People?v.?Breaux?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?281?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?81;?821?P.2d?585
[No.?S004760.Dec?30,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DAVID?ANTHONY?BREAUX,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?71072,?Fred?W.?Marler,?Jr.,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment,?with?Kennard,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
Quin?Denvir,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?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,?Arnold?O.?Overoye?and?Robert?R.?Anderson,?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Ward?A.?Campbell,?Roger?E.?Venturi?and?George?M.?Hendrickson,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?290]
OPINION
PANELLI,?J.
Defendant?was?convicted?by?a?jury?in?the?Sacramento?County?Superior?Court?of?the?murder,?robbery,?and?kidnapping?for?robbery?(Pen.?Code,????187,?211,?209)?fn.?1?of?Connie?Lee?Decker?on?June?17,?1984;?robbery?and?kidnapping?for?robbery?(???211,?209)?of?Greg?Hardy?on?June?17,?1984;?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?on?a?peace?officer?(??245,?subd.?(b))?on?June?19,?1984;?and?being?an?ex-felon?in?possession?of?a?firearm?(??12021).?The?jury?also?found?that?the?murder?was?committed?under?the?special?circumstances?of?kidnapping?and?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)?&?(ii))?and?that?defendant?had?personally?used?a?firearm?in?the?commission?of?the?offenses?(??12022.5).?The?court?imposed?a?sentence?of?death?and?a?consecutive?sentence?of?10?years,?8?months.?This?appeal?is?automatic?(??1239,?subd.?(b)).
I?Guilt?Phase?Evidence
- The?Prosecution.
In?the?early?hours?of?June?17,?1984,?defendant?entered?a?liquor?store?which?he?regularly?patronized?in?Sacramento?and,?at?gunpoint,?robbed?the?cashier,?Greg?Hardy,?of?$200.?Defendant?ordered?Hardy?out?of?the?store?and?threatened,?”I’ll?kill?you?right?here,”?when?Hardy?refused?his?order?to?get?in?a?vehicle?parked?nearby.?Hardy?was?released?several?blocks?away.?Hardy?described?defendant?to?the?police,?stating?that?he?noticed?nothing?unusual?about?defendant,?his?walk,?his?manner?of?speech,?or?his?physical?actions.
At?5:30?p.m.?of?the?same?day?defendant?drove?a?maroon?Corvette?to?a?gas?station?and?liquor?store?near?Sacramento?and,?leaving?a?young?woman?passenger?in?the?vehicle,?hurriedly?entered?to?leave?$5?for?gas.?Paul?Brown,?cashier,?noticed?his?haste?and?uneasiness,?but?nothing?unusual?about?his?speech?or?walk.
Tony?Cox,?assistant?manager,?observed?that,?while?defendant?was?pumping?the?gas,?a?young?woman?at?the?phone?booth?was?mouthing?the?words,?”Help?me.”?Defendant?grabbed?her?by?the?hand?and?took?her?to?the?car.?The?woman?continued?to?look?at?Cox,?repeatedly?mouthing,?”Help?me.”?As?defendant?sped?away,?Cox?recorded?the?license?number?as?CONNN182.?Police?shortly?thereafter?determined?that?a?similar?number?(CONN182)?was?registered?to?Connie?Decker.?[1?Cal.4th?291]
Connie?Decker’s?body?was?found?about?8?o’clock?the?next?morning?inside?a?chain?link?fence?near?a?road?in?Rancho?Cordova.?There?was?evidence?that?the?body?had?been?dragged?between?the?road?and?the?fence.?Dr.?Hall,?at?the?scene,?concluded,?based?on?discoloration?from?blood?pooling,?that?Decker?had?been?killed?at?another?location.?Following?an?autopsy,?Dr.?Hall?estimated?that?Decker?had?been?killed?in?the?afternoon?of?June?17?and?stated?the?cause?of?death?as?a?gunshot?to?the?head.
On?the?afternoon?of?June?17?defendant?borrowed?a?Thunderbird?and,?about?3?or?4?p.m.,?returned?with?a?maroon?Corvette,?license?plates?”CONN182.”?He?told?a?companion?that?he?had?pulled?a?gun?on?a?lady?at?a?liquor?store?and?had?driven?her?to?the?outskirts?of?town?and?”dumped?her?off.”?The?companion?remarked?that?the?lady?must?be?crying?about?her?car;?defendant?replied?that?he?did?not?think?so.?Defendant?also?stated?that?he?was?going?to?change?the?plates?on?the?car?because?they?were?”too?conspicuous.”
A?friend?saw?defendant?in?the?Corvette?at?8?p.m.?on?the?evening?of?June?17.?And?shortly?after?10?p.m.?on?the?same?evening,?defendant?filled?a?Corvette?with?gas.?He?attempted?to?pay?with?Decker’s?credit?card.?When?told?the?card?had?expired,?defendant?made?an?excuse,?wrote?the?vehicle’s?license?number?(lJ80564)?on?the?credit?slip,?and?told?the?attendant?he?lived?nearby?and?would?get?the?cash.?He?never?returned.
On?the?following?day?the?police?found?the?laundry?truck?from?which?the?substitute?plates?had?been?taken.?They?had?also?found?the?Corvette.
The?police?set?up?a?surveillance?near?the?residence?of?defendant’s?mother?and,?in?the?early?hours?of?June?19,?defendant?was?observed?in?the?vicinity.?He?ran?when?the?officers?approached?and?was?chased?on?foot?to?a?clubhouse?in?a?nearby?park.?Cornered?on?the?roof,?he?broke?into?the?building,?barricaded?himself?and,?pointing?a?gun?at?the?officer?who?had?entered?the?building,?said,?”Back?off,?or?I’ll?shoot.”?In?the?course?of?the?standoff,?which?lasted?45?minutes,?defendant?resisted?offers?to?surrender?and?at?one?point?said,?”This?is?the?gun?that?killed?her,?but?I?didn’t?do?it.”?A?SWAT?officer?shot?defendant?in?the?arm?and?leg?to?disarm?him.
On?his?arrest,?defendant?did?not?appear?to?be?under?the?influence?of?anything;?the?officer?who?had?chased?him?noted?that?defendant?had?no?problems?running?and?appeared?to?be?in?good?physical?condition.?After?treatment?at?the?emergency?hospital,?defendant?waived?his?Miranda?rights?(Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974]?and?agreed?to?talk?with?a?deputy?sheriff.?He?admitted?taking?Decker’s?car?at?gunpoint?for?a?”joyride.”?He?related?the?following:?Decker?was?killed?by?a?”Mexican?hitchhiker”?whom?defendant?picked?up?on?the?interstate.?He?had?[1?Cal.4th?292]?left?the?Mexican?and?the?girl?to?go?”joyriding.”?In?his?absence?the?Mexican?had?shot?Decker?and?put?her?in?a?dumpster.?He?and?the?Mexican?changed?the?license?plates?and?he?”showed?off”?the?car?to?his?mother?and?friends.?On?the?following?day?he?and?the?Mexican?moved?the?body?from?the?dumpster?to?the?place?where?it?was?found.
Search?of?the?dumpster?revealed?items?of?Decker’s?clothing,?a?.32-caliber?cartridge?case,?and?a?quantity?of?blood.?The?murder?weapon?was?found,?a?.32?automatic?pistol?which?belonged?to?a?friend?of?defendant.
- The?Defense.
The?persons?with?whom?defendant?lived?in?May?and?until?June?10,?1984,?testified?that?he?was?”hyper”?and?”paranoid.”?He?sold?drugs?and?carried?a?gun.?Defendant?was?asked?to?leave?when?he?cooked?what?appeared?to?be?drugs?on?a?spoon?in?the?house?and?when?he?left?his?gun?on?the?coffee?table.?James?Henderson,?a?friend,?agreed?that?before?the?murder?defendant?”started?gettin’?paranoid,”?and?stated?that?defendant?became?a?heroin?addict?”very?quickly.”
Tina?Francis,?a?prostitute,?met?defendant?shortly?before?the?murder.?They?were?together?five?or?six?days?(or?maybe?only?two)?and?purchased?drugs?with?the?money?she?earned?by?prostitution.?Defendant?injected?cocaine?10?or?12?times?a?day,?became?explosive?and?angry?for?30?to?45?minutes?after?he?injected?and?became?increasingly?paranoid.?The?two?were?arrested?on?June?12?for?being?under?the?influence?of?heroin.?She?was?in?jail?for?six?days?and,?on?her?release?on?June?18,?she?saw?defendant?with?a?red?Corvette.?He?told?her?that?he?and?another?person?had?robbed?a?lady?and?taken?the?car.?He?also?told?her?that?the?other?person?had?shot?the?lady.?Tina?thought?defendant?was?lying?and?suspected?that?he?had?committed?the?murder?himself.?She?rejected?his?demand?to?become?her?”pimp”?and?later?heard?he?had?been?arrested.
When?he?was?arrested,?defendant?had?a?hypodermic?injection?kit?in?the?pocket?of?his?jacket.?The?syringe?and?the?spoon?had?residue?of?cocaine?and?Ritalin.?After?his?arrest?(and?before?receiving?a?morphine?injection?in?the?emergency?room),?defendant?gave?a?urine?specimen?which?showed?morphine?or?heroin,?and?cocaine.
Dr.?Fred?Rosenthal,?defense?psychiatrist,?testified?that,?due?to?his?heavy?cocaine?use?and?lack?of?sleep,?defendant?did?not?intend?or?premeditate?the?shooting?of?Decker.?At?the?time?of?the?shooting,?the?psychiatrist?asserted,?defendant?was?reacting?impulsively?and?irrationally,?he?was?frightened?and?paranoid,?and?his?mental?state?was?inconsistent?with?deliberation?and?premeditation.?Dr.?Rosenthal?based?his?opinion?largely?on?defendant’s?statements?to?him.?Defendant?told?the?psychiatrist?that?he?kidnapped?Decker?to?[1?Cal.4th?293]?steal?her?car;?he?put?her?in?a?dumpster?to?delay?her?in?reporting?the?theft?to?the?police;?he?injected?himself?with?cocaine?and,?when?she?banged?on?the?lid?of?the?dumpster,?he?flew?into?a?rage?and?shot?her.
- Prosecution?Rebuttal.
Detective?Bell?testified?that?Tina?Francis?told?him?that?she?only?knew?defendant?for?two?days?before?they?were?arrested?together.
Tom?Brown,?investigator,?testified?that?Jackie?Henderson?told?him?that?he?was?watching?television?with?defendant?when?the?news?of?the?discovery?of?Decker’s?body?was?broadcast.?Defendant?said?at?that?time,?”Oh,?no,?they’ve?found?her.?They?found?her?already.?Damn.?I?thought?it?would?take?them?longer?to?find?her.”?Henderson?asked?defendant?if?he?really?did?it.?Defendant?responded?that?he?had?no?other?choice,?that?he?had?to?do?it.
- Pretrial?Issues
- Recusal?Motion.
Defendant?moved?to?recuse?the?entire?district?attorney’s?office?or,?in?the?alternative,?David?Druliner,?the?deputy?who?prosecuted?the?case?after?August?1986.?A?conflict?of?interest?allegedly?existed?because?of?connections?or?contacts?by?friends?of?the?murder?victim?with?the?prosecutors.?Defendant?based?his?motion?on?the?following:?(1)?the?acquaintance?of?Druliner’s?wife?with?the?victim;?(2)?Druliner’s?contacts?with?the?social?club?of?which?the?victim?was?a?member?and?the?club’s?interest?in?the?case;?and?(3)?the?relationship?between?the?victim?and?Craig?Regan,?a?former?deputy?district?attorney?and?municipal?court?commissioner?who?was?acquainted?with?the?prosecutors.
After?an?extensive?hearing,?the?trial?court?found?(1)?no?evidence?that?Mrs.?Druliner?attempted?to?influence?her?husband?in?any?way;?(2)?no?evidence?that?the?social?club?put?any?pressure?on?the?district?attorney’s?office?or?that?the?office?was?influenced?by?the?social?club;?and?(3)?that?Commissioner?Regan?did?not?exert?any?pressure?on?the?district?attorney’s?office.?The?court?found?that?there?was?no?showing?of?a?conflict?of?interest?or?reasonable?appearance?of?a?conflict?or?that?it?was?likely?defendant?would?not?receive?a?fair?trial.
[1]?Our?role?is?to?determine?whether?there?is?substantial?evidence?to?support?the?findings?(People?v.?Conner?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?141?[193?Cal.Rptr.?[1?Cal.4th?294]?148,?666?P.2d?5])?and,?based?on?those?findings,?whether?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?in?denying?the?motion.?(People?v.?Hamilton?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?123,?140?[249?Cal.Rptr.?320,?756?P.2d?1348];?Love?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?111?Cal.App.3d?367,?371?[168?Cal.Rptr.?577];?People?v.?Battin?(1978)?77?Cal.App.3d?635,?671?[143?Cal.Rptr.?731,?95?A.L.R.3d?248].)In?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Greer)?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?255,?269?[137?Cal.Rptr.?476,?561?P.2d?1164]?(Greer),?we?held?that?a?trial?court?had?the?inherent?power?to?recuse?the?district?attorney?when?it?appeared?he?had?”a?conflict?of?interest?which?might?prejudice?him?against?the?accused?and?thereby?affect,?or?appear?to?affect,?his?ability?to?impartially?perform?the?discretionary?functions?of?his?office.”?We?held?recusal?had?been?permissibly?ordered?when?the?murder?victim’s?mother?was?a?clerical?employee?of?the?district?attorney’s?office?and?sympathy?for?her?had?permeated?the?office.
The?Legislature?responded?to?Greer?by?adopting?section?1424,?which?provides?that?a?motion?to?recuse?the?district?attorney?”shall?not?be?granted?unless?it?is?shown?by?the?evidence?that?a?conflict?of?interest?exists?such?as?would?render?it?unlikely?that?the?defendant?would?receive?a?fair?trial.”?We?have?noted?that?the?statute?differs?somewhat?from?the?Greer?rule,?requiring?a?showing?on?the?potential?effect?of?the?conflict?on?the?trial.?(People?v.?Conner,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?141;?People?v.?Hamilton,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?123.)?In?Conner?we?suggested?that,?although?the?Legislature?had?not?necessarily?eliminated?recusals?on?the?mere?appearance?of?a?conflict,?whether?actual?or?apparent,?”the?conflict?must?be?of?such?gravity?as?to?render?it?unlikely?that?defendant?will?receive?a?fair?trial?unless?recusal?is?ordered.”?(34?Cal.3d?at?p.?147.)
[2]?The?trial?court’s?findings?and?ruling?were?entirely?consistent?with?the?standards?articulated?in?the?judicial?pronouncement?of?Greer,?supra,?19?Cal.3d?255,?and?the?legislative?pronouncement?of?section?1424.?Defendant?argues?that?there?is?a?”reasonable?possibility”?that?the?district?attorney’s?discretionary?powers,?especially?in?terms?of?plea?bargaining,?may?have?been?affected?by?the?contacts?and?connections?of?the?prosecutors?with?the?victim.?The?simple?answer?is?that?the?trial?court?heard?the?evidence?and?found?otherwise.As?to?Mrs.?Druliner’s?acquaintance?with?the?murder?victim,?the?trial?court?noted?that?she?was?not?called?as?a?witness?to?state?her?feelings?toward?the?victim?or?the?disposition?of?the?case.?Druliner?testified?that?he?did?not?even?know?his?wife?was?acquainted?with?the?victim?until?the?recusal?motion.?On?inquiry,?Mrs.?Druliner?told?her?husband?that?she?had?spoken?to?the?victim?”on?occasion”?at?the?social?club.?Druliner?himself?had?never?met?the?victim;?he?testified?he?had?no?personal?interest?in?the?case.?[1?Cal.4th?295]
As?to?the?social?club?and?its?interest?in?the?case,?the?trial?court?refused?to?equate?”interest”?with?”pressure,”?noting?that?recusals?would?abound?if?required?whenever?a?group?feels?strongly?about?an?issue?and?attempts?to?communicate?that?to?the?district?attorney.?John?O’Mara,?the?deputy?who?made?the?initial?recommendation?in?filing?charges?in?the?case?and?was?involved?in?the?decision?to?seek?the?death?penalty,?responded?to?the?initial?call?from?a?member?of?the?social?club.?He?informed?the?member?that?there?would?be?no?plea?bargain?and?that?a?jury?should?decide?on?the?appropriate?penalty.?He?had?no?other?discussion?regarding?a?negotiated?disposition,?and?the?club?exerted?absolutely?no?pressure?on?him?regarding?the?handling?of?the?case.?Several?months?after?the?murder,?Druliner?was?asked?to?address?the?social?club?on?the?criminal?process?involved?in?a?murder?case.?He?agreed,?with?the?understanding?that?he?could?not?and?would?not?discuss?the?case.?At?the?time,?Druliner?was?not?assigned?to?the?case.
Regarding?the?alleged?pressure?exerted?by?Commissioner?Regan,?a?friend?of?the?murder?victim,?the?record?reveals?that?his?connections?with?the?prosecutors?handling?the?case?were?weak?and?tenuous?and?that?he?did?not?influence?or?attempt?to?influence?anyone.
The?evidence?simply?fails?to?show?any?connection?between?the?friends?of?the?victim?and?the?prosecutor’s?office?which?required?the?trial?court?to?draw?even?an?inference?of?bias?by?the?office?or?Druliner.?As?the?Attorney?General?points?out,?the?fact?that?the?victim?had?friends,?some?of?whom?felt?that?her?murderer?should?receive?the?death?penalty,?does?not?make?this?case?different?from?most?murder?cases?and?provided?no?support?for?the?recusal?motion.
Accordingly,?we?conclude?that?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?denying?the?motion.
- Jury?Selection-Representative?Jury.
Butler’s?survey?of?persons?who?appeared?at?the?courthouse?from?April?21?to?September?9,?1986,?revealed,?however,?that?only?4.8?percent?were?Hispanic.?Butler?testified?to?possible?sources?of?the?disparity?between?the?proportion?of?Hispanics?on?the?master?list?and?the?proportion?on?the?venires.?He?first?noted?that?there?was?no?disparity?in?the?proportion?of?Hispanic?versus?non-?Hispanic?for?whom?questionnaires?were?returned?as?undelivered?(the?”unreachables”).?There?was?a?slight?disparity?among?the?two?groups?as?to?the?numbers?who?responded?to?the?survey.?Butler?suggested?that?any?underrepresentation?of?Hispanics?due?to?failure?to?respond?could?be?alleviated?by?better?”tracking”?and?”follow-up.”
Butler?found?no?fault?with?the?jury?commissioner’s?practices?regarding?exemption?of?prospective?jurors,?but?opined?that?the?policy?and?practices?regarding?statutory?criteria?for?qualification?(e.g.,?residence,?language,?felon?status,?etc.)?and?discretionary?nonstatutory?excusals?of?otherwise?qualified?prospective?jurors?could?be?the?cause?of?underrepresentation.?Butler?admitted,?however,?that?he?could?only?speculate?as?to?the?effect?of?those?factors?in?this?case.
Jury?Commissioner?Geraldine?Alphson?and?an?assistant?testified?to?the?method?of?selecting?prospective?jurors:?The?master?list?is?composed?from?two?sources,?the?Department?of?Motor?Vehicles?and?the?county?registrar?of?voters.?From?questionnaires?mailed?to?each?prospective?juror?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,?former???204.4),?the?commissioner?eliminates?persons?entitled?to?statutory?exemption?and?those?whose?responses?indicate?they?do?not?meet?the?minimum?statutory?requirements?to?be?a?juror?(i.e.,?citizenship,?residence,?language?skills).?Requests?for?excusal,?and?the?explanations?supporting?the?requests,?are?evaluated?by?the?commissioner’s?staff?under?local?court?rules?and?pursuant?to?written?procedural?guidelines.?Except?in?a?few?situations?where?there?is?no?doubt?as?to?the?right?to?excusal,?all?hardship?and?other?discretionary?excuses?are?examined?by?the?jury?commissioner?or?by?the?presiding?judge.?[1?Cal.4th?297]
Persons?who?do?not?return?the?questionnaire?are?sent?a?form?letter?and?a?second?questionnaire,?and?third?notices?are?also?sent?by?certified?mail.?Persons?who?fail?to?respond?to?summons?for?jury?duty?are?telephoned?or?are?resummoned?with?certified?mail.?An?order?is?issued?to?any?person?who?refuses?to?appear.?The?jury?commissioner?testified?that?there?is?a?follow-up?on?every?person?summoned?for?jury?duty.
The?trial?court?denied?the?motion?to?quash?on?the?basis?that?no?prima?facie?showing?of?unconstitutional?representation?had?been?made.?The?trial?court?accepted?a?comparative?disparity?figure?of?between?31?and?33?percent?but?noted?that?the?absolute?disparity?was?2.2?percent,?which?translated?into?five?to?six?people?in?the?venire?of?two?hundred?and?forty?persons.?fn.?3?The?trial?court?found?”no?intentional?disparity”?and?also?found?that?the?cause?of?the?disparity?could?not?be?identified.?Applying?the?”substantial?evidence”?standard?in?evaluating?the?facts?before?the?trial?court?and?applying?the?”deferential?abuse-of-discretion”?standard?in?evaluating?the?court’s?ruling?on?the?motion,?we?uphold?the?ruling?of?the?trial?court.
[5]?In?California,?the?right?to?trial?by?a?jury?drawn?from?a?representative?cross-section?of?the?community?is?guaranteed?equally?and?independently?by?the?Sixth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution?(Taylor?v.?Louisiana?(1975)?419?U.S.?522,?530?[42?L.Ed.2d?690,?698,?95?S.Ct.?692])?and?by?article?I,?section?16?of?the?California?Constitution.?(People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258,?272?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748];?Williams?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?736,?740?[263?Cal.Rptr.?503,?781?P.2d?537];?see?also?Code?Civ.?Proc.,????197,?subd.?(a),?204.)Under?Duren?v.?Missouri?(1979)?439?U.S.?357?[58?L.Ed.2d?579,?99?S.Ct.?664]?(Duren),?in?order?to?establish?a?prima?facie?violation?of?the?fair?cross-section?requirement,?”the?defendant?must?show?(1)?that?the?group?alleged?to?be?excluded?is?a?’distinctive’?group?in?the?community;?(2)?that?the?representation?of?this?group?in?venires?from?which?juries?are?selected?is?not?[1?Cal.4th?298]?fair?and?reasonable?in?relation?to?the?number?of?such?persons?in?the?community;?and?(3)?that?this?underrepresentation?is?due?to?systematic?exclusion?of?the?group?in?the?jury-?selection?process.”?(Id.?at?p.?364;?People?v.?Harris?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?36,?50?[201?Cal.Rptr.?782,?679?P.2d?433].)
[3c]?The?parties?are?in?agreement?that?the?first?prong?of?the?Duren?test?is?met,?i.e.,?that?Hispanic?or?Spanish-origin?persons?are?a?cognizable?group?for?purposes?of?fair?cross-section?analysis.?(People?v.?Sanders,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?471,?491;?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?543?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244].)Defendant?argues?that?the?second?prong?of?the?Duren?test?is?also?met,?i.e.,?that?the?number?of?Hispanics?on?the?venires?is?not?fair?and?reasonable?in?relation?to?the?number?of?Hispanics?in?the?population.?Defendant?relies?primarily?on?a?comparative?disparity?measure,?which?in?this?case?ranges?from?31?to?37?percent,?depending?on?whose?figures?are?accepted.?The?People,?on?the?other?hand,?rely?on?People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?in?which?we?found?it?”far?from?clear”?that?an?absolute?disparity?of?5?percent?satisfied?the?second?prong?of?Duren.
In?Bell?the?comparative?disparity?was?over?50?percent,?the?absolute?disparity?5?percent.?In?Sanders,?supra?(51?Cal.3d?471),?our?most?recent?decision?on?this?issue,?the?comparative?disparity?was?almost?50?percent,?the?absolute?disparity?8?percent.?In?both?cases,?we?noted?that?the?federal?high?court?”has?not?yet?spoken?definitively?on?either?the?means?by?which?disparity?may?be?measured?or?the?constitutional?limit?of?permissible?disparity”?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?527-528,?fn.?omitted;?Sanders,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?492),?and?we?found?it?unnecessary?to?decide?which?measure?was?appropriate?for?determination?of?the?”fair?and?reasonable”?component?of?the?second?prong?of?Duren,?because?in?both?Bell?and?Sanders?the?defendant?had?failed?to?make?out?a?prima?facie?case?under?the?third?prong,?i.e.,?a?showing?that?the?disparity?was?caused?by?”systematic?exclusion”?of?the?allegedly?discriminated?against?group.
Here,?too,?defendant?has?not?met?his?burden?under?the?third?prong?of?Duren,?supra,?439?U.S.?357.?Defendant?has?submitted?a?statistical?disparity?and?an?expert?opinion?that?mere?chance?is?unlikely?to?have?produced?such?a?disparity.?Although?the?expert?was?willing?to?speculate?that?the?disparity?resulted?from?the?process?used?to?select?prospective?jurors,?he?admitted?that?he?had?no?evidence?and?could?only?speculate?as?to?the?cause?of?the?disparity.?Butler?suggested?that?application?of?the?statutory?criteria,?especially?language?and?residence,?might?have?had?an?effect?on?the?disparity.?He?also?speculated?that?there?might?have?been?inconsistencies?in?the?granting?of?[1?Cal.4th?299]?discretionary?excusals.?As?the?trial?court,?found,?however,?defendant?provided?no?evidence?that?Hispanics?were?granted?a?disproportionate?number?of?exemptions?or?excusals.?More?importantly,?there?was?no?showing?that?the?exemptions?or?excusals?were?granted?other?than?for?race-neutral?reasons.
The?trial?court?in?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?527,?made?a?similar?finding.?In?that?case,?we?agreed?with?the?trial?court?that?insofar?as?the?disparity?”?’may?be?due?to?economic,?cultural,?social?or?language?considerations,?the?difference?must?be?deemed?to?be?”unavoidable.”?’?”?(Id.?at?p.?547.)?We?concluded,?”defendant?merely?showed?possible?laxity?in?enforcing?race/class?neutral?excusal?practices.?Such?a?showing?fails?to?constitute?a?prima?facie?case?of?systematic?exclusion?of?those?minority?groups?affected?by?such?practices.”?(Id.?at?p.?549.)?Later,?in?People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?we?held?that?the?defendant?failed?to?carry?his?burden?of?establishing?a?prima?facie?case?under?the?third?prong?of?Duren?where?the?only?evidence?proffered?was?statistical?evidence?of?underrepresentation?and?testimony?by?the?jury?commissioner?regarding?the?jury?selection?process.?We?rejected?defendant’s?claim?that?constitutionally?impermissible?systematic?exclusion?could?be?shown?by?demonstrating?that?underrepresentation?of?a?cognizable?class?is?the?result?of?applying?neutral?criteria?to?grant?deferrals?on?grounds?of?hardship.
In?sum,?the?trial?court?properly?denied?defendant’s?challenge?to?the?jury?venire.
III?Guilt?Phase?Issues
- Admissibility?of?Postarrest?Statement.
Defendant?was?arrested?after?a?chase?and?standoff,?in?the?course?of?which?he?was?shot?in?the?arm?and?the?thigh.?Defendant?was?treated?for?an?hour?in?the?emergency?room?and,?to?reduce?his?pain,?was?given?an?injection?of?[1?Cal.4th?300]?morphine.?Thereafter?Detective?Bell?of?the?Sacramento?Sheriff’s?Department,?who?had?accompanied?defendant?to?the?hospital,?advised?him?of?his?Miranda?rights,?and?defendant?signed?and?dated?a?form?waiving?the?rights.?Following?another?half-hour?medical?examination,?Bell?commenced?his?interview?of?defendant.?In?the?tape-recorded?interview,?which?lasted?about?an?hour?and?a?half,?defendant?related?his?story?of?a?Mexican?hitchhiker?who?allegedly?was?left?to?guard?the?victim?and?instead?shot?her?to?death?in?a?dumpster.
The?medical?personnel?who?attended?to?defendant?before?and?during?the?interview?testified?at?the?hearing?on?the?motion?to?suppress.?Dr.?Gylling?and?Nurse?Lords?treated?defendant?in?the?hour?prior?to?the?Miranda?advisements,?and?Nurse?Lords?was?standing?several?feet?from?defendant?when?Bell?informed?defendant?of?his?rights.
Dr.?Gylling?testified?that?defendant’s?wounds?were?not?life?threatening?and?he?estimated?that?defendant?was?in?moderate?pain.?Defendant?appeared?coherent,?appeared?to?understand?completely?what?was?said?to?him,?and?gave?a?detailed?past?history.?Defendant?told?the?doctor?that?he?had?injected?heroin?that?day,?but?he?showed?no?signs?of?being?under?the?influence?of?heroin.?To?alleviate?his?pain,?Gylling?gave?defendant?a?”small?dose”?of?morphine,?insufficient?to?mask?symptoms?or?to?interfere?with?defendant’s?ability?to?give?informed?consent?to?surgery.?The?morphine?did?not?affect?defendant’s?level?of?consciousness;?he?appeared?awake,?conscious,?and?aware?throughout?the?medical?examination,?from?5:30?a.m.,?when?the?dosage?was?administered,?until?6:15?a.m.,?when?the?doctor?departed.?The?effects?of?morphine?last?from?one?to?two?hours;?the?doctor?testified?that?the?effects?would?have?decreased?after?he?left?defendant.
Nurse?Lords?remained?with?defendant?until?he?was?taken?to?the?jail?ward?at?7:20?a.m.?Defendant?was?informed?of?his?rights?at?6:30?a.m.;?he?appeared?alert?and?oriented.?She?testified?that?the?officers?did?not?use?an?intimidating?tone?and?that?defendant?did?not?appear?intimidated?at?all.?He?spoke?slowly?in?a?normal?conversational?voice?and?spoke?as?loudly?as?the?officers.?The?officers’?interview?was?interrupted?by?a?half-hour?neurologic?examination?conducted?by?Dr.?Gage.
Dr.?Gage?testified?that?defendant?did?not?appear?intimidated?and?was?assertive?with?hospital?staff;?he?asked?a?lot?of?questions?and?gave?complete?and?in-depth?answers?to?question?posed?to?him.?The?doctor?felt?that?defendant?was?competent?to?give?informed?consent?to?surgery.
Detective?Bell?interviewed?defendant?sometime?after?7?a.m,?almost?two?hours?after?the?morphine?injection;?at?that?time?defendant?appeared?to?[1?Cal.4th?301]?understand?the?questions,?he?was?responsive,?and?his?answers?were?prompt,?detailed,?and?pertinent.
Defense?psychiatrist?Dr.?Mehtani?testified,?after?reviewing?material?supplied?to?him?by?defense?counsel,?that?it?was?”very?difficult”?for?defendant?to?make?a?voluntary?statement?or?voluntarily?waive?his?rights.?His?opinion?was?based?primarily?on?defendant’s?lack?of?sleep?for?several?days,?his?pain?and?shock?from?the?gunshot?wounds,?and?his?abuse?of?heroin?and?cocaine?in?the?period?prior?to?the?crime.?Mehtani?opined,?however,?that?defendant’s?consent?to?surgery?was?knowing,?intelligent,?and?voluntary,?and?he?conceded?that?defendant?was?well?versed?in?the?Miranda?rights,?having?exercised?them?in?the?prior?week?when?arrested?for?being?under?the?influence?of?heroin?and?while?under?the?influence?of?heroin.
The?trial?court?ruled?that?the?”Miranda?waiver?at?the?hospital?was?given?knowingly,?intelligently?and?voluntarily,”?finding?that,?based?on?the?testimony?of?the?two?physicians?and?the?nurse,?”there?was?no?question?…?concerning?the?competency?of?the?defendant?…?no?indication?of?undue?pressure.”?The?trial?court?also?noted?that?Dr.?Mehtani’s?opinions?were?not?supported?in?the?record?other?than?by?the?self-interested?statements?made?to?the?doctor?by?defendant?himself.
Defendant’s?contentions?are?strikingly?similar?to?those?made?and?rejected?in?People?v.?Jackson?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?1170?[264?Cal.Rptr.?852,?783?P.2d?211],?where?the?claim?of?incapacity?or?incompetence?to?waive?Miranda?rights?was?premised?on?the?defendant’s?physical?and?mental?condition?due?to?his?confrontation?with?police?officers?and?his?ingestion?of?drugs.?However,?there?as?here,?there?was?nothing?in?the?record?to?indicate?that?the?defendant?did?not?understand?the?questions?that?were?posed?to?him.?(See?also?People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?924-925?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676];?People?v.?Hendricks?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?584,?591?[238?Cal.Rptr.?66,?737?P.2d?1350];?In?re?Cameron?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?487?[67?Cal.Rptr.?529,?439?P.2d?633];?People?v.?Loftis?(1984)?157?Cal.App.3d?229,?236?[203?Cal.Rptr.?590].)
We?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court’s?ruling.
- Evidentiary?Rulings.
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?on?two?occasions?erroneously?excluded?evidence?in?violation?of?his?constitutional?rights?to?present?a?defense?and?to?due?process.
- Exclusion?of?Statements?by?Tina?Francis.
The?trial?court?did?not?err.?Under?Evidence?Code?section?791,?subdivision?(a),?defendant?was?entitled?to?elicit?prior?statements?regarding?when?Tina?Francis?came?to?Sacramento?and?how?long?she?knew?defendant.?Statements?to?that?effect?were?not?excluded.?As?to?subdivision?(b),?the?trial?court?acted?within?its?discretion?when?it?concluded,?on?the?facts,?that?there?was?no?bias?or?motive?to?testify?in?a?particular?way?and?that?the?evidence?suggested?only?that?the?witness?had?been?mistaken?in?her?trial?testimony?as?to?how?many?days?she?spent?with?defendant.
The?trial?court?also?properly?limited?the?admission?of?the?remainder?of?the?interview?under?Evidence?Code?section?356.?The?section?permits?introduction?only?of?statements?”on?the?same?subject”?or?which?are?necessary?for?understanding?of?the?statements?already?introduced.?The?”other?conversation”?referred?to?in?Evidence?Code?section?356?must?have?some?bearing?upon,?or?connection?with,?the?admission?or?declaration?in?evidence.?(See?People?v.?Ketchel?(1963)?59?Cal.2d?503,?536?[30?Cal.Rptr.?538,?381?P.2d?394];?Rosenberg?v.?Wittenborn?(1960)?178?Cal.App.2d?846,?852?[3?Cal.Rptr.?459].)
The?record?reveals?that,?after?an?extensive?discussion?and?review?of?the?entire?interview?transcript,?the?trial?court?permitted?the?introduction?of?everything?that?remotely?related?to?the?time?Francis?spent?with?defendant.?[1?Cal.4th?303]
- Limitation?of?Psychiatrist?Testimony.
Defendant?does?not?indicate?how?the?allegedly?”erroneous”?ruling?affected?the?trial?or?prejudiced?defendant.?Without?deciding?whether?the?psychiatrist’s?testimony?fell?within?the?proscription?of?section?29,?we?merely?note?that?he?did?testify?about?the?symptoms?of?psychosis?due?to?cocaine?and?stated?that?defendant?had?those?symptoms;?he?described?the?disorganizing?effects?of?defendant’s?cocaine?use?and?sleep?deprivation?and?the?resulting?paranoia,?explosiveness,?and?anger.?He?testified?fully?as?to?his?opinion?of?defendant’s?condition?before?and?at?the?time?of?the?murder.?He?stated?that?defendant’s?mental?state?was?inconsistent?with?premeditation.?He?opined?that?defendant?could?not?and?did?not?premeditate?the?shooting.?In?his?opinion,?defendant?shot?the?victim?while?in?an?”enraged”?state,?and?the?doctor?equated?rage?with?lack?of?intent.
Defendant?points?to?no?evidence?that?was?excluded?by?the?court’s?ruling.?We?conclude?that?there?was?no?interference?with?defendant’s?rights?to?present?a?defense?and?to?due?process?in?the?court’s?ruling?on?the?psychiatrist’s?testimony.
- Instructions?on?Consciousness?of?Guilt.
Over?defense?objection,?the?trial?court?gave?two?instructions?on?consciousness?of?guilt,?CALJIC?Nos.?2.03?and?2.06.?The?jury?was?instructed?that?a?false?or?deliberately?misleading?statement?by?defendant?concerning?the?charge?upon?which?he?was?being?tried?(CALJIC?No.?2.03)?or?an?attempt?by?defendant?to?suppress?evidence?against?himself?(CALJIC?No.?2.06)?could?be?considered?to?prove?consciousness?of?guilt,?that?the?evidence?was?not?[1?Cal.4th?304]?sufficient?of?itself?to?prove?guilt,?and?that?its?weight?and?significance,?”if?any,”?were?matters?for?the?jury’s?determination.?fn.?7
[9]?Defendant?contends?here?as?he?did?before?the?trial?court?that,?while?the?two?factors?might?be?relevant?to?whether?he?committed?the?crimes,?they?were?irrelevant?to?the?only?issue?in?dispute,?his?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?offense.?Defendant?argues?that?the?instructions,?at?the?very?least,?confused?the?jury,?permitting?it?to?draw?irrational?and?irrelevant?inferences?about?his?state?of?mind?at?the?time?of?the?offenses?in?contravention?of?federal?and?state?constitutional?guarantees?of?due?process.?(See?United?States?v.?Gainey?(1965)?380?U.S.?63?[13?L.Ed.2d?658,?85?S.Ct.?754];?Mullaney?v.?Wilbur?(1975)?421?U.S.?684?[44?L.Ed.2d?508,?95?S.Ct.?1881].)We?addressed?the?same?two?instructions?and?rejected?the?identical?due?process?argument?in?People?v.?Crandell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?833?[251?Cal.Rptr.?227,?760?P.2d?423]:?”The?instructions?advise?the?jury?to?determine?what?significance,?if?any,?should?be?given?to?evidence?of?consciousness?of?guilt,?and?caution?that?such?evidence?is?not?sufficient?to?establish?guilt,?thereby?clearly?implying?that?the?evidence?is?not?the?equivalent?of?a?confession?and?is?to?be?evaluated?with?reason?and?common?sense.?The?instructions?do?not?address?the?defendant’s?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?offense?and?do?not?direct?or?compel?the?drawing?of?impermissible?inferences?in?regard?thereto.”?(Id.?at?p.?871,?italics?added;?see?also?People?v.?Nicolaus?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?551,?579-580?[286?Cal.Rptr.?628,?817?P.2d?893].)
Furthermore,?although?counsel?notes?that?defendant?”essentially?conceded”?his?guilt?to?the?seven?nonmurder?counts?as?well?as?the?killing?of?the?victim,?the?fact?remained?that?defendant?did?not?plead?guilty?to?any?of?the?charges?and?the?jury?had?before?it?the?issue?of?guilt?on?all?the?charges.?In?People?v.?Griffin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1011?[251?Cal.Rptr.?643,?761?P.2d?103],?where?the?defendant?conceded?killing?his?stepdaughter?but?denied?sexually?assaulting?her,?he?disputed?the?propriety?of?giving?CALJIC?No.?2.03?regarding?false?statements?concerning?the?stepdaughter’s?whereabouts.?We?disagreed?that?the?only?issue?remaining?was?whether?he?had?committed?the?sex?crimes:?”First?of?all,?his?concession?was?not?tantamount?to?a?guilty?plea?…?and?the?jury?still?had?to?determine?whether?or?not?he?had?committed?a?murder,?and?of?what?degree?any?murder?was.?Furthermore,?defendant?has?provided?no?authority,?nor?have?we?found?any,?to?support?the?proposition?that?a?statement?only?supports?an?inference?of?consciousness?of?guilt?if?it?mentions?the?particular?offense,?committed?during?a?single?transaction,?about?which?the?defendant?feels?guilty.”?(46?Cal.3d?at?p.?1027.)?[1?Cal.4th?305]
We?conclude?the?trial?court?made?no?error?in?instructing?on?consciousness?of?guilt.
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct-Closing?Argument.
During?his?rebuttal?argument,?while?discussing?the?reasonableness?of?inferences?to?be?drawn?from?circumstantial?evidence,?the?prosecutor?compared?the?trial?with?a?law?school?trial?tactics?class?where?students?are?taught?”that?if?you?don’t?have?the?law?on?your?side,?argue?the?facts.?If?you?don’t?have?the?facts?on?your?side,?argue?the?law.?If?you?don’t?have?either?one?of?those?things?on?your?side,?try?to?create?some?sort?of?a?confusion?with?regard?to?the?case?because?any?confusion?at?all?is?to?the?benefit?of?the?defense.”?Defense?interrupted?to?object?on?Sixth?Amendment?grounds?and?also?claimed?it?was?an?argument?of?facts?outside?the?record.?The?trial?court?overruled?the?objection,?stating,?”I?will?instruct?the?jury,?however,?that?any?argument?that?relates?to?facts?that?are?not?on?the?record?should?be?disregarded?by?the?jury.”
Later,?during?a?recess,?defense?counsel?restated?his?objection?to?the?prosecutor’s?statements?as?improper?argument,?demeaning?counsel?and?impugning?his?integrity.?He?asked?the?court?to?instruct?the?prosecutor?not?to?again?attack?the?character?of?defense?counsel.?The?court?disagreed?that?the?comment?was?improper,?noting?it?was?”very?common?in?trials”?for?one?counsel?to?impugn?the?motivations?of?the?other,?as?defense?counsel?had?done?in?his?argument.?”[T]his?is?the?observation?and?opinion?of?counsel?in?an?adversary?type?position.?I?don’t?think?it?has?gone?too?far.?Of?course,?there?are?bounds?upon?that.?But?I?don’t?think?it?has?gone?to?the?point?where?it?would?deprive?Mr.?Breaux?of?his?Sixth?Amendment?rights.”
Defendant?suggests?that?the?single?comment?by?the?prosecutor?is?misconduct?in?the?nature?of?that?condemned?in?cases?such?as?People?v.?Bain?(1971)?5?Cal.3d?839,?847?[97?Cal.Rptr.?684,?489?P.2d?564],?People?v.?Perry?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?756,?789?[103?Cal.Rptr.?161,?499?P.2d?129],?and?Bruno?v.?Rushen?(9th?Cir.?1983)?721?F.2d?1193,?1194-1195.?On?the?contrary,?Bain?was?an?extreme?case?of?prosecutorial?misconduct:?”In?the?course?of?the?trial,?the?prosecutor?asserted?before?the?jury?that?the?defendant?and?his?counsel?had?fabricated?the?’pick-up’?story;?he?stated?that?he,?as?a?black?man,?would?not?be?prosecuting?a?black?defendant?unless?he?personally?believed?the?man?to?be?guilty;?he?attacked?the?integrity?of?the?defense?attorney?and?the?office?of?the?[1?Cal.4th?306]?public?defender;?and?he?referred?repeatedly?to?racial?matters.”?(5?Cal.3d?at?p.?845.)?In?Perry,?the?prosecutor?argued?that,?in?contrast?to?prosecutors,?defense?attorneys?were?free?to?obscure?the?truth?and?confuse?the?jury;?he?accused?counsel?of?unethical?conduct.?(7?Cal.3d?at?pp.?789-790.)?In?Bruno,?the?prosecutor?argued?that?defense?attorneys?are?trained?to?lie;?he?suggested?that?counsel?suborned?perjury;?and?he?stated?that?defendant’s?hiring?of?counsel?indicated?his?guilt.?The?instant?case?finds?no?parallel?in?these?decisions.
People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?however,?is?instructive.?There?the?prosecutor?commented?that?it?was?defense?counsel’s?job?to?confuse?the?jury?and?throw?sand?in?its?eyes?to?prevent?it?from?returning?a?verdict.?The?prosecutor?also?commented?that?”?’It’s?a?very?common?thing?to?expect?the?defense?to?focus?on?areas?which?tend?to?confuse?…?that’s?all?right.?…’?”?(Id.?at?p.?538.)?We?held?that,?insofar?as?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?could?be?understood?as?a?reminder?to?the?jury?that?it?should?not?be?distracted?from?the?relevant?evidence?and?inferences?that?might?properly?and?logically?be?drawn?therefrom,?there?was?no?impropriety.?The?argument?was?improper?only?if?it?could?be?understood?as?suggesting?that?counsel?was?obligated?or?permitted?to?present?a?defense?dishonestly.
We?are?persuaded?that,?in?context,?the?prosecutor?could?only?have?been?understood?as?cautioning?the?jury?to?rely?on?the?evidence?introduced?at?trial?and?not?as?impugning?the?integrity?of?defense?counsel.?The?trial?court?did?not?err?in?finding?no?misconduct.
- Other?Errors?Affecting?Guilt?Phase.
In?a?supplemental?brief,?defendant?raises?three?issues?which?he?recognizes?have?been?rejected?in?recent?decisions?by?this?court.
- Death?Qualification?and?an?Impartial?Jury.
Death?qualification?and?the?resulting?excusal?of?several?prospective?jurors?for?cause?based?on?their?views?on?the?death?penalty?produces?a?jury?which?is?substantially?more?likely?to?convict?than?a?non-death-qualified?jury?and?is?therefore?not?neutral?and?impartial?in?determining?the?issue?of?defendant’s?guilt?or?innocence.?This?oft-made?challenge?has?been?rejected?by?us?(People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741])?and?by?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?(Lockhart?v.?McCree?(1986)?476?U.S.?162?[90?L.Ed.2d?137,?106?S.Ct.?1758]).
- Concession?of?Guilt?by?Defense?Counsel.
Defendant?contends?that?his?counsel’s?argument?to?the?jury?contained?statements?which?amounted?to?a?concession?of?guilt?in?violation?of?defendant’s?constitutional?rights.?While?an?attorney?may?not?plead?his?client?guilty?[1?Cal.4th?307]?(??1018),?trial?strategy?and?tactics?here?support?counsel’s?decision?to?concede?guilt?on?all?but?the?murder?count?and?to?urge?a?lesser?verdict?on?that?count:?”This?is?not?a?trial?about?is?Mr.?Breaux?guilty?or?not?guilty.?This?is?a?trial?about?what?Mr.?Breaux?is?guilty?of?…?the?question?is?[is]?he?guilty?of?first?degree?murder?or?second?degree?murder?or?manslaughter.”?Similar?contentions?were?rejected?by?us?in?People?v.?Griffin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?1011,?1029,?and?People?v.?Hendricks,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?584,?592-594.
- Defendant’s?Absence?from?Proceedings.
The?record?reveals?that?all?the?proceedings?of?which?defendant?now?complains?were?preceded?by?an?oral?waiver?of?personal?presence?by?defendant.?Defendant’s?contention?that?federal?due?process?precludes?the?power?to?waive?presence?at?proceedings?of?a?capital?trial?and?that?the?trial?court?has?no?power?to?allow?his?absence?has?been?rejected?by?us?in?People?v.?Grant?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?829,?845-846?[248?Cal.Rptr.?444,?755?P.2d?894].?(See?also?People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?771,?825?[281?Cal.Rptr.?90,?809?P.2d?865];?People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1238?[283?Cal.Rptr.?144,?812?P.2d?163].)
- Penalty?Phase?Evidence
- The?Prosecution.
The?parties?stipulated?to?the?reading?of?a?statement?of?facts?on?three?prior?offenses,?two?of?which?had?been?pleaded?as?prior?convictions?and?found?true?at?the?guilt?phase.?On?April?28,?1975,?defendant?assaulted?a?police?officer?who?was?attempting?to?arrest?him?for?disorderly?conduct?(??647,?subd.?(f)).?On?June?28,?1976,?defendant?committed?a?misdemeanor?battery?(??242)?on?a?young?woman?whom?he?assaulted?as?she?stopped?for?a?red?light?at?an?intersection?in?Sacramento.?On?May?25,?1978,?defendant?committed?an?armed?robbery?(??211)?of?a?7-Eleven?store?in?Fair?Oaks.
- The?Defense.
The?defense?presented?mitigating?evidence?through?the?testimony?of?members?of?defendant’s?family?and?friends.?Defendant’s?father?testified?that?the?family?moved?frequently?while?he?served?as?an?officer?in?the?Air?Force;?that,?as?a?youth,?defendant?excelled?in?sports,?but?started?to?”change”?in?11th?grade?when?his?grades?dropped;?and?that,?although?defendant?drank?beer?and?smoked?cigarettes,?as?far?as?he?knew?defendant?did?not?take?drugs?in?high?[1?Cal.4th?308]?school.?The?father?described?the?family?as?”very?close.”?He?testified?to?good?relationships?with?his?children;?he?recognized?they?were?”unhappy”?but?did?not?know?why.?He?left?the?family?in?1976.
Defendant’s?mother?described?a?stressful?period?for?the?family?in?Japan?and?the?deterioration?of?the?marriage?upon?their?return?to?Sacramento?in?1970.?The?mother?believed?that?her?husband?was?sexually?molesting?their?daughter,?who,?like?defendant,?was?an?avid?swimmer?and?athlete.?Defendant?and?his?sister?were?very?close?and?when?the?daughter?eventually?ran?away?from?home,?defendant?was?very?angry?with?his?father.
The?sister,?Christine,?testified?that?her?father?began?sexually?molesting?her?when?she?was?nine?and?that?she?and?defendant?started?using?drugs?at?an?early?age?to?escape?their?father’s?abuse.?She?ran?away,?and?eventually?went?into?a?drug?and?alcohol?treatment?facility.?She?testified?that?the?father?sexually?abused?her?brother?Michael?and?that?she?believes?he?also?abused?defendant.?In?1982,?on?the?recommendation?of?her?therapist,?she?discussed?the?sexual?abuse?with?defendant.?He?became?”angry”?and?”terribly?rageful.”?By?1982?defendant’s?drug?abuse?was?getting?worse.
Brother?Michael?testified?that?he?had?not?seen?defendant?in?years?and?did?not?keep?track?of?or?in?touch?with?the?family.
Patrick?Evard,?priest?and?family?friend,?described?defendant?as?pleasant?and?courteous,?but?he?detected?the?discord?in?the?family?unit?when?he?visited,?as?he?did?often.?The?priest?last?saw?defendant?in?1983?and?was?then,?as?always,?impressed?with?him.?The?priest?testified?that?if?he?could?have?a?son,?he?would?still?pick?a?man?like?defendant.
Marcia?Lingge?testified?that?in?1973,?during?an?accident?on?a?rafting?trip,?as?she?was?attempting?to?rescue?a?drowning?friend,?defendant,?a?stranger,?ran?into?the?river?and?jumped?into?the?rapids?to?aid?in?the?rescue.?Though?their?efforts?were?unsuccessful,?she?was?grateful?for?defendant’s?intervention.
- Penalty?Phase?Issues
- Witherspoon/Witt.
In?our?view,?defendant’s?interpretation?eliminates?the?modification?of?Witherspoon?(Witherspoon?v.?Illinois?(1968)?391?U.S.?510?[20?L.Ed.2d?776,?88?S.Ct.?1770])?by?Witt?and,?for?all?intents?and?purposes,?reinstates?the?requirement?that?a?juror’s?bias?be?proved?with?”unmistakable?clarity.”?As?we?stated?in?People?v.?Mattson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?826,?844?[268?Cal.Rptr.?802,?789?P.2d?983],?”the?prospective?juror’s?unwillingness?to?consider?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?need?not?appear?with?’absolute?clarity.’?It?is?enough?that?following?voir?dire?of?the?jury?’the?trial?judge?is?left?with?the?definite?impression?that?a?prospective?juror?would?be?unable?to?faithfully?and?impartially?apply?the?law.’?(Wainwright?v.?Witt?(1985)?469?U.S.?412,?426.)”
We?adopted?the?modified?standard?in?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?767-769?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250],?and?have?applied?it?in?subsequent?automatic?appeals.?(See?People?v.?Ruiz?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?589,?618?[244?Cal.Rptr.?200,?749?P.2d?854];?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1223?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047];?People?v.?Hamilton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1165?[259?Cal.Rptr.?701,?774?P.2d?730];?People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1261-1262?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251].)?In?each?case?we?have?performed?the?task,?as?directed?by?the?high?court?in?Darden?v.?Wainwright?(1986)?477?U.S.?168,?175?[91?L.Ed.2d?144,?153-154,?106?S.Ct.?2464],?of?examining?the?context?surrounding?the?juror’s?exclusion?to?determine?whether?the?trial?court’s?decision?that?the?juror’s?beliefs?would?”substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?a?juror”?is?fairly?supported?by?the?record.?(People?v.?Ghent,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?768;?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?809.)
Our?review?of?this?record?discloses?support?for?the?court’s?determination?that?the?three?prospective?jurors?had?views?that?would?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?their?duties?as?jurors.?[12]?”[W]here?equivocal?or?conflicting?responses?are?elicited?regarding?a?prospective?juror’s?ability?to?impose?the?death?penalty,?the?trial?court’s?determination?as?to?his?true?state?of?[1?Cal.4th?310]?mind?is?binding?on?an?appellate?court.”?(People?v.?Ghent,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?768.)?[11b]?The?three?prospective?jurors?gave?answers?which?were?arguably?equivocal?but?which?clearly?support?the?trial?court’s?findings?of?substantial?impairment.?fn.?8
- Discovery.
Pursuant?to?section?190.3,?the?prosecutor?filed?a?notice?of?proposed?”other?crimes”?evidence?in?aggravation?which?included,?inter?alia,?the?facts,?circumstances,?and?felony?conviction?of?a?battery?on?a?peace?officer?that?occurred?in?April?of?1975.?Defendant?filed?a?Pitchess?(Pitchess?v.?Superior?Court?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?531?[113?Cal.Rptr.?897,?522?P.2d?305])?motion?for?discovery?of?the?names,?addresses?and?telephone?numbers?of?complainants?against?Officers?LaBranch?and?Souza?of?the?Sacramento?Police?Department,?the?victims?of?the?battery.?(Evid.?Code,????1043-1045.)?fn.?9?Defendant?hoped?to?show?that?the?officers?had?been?the?aggressors?in?the?incident?and?had?used?excessive?force.?Defense?counsel?argued?that?he?intended?to?present?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?that?defendant?was?not?guilty?of?the?battery,?that?the?officers?acted?illegally,?and?that?defendant?reacted?reasonably.
Interpreting?the?”pending?litigation”?language?of?subdivision?(b)?of?Evidence?Code?section?1043?as?referring?to?the?pending?capital?charges,?defendant?initially?sought?records?for?the?period?five?years?prior?to?the?murder,?i.e.,?from?1979?to?1984.?The?city?attorney,?who?appeared?in?opposition?to?the?motion,?argued?that?the?only?relevant?time?period?for?discovery?was?the?April?[1?Cal.4th?311]?1975?date?of?the?incident,?i.e.,?the?battery,?and?the?five?years?preceding?that?date.?The?city?attorney?conceded?that?a?”prima?facie?case”?had?been?made?as?to?that?period,?and?the?trial?court?found?a?”prima?facie”?showing?as?to?records?prior?to?1975?and?up?to?the?time?of?the?battery?conviction,?September?1975.?Later,?in?accord?with?the?provisions?of?Evidence?Code?section?1045,?the?court?conducted?an?in?camera?inspection?of?records?for?the?1970-1975?period?and?found?that?”none?of?the?information?…?is?relevant?to?the?subject?matter?involved?in?this?litigation.”?Defendant?is?not?objecting?to?the?court’s?ruling?as?to?the?1970-1975?period,?i.e.,?its?ruling?of?irrelevance?after?the?in?camera?hearing.?As?will?appear,?defendant?complains?only?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?ruling?that?he?had?not?made?a?prima?facie?showing?as?to?relevance?of?information?concerning?the?officers?for?the?period?after?the?defendant’s?conviction?on?the?battery?charge,?i.e.,?from?September?1975?to?1984.
Following?the?court’s?denial?of?the?discovery?motion?and?prior?to?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?moved?to?exclude?evidence?of?the?facts?and?circumstances?of?each?of?the?three?prior?”other?crimes,”?including?the?battery?of?the?peace?officers.?Defendant?stated?that?he?intended?to?admit?the?fact?of?conviction?and?wanted?to?avoid?relitigating?the?offenses.?The?motion?was?denied.?Defendant?then?offered?to?admit?as?true?the?descriptions?of?the?three?offenses?from?the?respective?probation?reports.?A?stipulation?was?entered?into,?personally?agreed?to?by?defendant,?whereby?the?counsel?agreed?to?a?stipulated?statement?of?facts?to?be?presented?to?the?jury.?(See?ante,?p.?307.)
[13a]?Defendant?contends?on?appeal?that?the?trial?court?committed?prejudicial?error?in?denying?discovery?of?any?citizen?complaints?against?the?two?officers?for?the?period?after?the?1975?conviction.?fn.?10?Defendant?relies?primarily?on?People?v.?Memro?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?658?[214?Cal.Rptr.?832,?700?P.2d?446].?As?will?appear,?Memro?is?not?apposite. [14]?A?motion?for?discovery?of?peace?officer?personnel?records?is?”addressed?solely?to?the?sound?discretion?of?the?trial?court.”?(Pitchess?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?11?Cal.3d?531,?535.)?After?our?decision?in?Pitchess,?the?Legislature?in?1978?enacted?Evidence?Code?sections?1043?and?1045?to?place?specific?limitations?and?procedural?safeguards?on?the?disclosure?of?peace?[1?Cal.4th?312]?officer?personnel?files.?The?legislation?was?intended?to?balance?the?need?of?criminal?defendants?to?relevant?information?and?the?legitimate?concerns?for?confidentiality?of?police?personnel?records. [13b]?The?trial?court,?following?argument,?applied?the?criteria?set?out?in?the?statutory?scheme?and?ruled,?as?it?had?the?discretion?to?do,?that?records?of?complaints?after?1975?were?not?material?or?relevant?to?the?subject?matter?involved?in?the?battery?prosecution.?(See?Evid.?Code,????1043,?subd.?(b)(3)?&?1045,?subd.?(a).)?The?statutory?provisions?provide?no?authority?for?use,?in?criminal?trials,?of?evidence?of?character?based?on?specific?instances?of?conduct?that?occurred?after?the?prosecution?of?the?defendant?for?the?crime?at?issue.?We?conclude,?therefore,?that?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?denying?discovery,?and?we?disagree?with?defendant?that?Memro?(supra,?38?Cal.3d?658)?compels?a?different?result.In?Memro?a?capital?defendant?sought?to?establish?coercion?of?his?confession.?His?request?for?discovery?of?information?regarding?complaints?against?South?Gate?police?officers?was?summarily?denied?by?the?trial?court.?We?held?that?defendant?had?demonstrated?good?cause?for?the?requested?discovery?and?that?the?trial?court?had?abused?its?discretion?in?denying?the?motion.?For?guidance?on?retrial?we?noted?the?statutory?five-year?limitation?on?discovery,?but?we?added:?”However,?complaints?regarding?conduct?which?occurred?after?the?interrogation?in?this?case?may?be?relevant?to?coercion.”?(38?Cal.3d?at?p.?687.)
When?Memro?was?called?to?the?attention?of?the?trial?court,?it?expanded?its?ruling,?entitling?defendant?to?seek?discovery?of?complaints?for?the?period?beyond?the?battery?incident?and?up?to?September?1975,?the?date?of?conviction.?Memro?requires?no?more.?In?summary,?we?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?court’s?ruling?on?the?discovery?motion.
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct.
Defendant?first?argues?that?the?comment?told?the?jury?to?treat?lack?of?remorse?as?an?aggravating?factor,?and?he?then?faults?the?prosecution?for?[1?Cal.4th?313]?failing?to?give?pretrial?notice?(??190.3,?4th?par.)?that?he?intended?to?rely?on?absence?of?remorse?as?an?aggravating?factor.?The?fourth?paragraph?of?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?…?prior?to?trial.”?(Italics?added.)?It?is?axiomatic?that?argument?is?not?evidence.
Nor?can?the?comment?be?interpreted?as?a?reference?to?defendant’s?failure?to?testify.?It?was?simply?a?reference?to?defendant’s?callous?behavior?after?the?killing.?The?comment?was?interspersed?in?references?to?the?circumstances?and?nature?of?the?crime?and?to?defendant’s?activities?after?the?killing.?Just?prior?to?the?comment?to?which?defense?counsel?objected,?the?prosecutor?had?argued?as?follows:?”As?he?took?Connie?Decker?around?Sacramento,?he?displayed?for?you?a?degree?of?callousness,?a?baseness?that?I?hope?you?never?see?again.?What?do?you?think,?honestly,?now??You?know,?what?do?you?think?about?the?mitigating?circumstances?of?the?defendant??Specifically,?what?do?you?think?about?sympathy?for?someone?who?commits?those?crimes,?who?commits?things?like?that,?who?kills?without?any?justification?for?it??…?It’s?simply?the?way?he?did?his?crimes.?In?1984,?the?defendant?killed?someone?without?any?regard?whatsoever?for-for?her?constitutional?rights.?There?were?no?rules?of?evidence.?There?was?no?weighing?of?factors?back?and?forth.?The?defendant?was?the?witness,?the?judge,?the?jury?and?the?executioner?all?in?one?for?Connie?Decker,?without?any?regard?whatsoever?for?anyone?else?but?himself.”?Then?followed?the?statement?on?lack?of?remorse,?after?which?the?prosecutor?noted?that?the?callousness?and?disregard?for?others?continued?after?the?killing.?fn.?11
It?is?well?settled?that,?in?the?absence?of?a?clear?reference?to?a?defendant’s?failure?to?testify,?a?prosecutor?is?free?to?make?a?logical?comment?on?the?defendant’s?lack?of?remorse.?(People?v.?Jackson,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?1170,?1205;?People?v.?Carrera?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?291,?339?[261?Cal.Rptr.?348,?777?P.2d?121];?People?v.?Walker?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?605,?649-650?[253?Cal.Rptr.?863,?765?P.2d?70];?People?v.?McLain?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?97,?111-112?[249?Cal.Rptr.?630,?757?P.2d?569];?People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?112?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)
By?supplemental?brief?defendant?also?argues?that?the?prosecutor’s?comments?on?the?lack?of?remorse?were?untrue,?that?in?the?hospital,?just?prior?to?[1?Cal.4th?314]?arraignment,?defendant?stated?to?an?attending?sheriff’s?deputy?that?he?was?”real?sorry?about?the?girl,?that?she?died,?and?her?parents?too.”?Whatever?the?meaning?of?defendant’s?statement,?it?is?not?part?of?the?record?and?thus?is?not?properly?before?us?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?291,?317.)?fn.?12?In?any?event,?as?noted?above,?the?prosecutor’s?comment?was?clearly?limited?to?the?evidence?presented?at?trial.?The?prosecutor?did?not?state?that?defendant?had?never?made?an?expression?of?remorse?in?any?form?to?anyone.?As?he?stated?at?the?argument?on?the?motion?for?mistrial,?”I?was?discussing?with?the?jurors?the?evidence?in?the?case?and?the?evidence?with?regard?to?the?various?witnesses?that?had?contact?with?the?defendant?right?after?the?crime.”?Also?noteworthy?is?that,?although?defense?counsel?alluded?to?the?alleged?”untruthfulness”?of?the?prosecutor’s?comment,?he?made?it?clear?to?the?trial?court?that?the?bases?for?his?mistrial?motion?were?only?two:?”one?being?Griffin?error?and?the?other?being?it’s?not?a?proper?factor?to?argue?in?aggravation.”
- Instructions.
- Unanimity?on?Mitigating?Evidence.
It?is?settled?that?a?requirement?of?unanimity?improperly?limits?consideration?of?mitigating?evidence.?(McKoy?v.?North?Carolina?(1990)?494?U.S.?433?[108?L.Ed.2d?369,?110?S.Ct.?1227].)?In?Mills?v.?Maryland?(1988)?486?U.S.?367?[100?L.Ed.2d?384,?108?S.Ct.?1860],?the?high?court?had?reached?the?same?conclusion?and?reversed?a?judgment?in?a?capital?case?in?which?jury?instructions,?implemented?by?a?verdict?form,?were?ambiguous?with?regard?to?the?need?for?unanimity.?At?sentencing,?after?finding?the?statutory?aggravating?circumstance?that?permits?the?imposition?of?death,?the?jury?is?provided?a?verdict?form?listing?the?mitigating?circumstances.?The?jury?in?Mills?marked?”no”?beside?each?mitigating?circumstance,?thereby?requiring?imposition?of?the?death?penalty.?Under?the?state?statute,?only?if?the?jury?finds?any?mitigating?circumstances?does?it?proceed?to?decide?whether?the?mitigating?circumstance?outweighs?the?aggravating?circumstances.?The?high?court?concluded?that?”there?is?a?substantial?probability?that?reasonable?jurors,?upon?receiving?the?judge’s?instructions?in?this?case,?and?in?attempting?to?complete?the?verdict?form?as?instructed,?well?may?have?thought?they?were?precluded?from?[1?Cal.4th?315]?considering?any?mitigating?evidence?unless?all?12?jurors?agreed?on?the?existence?of?a?particular?such?circumstance.”?(Id.?at?p.?384.)
In?the?case?before?us,?there?is?no?indication?that?the?jury?was?misled?in?any?respect.?There?was?nothing?in?the?instructions?to?limit?the?consideration?of?mitigating?evidence?and?nothing?to?suggest?that?any?particular?number?of?jurors?was?required?to?find?a?mitigating?circumstance.?The?only?requirement?of?unanimity?was?for?the?verdict?itself.?(CALJIC?No.?8.84.2?[1986?rev.].)
The?instructions?that?were?given?in?this?case?unmistakably?told?the?jury?that?each?member?must?individually?decide?each?question?involved?in?the?penalty?decision.?They?were?told?to?consider?all?the?evidence,?specifically?including?any?circumstance?in?mitigation?offered?by?defendant.?We?find?no?error?in?the?court’s?refusal?to?give?defendant’s?proposed?instruction.
Defendant’s?reliance?on?People?v.?Jennings?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475]?is?misplaced.?We?merely?held?in?Jennings?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?giving?the?prosecutor’s?requested?instruction?that?the?jurors?did?not?have?to?be?unanimous?regarding?the?presence?of?aggravating?factors.
- Standard?for?Imposition?of?Death.
A?similar?objection?to?the?phrase?”substantial”?was?made?and?rejected?in?People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?1195.?We?concluded?that?the?charge?to?the?jury,?considered?as?a?whole,?adequately?conveyed?to?the?jury?the?seriousness?of?its?task?and?the?legally?appropriate?manner?of?performing?it.?We?stated,?quoting?from?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512,?541-542,?footnote?13?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440],?”?'[T]he?balance?is?not?between?good?and?bad?but?between?life?and?death.?Therefore,?to?return?a?death?judgment,?the?jury?must?be?persuaded?that?the?”bad”?evidence?is?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?”good”?that?it?warrants?death?[rather?than]?life?without?parole.’?”?(People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?1244.)?[1?Cal.4th?316]
The?language?complained?of?is?part?of?the?standard?instructions?and?was?added?in?the?1986?revision?of?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2?to?provide?the?jury?with?greater?discretion?to?impose?life?in?prison?and?limited?the?circumstances?under?which?the?jury?could?impose?death.?The?language?follows?instructions?that?provide:?”The?weighing?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors?does?not?mean?a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?an?imaginary?scale,?or?the?arbitrary?assignment?of?weights?to?any?of?them.?You?are?free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?you?deem?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors?you?are?permitted?to?consider.?In?weighing?the?various?circumstances?factors?you?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?and?appropriate?by?considering?the?totality?of?aggravating?factors?with?the?totality?of?the?mitigating?factors.”?Essentially,?the?jury?was?told?that?it?could?return?a?death?verdict?only?if?aggravating?circumstances?predominated?and?death?is?the?appropriate?verdict.?fn.?14
The?foregoing?discussion?also?disposes?of?defendant’s?claim?that?the?jury?was?not?told?to?find?that?death?was?the?appropriate?penalty.?It?is?argued?that?the?jury?was?told?merely?to?find?death?”warranted,”?a?considerably?broader?concept?that?”appropriate.”?The?contention?is?spurious.
- Single?Mitigating?Factor?Can?Justify?Life.
Even?if?the?proposed?instruction?were?not?burdened?with?surplusage,?however,?failure?to?instruct?that?a?single?mitigating?factor?may?support?a?nondeath?verdict?would?not?compel?reversal.?(People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?[1?Cal.4th?317]?Cal.3d?1268,?1322?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221].)?Defendant’s?reliance?on?People?v.?Grant,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?829,?is?misplaced.?In?Grant,?the?jury?had?been?given?the?”unadorned”?Brown?instruction?and,?as?directed?in?Brown?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?512,?revd.?on?other?grounds?sub?nom.?California?v.?Brown?(1987)?479?U.S.?538?[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837]),?we?sought?to?determine?whether?the?jury?may?have?been?misled?to?the?defendant’s?prejudice.?(40?Cal.3d?at?p.?544,?fn.?17.)?We?concluded?that?it?had?not?been?misled?and,?in?passing,?we?also?concluded?that?the?jury?had?not?been?misled?by?the?failure?to?give?a?requested?instruction?that?the?jury?was?to?weigh,?not?merely?to?count?the?factors,?that?the?weighing?of?factors?was?an?individual?decision,?and?(incidentally)?that?a?single?mitigating?factor?was?sufficient?to?support?a?decision?against?death.?We?added?that,?after?Brown,?”such?an?instruction?has?been?proper.”?(People?v.?Grant,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?857,?fn.?5.)
In?the?instant?case,?the?potentially?misleading?Brown?instruction?was?not?given.?The?instructions?that?were?given?have?been?found?adequate?to?perform?the?constitutional?function?of?guiding?the?jury’s?discretion?in?sentencing.?(See?People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1243-1244;?People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955,?977-979?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131].)
- Coercion?of?Jury.
The?jury?retired?for?its?penalty?deliberations?at?2:35?p.m.?on?December?29,?1986,?and?deliberated?until?4:20?p.m.?On?the?afternoon?of?the?following?day,?the?jury?requested?the?rereading?of?the?testimony?of?defendant’s?mother?and?sister.?The?court?recessed?the?jury?early?in?order?to?deal?with?the?problem?of?the?illness?of?one?of?the?court?reporters.?The?matter?was?resolved?and?on?the?morning?of?December?31?the?requested?testimony?was?reread?to?the?jury.?Deliberations?continued?through?the?afternoon?of?December?31.?The?jury?reconvened?on?the?morning?of?January?5,?1987,?at?which?time?the?jury?sent?to?the?court?the?following?note:?”Jury?having?taken?several?polls?and?discussed?all?facts?and?evidence?before?us,?is?not?able?to?come?to?a?unanimous?decision.”?In?the?courtroom,?the?foreperson?was?asked?if?with?further?deliberation?there?was?a?chance?for?a?decision;?she?responded?in?the?affirmative.?Three?other?jurors?were?polled;?two?stated?that?differences?might?be?resolved?with?further?deliberations.?The?court?asked?the?jury?to?resume?deliberations.?[1?Cal.4th?318]?At?1:45?p.m.?the?jury?sent?another?note:?”The?jury?is?not?able?to?reach?a?unanimous?decision.”?Before?calling?the?jury,?the?court?stated?its?intentions?to?the?parties:?”I?intend?to?find?out?how?much?they’ve?deliberated.?…?If?it?looks?like?there’s?been?a?change?and?I?ask?the?jurors?if?it?appears?they?think?there’s?a?chance,?I’ll?send?them?back?again.?I?don’t?like?to?ask?for?the?division?until?just?before?I?make?a?final?decision?as?a?last-as?a?last?ditch?effort?to?see?where?they?stand.?And?then?if?they’re?close,?I’ll?send?them?back.?…?And-however,?if?it?does?look?like?they?are?split?rather?decidedly?and?if?there’s?been?no?change?in?the?last?few?ballots?and?they?have?deliberated?and?no?one?thinks?that?they?can?do?anything?more,?even?though?they?were?only?out?for?a?day?and?a?half,?I?will?then?have?to?consider?whether?or?not?to?declare?a?mistrial.”
When?the?jury?was?brought?into?court,?the?foreperson?stated?that?one?additional?ballot?had?been?taken?and?there?had?been?no?change?in?the?voting.?The?foreperson?expressed?the?opinion?that?she?did?not?think?there?was?anything?the?court?could?do?to?aid?in?reaching?a?verdict.?When?polled?on?the?chances?of?reaching?a?verdict,?the?jurors?were?pessimistic-one?said?the?chances?were?”extremely?slight,”?several?stated?that?they?did?not?”believe?so”?or?it?did?not?appear?there?was?a?reasonable?chance,?and?the?remainder?responded?negatively.?The?court?inquired?and?was?given?the?numerical?breakdown-10?to?2.
After?a?brief?pause?in?the?proceedings,?the?court?indicated?that?it?would?ask?the?jury?to?deliberate?for?an?additional?short?period?of?time?and,?after?the?jury?had?retired,?the?court?told?counsel?that?it?intended?to?call?the?jury?back?in?approximately?an?hour’s?time:?”I?know?they?said?they?made?no?movement,?but?when?you?get?a?case?of?this?length?to?have?them?deliberate?for?a?relatively?short?period?of?time?in?a?case?like?this,?fn.?[15]?I?feel?that?I?look?to?them?and?to?the?court?system?to?try?a?little?longer.”
Before?the?hour?was?up,?the?jury?asked?for?a?rereading?of?the?testimony?of?three?guilt?phase?witnesses,?Greg?Hardy?(victim?of?the?robbery?and?kidnap)?and?two?police?officers?(Tatosian?and?Reed).?The?testimony?of?Greg?Hardy?was?reread?at?that?time?and?that?of?the?officers?was?reread?on?the?morning?of?January?6.?The?jury?reached?its?verdict?on?the?afternoon?of?that?day.
Section?1140?provides:?”Except?as?provided?by?law,?the?jury?cannot?be?discharged?after?the?cause?is?submitted?to?them?until?they?have?agreed?upon?their?verdict?and?rendered?it?in?open?court,?unless?by?consent?of?both?parties,?[1?Cal.4th?319]?entered?upon?the?minutes,?or?unless,?at?the?expiration?of?such?time?as?the?court?may?deem?proper,?it?satisfactorily?appears?that?there?is?no?reasonable?probability?that?the?jury?can?agree.”
[20]?The?determination?whether?there?is?reasonable?probability?of?agreement?rests?in?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court.?(People?v.?Miller?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?954,?993?[269?Cal.Rptr.?492,?790?P.2d?1289];?People?v.?Sheldon?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?935,?959?[258?Cal.Rptr.?242,?771?P.2d?1330];?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?775?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113];?People?v.?Rojas?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?540,?546?[125?Cal.Rptr.?357,?542?P.2d?229,?92?A.L.R.3d?1127];?People?v.?Carter?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?810,?817?[69?Cal.Rptr.?297,?442?P.2d?353].)?The?court?must?exercise?its?power,?however,?without?coercion?of?the?jury,?so?as?to?avoid?displacing?the?jury’s?independent?judgment?”in?favor?of?considerations?of?compromise?and?expediency.”?(People?v.?Carter,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?at?p.?817.)?While?the?question?of?coercion?is?necessarily?dependent?on?the?facts?and?circumstances?of?each?case,?we?do?not?agree?with?defendant?that?the?circumstances?he?cites?as?controlling?establish?that?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?in?this?case. [19b]?Defendant?stresses?that?the?deadlock?occurred?during?the?penalty,?not?the?guilt,?phase?of?the?trial,?and?that?the?trial?court?asked?for?resumption?of?deliberations?after?inquiry?into?the?numerical?division?of?the?jury,?a?practice?which?we?have?never?approved?in?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?case.?Not?so.?The?practice?of?inquiring?into?the?jury’s?numerical?division?was?expressly?approved?in?People?v.?Carter,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?810,?and,?despite?a?contrary?rule?of?procedure?in?federal?courts,?fn.?16?has?been?expressly?approved?in?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?page?776,?footnote?14.?Any?question?that?a?different?rule?might?apply?at?a?penalty?phase?impasse?was?resolved?by?our?decision?in?People?v.?Sheldon,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?pages?958-960,?where?we?rejected?defendant’s?claim?that?it?was?”inherently?coercive”?to?ask?for?a?resumption?of?deliberations?after?learning?of?the?jury’s?11-1?vote?in?favor?of?death.?In?assessing?the?effect?of?the?information?on?the?trial?court’s?handling?of?the?jury?impasse,?it?is?not?significant?that,?in?Sheldon,?the?jury?volunteered?the?information?on?numerical?division?before?the?court?could?request?it.Defendant?states?that?the?jury?deliberated?for?four?days?before?announcing?an?impasse.?He?emphasizes?that?the?jury?was?asked?to?resume?deliberations?not?once?but?twice?and?that?the?second?followed?a?polling?of?the?jurors,?all?of?whom?were?negative?on?the?prospects?of?a?verdict.?[1?Cal.4th?320]
In?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pages?775-776,?we?rejected?a?claim?of?coercion?where?a?jury?was?asked?to?resume?deliberations?after?18?days?of?deliberation,?with?4?intermittent?impasses.?Whether?we?accept?defendant’s?four?days?or?the?trial?court’s?”day-?and-a-half”?as?the?measure?of?the?length?of?deliberation?time,?we?agree?with?the?trial?court?that?the?jury?had?deliberated?for?a?relatively?short?period?of?time?in?relation?to?the?complexity?of?the?charges?and?the?nature?of?the?evidence?that?was?presented?at?both?phases?of?the?trial.
Nothing?in?the?record?suggests?that?the?jury?was?coerced?in?any?way.?The?judge?made?no?threats,?no?statements?that?could?be?interpreted?as?exerting?undue?pressure?on?any?juror.?The?judge?was?principally?concerned?that?the?jury?had?not?deliberated?for?a?sufficient?time?relative?to?the?complexity?of?the?case.?He?did?not?indicate?that?a?verdict?had?to?be?reached?and?reminded?the?jurors?of?their?right?to?an?individual?opinion.?The?judge?did?not?threaten?to?prolong?the?deliberations;?on?the?contrary,?he?indicated?that?he?would?call?them?back?in?approximately?an?hour.?The?court?did?not?abuse?the?discretion?vested?in?it?by?section?1140?to?determine?the?reasonable?probability?of?reaching?a?verdict.
- Victim?Impact?Evidence.
The?probation?report?contained?a?statement?by?the?murder?victim’s?mother.?The?statement?was?submitted?pursuant?to?section?1191.1.?The?trial?court?denied?a?defense?motion?to?strike?the?statement?as?inconsistent?with?the?trial?court’s?responsibilities?under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e),?the?automatic?motion?for?modification?of?verdict.?The?court?found?no?contradiction?or?conflict?between?section?1191.1?and?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e):?”I?can?comply?completely?with?both?sections?without?conflict.”?The?trial?court?indicated?that,?in?ruling?on?the?modification?motion,?it?would?take?into?consideration?only?the?items?set?forth?in?subdivision?(e)?of?section?190.4;?in?imposing?sentence,?under?section?1191.1,?it?would?consider?the?statements?of?the?victim’s?mother?if?she?wished?to?speak.?The?mother?then?made?a?short?statement?in?open?court.
[21]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?considered?improper?victim?impact?evidence?under?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529]?when,?on?the?motion?for?modification,?it?read?the?probation?report?and?heard?the?mother’s?in-court?statement.?We?reject?the?contention?for?a?number?of?reasons.Booth?v.?Maryland,?supra,?482?U.S.?496,?has?been?overruled?by?the?high?court?(Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?[1?Cal.4th?321]?2597]),?but?even?before?Payne,?we?have?consistently?held?that?the?holding?in?Booth?did?not?extend?to?proceedings?relating?to?the?application?for?modification?of?the?verdict?under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e).?(See?People?v.?Duncan,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?955,?981;?People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?812?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330];?People?v.?Jennings,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?963,?994.)
Insofar?as?defendant’s?claim?of?error?is?based?on?the?statutory?provisions?(i.e.,???190.4,?subd.?(e))?that?require?the?trial?court?to?consider?only?the?evidence?that?was?before?the?jury,?we?find?no?judicial?misconduct.?In?addition?to?its?stated?intention?to?consider?the?evidence?only?as?statutorily?prescribed,?the?trial?court’s?statement?of?reasons?for?denying?the?motion?clearly?indicate?that?the?court?relied?for?its?decision?only?on?the?evidence?presented?at?trial.?(See?People?v.?Williams,?supra,45?Cal.3d?1268,?1329.)
- Defects?in?Capital?Sentencing?Process.
Defendant?lists?eight?alleged?statutory,?procedural,?and?substantive?defects?in?the?capital?sentencing?process.?He?recognizes?that?each?claim?of?an?alleged?defect?has?been?considered?and?rejected?by?us?in?recent?past?decisions.?We?have?found?no?constitutional?violation?in?the?following:
- The?use?of?peremptory?challenge?to?exclude?potential?jurors?who?express?reservations?about?the?death?penalty.?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1263;?People?v.?Turner?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?302,?313-315?[208?Cal.Rptr.?196,?690?P.2d?669].)
- The?failure?to?find?that?death?is?the?appropriate?sentence?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-779;?see?also?People?v.?Duncan,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?979;?People?v.?Allen?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?1222,?1285?[232?Cal.Rptr.?849,?729?P.2d?115.)
- The?failure?to?find?that?aggravating?factors?were?true?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-779;?see?also?People?v.?Duncan,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?979;?People?v.?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?1222,?1285?[232?Cal.Rptr.?849,?729?P.2d?115].)
- The?failure?to?require?procedural?safeguards?(i.e.,?written?findings?on?aggravating?factors,?jury?unanimity?on?aggravating?factors,?a?finding?that?aggravating?factors?outweigh?mitigating?factors?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt).?(See?People?v.?Frierson?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?142,?172-?188?[158?Cal.Rptr.?281,?599?P.2d?587].)
- The?use?of?facts?underlying?previous?felony?convictions?as?aggravating?factors.?(See?People?v.?Gates?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1168,?1203?[240?Cal.Rptr.?666,?743?P.2d?301].)?[1?Cal.4th?322]
- The?failure?to?clarify?that?”other?crimes”?aggravating?factors?did?not?apply?to?guilt?phase?crimes.?(See?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?703?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217];?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?57,?105-?106.)
- The?failure?to?require?unanimity?in?the?finding?of?prior?criminal?activity.?(See?People?v.?Jennings,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?963,?987-988.)
- The?multiple?use?of?a?felony?count?to?qualify?for?felony?murder,?to?support?a?special?circumstance?finding,?and?as?an?aggravating?factor.?(See?People?v.?Gates,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?1168,?1208;?People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?272?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906].)
Conclusion
The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
Lucas,?C.?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?a?single?issue?of?substantial?importance.
Peace?officer?records?are?generally?discoverable,?provided?that?the?information?they?contain?is?”relevant.”?(Evid.?Code,???1045,?subd.?(a).)?The?adjective?is?defined?as?”having?any?tendency?in?reason?to?prove?or?disprove?any?disputed?fact?that?is?of?consequence?to?the?determination?of?the?action.”?(Id.,???210.)?It?is?manifest?that?information?may?be?relevant,?whether?it?relates?to?an?incident?that?precedes?or?succeeds?the?event?subject?to?litigation.
By?way?of?illustration:?O?arrests?A?for?battering?a?police?officer;?he?arrests?B?the?next?day?for?the?same?offense;?and?he?arrests?C?the?day?following,?again?for?the?same?offense.?In?the?ensuing?prosecution,?B?intends?to?rely?on?self-defense.?Information?about?O’s?arrest?of?A?has?a?strong?tendency?to?prove?directly?whether?O?used?excessive?force?in?that?incident.?It?also?has?at?least?some?tendency?to?prove?circumstantially-through?habit?or?custom-whether?O?used?excessive?force?against?B?the?following?day.?Similarly,?information?about?O’s?arrest?of?C?has?a?strong?tendency?to?prove?directly?whether?he?used?excessive?force?in?that?incident.?It?also?has?at?least?some?tendency?to?prove?circumstantially-through?habit?or?custom-whether?O?used?excessive?force?against?B?the?day?earlier.
The?majority?imply,?correctly,?that?a?trial?court?may?order?discovery?of?peace?officer?records?relating?to?incidents?that?succeed?the?event?in?question.?[1?Cal.4th?323]?But?they?also?imply,?incorrectly,?that?it?may?do?so?only?if?the?incidents?precede?any?conviction?the?event?may?yield.?In?support?of?this?qualification,?they?cite?Evidence?Code?sections?1043?and?1045.?But?to?no?avail.?True,?the?statutory?provisions?bar?disclosure?of?various?categories?of?information.?But?clearly,?they?do?not?purport?to?affect?information?on?incidents?that?succeed?the?event.?And?more?clearly?still,?they?do?not?purport?to?draw?any?line?at?the?time?of?conviction?therefor.
In?conclusion,?because?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal,?I?concur?in?the?judgment.
Kennard,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?statutory?references?herein?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?For?clarity?we?use?the?following?terms?to?describe?the?stages?in?selection?of?jurors:?The?”master?list”?is?the?compilation?of?eligible?jurors.?A?”venire”?is?the?group?of?prospective?jurors?summoned?from?the?master?list.?A?”panel”?is?the?group?of?jurors?from?the?venire?assigned?to?a?court?for?selection?of?the?trial?jury.?(See?People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?520,?fn.?3?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129].)
FN?3.?The?”absolute?disparity”?and?”comparative?disparity”?tests?are?among?the?several?statistical?tests?that?have?been?employed?by?experts?and?acknowledged?by?the?courts.?The?”absolute?disparity”?test?measures?representativeness?by?the?difference?between?the?proportion?of?the?population?in?the?underrepresented?category?and?the?proportion?of?those?persons?in?the?source?or?pool?in?the?underrepresented?category.?The?”comparative?disparity”?standard?is?more?complex,?and?the?disparity?is?obtained?by?using?the?formula:
(A?-?B)/A?x?100
A?represents?the?percentage?of?the?community?that?makes?up?the?cognizable?group,?and?B?represents?the?percentage?of?the?jury?venire?which?is?composed?of?the?cognizable?group.?(See?Kairys?et?al.,?Jury?Representativeness:?A?Mandate?for?Multiple?Source?Lists?(1977)?65?Cal.L.Rev.?776,?789-791;?People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?527,?fn.?14;?People?v.?Sanders?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?471,?492,?fn.?5?[273?Cal.Rptr.?537,?797?P.2d?561].)
FN?4.?Evidence?Code?section?791?provides:?”Evidence?of?a?statement?previously?made?by?a?witness?that?is?consistent?with?his?testimony?at?the?hearing?is?inadmissible?to?support?his?credibility?unless?it?is?offered?after:
“(a)?Evidence?of?a?statement?made?by?him?that?is?inconsistent?with?any?part?of?his?testimony?at?the?hearing?has?been?admitted?for?the?purpose?of?attacking?his?credibility,?and?the?statement?was?made?before?the?alleged?inconsistent?statement;?or
“(b)?An?express?or?implied?charge?has?been?made?that?his?testimony?at?the?hearing?is?recently?fabricated?….”
FN?5.?Evidence?Code?section?356?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”Where?part?of?[a]?…?conversation?…?is?given?in?evidence?by?one?party,?the?whole?on?the?same?subject?may?be?inquired?into?by?an?adverse?party;?…?when?a?detached?…?conversation?…?is?given?in?evidence,?any?other?…?conversation?…?which?is?necessary?to?make?it?understood?may?also?be?given?in?evidence.”?(Italics?added.)
FN?6.?Section?29?provides:?”In?the?guilt?phase?of?a?criminal?action,?any?expert?testifying?about?a?defendant’s?mental?illness,?mental?disorder,?or?mental?defect?shall?not?testify?as?to?whether?the?defendant?had?or?did?not?have?the?required?mental?states,?which?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?purpose,?intent,?knowledge,?or?malice?aforethought,?for?the?crimes?charged.?The?question?as?to?whether?the?defendant?had?or?did?not?have?the?required?mental?states?shall?be?decided?by?the?trier?of?fact.”
FN?7.?CALJIC?No.?2.03?was?directed?to?defendant’s?postarrest?statements?at?the?hospital.?CALJIC?No.?2.06?was?directed?primarily?to?defendant’s?postoffense?conduct?in?substituting?the?license?plates?on?the?victim’s?car.
FN?8.?Thus,?Juror?Gehrke?stated?that?she?was?against?the?death?penalty?and?did?not?think?murder?would?justify?taking?a?life.?Asked?if?she?would?be?able?to?vote?for?the?death?penalty,?she?responded,?”No,?I?don’t?think?I?could.”?Juror?Grieve?stated?that?he?felt?”strongly”?about?the?death?penalty:?”I?think?it?is?morally?wrong?for?society?to?execute?someone?regardless?of?the?situation.”?Asked?if?there?was?any?possibility,?”if?you?felt?it?was?appropriate,?all?the?doubt?has?been?removed?and?the?case?were?egregious?enough?that?you?could?envision?yourself?voting?for?the?death?penalty?”?Grieve?responded,?”I?don’t?think?there?is?any?way?I?could.”?Juror?Miller?stated?that?she?did?not?know?if?she?could?sit?on?the?case,?”I?wouldn’t?want?to?commit?anybody?to?the?death?chamber.?I?couldn’t?have?that?on?my?conscience.”?When?asked?if?she?could?vote?for?the?death?penalty?in?any?case,?she?responded,?”I?don’t?think?I?could.”?Pushed?by?defense?counsel?to?consider?an?extreme?case,?she?again?stated?that?she?did?not?think?she?could?consider?voting?for?the?death?penalty.
FN?9.?Evidence?Code?section?1043,?subdivision?(b),?provides?that?a?discovery?motion?shall?include?”(3)?Affidavits?showing?good?cause?for?the?discovery?or?disclosure?sought,?setting?forth?the?materiality?thereof?to?the?subject?matter?involved?in?the?pending?litigation?and?stating?upon?reasonable?belief?that?the?governmental?agency?identified?has?the?records?or?information?from?the?records.”?(Italics?added.)
Evidence?Code?section?1045,?subdivision?(b),?provides?that?in?determining?relevance,?the?court?shall?exclude?from?disclosure?”(1)?Information?consisting?of?complaints?concerning?conduct?occurring?more?than?five?years?before?the?event?or?transaction?which?is?the?subject?of?the?litigation?in?aid?of?which?discovery?or?disclosure?is?sought.?…?(3)?Facts?sought?to?be?disclosed?which?are?so?remote?as?to?make?disclosure?of?little?or?no?practical?benefit.”?(Italics?added.)
FN?10.?We?note?that?the?applicability?of?discovery?principles?(Evid.?Code,????1043-1045)?to?evidence?introduced?pursuant?to?section?190.3?(factors?(b)?[other?violent?acts]?or?(c)?[prior?convictions])?is?a?matter?of?first?impression.?The?Attorney?General?does?not?rule?out?the?applicability?of?general?principles?of?discovery?regarding?”other?crimes”?evidence,?and?we?see?no?reason?to?dispute?their?applicability?to?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?case?so?long?as?the?relitigation?of?the?”other?crime”-here,?the?battery?on?a?peace?officer-is?circumscribed?by?the?bounds?of?relevance?and?admissibility?of?evidence?that?prevails?in?the?original?prosecution.?In?permitting?discovery?but?limiting?it?to?records?for?the?period?before?defendant’s?conviction?in?1975,?the?trial?court?has?not?overstepped?the?bounds?of?relevance?and?admissibility.
FN?11.?”All?you?have?through?all?of?the?various?witnesses?who?testified,?who?had?contact?with?the?defendant?after?the?crimes,?and?all?of?the?evidence,?simply?shows?that?the?defendant,?after?killing?Connie?Decker,?simply?went?through?her?things?to?get?out?of?her?things,?out?of?her?purse?and?out?of?her?car,?whatever?he?possibly?could?that?would?help?him,?that?would?make?money?for?him?that?he?could?sell?or?that?he?could?use.?That’s?all.?That’s?all?you?have.”
FN?12.?A?petition?for?habeas?corpus?raising?the?issue?was?submitted?and?rejected?by?this?court.
FN?13.?The?proposed?instruction?read:?”An?individual?juror?may?consider?something?as?a?mitigating?factor?if?any?reasonable?evidence?supports?the?existence?of?this?mitigating?factor?and?regardless?of?whether?all?twelve?jurors?find?the?existence?of?reasonable?evidence?of?this?mitigating?factor.”
FN?14.?In?support?of?his?contention?that?the?term?”substantial”?is?unconstitutionally?vague,?defendant?cites?a?Georgia?capital?case?in?which?the?word?”substantial”?was?used?as?part?of?an?aggravating?circumstance,?i.e.,?whether?the?murder?is?committed?by?a?person?who?has?a?”substantial?history?of?serious?assaultive?criminal?convictions.”?The?Georgia?court?found?the?word?”highly?subjective”?and?the?aggravating?circumstance?unconstitutionally?vague.?(Arnold?v.?State?(1976)?236?Ga.?534?[224?S.E.2d?386].)?The?differences?between?the?Georgia?case?and?this?case?are?obvious.
FN?[15].?From?the?record,?we?estimate?that?the?jury?deliberated?for?approximately?eight?hours?total?in?the?period?from?the?commencement?of?deliberation?on?December?29,?1986,?to?the?second?impasse?on?January?5,?1987.
FN?16.?(Brasfield?v.?United?States?(1926)?272?U.S.?448?[71?L.Ed.?345,?47?S.Ct.?135];?Lowenfeld?v.?Phelps?(1988)?484?U.S.?231,?239-240?[98?L.Ed.2d?568,?578-579,?108?S.Ct.?546]?[federal?rule?based?solely?on?the?high?court’s?supervisory?powers?over?the?federal?courts?and?not?on?constitutional?provision].)