby?reducing?his?criminal?culpability?either?to?second?degree?murder?(see?Lafave?&?Scott,?Criminal?Law?(1st?ed.?1972)???49,?p.?379?[suggesting?that?duress?may?eliminate?the?ability?to?deliberate?or?premeditate])?or?to?manslaughter?(Lafave?&?Scott,?Criminal?Law?(2d?ed.?1986)???7.11(c),?pp.?666-667?[duress?may?negate?malice?thereby?reducing?murder?to?manslaughter]).?As?we?shall?discuss,?the?facts?of?this?case?do?not?support?the?instruction?that?defendant?requested.?[1?Cal.4th?125]A?trial?court?need?only?give?those?requested?instructions?supported?by?evidence?that?is?substantial.?(People?v.?Flannel?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?668,?684,?fn.?12?[160?Cal.Rptr.?84,?603?P.2d?1].)?Central?to?a?defense?of?duress?is?the?immediacy?of?the?threat?or?menace?on?which?the?defense?is?premised.?(People?v.?Quinlan?(1970)?8?Cal.App.3d?1063,?1068?[88?Cal.Rptr.?125];?People?v.?Pic’l?(1981)?114?Cal.App.3d?824,?869?[171?Cal.Rptr.?106],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?People?v.?Kimble?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?480,?498?[244?Cal.Rptr.?148,?749?P.2d?803].)?”[A]?phantasmagoria?of?future?harm,”?such?as?a?death?threat?to?be?carried?out?at?some?undefined?time,?will?not?diminish?criminal?culpability.?(People?v.?Otis?(1959)?174?Cal.App.2d?119,?125?[344?P.2d?342];?People?v.?Lewis?(1963)?222?Cal.App.2d?136,?141?[35?Cal.Rptr.?1].)
Here,?defendant’s?vague?and?unsubstantiated?assertion?in?his?statement?to?Officer?Reyes-that?the?Colombian?Mafia?had?threatened?to?kill?him?and?members?of?his?family?if?he?did?not?kill?the?Guerrero?brothers-did?not?constitute?substantial?evidence?that?the?threat?of?death?to?defendant?and?his?family?was?imminent.?Without?bestowing?merit?on?defendant’s?theory?that?duress?can?negate?premeditation?and?deliberation,?we?simply?hold?that?in?the?absence?of?substantial?evidence?of?immediacy?of?the?threatened?harm,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?refusing?defendant’s?proffered?instructions.?Consequently,?defendant?was?not?denied?the?effective?assistance?of?counsel?when,?as?a?result?of?the?court’s?ruling,?defendant?was?precluded?from?presenting?to?the?jury?a?theory?of?defense?unsupported?by?the?evidence.
Moreover,?by?finding?the?alleged?robbery?special?circumstance?to?be?true,?the?jury?necessarily?decided?that?the?murders?were?committed?in?the?course?of?a?robbery.?(???189,?190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i);?People?v.?Garrison?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?746,?779?[254?Cal.Rptr.?257,?765?P.2d?419].)?For?this?reason,?the?murder?verdicts?are?not?dependent?on?findings?that?the?killings?were?deliberate?or?premeditated.?Thus,?any?error?by?the?trial?court?in?refusing?the?requested?instructions,?which?pertained?only?to?murder?premised?on?deliberate?and?premeditated?conduct,?was?harmless.?(People?v.?Sedeno?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?703,?721?[112?Cal.Rptr.?1,?518?P.2d?913].)
- Obligation?to?Instruct?Sua?Sponte?on?”Imperfect?Duress”?as?a?Defense?to?Robbery?and?Robbery-murder
In?People?v.?Flannel,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?668,?we?held?that?an?honest?but?unreasonable?belief?in?the?need?to?defend?oneself?from?imminent?peril?to?life?or?great?bodily?injury?negates?malice?aforethought,?the?requisite?mental?state?for?murder,?thus?reducing?that?offense?to?manslaughter.?(Id.?at?pp.?679-680.)?In?reaching?that?result,?we?reasoned?that?a?defendant?who?killed?under?an?honestly?held?but?mistaken?belief?that?his?own?life?was?in?peril,?could?not?harbor?malice,?the?requisite?mental?state?for?murder.?(Ibid.)?The?absence?of?malice?did?not?provide?a?complete?defense,?but?rather?reduced?the?defendant’s?culpability?from?murder?to?the?lesser?offense?of?manslaughter.?(Ibid.)
In?the?case?of?robbery,?however,?the?unreasonable?belief?that?a?defendant?is?acting?under?duress?will?not?negate?the?requisite?specific?intent;?that?intent?is?to?deprive?the?owner?of?the?property?taken.?(People?v.?Guerra?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?377,?385?[220?Cal.Rptr.?374,?708?P.2d?1252];?People?v.?Ford?(1964)?60?Cal.2d?772,?792?[36?Cal.Rptr.?620,?388?P.2d?892];?2?Witkin?&?Epstein,?Cal.?Criminal?Law?(2d?ed.?1988)?Crimes?Against?Property,???645,?pp.?726-727.)?Here,?even?if?defendant?took?the?jewelry?from?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store?under?the?unreasonable?belief?that?doing?so?was?necessary?to?protect?life-his?own?or?that?of?a?family?member-that?unreasonable?belief?alone?would?have?no?effect?on?his?intent?to?deprive?the?rightful?owner?permanently?of?the?jewelry.?Therefore,?we?reject?defendant’s?argument?that?an?honest?but?unreasonable?belief?in?duress?would?negate?the?specific?intent?element?of?robbery.
Even?if?we?were?to?hold?that?duress?could?negate?the?specific?intent?to?permanently?deprive?another?of?property,?the?trial?court?in?this?case?was?under?no?duty?to?give?such?an?instruction?without?a?request?therefor.?A?court?need?only?give?instructions?sua?sponte?on?general?principles?of?law.?(People?v.?Flannel,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?668,?680-681;?People?v.?Sedeno,?supra,?10?Cal.3d?703,?715.)?As?we?explained?in?Flannel,?a?legal?concept?that?has?been?referred?to?only?infrequently,?and?then?with?”inadequate?elucidation,”?cannot?be?considered?a?general?principle?of?law?such?that?a?trial?court?must?include?it?within?jury?instructions?in?the?absence?of?a?request.?fn.?4(25?Cal.3d?at?p.?681.)?[1?Cal.4th?127]?3.?Failure?to?Instruct?on?Assault?as?a?Lesser?Included?Offense?of?Robbery
The?jury?convicted?defendant?of?two?counts?of?robbery.?The?Penal?Code?defines?robbery?as?”the?felonious?taking?of?personal?property?in?the?possession?of?another,?from?his?person?or?immediate?presence,?and?against?his?will,?accomplished?by?means?of?force?or?fear.”?(??211,?italics?added.)?[7]?In?People?v.?Geiger?(1984)?35?Cal.3d?510,?517,?footnote?4?[199?Cal.Rptr.?45,?674?P.2d?1303,?50?A.L.R.4th?1055],?we?explained?that?for?purposes?of?discerning?whether?a?lesser?offense?is?necessarily?included?in?a?greater?offense,?courts?look?either?to?the?statutory?definition?of?the?offense?or?to?the?”charging?allegations?of?the?accusatory?pleading.”?The?information?in?this?case?charged?defendant?with?a?felonious?taking?by?means?of?”force?and?fear.”?[8]?Based?on?the?pleading’s?use?of?the?phrase?”force?and?fear”?in?defining?robbery,?defendant?contends?that?the?crime?of?assault?was?necessarily?included?within?the?offense?of?robbery?as?charged?and?that?the?trial?court?thus?had?a?sua?sponte?obligation?to?instruct?on?a?lesser?offense?of?assault.?Even?assuming?for?purposes?of?argument?that?assault?is?a?lesser?included?offense?of?robbery?as?charged?here,?defendant’s?contention?fails.
A?trial?court?must?instruct?sua?sponte?on?a?lesser?included?offense?”only?if?there?is?substantial?evidence?to?support?a?jury’s?determination?that?the?defendant?was?in?fact?only?guilty?of?the?lesser?offense.”?(People?v.?Ramos?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?553,?582?[180?Cal.Rptr.?266,?639?P.2d?908],?italics?added.)?There?was?no?such?evidence?in?this?case.
- Trial?Court’s?Instruction?on?Flight?and?False?Statements
When?the?police?arrived?at?the?Goldens’?apartment?to?arrest?defendant,?his?packed?suitcases?were?in?his?stepfather’s?car.?Defendant?had?told?his?mother?he?was?leaving?California,?and?he?had?arranged?for?his?stepfather?to?take?him?to?the?airport.?In?his?initial?statements?to?Officer?Reyes,?defendant?denied?killing?the?two?Guerrero?brothers,?claiming?that?an?acquaintance,?Karlos?Tijiboy,?was?the?murderer.?[9]?Based?on?this?evidence,?the?trial?court,?at?the?prosecution’s?request,?instructed?the?jury?that?flight?(CALJIC?No.?2.52)?and?false?statements?(CALJIC?No.?2.03)?could?be?considered?as?evidence?[1?Cal.4th?128]?tending?to?show?consciousness?of?guilt.?fn.?5?Defendant?now?argues?that?the?instructions?denied?him?due?process?of?law?by?permitting?the?jury?to?consider?consciousness?of?guilt?both?in?determining?the?degree?of?the?homicides?and?the?existence?of?the?intent?element?of?robbery.?The?essence?of?this?argument?is?that?the?instructions?allowed?the?jury?to?draw?arbitrary?inferences?from?the?evidence?of?defendant’s?flight?and?false?statements.?Defendant?also?contends?that?the?instructions?invited?the?jury?to?draw?biased?inferences?from?isolated?items?of?evidence?and?were?impermissibly?argumentative.?We?reject?these?contentions.
The?jury?could?properly?infer?consciousness?of?guilt?from?defendant’s?efforts?to?leave?California?(cf.?People?v.?Silva?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?604,?628?[247?Cal.Rptr.?573,?754?P.2d?1070]),?as?well?as?from?his?efforts?to?exculpate?himself?by?blaming?Karlos?Tijiboy?for?the?murders?(People?v.?Cooper?(1970)?7?Cal.App.3d?200,?204-205?[86?Cal.Rptr.?499]).?The?trial?court’s?instructions?on?flight?and?false?statements?did?not?suggest?to?the?jurors?that?they?could?infer?any?mental?state?or?degree?of?culpability?from?consciousness?of?guilt.?Nor?were?the?instructions?biased?or?argumentative.?Rather,?they?properly?advised?the?jury?of?inferences?that?could?rationally?be?drawn?from?the?evidence.
- The?Trial?Court’s?Instruction?That?an?Admission?Should?Be?Viewed?With?Caution
Based?on?the?evidence?of?statements?that?defendant?had?made?to?the?police,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?a?confession?is?a?statement?by?a?defendant?acknowledging?guilt?and?that?an?admission?is?a?statement?that?tends?to?prove?guilt.?fn.?6?The?court?also?instructed?that?confessions?and?admissions?by?a?defendant?should?be?viewed?with?caution.?The?statements?that?[1?Cal.4th?129]?defendant?made?included?some?exculpatory?material.?[10]?Defendant?contends?that?the?cautionary?instruction?was?error?in?this?case?because?it?advised?the?jury?to?distrust?defendant’s?exculpatory?statements.?This?contention?lacks?merit,?as?is?clear?from?consideration?of?the?instruction?as?a?whole.
After?explaining?that?a?confession?by?the?accused?is?an?acknowledgement?of?guilt,?whereas?an?admission?tends?to?show?guilt,?the?court?told?the?jury?that?it?should?view?with?caution?any?confession?or?admission?made?by?defendant.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?the?instruction?did?not?tell?the?jury?to?distrust?those?portions?of?defendant’s?statements?to?the?police?that?did?not?either?acknowledge?or?tend?to?show?his?guilt.
- Corpus?Delicti?Instruction
- Prosecutor’s?Comment?on?Uncontroverted?Testimony
In?his?statements?to?Officer?Reyes,?defendant?sought?to?blame?Karlos?Tijiboy?for?the?robbery?and?killings,?saying?first?that?Tijiboy?had?committed?the?crimes?and?later?that?Tijiboy,?on?behalf?of?the?Colombian?Mafia,?had?ordered?defendant?to?do?so.?Tijiboy,?testifying?for?the?prosecution,?denied?any?involvement?in?the?murders?of?the?Guerrero?brothers.?During?argument,?the?prosecutor?urged?the?jury?to?believe?Tijiboy’s?testimony,?noting?that?his?testimony?was?”uncontroverted.”?Defendant?did?not?object.
[12]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?comment?made?by?the?prosecutor?during?closing?argument?”indirectly?focused”?the?jury’s?attention?on?”defendant’s?refusal?to?testify”?in?violation?of?Griffin?v.?California?(1965)?380?U.S.?609,?615?[14?L.Ed.2d?106,?110,?85?S.Ct.?1229].?Because?an?admonition?would?have?cured?any?possible?prejudice?that?the?prosecutor’s?comment?might?have?had?on?the?defense?case,?defendant’s?failure?to?object?bars?review?of?the?issue.?(People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1236?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047];?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?27-34?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)?Moreover,?the?prosecutor’s?statement?was?a?permissible?comment?on?the?state?of?the?evidence,?which?did?not?offend?Griffin.?(People?v.?Morris?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1,?35?[249?Cal.Rptr.?119,?756?P.2d?843];?People?v.?Ratcliff?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?675,?691?[224?Cal.Rptr.?705,?715?P.2d?665].)III.?Penalty?Phase?Issues
- Admission?of?Facts?of?Violent?Criminal?Activity
At?the?penalty?phase?of?the?trial,?the?prosecution?sought?to?establish?aggravating?circumstances?by?offering?evidence?of?criminal?activity?by?defendant?involving?force?or?violence.?(??190.3,?factor?(b).)
Maggie?Granell?testified?that?on?July?5,?1978,?about?4?a.m.,?she?and?her?husband?were?working?at?a?store?they?owned?in?New?York?City?when?defendant?and?another?man?came?into?the?store.?Defendant?held?a?gun?to?Mrs.?Granell’s?head,?cocked?it?and?said,?”Shut?up?or?I?kill?you,”?while?the?other?man?emptied?the?cash?register.?During?this?time,?Mr.?Granell,?who?had?a?gun,?was?hiding?behind?some?shelves.?When?defendant?and?his?companion?fled?in?a?car,?Mr.?Granell?ran?after?them?and?fired?at?the?car’s?rear?window.
New?York?Police?Officer?Dominic?DiGregorio?was?in?the?area?in?a?marked?police?car?with?a?partner?officer?when?he?heard?the?shots?and?saw?a?car?speed?[1?Cal.4th?131]?away.?DiGregorio?chased?the?getaway?car?through?the?city?streets?at?speeds?of?up?to?90?miles?per?hour.?During?the?chase,?defendant,?who?was?the?passenger?in?the?car,?fired?at?Officer?DiGregorio?seven?to?nine?times?through?the?car’s?broken?rear?window.?When?the?getaway?car?crashed?into?another?vehicle,?Officer?DiGregorio?arrested?defendant,?who?was?then?16?years?old,?and?recovered?the?gun.
- Consideration?of?Facts?Underlying?Dismissed?Charges
Based?on?the?incident?described?above,?New?York?authorities?filed?a?15-?count?felony?indictment,?which?included?charges?of?robbery,?attempted?murder,?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?and?illegal?possession?of?a?loaded?firearm.?On?August?29,?1978,?defendant?entered?a?plea?of?guilty?to?robbery.?The?remaining?counts?against?him?were?dismissed.
At?the?penalty?phase?in?this?case,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?the?New?York?robbery,?attempted?getaway,?and?shootout?as?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?involving?force?or?violence,?an?aggravating?factor.?fn.?8?(??190.3,?factor?(b).)?Defense?counsel?objected?to?the?admission?of?evidence?of?the?chase?and?shootout.?He?relied?on?language?in?section?190.3,?which?prohibits?the?admission?of?aggravating?evidence?pertaining?to?prior?criminal?activity?”for?an?offense?for?which?the?defendant?was?prosecuted?and?acquitted.”?[13a]?Counsel?characterized?as?an?”implied?acquittal”?the?New?York?court’s?plea-bargained?dismissal?of?the?counts?involving?the?getaway?attempt?and?shootout.?In?support,?he?cited?People?v.?Harvey?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?754,?758-759?[159?Cal.Rptr.?696,?602?P.2d?396],?which?holds?that?for?purposes?of?sentence?enhancement,?a?court?may?not?consider?facts?that?pertain?solely?to?a?charge?that?has?been?dismissed?as?part?of?a?plea?bargain.?We?conclude?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?admitting?the?evidence,?for?reasons?that?follow.
After?the?trial?in?this?case,?we?held?in?People?v.?Heishman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?147,?193?[246?Cal.Rptr.?673,?753?P.2d?629],?that?for?purposes?of?section?190.3,?an?”acquittal”?did?not?include?a?charge?dismissed?as?part?of?a?plea?bargain?and?thus?”not?based?on?any?judicial?determination?with?respect?to?the?truth?or?falsity?of?the?charge?….”?(Accord?People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?755?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741].)?We?explained?that?the?[1?Cal.4th?132]?”constraint?[set?out?in?People?v.?Harvey,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?754,?758]?against?reliance?on?facts?underlying?the?dismissed?count?to?fix?the?sentence?in?the?very?case?for?which?the?plea?bargain?was?executed?does?not?preclude?the?use?of?such?facts?in?the?penalty?phase?of?a?later,?separate?trial?for?murder?with?special?circumstances,?in?order?to?show?criminal?activity?involving?violence?as?an?aggravating?factor.”?(People?v.?Heishman,?supra,?at?p.?193,?italics?added.)?Thus,?in?Heishman,?we?rejected?the?same?argument?that?defendant?in?this?case?raised?in?the?trial?court.
Defendant?nonetheless?maintains?that?his?case?is?not?controlled?by?People?v.?Heishman,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?147,?but?rather?by?People?v.?Sheldon?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?935,?951-952?[258?Cal.Rptr.?242,?771?P.2d?1330].?In?Sheldon,?we?held?that?admission?of?other-crimes?evidence?concerning?lesser?included?offenses?of?attempted?murder?violated?section?190.3,?in?view?of?the?defendant’s?acquittal?of?attempted?murder?in?a?Nevada?jury?trial.?We?stated?that?”under?Nevada?law?[the?defendant’s]?acquittal?of?attempted?murder?would?bar?conviction?or?retrial?of?all?necessarily?included?offenses”?including?those?the?prosecution?had?introduced?as?other-crimes?evidence.?(People?v.?Sheldon,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?951.)?Based?on?this?reference?to?Nevada?law,?defendant?suggests?that?we?have?held?that?the?law?of?the?state?in?which?a?defendant?has?been?acquitted?controls?on?the?issue?of?what?constitutes?an?acquittal?for?purposes?of?section?190.3,?and?he?argues?that?under?New?York?law?he?was?acquitted?of?the?dismissed?charges.?Defendant?misreads?Sheldon.
Our?conclusion?in?People?v.?Sheldon,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?935,?951,?that?admission?of?other-crimes?evidence?was?error,?was?premised?on?our?earlier?holding?in?People?v.?Heishman,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?147,?193,?that?for?purposes?of?section?190.3,?”an?offense?for?which?the?defendant?[was]?’prosecuted?and?acquitted’?”?was?one?where?the?falsity?of?the?charge?had?been?judicially?established.?As?we?acknowledged,?after?such?an?acquittal,?principles?of?double?jeopardy?and?due?process?would?bar?a?retrial?of?the?same?charge?or?of?lesser?offenses?that?are?included?in?that?charge.?(People?v.?Sheldon,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?951,?citing?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?756,?fn.?17.)?Thus?it?was?in?that?context?that?we?looked?to?Nevada?law?in?Sheldon?to?decide?whether?the?evidence?that?had?been?presented?was?for?crimes?that?were?lesser?included?offenses?of?the?charge?of?attempted?murder?of?which?the?defendant?had?been?acquitted.?(People?v.?Sheldon,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?935,?951-952.)?We?did?not?at?all?suggest?that?the?law?of?another?state?would?control?on?the?issue?of?what?constituted?an?acquittal?for?purposes?of?section?190.3.
[14]?(See?fn.?9.),?[13b]?Additionally,?defendant?argues?that?admission?of?evidence?of?facts?pertaining?to?the?dismissed?charges?violated?the?full?faith?[1?Cal.4th?133]?and?credit?clause?of?the?United?States?Constitution.?(U.S.?Const.,?art.?IV,???1.)?fn.?9?He?maintains?that?under?New?York?law?the?facts?involving?a?charge?that?has?been?dismissed?as?part?of?a?plea?bargain?may?not?be?considered?as?an?aggravating?circumstance,?and?that?the?trial?court?in?this?case?had?to?apply?New?York?law.?We?disagree.Under?New?York?law,?the?dismissal?of?criminal?charges?as?part?of?a?plea?bargain?is?an?”acquittal”?of?those?charges,?which?precludes?prosecution?on?the?dismissed?charges?(People?v.?Romer?(1972)?38?A.D.2d?757?[329?N.Y.S.2d?719,?721])?or?consideration?of?their?underlying?facts?for?the?purpose?of?imposing?a?sentence?to?a?reduced?charge?(People?v.?Griffin?(1960)?7?N.Y.2d?511,?515-516?[199?N.Y.S.2d?674,?166?N.E.2d?684]).?Thus,?when?as?part?of?a?plea?bargain,?a?defendant?pleads?to?a?reduced?charge?and?the?remaining?charges?are?dismissed,?New?York?law?precludes?courts?from?considering?the?allegations?supporting?the?dismissed?charges?when?imposing?sentence.?(People?v.?Griffin,?supra,?7?N.Y.2d?at?p.?515.)?A?plea?to?a?lesser?charge?”does?not?presuppose?the?truth?of?the?facts?pleaded?in?the?indictment.?…?[Defendant’s]?plea?only?admits?the?facts?stated?in?the?plea?as?constituting?the?lesser?crime.”?(Ibid.;?accord?People?v.?Ayiotis?(1965)?23?A.D.2d?760?[258?N.Y.S.2d?554,?556];?People?v.?DeFini?(1964)?20?A.D.2d?250?[246?N.Y.S.2d?485,?487-488];?People?v.?Hall?(1961)?28?Misc.2d?769?[216?N.Y.S.2d?148,?149-?150].)?These?cases,?however,?do?not?purport?to?define?what?constitutes?an?acquittal?for?purposes?of?the?admission?of?aggravating?evidence?in?a?California?capital?case.
As?previously?explained,?we?have?defined?an?”offense?for?which?the?defendant?[was]?’prosecuted?and?acquitted’?”?under?section?190.3?as?one?in?[1?Cal.4th?134]?which?there?has?been?a?judicial?determination?of?the?truth?or?falsity?of?the?charge.?(People?v.?Heishman,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?147,?193.)?An?offense?falls?within?this?definition?only?if?such?a?judicial?determination?has?been?made;?a?foreign?jurisdiction’s?contrary?definition?of?”acquittal”?has?no?bearing?on?our?construction?of?section?190.3.?Accordingly,?assuming?that?the?full?faith?and?credit?clause?applies?in?criminal?cases,?it?does?not?require?us?to?follow?New?York?cases?defining?an?”acquittal.”
- Staleness
We?previously?have?held?that?under?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?the?prosecution?can?offer?evidence?in?aggravation?of?”criminal?violence?which?has?occurred?at?any?time?in?the?defendant’s?life.”?(People?v.?Balderas?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?144,?202?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480].)?In?addition,?we?have?rejected?timeliness?challenges?to?the?use?of?such?evidence?on?both?due?process?(People?v.?Robertson?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?18,?43?[255?Cal.Rptr.?631,?767?P.2d?1109])?and?Eighth?Amendment?grounds?(People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?529-530?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640]).?These?holdings?control?here.?The?three?separate?factors?that?defendant?points?out?as?having?interfered?with?his?discovery?efforts?do?not?compel?a?different?result.
- Other?Claims?of?Constitutional?Error
People?v.?Robertson?(1982)?33?Cal.3d?21,?53-55?[188?Cal.Rptr.?77,?655?P.2d?279],?requires?a?trial?court?to?instruct?a?penalty?phase?jury?that,?before?considering?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?other?crime(s)?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation?(??190.3,?factor?(b)),?it?must?be?satisfied?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?uncharged?crime(s)?occurred.?Here,?the?trial?court?did?so.?It?had?no?sua?sponte?obligation?to?instruct?the?jury?”that?its?finding?of?uncharged?criminal?activity?must?be?unanimous.”?(People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?773?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250].)?We?explained?in?Ghent?that?to?require?jury?unanimity?as?”to?each?incident?of?uncharged?criminal?activity?disclosed?during?the?penalty?phase”?”would?immerse?the?jurors?in?lengthy?and?complicated?discussions?wholly?collateral?to?the?penalty?determination?which?confronts?them.”?(Id.?at?pp.?773-774.)?In?Ghent,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?”?’to?make?a?determination?as?to?the?penalty,?all?twelve?jurors?must?agree’?”;?that?instruction,?we?held,?was?”sufficient?under?existing?law?….”?(Id.?at?p.?773.)?Here,?too,?the?trial?court?gave?such?an?instruction.?Defendant?interprets?Ghent?as?holding?that?the?instruction?satisfies?due?process?of?law.?He?argues,?however,?that?we?have?yet?to?decide?whether?the?instruction?comports?with?the?Eighth?Amendment’s?reliability?requirement.?Although?we?did?not?mention?the?Eighth?Amendment?when?we?discussed?this?instruction?in?Ghent,?we?impliedly?rejected?the?argument?defendant?makes?here?when?we?concluded?that?the?instruction?was?sufficient?”under?existing?law.”?(Ibid.)
[18]?In?addition,?defendant?argues?that?the?cumulative?impact?of?permitting?the?same?jury?that?considered?guilt?to?hear?the?other-crimes?evidence?and?to?decide?penalty?without?instruction?on?the?elements?of?those?crimes?violates?both?the?Eighth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution.Defendant?acknowledges?that?in?People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?144,?204-205,?we?rejected?a?challenge?to?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?on?the?ground?[1?Cal.4th?136]?that?it?violated?due?process?by?allowing?”a?jury?which?has?already?decided?defendant’s?guilt?to?consider,?on?the?issue?of?penalty,?other?violent?crimes?on?which?defendant?was?neither?charged?nor?convicted.”?Defendant,?however,?claims?that?in?Balderas?we?resolved?the?issue?only?in?terms?of?”due?process”?and?we?therefore?did?not?reject?the?argument?on?Eighth?Amendment?grounds.?Not?so.?In?People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?pages?204-205,?we?considered?the?challenged?procedure?in?light?of?the?relevant?United?States?Supreme?Court?authorities?and?concluded?it?was?neither?”?’prejudicial,’?’unreliable,’?’irrelevant,’?[n]or?’fundamentally?unfair.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?205,?fn.?32.)
We?also?have?rejected?the?other?part?of?defendant’s?cumulative-impact?argument?when?we?previously?held?that?a?trial?court?has?no?sua?sponte?duty?to?instruct?on?the?elements?of?the?underlying?”other?crimes.”?(People?v.?Ghent,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?739,?773.)?Evaluation?of?defendant’s?”cumulative?impact”?argument?is?therefore?unnecessary?in?light?of?our?rejection?on?the?merits?of?both?of?its?components.?(People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1249?[283?Cal.Rptr.?144,?812?P.2d?163].)
[19]?Finally,?defendant?contends?that?the?procedures?for?proving?other?crimes?under?section?190.3,?factor?(b)?are?”less?stringent”?than?those?for?proving?prior?felonies?for?purposes?of?sentence?enhancement?(see???667.5;?People?v.?Guerrero?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?343?[243?Cal.Rptr.?688,?748?P.2d?1150]),?arguing?that?the?penalty?phase?procedures?violate?principles?of?equal?protection.?As?we?have?stated,?”The?penalty?phase?is?unique,?intended?to?place?before?the?sentencer?all?evidence?properly?bearing?on?its?decision?….”?(People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?144,?205,?fn.?32.)?The?facts?of?a?capital?defendant’s?”[p]rior?violent?criminality”?are?”obviously?relevant”?to?this?decision.?(Ibid.)?The?purpose?served?by?the?rules?governing?sentence?enhancement?is?not?similar.?(See?People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1037-1039?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627].)?Under?these?circumstances,?there?is?no?equal?protection?violation.?(See?People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?945?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676].)- Evidence?of?”Other?Crimes”?Attributable?to?the?Codefendant
Defendant?concedes?that?as?an?accomplice?in?the?robbery?and?getaway?he?could?have?been?criminally?liable?for?harm?resulting?from?his?codefendant’s?actions.?He?argues,?however,?that?the?rule?of?accomplice?liability?does?not?apply?to?the?presentation?of?other-crimes?evidence?under?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?arguing?that?such?evidence?must?be?limited?to?criminal?activity?involving?force?or?violence?in?which?defendant?was?himself?the?perpetrator.?We?previously?have?rejected?a?similar?contention?in?People?v.?Hayes?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?577,?633?[276?Cal.Rptr.?874,?802?P.2d?376],?when?we?held?that?evidence?of?a?defendant’s?aiding?and?abetting?of?a?violent?criminal?offense?was?admissible?under?factor?(b).?In?addition,?we?consistently?have?held?that?the?prosecution?is?entitled?to?present?evidence?of?a?defendant’s?other?crimes?”in?context.”?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?754;?accord?People?v.?Keenan?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?478,?526?[250?Cal.Rptr.?550,?758?P.2d?1081].)?Section?190.3,?factor?(b)?is?not?violated?when,?as?here,?defendant?could?have?been?liable?as?an?accomplice?for?conduct?by?the?codefendant,?and?evidence?of?that?conduct?is?necessary?to?place?the?defendant’s?own?conduct?in?context.
Equally?lacking?in?merit?is?defendant’s?argument?that?the?prosecution’s?notice?was?insufficient?under?section?190.3.?The?prosecution?gave?notice?of?its?intent?to?present?evidence?of?the?New?York?robbery?and?gun?battle?as?aggravating?circumstances.?That?notice?adequately?advised?defendant?that?the?described?evidence?would?include?reference?to?the?attempted?getaway?during?which?the?gun?battle?took?place.
We?also?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?permitting?the?jury?to?consider?his?participation?in?a?criminal?joint?venture?violated?the?constitutional?requirement?that?the?sentencing?decision?in?a?capital?case?be?based?on?”the?character?and?record?of?the?individual?offender?….”?(Woodson?v.?North?Carolina,?supra,?428?U.S.?280,?304?[49?L.Ed.2d?944,?961].)?Moreover,?in?light?of?the?evidence?of?violent?criminal?conduct?personally?attributable?to?[1?Cal.4th?138]?defendant?during?this?same?incident?(threatening?Mrs.?Granell?with?a?gun?pressed?against?her?head?and,?after?fleeing?the?scene,?repeatedly?firing?at?the?pursuing?officers),?any?possible?error?in?admitting?evidence?of?the?codefendant’s?reckless?driving?was?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?711,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065].)?B.?Admissibility?of?Evidence?of?Defendant’s?Prior?Felony?Convictions?for?Sale?of?a?Controlled?Substance?and?Attempted?Criminal?Possession?of?a?Weapon?Under?Factor?(c)?of?Section?190.3
[21]?As?evidence?in?aggravation,?the?prosecution?sought?to?prove?that?defendant?had?sustained?two?other?felony?convictions?in?New?York?for?sale?of?a?controlled?substance?and?for?possession?of?a?firearm.?(??190.3,?factor?(c).)?fn.?11?Although?the?prosecution?gave?notice?of?its?intent?to?offer?such?evidence,?the?notice?did?not?specify?the?method?by?which?the?prosecution?intended?to?prove?the?prior?convictions.?Accordingly,?the?trial?court?limited?the?prosecution?to?proving?the?convictions?by?means?of?documentary?evidence.After?the?trial?court?had?overruled?defendant’s?objection?to?admission?of?evidence?of?the?two?prior?felony?convictions,?defendant?offered?to?stipulate?to?those?convictions.?He?then?proposed?alternative?stipulations?that?would?prevent?the?jury?from?learning?that?the?offenses?occurred?at?the?same?time?and?that?he?had?used?a?firearm?during?a?drug?offense.?The?prosecution,?however,?refused?to?stipulate?to?a?sanitized?version?of?the?convictions.?Ultimately,?the?parties?agreed?to?a?stipulation,?which?was?read?to?the?jury.?fn.?12?Defendant?raises?multiple?challenges?to?the?admission?of?the?two?prior?felony?convictions.
As?a?threshold?matter,?the?Attorney?General?invites?us?to?hold?that?by?stipulating?to?those?prior?convictions?defendant?waived?his?previously?raised?objections.?We?decline?to?do?so.?Defendant?objected?to?the?admission?of?evidence?of?the?prior?felony?convictions?on?the?grounds?asserted?here,?but?the?trial?court?overruled?his?objection.?We?conclude?that?defendant?has?preserved?[1?Cal.4th?139]?those?issues?for?appeal.?(See?People?v.?Morris?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?152,?190-191?[279?Cal.Rptr.?720,?807?P.2d?949].)?Defendant?stipulated?to?the?facts?of?his?two?prior?New?York?convictions?only?after?the?trial?court?had?overruled?his?objection.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?stipulation?served?to?control?the?form?of?the?evidence,?not?to?concede?admissibility.?(See?Warner?Constr.?Corp.?v.?City?of?Los?Angeles?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?285,?299-?300,?fn.?17?[85?Cal.Rptr.?444,?466?P.2d?996];?3?Witkin,?Cal.?Evidence?(3d?ed.?1986)???2015,?p.?1975.)
[22]?Defendant?contends?that?his?New?York?felony?conviction?for?”attempted?criminal?possession?of?a?weapon?in?the?third?degree”?(N.Y.?Penal?Law???265.02?(Consol.?Laws))?was?inadmissible?as?a?prior?felony?conviction?under?factor?(c)?of?section?190.3,?because?in?California?he?would?have?been?guilty?only?of?a?misdemeanor.?(Compare???12031,?subd.?(a)?[carrying?a?loaded?firearm?is?a?misdemeanor].)?Defendant?cites?sections?667,?subdivision?(a),?667.5,?subdivision?(f),?and?668,?which?specify?the?circumstances?for?using?prior?convictions?to?enhance?punishment?of?a?subsequent?offense,?drawing?an?analogy?between?section?190.3,?factor?(c)?and?those?statutes.?We?have?rejected?essentially?the?same?argument?in?People?v.?Lang,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?991,?1037-1039.?There?we?noted?that?in?contrast?to?the?enhancement?provisions,?which?place?express?limitations?on?the?use?of?out-of-state?prior?felony?convictions,?factor?(c)?”provides?without?limitation?that?the?trier?of?fact?shall?consider?in?determining?penalty?'[t]he?presence?or?absence?of?any?prior?felony?conviction.’?”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?1039,?italics?in?original.)?Because?factor?(c)?contains?no?language?limiting?the?out-of-state?felony?convictions?to?those?that?would?qualify?as?felonies?in?California,?its?reference?to?”?’prior?felony?convictions’?”?includes?”any?prior?conviction?which?was?a?felony?under?the?laws?of?the?convicting?jurisdiction.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1038-1039.)Nor?is?the?constitutional?requirement?of?equal?protection?violated?by?permitting?a?penalty?phase?jury?to?consider?a?defendant’s?out-of-state?felony?convictions?that?would?not?be?admissible?for?purposes?of?sentence?enhancement.?As?we?observed?earlier,?the?purposes?served?by?the?two?procedures?are?not?similar.?(Ante,?p.?136.)
Defendant?also?contends?that?the?statutory?scheme?allowing?introduction?of?a?New?York?felony?conviction?for?conduct?that?in?California?would?only?be?a?misdemeanor?creates?the?risk?prohibited?by?the?Eighth?Amendment?that?the?death?penalty?will?be?arbitrarily?or?capriciously?imposed.?We?disagree.?It?is?not?arbitrary?or?capricious?to?allow?a?jury?deciding?penalty?to?consider?a?defendant’s?willingness?to?engage?in?felonious?conduct?even?if?that?conduct?is?not?felonious?in?California.
[23]?Defendant?further?argues?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?of?the?two?prior?New?York?felony?convictions?under?Evidence?Code?[1?Cal.4th?140]?section?352,?and?in?failing?to?balance?prejudice?to?him?against?the?probative?value?of?those?convictions?before?ruling?that?the?evidence?was?admissible.?Under?People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?1,?25,?”the?record?must?affirmatively?show?that?the?trial?judge?did?in?fact?weigh?prejudice?against?probative?value”?when?ruling?on?an?Evidence?Code?section?352?motion.?Here,?as?defendant?points?out,?such?a?showing?does?not?appear?on?this?record.A?trial?court?has?limited?discretion?under?Evidence?Code?section?352?in?deciding?whether?to?admit?documentary?evidence?of?a?prior?felony?conviction?as?aggravating?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?case.?(See?People?v.?Karis?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?612,?641?[250?Cal.Rptr.?659,?758?P.2d?1189].)?Factor?(c)?of?section?190.3?expressly?allows?the?admission?of?evidence?of?prior?felony?convictions.?Thus,?the?trial?court’s?discretion?to?exclude?such?evidence?under?Evidence?Code?section?352?is?limited?to?the?form?of?the?evidence,?that?is,?”[t]he?manner?in?which?the?prosecution?seeks?to?present?its?case?….”?(People?v.?Karis,?supra,?at?p.?641,?fn.?21.)?Here,?the?trial?court?limited?the?prosecution?to?documentary?evidence?consisting?of?court?records?to?prove?the?prior?felony?convictions.?This?method?of?proof?minimized?any?possible?prejudice?that?might?have?arisen?from?proving?defendant’s?prior?felony?convictions.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?explicitly?set?forth?its?weighing?process?was?harmless.?(See?People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?447?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].)
[24]?Finally,?defendant?contends?that?telling?the?jury?of?the?dates?on?which?the?prior?felonies?were?committed,?as?opposed?to?the?dates?of?conviction,?exceeded?the?permissible?scope?of?prior-felony-conviction?evidence?admissible?under?section?190.3,?factor?(c).?We?reject?that?contention.Prior?felony?convictions?not?involving?force?or?violence?are?relevant?to?the?death?penalty?determination?”only?for?their?most?material?purpose-to?demonstrate?that?the?capital?offense?was?undeterred?by?prior?successful?felony?prosecutions.”?(People?v.?Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?144,?202,?italics?in?original.)?Allowing?the?jury?to?consider?the?date?of?the?criminal?conduct?underlying?a?prior?felony?conviction?is?consistent?with?this?limited?purpose.
Here,?the?two?prior?felony?offenses?occurred?on?the?same?day.?The?jury’s?knowledge?of?that?date?exposed?one?additional?fact,?namely,?that?defendant?was?armed?during?a?drug?sale.?Even?if?we?were?to?conclude?that?admission?of?the?date?of?the?prior?offenses?was?improper,?there?is?no?”reasonable?possibility”?that?such?error?affected?the?penalty?verdict.?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?432,?447.)?[1?Cal.4th?141]?C.?Rebuttal?Testimony?Regarding?Defendant’s?Knowledge?of?Victim?Orestes?Guerrero’s?Minor?Children
The?defense?presented?evidence?in?mitigation?through?the?testimony?of?defendant’s?mother,?Dina?Golden.?She?described?defendant?as?a?sensitive,?caring?person:?”He?has?a?lot?of?love?and?affection?in?his?heart.?…?Even?with?people?that?he?has?…?never?even?known,?he?has?had?the?generosity?to?give?them?gifts?and?clothes.”
On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?Mrs.?Golden?if?defendant?had?been?present?during?a?conversation?in?which?Maria?Guerrero,?the?wife?of?victim?Orestes?Guerrero,?had?discussed?her?family?in?Peru.?Mrs.?Golden?denied?that?any?such?conversation?had?taken?place.?On?rebuttal,?the?prosecutor?sought?to?present?the?testimony?of?Maria?Guerrero?about?her?alleged?conversation?with?defendant’s?mother.?The?prosecutor?offered?to?prove?that?defendant?had?heard?the?conversation?and?thus?knew?that?Orestes?Guerrero?had?six?children?when?he?killed?him.?This?evidence,?according?to?the?prosecutor,?would?tend?to?show?that?defendant?was?not?the?sensitive?young?man?that?his?mother?had?portrayed?him?to?be.
Over?defense?objection,?the?trial?court?admitted?Mrs.?Guerrero’s?testimony?for?the?limited?purpose?of?rebutting?the?inference?that?defendant?was?kind-?hearted.?Mrs.?Guerrero?testified?that?about?a?month?before?the?murders?she?was?a?dinner?guest?at?Mrs.?Golden’s?home.?While?Mrs.?Guerrero?was?discussing?her?children,?defendant?entered?the?room.?Mrs.?Golden?never?introduced?Mrs.?Guerrero?to?defendant,?however.
[25a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?admission?of?this?testimony?was?improper?rebuttal;?that?its?prejudicial?effect?outweighed?its?probative?value?(Evid.?Code,???352);?that?by?placing?victim?impact?evidence?before?the?jury?it?exceeded?the?scope?of?evidence?made?admissible?at?the?penalty?phase?under?section?190.3;?and?thus?that?it?violates?the?due?process?and?cruel?or?unusual?punishment?clauses?of?the?California?Constitution?(art.?I,????15,?17).?fn.?13?We?reject?each?of?these?contentions. [26]?In?general,?the?prosecution?may?not?present?evidence?of?a?defendant’s?bad?character?during?its?penalty?phase?case?unless?the?evidence?is?admissible?as?one?of?the?aggravating?factors?listed?in?section?190.3.?(People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?775-776?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782].)?But?[1?Cal.4th?142]?when?the?defense?presents?mitigating?evidence?of?a?defendant’s?good?character,?it?has?put?the?defendant’s?character?in?issue,?thus?opening?the?door?to?prosecution?evidence?tending?to?rebut?that?”specific?asserted?aspect?of?[the?defendant’s]?personality.”?(People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?792,?fn.?24?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113].)?Such?rebuttal?evidence,?however,?must?be?specific?and?”must?relate?directly?to?a?particular?incident?or?character?trait?defendant?offers?in?his?own?behalf.”?(Ibid.)?In?Rodriguez,?we?concluded?that?evidence?that?the?defendant?had?reached?for?a?shotgun?in?the?back?of?his?car?when?stopped?by?a?police?officer?was?properly?admitted?to?rebut?evidence?that?he?was?a?gentle?person?who?avoided?violent?confrontations.?(Id.?at?pp.?791-792.) [25b]?Here,?because?defendant’s?mother?had?testified?to?his?kind?and?generous?nature,?the?prosecution?could?have?rebutted?her?testimony?with?evidence?tending?to?disprove?that?aspect?of?defendant’s?character.?The?prosecution?had?offered?to?prove?that?when?defendant?killed?Orestes?Guerrero?he?knew?that?Guerrero?was?the?father?of,?and?the?sole?support?for,?six?minor?children.?That?evidence?would?have?been?probative?of?whether?defendant?was?a?kind?person?and?thus?would?have?been?proper?rebuttal.?In?addition,?the?evidence?would?also?have?been?admissible?under?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?as?a?circumstance?of?the?present?crimes.?Accordingly,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?ruling?admissible?the?evidence?that?the?prosecution?offered?to?prove.The?actual?evidence?offered?on?rebuttal,?however,?showed?nothing?more?than?that?defendant?was?in?the?same?room?as?Mrs.?Guerrero?when?she?mentioned?her?children.?It?is?not?clear?from?Mrs.?Guerrero’s?testimony?that?defendant?even?overheard?her?comments?or?knew?who?she?was.?Under?these?circumstances,?Mrs.?Guerrero’s?testimony?did?not?rebut?defendant’s?character?evidence?or?show?his?personal?moral?culpability?at?the?time?of?the?murder.?But?because?defendant?never?made?a?motion?to?strike?the?testimony?actually?presented,?he?may?not?now?complain?that?its?admission?was?improper.?(Evid.?Code,???353;?People?v.?McDaniel?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?156,?176?[127?Cal.Rptr.?467,?545?P.2d?843].)?In?any?event,?any?possible?error?was?harmless.
- Exclusion?of?Evidence?on?How?Imposition?of?Death?Penalty?Would?Affect?Defendant’s?Mother
Assuming?that?testimony?of?a?death?judgment’s?impact?on?the?defendant’s?family?is?”relevant?mitigating?evidence”?for?purposes?of?Skipper,?and?that?Reverend?Lyon?could?have?testified?to?the?effect?that?a?death?sentence?in?this?case?would?have?on?defendant’s?mother,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?excluding?that?testimony.?The?trial?court?permitted?defendant’s?mother?to?make?a?statement?directly?to?the?jury,?in?which?she?begged?the?jury?to?spare?defendant’s?life.?In?light?of?that?statement,?Reverend?Lyon’s?testimony?would?have?been?cumulative.?(See?Skipper?v.?South?Carolina,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?p.?8?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?9].)
- Prosecutor’s?Argument?About?the?Absence?of?Mitigating?Factors
At?the?close?of?the?penalty?phase?of?the?trial,?the?prosecutor?used?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors?set?out?in?section?190.3?as?a?framework?for?her?argument?to?the?jury.?She?first?urged?the?jury?to?consider?the?facts?of?the?double?murder?of?the?Guerrero?brothers?and?the?robbery?of?the?jewelry?store?under?factor?(a),?which?allows?the?jury?in?deciding?penalty?to?consider?the?aggravating?circumstances?of?the?present?crimes.?She?emphasized?that?defendant?had?planned?the?robbery?in?advance,?and?that?the?murders?were?a?calculated?part?of?that?plan.?The?prosecutor?also?referred?to?factor?(d),?which?permits?the?jury?to?consider?whether?a?defendant?was?”under?the?influence?of?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”?when?the?crimes?were?committed.?According?to?the?prosecutor,?the?evidence?did?not?show?that?defendant?had?acted?under?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance,?but?rather?that?he?had?”coldly?calculated?what?he?was?going?to?do,”?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?The?prosecutor?then?turned?to?factor?(g),?which?provides?for?the?jury?to?consider?whether?a?defendant?acted?under?”extreme?duress.”?The?prosecutor?argued:?”The?only?duress?was?[defendant’s]?greed.?The?only?domination?was?his?total?indifference?to?human?life.?[?]?You?may?find?that?this?factor?is?neither?aggravated?or?[sic]?mitigated.?Obviously?you’re?going?to?be?the?ones?to?decide?what?weight?to?give?all?of?these?factors.?But?in?my?opinion,?based?upon?the?evidence,?the?defendant’s?greed,?and?total?indifference?do?show?that?not?only?was?there?no?extreme?duress?and?that?he?was?not?under?the?substantial?domination?of?another?person,?but?that?they?are?aggravating?factors.”?Defense?counsel?objected?to?this?argument,?stating:?”[I]t’s?improper?[1?Cal.4th?144]?to?argue?that?these?factors?[(d)?and?(g)?of?section?190.3]?can?be?aggravating.”?The?court?overruled?the?objection.
[28]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?prosecutor’s?argument?improperly?invited?the?jury?to?consider?the?absence?of?mitigating?evidence?as?evidence?in?aggravation?(People?v.?Davenport?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?247,?288-290?[221?Cal.Rptr.?794,?710?P.2d?861),?and?that,?because?this?case?was?tried?after?Davenport,?the?prosecutor?acted?in?bad?faith?in?making?the?argument.?We?disagree.In?People?v.?Davenport,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?247,?288-290,?we?cautioned?prosecutors?against?arguing?that?the?absence?of?a?particular?mitigating?factor?was?itself?a?factor?in?aggravation.?This?proscription?is?not?violated,?however,?by?pointing?out?to?the?jury?that?there?has?been?no?evidence?to?support?a?particular?mitigating?factor.?(People?v.?Dyer?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?26,?83?[246?Cal.Rptr.?209,?753?P.2d?1].)?Here,?the?prosecutor?noted?that?defendant?had?failed?to?prove,?as?evidence?in?mitigation,?that?he?committed?the?crimes?under?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance?(factor?(d))?or?under?duress?(factor?(g)).?The?prosecutor?then?argued?that?the?circumstances?under?which?the?crimes?were?committed?not?only?disproved?these?theories,?but?were?themselves?aggravating.?This?argument,?that?the?circumstances?of?the?crimes?were?aggravating,?was?proper?under?factor?(a).?Moreover,?when?she?first?argued?the?issue?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?evidence,?the?prosecutor?told?the?jury:?”It?may?be?that?you?will?find?that?some?of?the?possible?factors?mentioned?don’t?apply?in?this?case,?in?either?a?mitigating?or?aggravating?fashion.?Remember,?if?there?is?not?a?mitigating?factor?present,?that?does?not?automatically?mean?that?the?factor?is?aggravating.”?(Italics?added.)?This?was?consistent?with?our?statement?in?People?v.?Davenport,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?page?289,?that?”the?absence?of?mitigation?would?not?automatically?render?the?crime?more?offensive?….”?Accordingly,?we?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?the?prosecutor?improperly?urged?the?jury?to?consider?the?absence?of?mitigating?evidence?as?evidence?in?aggravation.
[29]?We?have?also?held,?however,?that?a?prosecutor’s?argument?that?”certain?otherwise?mitigating?factors,?should?…?be?considered?aggravating,”?although?not?directly?contrary?to?our?holding?in?People?v.?Davenport,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?247,?288-?290,?nonetheless?violates?its?”spirit.”?(People?v.?Ainsworth?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?984,?1034?[248?Cal.Rptr.?568,?755?P.2d?1017];?accord?People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?683?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351].)?As?discussed?above,?factors?(d)?and?(g)?of?section?190.3?allow?the?jury?to?consider?whether?a?defendant?committed?the?crimes?under?extreme?emotional?distress?or?duress.?To?the?extent?that?the?prosecutor’s?argument?can?be?understood?to?suggest?incorrectly?that?the?aggravating?circumstances?of?the?[1?Cal.4th?145]?present?crimes?could?also?be?considered?under?the?additional?categories?provided?by?factors?(d)?and?(g),?defendant?was?not?prejudiced.?Factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?allows?prosecutors?to?describe?the?totality?of?the?aggravating?circumstances?of?defendant’s?current?offenses.?Here,?the?prosecutor?did?not?specifically?invite?the?jurors?to?count?the?categories?of?aggravating?factors?and?the?court?expressly?instructed?the?jury?not?to?do?so:?”The?weighing?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?does?not?mean?a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?an?imaginary?scale?….”Defendant?also?challenges?the?prosecutor’s?argument?on?Eighth?Amendment?grounds?as?having?placed?”invalid?aggravating?circumstances”?before?the?jury.?We?reject?this?challenge?as?meritless.?The?Eighth?Amendment?does?not?preclude?jury?consideration?of?the?aggravating?circumstances?of?a?defendant’s?current?offenses?in?deciding?penalty.
- Trial?Court’s?Refusal?of?Instructions?Requested?by?the?Defense
Nevertheless,?citing?Adamson?v.?Ricketts?(9th?Cir.?1988)?865?F.2d?1011,?defendant?contends?that?the?instruction?was?required,?reasoning?that?a?death?penalty?statute?may?not?constitutionally?place?the?burden?on?the?defendant?to?prove?that?the?mitigating?circumstances?outweigh?those?in?aggravation.?Recently,?in?People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955,?979?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131],?we?rejected?a?similar?argument,?noting?that?the?continuing?vitality?of?Adamson?seems?doubtful?after?the?United?States?Supreme?Court’s?decision?in?Blystone?v.?Pennsylvania?(1990)?494?U.S.?299,?305?[108?L.Ed.2d?255,?263,?110?S.Ct.?1078].
Defendant?also?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?refusal?to?give?his?proposed?instruction?violated?principles?of?equal?protection?by?allowing?the?jury?to?decide?that?death?is?the?appropriate?penalty?without?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt,?the?standard?required?in?jury?determinations?regarding?”less?protected”?interests,?such?as?commitment?as?a?mentally?disordered?sex?offender?(see?People?v.?Feagley?(1975)?14?Cal.3d?338,?345?[121?Cal.Rptr.?[1?Cal.4th?146]?509,?535?P.2d?373]).?We?rejected?this?same?argument?in?People?v.?Robertson,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?18,?63,?stating?that?the?jury’s?role?in?”fact-finding?proceedings,”?such?as?the?one?defendant?proposes,?is?not?analogous?to?its?”moral?and?normative”?sentencing?function?in?a?death?penalty?case.?(Ibid.,?citation?omitted.)
[31]?Defendant?further?faults?the?trial?court?for?its?refusal?to?instruct?the?jury?not?to?consider?deterrence?or?cost?in?reaching?its?penalty?decision.?fn.?14?In?People?v.?Thompson?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?86,?132?[246?Cal.Rptr.?245,?753?P.2d?37],?we?said?it?would?not?be?error?to?give?this?instruction?”to?forestall?consideration?of?deterrence?or?cost?….”?Because?no?emphasis?had?been?placed?on?those?considerations,?we?concluded?that?the?trial?court’s?refusal?to?give?the?instruction?”was?not?prejudicial.”?(Ibid.)?This?is?also?true?here.?Although?the?prosecutor?mentioned?that?defendant?was?22?at?the?time?of?the?murders,?she?did?so?to?emphasize?his?adulthood?and?to?point?out?that?here?age?was?not?a?circumstance?in?mitigation?under?section?190.3,?factor?(i).?She?did?not?exploit?defendant’s?age?to?suggest?that?his?imprisonment?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole?would?be?costly.?On?these?facts,?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?give?the?requested?instruction?did?not?prejudice?defendant.- Constitutional?Challenges?to?the?1978?Death?Penalty?Sentencing?Scheme
In?Hildwin?v.?Florida,?supra,?490?U.S.?638,?640?[104?L.Ed.2d?728,?732,?109?S.Ct.?2055,?2057],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court,?in?discussing?the?Florida?death?penalty,?rejected?the?premise?underlying?the?argument?that?defendant?makes?here:?”[T]he?existence?of?an?aggravating?factor?here?is?not?an?element?of?the?offense?but?instead?is?’a?sentencing?factor?that?comes?into?play?only?after?the?defendant?has?been?found?guilty.’?”?(Ibid.,?quoting?McMillan?v.?Pennsylvania?(1986)?477?U.S.?79,?85-86?[91?L.Ed.2d?67,?76,?106?S.Ct.?2411],?italics?added.)?Under?the?Florida?statute?involved?in?Hildwin,?the?judge,?not?the?jury,?made?the?factual?determination?of?circumstances?in?aggravation.?Nonetheless,?the?high?court?found?no?constitutional?infirmity?in?this?process,?noting?that?”?’there?is?no?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?jury?sentencing,?even?where?the?sentence?turns?on?specific?findings?of?fact.’?”?(Ibid.,?quoting?McMillan?v.?Pennsylvania,?supra,?at?p.?93?[91?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?81].)
In?California?too?the?mitigating?and?aggravating?circumstances?are?sentencing?factors?rather?than?elements?of?the?capital?offense.?(See?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?778.)?Accordingly,?the?Sixth?Amendment?does?not?require?the?jury?to?reach?unanimous?agreement?on?the?sentencing?factors?underlying?its?choice?of?penalty.?(See?Hildwin?v.?Florida,?supra,?490?U.S.?638,?640?[104?L.Ed.2d?728,?732,?109?S.Ct.?2055,?2057].)
[34]?Defendant?further?contends?that?the?terms?”criminal”?and?”violence”?as?used?in?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?are?unconstitutionally?”vague”?because?they?do?not?focus?the?jury’s?attention?on?specific?aggravating?conduct,?thereby?rendering?the?jury?unable?to?make?”a?principled?distinction?[1?Cal.4th?148]?between?those?who?deserve?the?death?penalty?and?those?who?do?not”?as?required?by?the?Eighth?Amendment.?(Lewis?v.?Jeffers?(1990)?497?U.S.?764,?___?[111?L.Ed.2d?606,?619,?110?S.Ct.?3092,?3099],?citing?Spaziano?v.?Florida?(1984)?468?U.S.?447,?460?[82?L.Ed.2d?340,?352-353,?104?S.Ct.?3154].)?Factor?(b)?allows?the?jury?to?consider?”[t]he?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”?when?deciding?penalty.?(Italics?added.)?We?have?defined?”criminal?activity”?in?factor?(b)?as?”evidence?that?demonstrates?the?commission?of?an?actual?crime,?a?requirement?easily?verified?under?the?definitional?guidelines?established?by?legislative?bodies?in?this?and?other?jurisdictions.”?(People?v.?Phillips?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?29,?72?[222?Cal.Rptr.?127,?711?P.2d?423].)?Moreover,?we?have?limited?admissibility?of?evidence?of?criminal?activity?involving?force?or?violence?under?factor?(b)?to?that?involving?the?defendant’s?use?of,?or?threatened?use?of,?”force?or?violence?to?any?person?….”?(People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?776.)Under?decisions?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court,?the?Eighth?Amendment’s?”vagueness”?evaluation?that?defendant?asks?us?to?undertake?has?been?applied?only?to?statutes?that?govern?”those?circumstances?that?make?a?criminal?defendant?’eligible’?for?the?death?penalty.”?(Lewis?v.?Jeffers,?supra,?497?U.S.?764,?___?[111?L.Ed.2d?606,?619,?110?S.Ct.?3092,?3099].)?The?statute?at?issue?here,?section?190.3,?does?not?govern?those?circumstances.?Under?the?California?death?penalty?scheme,?the?determination?that?a?defendant?is?eligible?for?the?death?penalty?is?made?when?the?jury?finds?the?special?circumstance?allegation?to?be?true.?(???190.1,?190.2.)?Section?190.3?does?not?govern?the?circumstances?making?a?defendant?eligible?for?the?death?penalty?but?instead?pertains?to?the?sentencing?stage?at?which?the?jury?decides?”from?among?that?class?[of?persons?eligible?for?the?death?penalty],?those?defendants?who?will?actually?be?sentenced?to?death.”?(Zant?v.?Stephens?(1983)?462?U.S.?862,?878?[77?L.Ed.2d?235,?251,?103?S.Ct.?2733].)?Because?the?high?court?has?found?no?constitutional?defect?in?a?statute?that?at?the?sentencing?stage?granted?the?jury?”unbridled?discretion?in?determining?whether?the?death?penalty?should?be?imposed?…”?(id.?at?p.?875?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?248];?People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?773,?fn.?5),?we?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?the?language?of?factor?(b)?must?be?evaluated?under?the?Lewis?v.?Jeffers?standard.
[35]?Defendant?also?contends?that?the?1978?death?penalty?law?cannot?withstand?Eighth?Amendment?scrutiny?based?on?its?failure:?(1)?to?designate?which?factors?listed?in?section?190.3?are?mitigating?and?which?are?aggravating,?(2)?to?require?a?beyond-a-reasonable-doubt?finding?that?death?is?the?appropriate?penalty,?and?(3)?to?require?written?findings?of?the?aggravating?[1?Cal.4th?149]?circumstances?selected?by?the?jury.?As?defendant?concedes,?we?have?earlier?rejected?identical?arguments.?(People?v.?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?200,?233;?People?v.?Allison?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?879,?898-899?[258?Cal.Rptr.?208,?771?P.2d?1294];?People?v.?Coleman?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?112,?160?[255?Cal.Rptr.?813,?768?P.2d?32];?People?v.?Allen?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?1222,?1285?[232?Cal.Rptr.?849,?729?P.2d?115];?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-?779.)?Defendant?presents?no?persuasive?reason?for?us?to?reconsider?them?here.- Cumulative?Effect?of?Errors
- Trial?Court’s?Consideration?of?Probation?Report?and?Statements?by?Relatives?of?the?Victims?When?Ruling?on?Application?to?Modify?the?Verdict
Before?ruling?on?defendant’s?application?for?modification?of?the?jury?verdict?of?death?(??190.4,?subd.?(e)),?the?trial?court?had?received?a?probation?report?that?included?as?attachments?several?reports?pertaining?to?defendant’s?misconduct?in?jail.?At?the?time?of?the?hearing?on?the?application?to?modify?the?verdict,?the?court?allowed?Maria?Guerrero?and?two?other?relatives?of?the?victims?to?make?brief?statements.?All?three?said?only?that?they?were?satisfied?justice?had?been?done?and?thanked?the?court.?To?preclude?the?trial?court?from?considering?the?probation?report?or?the?victim?statements?when?ruling?on?defendant’s?application,?his?counsel?moved?to?strike?both?the?probation?report?and?the?relatives’?statements?from?the?record.
Without?directly?addressing?the?motion?to?strike,?the?trial?court?ruled?on?the?application?to?modify?the?jury?verdict?of?death.?The?court?referred?to?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?evidence?presented?at?trial?and,?based?on?that?evidence,?denied?the?application?to?modify?the?verdict.?Thereafter,?the?court?arraigned?defendant?for?sentencing?and?for?the?first?time?mentioned?that?it?had?read?and?considered?the?probation?report.?The?court?then?expressly?ruled?on?the?motion?to?strike,?declining?to?strike?from?the?report?”those?portions?which?contain?infraction?reports?concerning?Mr.?Bacigalupo’s?conduct?in?custody.”
[37]?Defendant?contends?that?the?judgment?of?death?must?be?vacated?and?the?case?remanded?to?the?trial?court?to?reconsider?defendant’s?application?for?modification?of?the?jury?verdict?of?death.?He?asserts?that,?in?ruling?on?his?[1?Cal.4th?150]?application?for?modification?of?the?verdict,?the?trial?court?improperly?considered?the?statements?by?the?victims’?relatives?and?the?probation?report,?which?was?evidence?that?had?not?been?presented?to?the?jury.?The?record?reflects?that?the?trial?court?heard?the?statements?by?the?victims’?relatives?and?must?have?read?the?probation?report?before?ruling?on?the?application?to?modify?the?verdict.?This?was?error.?(People?v.?Lewis?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?262,?287?[266?Cal.Rptr.?834,?786?P.2d?892].)We?have?said?that?when?ruling?on?an?application?to?modify?a?verdict?of?death,?the?trial?court?reviews?only?the?evidence?that?was?presented?to?the?jury.?(People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?274?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906].)?Of?course,?that?evidence?does?not?include?the?probation?report?(ibid.)?or?statements?by?the?victim’s?family?members?made?at?the?hearing?on?the?application?for?modification?of?the?verdict?(People?v.?Jennings?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963,?994-995?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475]).?We?have?said?that?the?trial?court?should?defer?reading?a?probation?report?or?hearing?victim?impact?statements?until?after?the?ruling?on?the?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e)?application.?(People?v.?Lewis,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?287.)?But?even?when?the?trial?court?has?considered?such?extraneous?information?in?ruling?on?a?defendant’s?application?under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e),?we?assume?there?has?been?no?improper?influence?on?the?court,?absent?specific?evidence?to?the?contrary.?(People?v.?Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?274;?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1329?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221].)
Here,?although?extraneous?information?was?before?the?trial?court?when?it?considered?defendant’s?application?for?modification?of?the?jury’s?verdict?of?death,?there?is?nothing?in?the?record?to?indicate?that?the?court’s?ruling?was?based?at?all?on?that?information.?No?evidence?was?included?in?the?comments?by?the?victim’s?relatives.?Those?individuals?each?made?short?statements?expressing?thanks?that?justice?had?been?done.?The?reports?of?defendant’s?jail?misconduct?that?were?attached?to?the?probation?report?did?reveal?information?to?the?trial?court?that?was?not?known?to?the?jury.?Defendant?suffered?no?prejudice,?however.
The?most?serious?of?those?probation?reports?showed?that?defendant?had?been?found?in?possession?of?homemade?weapons?or?”shanks.”?Although?from?that?information?the?trial?court?could?infer?that?defendant?posed?a?continuing?safety?threat?even?though?in?custody,?the?court?was?already?aware?that?defendant?posed?a?safety?threat?based?on?the?penalty?phase?testimony?of?defense?witness?Dr.?Brady,?who?on?cross-examination?alluded?to?earlier?incidents?of?dangerous,?antisocial?behavior?by?defendant?while?in?jail.?Thus?we?need?not?vacate?the?judgment?and?remand?for?a?ruling?on?the?application?for?modification?of?the?jury?verdict?of?death.?(See?People?v.?Ramirez?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1158,?1201-1202?[270?Cal.Rptr.?286,?791?P.2d?965].)?[1?Cal.4th?151]?J.?Consideration?of?Evidence?in?Mitigation?When?Ruling?on?Application?to?Modify?Verdict
[38]?Defendant?contends?that?in?ruling?on?the?application?to?modify?the?jury?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e)),?the?trial?court?refused?to?consider?any?mitigating?evidence?presented?by?the?defense?during?the?penalty?phase?of?the?trial.?The?record?belies?this?contention.?In?ruling?on?the?application,?the?court?stated?that?it?had?reviewed?the?transcript?of?the?penalty?phase?and?had?considered?all?of?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?evidence,?but?that?it?found?no?circumstances?in?mitigation?to?extenuate?the?gravity?of?the?crimes.?There?was?no?error.- Proportionality?Review
As?we?have?held?on?many?prior?occasions,?we?do?not?engage?in?”intercase”?proportionality?review.?(People?v.?Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?577,?645;?People?v.?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?200,?234;?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-778.)?Such?review?is?not?required?by?the?Eighth?Amendment.?(Pulley?v.?Harris?(1984)?465?U.S.?37,?51-54?[79?L.Ed.2d?29,?40-42,?104?S.Ct.?871].)?Nor,?as?we?have?previously?held,?does?equal?protection?require?us?to?provide?capital?defendants?with?the?same?comparative?sentence?review?afforded?other?convicted?felons?under?the?determinate?sentencing?law?(see???1170,?subd.?(f)).?(People?v.?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?234;?People?v.?Babbitt?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?660,?726?[248?Cal.Rptr.?69,?755?P.2d?253].)
But?the?imposition?of?a?death?sentence?is?subject?to?”intracase”?review?under?article?I,?section?17?of?the?California?Constitution,?to?determine?[1?Cal.4th?152]?whether?the?death?penalty?is?disproportionate?to?a?defendant’s?personal?culpability?within?the?meaning?of?People?v.?Dillon?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?441,?478-489?[194?Cal.Rptr.?390,?668?P.2d?697],?and?In?re?Lynch?(1972)?8?Cal.3d?410,?437-?439?[105?Cal.Rptr.?217,?503?P.2d?921].?Here,?defendant?carried?out?a?calculated?plan?to?accomplish?a?robbery,?which?included?killing?two?people.?One?of?defendant’s?murder?victims?was?his?personal?benefactor.?Although?defendant?was?only?twenty-two?at?the?time?of?these?killings,?he?already?had?committed?an?armed?robbery,?he?had?been?convicted?of?two?other?felony?offenses,?and?he?had?served?two?previous?prison?terms.?Indeed,?the?double?murder/robbery?here?took?place?a?short?time?after?defendant’s?release?from?prison.?From?our?review?of?the?facts?in?this?case,?we?are?convinced?that?the?penalty?is?not?disproportionate?either?to?the?offender?or?the?offense.
- Conclusion
The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?After?review,?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal.
I?write?separately?to?address?an?issue?that?underlies?many?penalty?phase?claims,?in?this?case?and?in?others.
There?is?a?question?whether?the?standard?instructions?that?the?trial?court?typically?gives?the?jury?on?the?determination?of?penalty?are?adequate?to?apprise?the?panel?as?to?the?nature?of?its?task?in?situations?in?which?evidence?or?argument?is?offered?that?presses?against?the?limits?of?what?is?material?to?the?choice?of?life?or?death.
Until?recently,?I?believed?that?the?answer?should?generally?be?affirmative.
Now,?faced?with?what?is?likely?to?be?the?practically?unimpeded?introduction?of?so-called?”victim?impact”?evidence?and?argument?(see?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___-___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?726-739,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2601-2611];?People?v.?Edwards?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?787,?832-833?[1?Cal.Rptr.2d?696,?819?P.2d?436])-which?always?threatens?to?pass?the?bounds?of?materiality?and?often?does?so-I?am?somewhat?doubtful.
Accordingly,?I?would?henceforth?require?the?trial?court?to?fully?and?clearly?instruct?the?jury?on?the?principles?underlying?the?penalty?determination.?(See?[1?Cal.4th?153]?generally?People?v.?Mickle?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?140,?198?[284?Cal.Rptr.?511,?814?P.2d?290]?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?702-703?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351]?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?207-209?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169]?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?and?authorities?cited?therein.)?Such?instructions?should?include?the?following?matters.
Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?the?determination?of?punishment?turns?on?the?personal?moral?culpability?of?the?capital?defendant.
Such?culpability?is?assessed?in?accordance?with?specified?factors?of?”aggravation”?and?”mitigation”:?(a)?the?circumstances?of?the?crime;?(b)?other?violent?criminal?activity;?(c)?prior?felony?convictions;?(d)?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance;?(e)?victim?participation?or?consent;?(f)?reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation;?(g)?extreme?duress?or?substantial?domination;?(h)?impairment?through?mental?disease?or?defect?or?through?intoxication;?(i)?age;?(j)?status?as?an?accomplice?and?minor?participant;?and?(k)?any?other?extenuating?fact.
For?purposes?here,?”aggravation”?means?that?which?increases?the?defendant’s?personal?moral?culpability?above?the?level?of?blameworthiness?that?inheres?in?the?capital?offense.?By?contrast,?”mitigation”?means?that?which?reduces?his?culpability?below?that?level.
Thus,?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?itself?can?be?either?aggravating?or?mitigating.?Their?character?depends?on?the?greater?or?lesser?blameworthiness?they?reveal-ranging,?for?example,?from?the?most?intentional?of?willful,?deliberate,?and?premeditated?murders?to?the?most?accidental?of?felony?murders.
Other?violent?criminal?activity?is?similar.?Its?presence?is?aggravating,?suggesting?as?it?does?that?the?capital?offense?is?the?product?more?of?the?defendant’s?basic?character?than?of?the?accidents?of?his?situation.?Its?absence?is?obviously?mitigating,?carrying?the?opposite?suggestion.
So?too?prior?felony?convictions.?Their?existence?is?aggravating.?They?reflect?on?the?relatively?greater?contribution?of?character?than?situation.?Moreover,?they?reveal?that?the?defendant?had?been?taught,?through?the?application?of?formal?sanction,?that?criminal?conduct?was?unacceptable-but?had?failed?or?refused?to?learn?his?lesson.?By?contrast,?the?nonexistence?of?such?convictions?plainly?is?mitigating.
The?age?of?the?defendant?can?also?be?either?aggravating?or?mitigating.?It?is?a?metonym?for?a?congeries?of?facts?that?bear?on?culpability.?[1?Cal.4th?154]
The?existence?of?any?of?the?following?circumstances,?however,?is?mitigating?and?mitigating?only:?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance;?victim?participation?or?consent;?reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation;?extreme?duress?or?substantial?domination;?impairment?through?mental?disease?or?defect?or?through?intoxication;?status?as?an?accomplice?and?minor?participant;?and?any?other?extenuating?fact.?By?contrast,?the?nonexistence?of?any?of?these?circumstances?is?not?and?cannot?be?aggravating.?The?absence?of?mitigation?does?not?amount?to?the?presence?of?aggravation.
I?am?of?the?view?that?if?the?trial?court?instructs?the?jury?on?the?foregoing?matters,?it?will?adequately?inform?the?panel?of?the?nature?of?the?penalty?determination-and?may?even?avoid?or?at?least?minimize?the?harm?of?”victim?impact”?evidence?or?argument.
In?conclusion,?because?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal,?I?concur?in?the?judgment.
FN?1.?Orestes?Guerrero?called?defendant?”Miguel?Padilla,”?another?name?by?which?defendant?was?known.?During?trial,?witnesses?referred?to?defendant?both?as?”Miguel?Padilla”?and?as?”Miguel?Bacigalupo.”
FN?2.?During?trial,?the?group?was?also?referred?to?as?the?”Peruvian?Mafia.”
FN?3.?The?court?instructed?the?jury:?”A?person?is?not?guilty?of?a?crime?when?he?engages?in?conduct,?otherwise?criminal,?when?acting?under?threats?and?menaces?under?the?following?circumstances:?Where?the?threats?and?menaces?are?such?that?they?would?cause?a?reasonable?person?to?fear?that?his?life?would?be?in?immediate?danger?if?he?did?not?engage?in?the?conduct?charged,?and?if?such?person?then?believed?that?his?life?would?be?so?endangered.?[?]?This?rule?does?not?apply?to?threats,?menaces,?and?fear?of?future?danger?to?his?life.”?(CALJIC?No.?4.40.)
In?addition,?the?court?gave?this?instruction:?”It?is?not?a?defense?to?a?charge?of?homicide?that?the?defendant?committed?the?act?or?made?the?omission?charged?under?threats?or?menaces?of?immediate?death?or?bodily?harm.”?(Modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?4.41.)
FN?4.?Defendant?cites?People?v.?Smith?(1986)?187?Cal.App.3d?666,?679?[231?Cal.Rptr.?897],?which?was?decided?shortly?before?the?trial?in?this?case,?as?authority?that?duress?can?provide?an?imperfect?defense?to?robbery?and?that?the?trial?court?had?an?obligation?to?instruct?the?jury?on?that?theory,?without?request.?Smith?concluded?without?analysis?that?an?honest?but?unreasonable?belief?that?the?defendant?acted?under?duress?might?negate?the?specific?intent?necessary?for?robbery.?(Ibid.)?We?disapprove?Smith?on?this?point.
In?People?v.?Flannel,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?at?page?682,?we?stated?that?our?adoption?of?the?rule,?that?a?genuine?but?unreasonably?held?belief?in?the?need?to?defend?would?provide?an?”imperfect”?defense?to?murder,?should?be?considered?a?general?legal?principle?for?purposes?of?jury?instruction?in?cases?tried?after?the?opinion.?In?light?of?that?statement,?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?Smith?indicated?in?a?footnote?that?its?discussion?of?the?issue?of?duress?as?an?imperfect?defense?to?robbery?gave?rise?to?a?sua?sponte?obligation?for?courts?in?future?cases?to?give?such?an?instruction.?(People?v.?Smith,?supra,?187?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?679,?fn.?8.)?Smith?was?also?wrong?in?this?regard;?Flannel?does?not?suggest?that?evaluation?and?acceptance?of?a?legal?rule?in?one?intermediate?appellate?decision?transforms?it?into?a?general?principle?of?law.?(People?v.?Flannel,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?at?p.?682.)
FN?5.?(1)?CALJIC?No.?2.52:?”The?flight?of?a?person?immediately?after?the?commission?of?a?crime,?or?after?he?is?accused?of?a?crime,?is?not?sufficient?in?itself?to?establish?his?guilt,?but?is?a?fact?which,?if?proved,?may?be?considered?by?you?in?the?light?of?all?other?proved?facts?in?deciding?the?question?of?his?guilt?or?innocence.?The?weight?to?which?such?circumstance?is?entitled?is?a?matter?for?the?jury?to?determine.”
(2)?The?court?instructed?the?jury:?”If?you?find?that?before?this?trial?the?defendant?made?willfully?false?or?deliberately?misleading?statements?concerning?the?charges?upon?which?he?is?now?being?tried,?you?may?consider?such?statements?as?a?circumstance?tending?to?prove?consciousness?of?guilt?but?it?is?not?sufficient?of?itself?to?prove?guilt.?The?weight?to?be?given?to?such?a?circumstance?and?its?significance,?if?any,?are?matters?for?your?determination.”?(CALJIC?No.?2.03?(1984?rev.)?Supp.?Service?pamp.?No.?1?(1985)?p.?64.)
FN?6.?The?transcribed?instruction?reads?as?follows:
“A?confession?is?a?statement?made?by?a?defendant?other?than?at?his?trial?in?which?he?has?acknowledged?his?guilt?of?the?crimes?for?which?he?is?on?trial.?In?order?to?constitute?a?confession,?each-strike?that.?In?order?to?constitute?a?confession,?such?a?statement?must?acknowledge?participation?in?the?crimes?as?well?as?the?required?criminal?intent.
“A?statement?made?by?a?defendant?other?than?at?his?trial?is?not?a?confession?but?an?admission?whenever?the?statement?does?not?by?itself?acknowledge?his?guilt?of?the?crimes?for?which?he?is?on?trial,?but?which?tends?to?prove?his?guilt?when?considered?with?the?rest?of?the?evidence.
“You?are?the?exclusive?judges?as?to?whether?the?defendant?made?a?confession?or?an?admission,?and?if?so,?whether?such?statement?is?true?in?whole?or?in?part.?If?you?should?find?that?the?defendant?did?not?make?the?statement,?you?must?reject?it.?If?you?find?that?it?is?true?in?whole?or?in?part,?you?may?consider?that?part?which?you?find?to?be?true.
“Evidence?of?an?oral?admission?or?an?oral?confession?of?the?defendant?should?be?viewed?with?caution.
“No?person?may?be?convicted?of?a?criminal?offense?unless?there?is?some?proof?of?each?element?of?the?crime?independent?of?any?confession?or?admission?made?by?him?outside?of?this?trial.”
FN?7.?”No?person?may?be?convicted?of?a?criminal?offense?unless?there?is?some?proof?of?each?element?of?the?crime?independent?of?any?confession?or?admission?made?by?him?outside?of?this?trial.?[?]?The?identity?of?the?person?who?is?alleged?to?have?committed?a?crime?is?not?an?element?of?the?crime?nor?is?the?degree?of?the?crime.?Such?identity?or?degree?of?the?crime?may?be?established?by?an?admission?or?confession.”?(CALJIC?No.?2.72.)
FN?8.?Based?on?this?evidence,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury:?”Evidence?has?been?introduced?for?the?purpose?of?showing?that?the?defendant?has?committed?the?following?criminal?activity:?robbery?and?the?shooting?of?a?firearm?at?police?officers?which?conduct?involved?the?express?use?of?force?or?violence.?Before?you?may?consider?any?of?such?criminal?activity?as?an?aggravating?circumstance?in?this?case,?you?must?first?be?satisfied?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?defendant?did?in?fact?commit?such?criminal?activity.?You?may?not?consider?any?evidence?of?any?other?criminal?activity?as?an?aggravating?circumstance.”
FN?9.?Under?the?full?faith?and?credit?clause,?”any?valid?civil?judgment?rendered?in?any?state?or?territory?of?the?United?States?is?entitled?to?full?faith?and?credit?in?the?courts?of?every?sister?state?and?territory,?subject?only?to?the?limitations?of?the?second?state’s?bona?fide?procedural?rules.”?(LeFlar?et?al.,?American?Conflicts?Law?(4th?ed.?1986)???75,?pp.?223-224;?see?Sun?Oil?Co.?v.?Wortman?(1988)?486?U.S.?717,?722-723?[100?L.Ed.2d?743,?752-753,?108?S.Ct.?2117];?Underwriters?Assur.?Co.?v.?N.?C.?Guaranty?Assn.?(1982)?455?U.S.?691,?703-705?[71?L.Ed.2d?558,?569-571,?102?S.Ct.?1357].)?The?clause?clearly?applies?to?civil?judgments?and?to?administrative?adjudications?(cf.?United?States?v.?Utah?Constr.?Co.?(1966)?384?U.S.?394,?420-422?[16?L.Ed.2d?642,?659-661,?86?S.Ct.?1545];?see?also?People?v.?Terry?(1964)?61?Cal.2d?137,?148?[37?Cal.Rptr.?605,?390?P.2d?381])?but?”does?not?require?that?sister?States?enforce?a?foreign?penal?judgment?….”?(Nelson?v.?George?(1970)?399?U.S.?224,?229?[26?L.Ed.2d?578,?582,?90?S.Ct.?1963];?accord?Huntington?v.?Attrill?(1892)?146?U.S.?657?[36?L.Ed.?1123,?13?S.Ct.?224];?The?Antelope?(1825)?23?U.S.?(10?Wheat.)?66,?123?[6?L.Ed.?268,?282];?Piercy?v.?Black?(8th?Cir.?1986)?801?F.2d?1075,?1078?[“one?state?cannot?control?the?manner?in?which?another?state?administers?its?criminal?justice?system”];?but?see?Johnson?v.?Mississippi?(1988)?486?U.S.?578,?585,?fn.?6?[100?L.Ed.2d?575,?584,?108?S.Ct.?1981]?[reversing?the?judgment?of?death?as?inconsistent?with?the?Eighth?Amendment,?but?mentioning?that?the?court?declined?to?address?the?defendant’s?challenge?under?the?full?faith?and?credit?clause?to?a?death?judgment?in?which?the?Mississippi?court?in?deciding?penalty?had?considered?a?New?York?conviction?later?vacated?on?habeas?corpus.)
FN?10.?As?relevant?here,?section?190.3?provides?that?”no?evidence?may?be?presented?by?the?prosecution?in?aggravation?unless?notice?of?the?evidence?to?be?introduced?has?been?given?to?the?defendant?within?a?reasonable?period?of?time?as?determined?by?the?trial?court,?prior?to?trial.”
FN?11.?Under?factor?(c),?the?jury,?in?deciding?penalty,?can?consider?”[t]he?presence?or?absence?of?any?prior?felony?conviction.”
FN?12.?In?relevant?part,?the?stipulation?stated:?”[P]rior?to?the?commission?of?the?offenses?charged?in?this?particular?case?…?the?defendant,?Miguel?Angel?Bacigalupo,?was?in?Suffolk?County?of?the?State?of?New?York,?convicted?of?two?felony?convictions,?as?follows:?the?criminal?sale?of?a?controlled?substance?of?the?third?degree,?and?…?attempted?criminal?possession?of?a?weapon?in?the?third?degree.?Further,?pursuant?to?the?stipulation,?each?of?those?two?offenses?was?committed?on?April?11,?1978,?and?the?defendant?was?convicted?of?each?of?those?two?convictions?on?May?14th,?1979.”
FN?13.?In?his?opening?brief,?defendant?also?argued?that?admission?of?the?evidence?violated?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496,?504-505?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?449-450,?107?S.Ct.?2529].?In?a?supplemental?brief?filed?before?oral?argument,?defendant?abandoned?this?argument?in?light?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court’s?opinion?in?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___-___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?736-739,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2609-2611],?overruling?Booth.
FN?14.?Defendant’s?requested?instruction?read:?”In?deciding?whether?death?or?life?imprisonment?without?the?possibility?of?parole?is?the?appropriate?sentence,?you?may?not?consider?for?any?reason?whatsoever?the?deterrent?or?non-deterrent?effect?of?the?death?penalty?or?the?monetary?cost?to?the?state?of?execution?or?maintaining?a?prisoner?for?life.”