People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696; 819 P.2d 436 (1991)

LexRoll.com > LexRoll (CA) > California Supreme Court > 1991 > People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696; 819 P.2d 436 (1991)

People?v.?Edwards?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?787?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?696;?819?P.2d?436

[No.?S004755.
Nov?25,?1991.]

THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?THOMAS?FRANCIS?EDWARDS,?Defendant?and?Appellant.

(Superior?Court?of?Orange?County,?No.?C-48764,?James?S.?Judge,?Judge.)

(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.)

COUNSEL

Lisa?Short,?Timothy?J.?Foley?and?Joseph?Schlesinger,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.

John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jay?M.?Bloom?and?Louis?R.?Hanoian,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.

OPINION

ARABIAN,?J.

In?this?case,?arising?out?of?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?defendant?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murder?of?Vanessa?Iberri?(Vanessa)?and?the?attempted?first?degree?murder?of?Kelly?Cartier?(Kelly).?(Pen.?Code????187,?664.)fn.?1?The?jury?found?that?defendant?personally?used?a?firearm?during?the?commission?of?both?offenses?(??12022.5),?and?intentionally?inflicted?great?bodily?injury?on?Kelly.?(??12022.7.)?As?to?the?murder?count,?the?[54?Cal.3d?804]?jury?found?true?the?special?circumstance?that?defendant?intentionally?killed?the?victim?while?lying?in?wait.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15).)?The?first?penalty?trial?ended?in?a?mistrial,?as?the?jury?was?unable?to?reach?a?verdict.

After?the?second?penalty?trial,?the?jury?imposed?the?death?penalty.?The?trial?court?then?granted?a?new?penalty?trial?because?of?error?under?People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782],?a?case?decided?the?same?day?as?the?penalty?verdict.?A?third?penalty?trial?ended?with?the?jury?again?imposing?the?death?penalty.?This?time,?the?court?denied?defendant’s?motion?for?a?new?trial.?It?also?denied?the?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e)),?and?entered?a?judgment?of?death.?This?appeal?is?automatic.?(??1239.)?We?affirm.

  1. Facts
  2. Guilt?Phase

On?Saturday,?September?19,?1981,?defendant,?an?excellent?marksman,?tragically?shot?12-year-old?Vanessa?between?the?eyes?and?her?12-year-old?friend,?Kelly,?in?the?head?with?a?.22-caliber?pistol?while?the?girls?were?walking?to?a?picnic?lunch?from?a?campsite?in?the?Blue?Jay?campground?in?Orange?County.?Vanessa?died?of?her?wound;?Kelly?survived.

  1. Prosecution?Evidence

Defendant?was?an?employee?of?the?South?Coast?Gun?Club?in?Santa?Ana.?He?visited?the?Blue?Jay?campground?”quite?often,?usually?every?weekend.”?He?was?seen?at?the?gun?club?the?morning?of?September?19.?Around?11?a.m.?that?same?morning,?a?truck?that?looked?like?defendant’s?red?Datsun?pickup?entered?the?campground,?which?was?about?half?full.

Kelly?and?Vanessa?were?spending?the?weekend?camping?at?the?same?campground?with?Vanessa’s?mother?and?stepfather.?Around?2?p.m.,?the?girls?left?their?campsite?to?have?a?picnic?lunch?at?a?site?they?had?selected?earlier?that?morning.?As?they?were?walking?by?a?restroom?near?the?entrance,?Kelly?saw?defendant’s?truck?drive?slowly?towards?them.?Defendant?looked?in?their?direction,?and?then?drove?past.?The?girls?then?walked?out?of?the?campground?towards?the?picnic?site.

Two?other?campers?observed?the?girls?leave?the?area.?Two?to?three?minutes?later,?one?of?the?campers?saw?defendant?drive?his?truck?out?of?the?campground.?Shortly?thereafter,?while?Kelly?and?Vanessa?were?walking?down?the?road,?with?Vanessa?in?front,?Kelly?heard?a?car?coming,?and?told?Vanessa?to?[54?Cal.3d?805]?”get?on?the?side?of?the?road.”?They?both?moved?over.?Defendant?drove?alongside?the?girls,?stopped,?and?said,?”Girls.”?He?then?fired?two?shots?from?a?pistol,?the?first?at?Vanessa,?the?second?at?Kelly.

Defendant?hit?Vanessa?in?the?forehead,?a?quarter?of?an?inch?to?the?right?of?center,?just?above?the?eyebrows.?He?hit?Kelly?in?the?right?side?of?the?head.?Kelly?fell?to?the?ground,?but?saw?defendant?get?out?of?the?truck?and?run?to?the?back.?She?heard?something?slam?in?the?back?of?the?truck,?then?saw?defendant?return?to?the?truck?cab?and?drive?away.

In?the?meantime,?other?campers,?including?the?two?who?had?seen?the?girls?walk?out?of?the?campground,?were?driving?in?two?trucks?to?get?some?firewood.?As?the?front?truck,?driven?by?Larry?Ellis,?was?going?over?a?speed?bump?just?outside?their?campsite,?one?of?the?passengers,?Charles?Vaughn,?looked?to?his?left?across?a?meadow.?Vaughn?saw?the?top?portion?of?defendant’s?parked?truck.?He?saw?defendant?run?from?the?front?of?the?van?to?the?back,?and?then?back?towards?the?front.?Vaughn?then?lost?sight?of?defendant,?as?some?trees?blocked?his?view.?None?of?the?group?heard?any?gunshots.

Thinking?defendant?might?have?been?a?poacher,?Vaughn?told?Ellis?to?drive?in?that?direction.?The?second?truck?followed.?When?they?came?around?a?bend?in?the?road,?Vaughn?and?Ellis?saw?defendant?standing?near?the?front?of?his?truck.?Defendant?looked?towards?the?girls?on?the?side?of?the?road,?then?over?his?shoulder?towards?the?Ellis?truck.?Defendant?then?jumped?into?his?truck?and?drove?away?at?high?speed.?Ellis?gave?chase?while?the?driver?of?the?second?truck?stopped?to?aid?the?stricken?girls.?Defendant?got?away?after?a?high-speed?chase,?but?not?before?Ellis?and?Vaughn?got?the?license?number?of?the?truck.?It?was?registered?to?defendant.

An?extensive?manhunt?over?the?next?few?days?failed?to?find?defendant.?He?was?eventually?arrested?in?the?State?of?Maryland?on?September?28,?1981.?Bus?tickets?dated?from?September?24?to?27?with?destinations?from?Los?Angeles?to?Washington,?D.C.,?were?found?in?his?motel?room.?Defendant’s?truck?was?later?found?near?a?bus?station?in?Los?Angeles.?The?camper?portion?of?the?truck?contained?several?firearms?and?quantities?of?ammunition.?Additional?firearms?belonging?to?defendant?were?found?in?a?storage?area?of?the?South?Coast?Gun?Club.

Vanessa?died?of?a?single?gunshot?wound?to?the?forehead.?Kelly?received?a?grazing?wound?in?the?scalp.?She?required?surgery?to?remove?an?accumulation?of?blood?underneath?the?skull?(an?”epidural?hematoma”),?but?eventually?recovered.

Two?.22-caliber?casings?were?found?at?the?scene?of?the?shooting.?Ballistics?analysis?established?that?none?of?the?firearms?found?in?defendant’s?truck?or?among?his?property?at?the?gun?club?fired?the?fatal?bullet.?[54?Cal.3d?806]

A?week?or?two?before?the?shooting,?Bobby?Pamplin?sold?a?.22-caliber?Ruger?handgun?to?defendant.?It?could?have?been?the?murder?weapon,?but?was?not?found?after?the?shooting.?Pamplin?testified?that?defendant?was?an?”excellent?shot.”?He?observed?defendant?fire?the?Ruger?at?the?firing?range.?Defendant?”repeatedly”?hit?a?target?the?size?and?shape?of?a?chicken?at?a?distance?of?50?yards.

In?January?1983,?shortly?before?the?guilt?phase?trial?began,?defendant?told?a?deputy?sheriff?in?the?county?jail?that?he?was?”guilty?as?sin.”

During?the?guilt?phase?trial,?the?jury?viewed?the?crime?scene.?The?scene?of?the?shooting?was?relatively?isolated.?It?was?approximately?halfway?between?the?Blue?Jay?campground?and?a?neighboring?campground.?More?than?a?quarter?of?a?mile?separated?the?spot?where?defendant?passed?the?girls?the?first?time?and?the?spot?where?he?shot?them.

  1. Defense?Evidence

The?defense?did?not?dispute?that?defendant?shot?the?two?girls.?It?presented?evidence?suggesting?that?the?shooting?was?not?premeditated,?but?was?a?sudden?act?of?violence?caused?by?depression?over?defendant’s?recent?divorce.?Defendant?did?not?testify.

  1. Penalty?Phase

At?the?third?penalty?trial,?the?one?currently?under?review,?the?prosecution?presented?essentially?the?same?evidence?concerning?the?crimes?as?at?the?guilt?phase.?It?introduced?no?additional?evidence.

The?defense?presented?evidence?concerning?defendant’s?marital?problems?and?their?effects?on?him,?his?good?character?traits,?his?good?behavior?in?jail,?and?his?apparent?remorse?for?the?crimes.?Defendant?did?not?testify.

  1. Discussion
  2. Guilt?Phase?Issues
  3. Denial?of?Change?of?Venue
[1a]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?his?motion?to?change?venue?from?Orange?County.

[2]?The?applicable?law?is?settled.?A?change?of?venue?must?be?granted?when?the?defendant?shows?a?reasonable?likelihood?that,?in?the?absence?of?[54?Cal.3d?807]?such?relief,?a?fair?trial?cannot?be?had.?The?court?considers?such?factors?as?the?nature?and?gravity?of?the?offense,?the?size?of?the?community,?the?status?of?the?defendant,?the?popularity?and?prominence?of?the?victim,?and?the?nature?and?extent?of?the?publicity.?[3]?On?appeal?after?a?judgment?following?the?denial?of?a?change?of?venue,?the?defendant?must?show?both?that?the?court?erred?in?denying?the?change?of?venue?motion,?i.e.,?that?at?the?time?of?the?motion?it?was?reasonably?likely?that?a?fair?trial?could?not?be?had,?and?that?the?error?was?prejudicial,?i.e.,?that?it?was?reasonably?likely?that?a?fair?trial?was?not?in?fact?had.?The?trial?court’s?essentially?factual?determinations?as?to?these?factors?will?be?sustained?if?supported?by?substantial?evidence.?We?independently?review?the?trial?court’s?ultimate?determination?of?the?reasonable?likelihood?of?an?unfair?trial.?(People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?771,?805-806?[281?Cal.Rptr.?90,?809?P.2d?865];?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?672-673,?676-677?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217].)fn.?2

[1b]?As?the?trial?court?recognized,?the?gravity?of?the?offense?is?most?serious?and,?if?considered?alone,?would?support?a?change?of?venue.?Review?of?the?other?factors,?however,?compels?the?conclusion?that?a?change?of?venue?was?properly?denied.

At?the?time?of?the?guilt?trial?in?early?1983,?Orange?County?was?California’s?second?largest?county?in?population.?(People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?806,?fn.?4.)?Defendant?claims?Orange?County?is?too?”White,”?too?”Republican,”?and?too?prosperous?to?afford?a?fair?trial,?but?presents?no?credible?supporting?evidence.?The?size?of?the?county?weighed?heavily?against?a?change?of?venue.?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?677;?People?v.?Harris?(1981)?28?Cal.3d?935,?949?[171?Cal.Rptr.?679,?623?P.2d?240].)

Defendant?was?a?resident?of?Orange?County?at?the?time?of?the?crime.?The?media?generally?identified?him?as?a?resident?of?Costa?Mesa?employed?at?a?gun?club?in?Irvine.?In?contrast?to?People?v.?Williams?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1131?[259?Cal.Rptr.?473,?774?P.2d?146],?where?a?change?of?venue?was?found?necessary,?defendant?was?not?an?outsider?in?either?a?”geographic?or?racial?sense.”

Although?there?was?an?understandable?outpouring?of?sympathy?for?the?victims?immediately?after?the?crime,?they?had?no?particular?celebrity?status?in?[54?Cal.3d?808]?the?community.?Indeed,?they?were?not?residents?of?Orange?County?at?all,?but?residents?of?neighboring?Riverside?County?who?happened?to?be?camping?in?Orange?County.?In?contending?that?the?victims’?prominence?supported?a?change?of?venue,?defendant?stresses?”their?particular?status?as?children.”?This?status,?however,?will?not?change?with?a?change?of?venue.?Prospective?jurors?would?sympathize?with?the?girls’?fate?whether?trial?were?held?in?Santo?Domingo?in?the?Dominican?Republic,?Orange?County,?or?any?other?county?in?California.?The?horrendous?crime,?not?the?locale?of?trial,?evokes?the?sympathy.

Defendant?stresses?the?substantial?publicity?of?the?crime.?After?reviewing?the?voluminous?defense?exhibits,?the?trial?court?found?”that?the?news?coverage?was?extensive,?that?there?was?some?aspects?of?sensationalism,?but?that?it?was?not?overly?sensational?in?the?coverage?and?that?the?coverage?appeared?to?be?reasonably?fair.”?Substantial?evidence?supports?this?finding.?Media?coverage?of?the?crime?was?intense,?especially?soon?after?its?commission?and?defendant’s?arrest.?But?such?coverage?was?generally?fair,?and?not?inflammatory.?It?pales?in?comparison?with?the?publicity?we?found?insufficient?to?compel?a?change?of?venue?in?a?serial?murder?case?tried?in?Orange?County.?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?677?[reports?that?the?defendant?was?the?”Freeway?Killer,”?had?a?history?of?mental?illness,?had?prior?convictions,?had?been?linked?to?as?many?as?44?killings,?had?admitted?21?killings,?and?had?already?been?convicted?of?10?murders?in?Los?Angeles?and?sentenced?to?death].)

In?addition,?the?court?found?that?”time?has?diminished?greatly?the?events?that?were?before?the?public.”?The?record?also?supports?this?finding.?The?motion?to?change?venue?was?denied?about?10?months?after?the?crime.?Trial?began?another?six?months?later.?Passage?of?time?weighs?heavily?against?a?change?of?venue.?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?677-678.)?As?Marcus?Aurelius?said?some?two?millennia?ago,?”All?is?ephemeral-fame?and?the?famous?as?well.”?(Meditations,?IV,?35.)

Citing?Maine?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?at?pages?386-387,?defendant?also?contends?that?political?factors?supported?a?change?of?venue.?There?is?some?evidence?in?the?record?that?the?sheriff?criticized?the?initial?appearance?of?the?public?defender’s?office?in?this?case.?The?sheriff?later?ran?for?reelection.?But?defendant’s?showing,?consisting?mainly?of?media?reports,?does?not?compel?a?change?of?venue.?Indeed,?defendant’s?own?poll?showed?that?most?of?the?populace?remembered?nothing?about?any?political?controversy.

After?completion?of?the?individual?jury?voir?dire,?defendant?renewed?his?motion?for?a?change?of?venue.?The?court?denied?the?motion,?finding?”that?we?[54?Cal.3d?809]?we?will?be?able?to?find?twelve?[jurors]?that?will?have?no?influence?whatsoever?from?anything?they?ever?read?about?or?heard?about?this?case.?It?just?wasn’t?a?major?problem?in?talking?with?them.”?Defendant?does?not?specifically?challenge?this?ruling.?Our?review?of?the?record?convinces?us?it?was?correct.?Trial?was?properly?held?in?Orange?County.

  1. Jury?Selection?Issues
  2. Waiver?of?Defendant’s?Presence

At?the?outset?of?the?guilt?trial,?defendant?expressed?the?desire?to?be?absent?during?jury?selection.?After?being?fully?admonished?of?his?right?to?be?present,?and?with?his?attorney’s?approval,?defendant?personally?waived?the?right?both?in?writing?and?orally.?The?court?accepted?the?waiver?after?finding?defendant?”knowingly?and?willingly”?waived?his?rights.?It?informed?defendant?that?if?he?changed?his?mind,?he?could?come?back?into?court?at?any?time.?Defendant?then?absented?himself?during?jury?selection.?A?week?after?the?waiver,?another?hearing?was?held?to?determine?whether?defendant?still?wanted?to?be?absent.?He?did.?Defendant?was?present?during?the?evidence?portion?of?trial.

[4a]?Defendant?contends?the?right?to?be?present?during?jury?selection?cannot?be?waived.?In?essence,?he?argues?that?a?defendant?who?does?not?want?to?be?present?during?jury?selection?can?achieve?his?wish?only?if?he?engages?in?”disruptive?behavior.”?A?defendant?who?behaves?himself?but?”merely?desires?to?be?absent”?cannot,?he?claims,?be?accommodated.?We?disagree.?This?right,?like?other?more?fundamental?rights?(e.g.,?against?self-incrimination,?to?testify,?to?have?an?attorney,?to?confront?witnesses,?and?to?have?a?jury?trial?at?all),?may?be?waived.?A?defendant?need?not?be?disruptive?before?a?court?may?grant?his?request?and?excuse?him?from?attending?jury?selection.

People?v.?Robertson?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?18?[255?Cal.Rptr.?631,?767?P.2d?1109]?is?closely?on?point.?In?Robertson,?the?defendant?filed?a?written?waiver?adapted?from?the?form?set?out?in?section?977,?subdivision?(b)fn.?3?waiving?his?right?to?be?present?at?the?sentence-modification?hearing?and?imposition?of?sentence.?As?in?this?case,?defendant?argued?that?his?presence?at?any?”critical?[54?Cal.3d?810]?phase”?of?a?capital?trial?may?not?be?waived.?Based?in?part?on?the?”solicitude?shown?by?modern?jurisprudence?to?the?defendant’s?prerogative?to?waive?the?most?crucial?of?rights”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?61),?we?disagreed,?and?held?that?a?capital?defendant?may?waive?his?right?to?be?present?even?at?critical?stages?of?the?proceeding.?(Id.?at?pp.?59-62.)?This?holding?applies?equally?to?jury?selection.?It?would?be?anomalous?to?force?a?defendant?to?misbehave?before?he?could?fulfill?his?wish?to?be?absent?from?the?proceedings.

Defendant?argues?that?such?a?waiver?should?not?be?allowed?in?capital?cases.?However,?as?noted?in?Robertson,?”Our?statutes?governing?waiver?make?no?distinction?between?capital?and?other?felony?defendants?….”?(48?Cal.3d?at?pp.?61-62.)?In?Robertson,?we?cited?sections?977?and?1193.?The?applicable?statutes?here?are?sections?977?and?1043.?The?latter?generally?provides?that?”the?defendant?in?a?felony?case?shall?be?personally?present?at?the?trial.”?(??1043,?subd.?(a).)?Exceptions?include?when?the?defendant?is?disruptive?(??1043,?subd.?(b)(1))?and?”Any?prosecution?for?an?offense?which?is?not?punishable?by?death?in?which?the?defendant?is?voluntarily?absent.”?(??1043,?subd.?(b)(2).)?Section?1043,?subdivision?(d),?also?states,?”Subdivisions?(a)?and?(b)?shall?not?limit?the?right?of?a?defendant?to?waive?his?right?to?be?present?in?accordance?with?Section?977.”

In?combination,?sections?977?and?1043?provide?that?although?mere?voluntary?absence?is?not?sufficient?in?a?capital?case?to?hold?the?trial?without?the?defendant’s?personal?presence,?such?presence?may?be?waived?(at?least?as?to?those?proceedings?not?specifically?listed?in?section?977,?subdivision?(b)).?Defendant?argues?that?the?legislative?history?of?these?sections?discloses?no?intent?to?allow?such?waiver?in?capital?cases.?Nothing?in?that?history,?however,?suffices?to?overcome?the?plain?language?of?the?statutes.?[5]?When?statutory?language?is?clear?and?unambiguous,?there?is?no?need?for?construction,?and?courts?should?not?indulge?in?it.?(People?v.?Belleci?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?879,?884?[157?Cal.Rptr.?503,?598?P.2d?473].)?We?thus?adhere?to?Robertson,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?18.?[4b]?A?capital?defendant?may?waive?his?right?to?be?present?even?at?critical?stages?of?trial.?(We?do?not?here?decide?whether?a?defendant?may?waive?his?presence?as?to?those?proceedings?specifically?listed?in?section?977,?subdivision?(b);?see?People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1237-1240?[283?Cal.Rptr.?144,?812?P.2d?163].)

Defendant?also?argues?the?”public?and?state”?have?an?independent?interest?in?compelling?him?to?be?present?during?jury?selection.?The?Legislature,?however,?has?deemed?otherwise.?(Cf.?People?v.?Chadd?(1981)?28?Cal.3d?739,?745-755?[170?Cal.Rptr.?798,?621?P.2d?837]?[upholding???1018,?which?prohibits?a?capital?defendant?from?pleading?guilty?without?the?consent?of?counsel];?and?People?v.?Stanworth?(1969)?71?Cal.2d?820,?833-834?[54?Cal.3d?811]?[80?Cal.Rptr.?49,?457?P.2d?889]?[applying?the?automatic?appeal?provisions?of???1239,?subd.?(b)].)

Defendant?cites?People?v.?Deere?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?353,?362-368?[222?Cal.Rptr.?13,?710?P.2d?925]?(Deere?I),?where?we?held?that?a?defendant?may?not?bar?his?attorney?from?presenting?mitigating?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase.?Subsequent?decisions,?however,?have?”largely?undermined”?this?holding.?(People?v.?Deere?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?705,?716?[280?Cal.Rptr.?424,?808?P.2d?1181]?(Deere?II);?see?People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1030?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627];?People?v.?Bloom?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1194,?1228,?fn.?9?[259?Cal.Rptr.?669,?774?P.2d?698].)?In?any?event,?even?Deere?I?allowed?the?defendant?to?completely?waive?a?penalty?phase?jury.?(41?Cal.3d?at?pp.?359-360.)?A?capital?defendant?who?has?”stated?an?intention?to?seek?a?death?verdict”?may?waive?his?right?to?counsel.?(People?v.?Bloom,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?1223.)?Waiver?of?presence?during?jury?selection?”by?no?means?ensure[s]?the?return?of?a?death?verdict.”?(Ibid.)?Indeed,?defendant,?through?counsel,?vigorously?defended?himself?at?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases.

[6]?Defendant?also?argues?that?even?if?he?may?legally?waive?his?right?to?be?present,?he?did?not?validly?do?so.?Although?the?written?waiver?was?substantially?in?the?prescribed?form,?defendant?argues?it?was?not?”execute[d]?in?open?court”?as?required?by?section?977,?subdivision?(b).?The?form?was?apparently?executed?between?two?court?sessions?held?the?same?day.?It?was?filed?at?the?latter?session?accompanied?by?a?full?oral?waiver.?This?was?sufficient?compliance?with?the?statute.?(People?v.?Robertson,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?62.)

Defendant?finally?asserts?he?was?”suicidally?depressed.”?Nothing?in?the?record,?however,?suggests?defendant?was?unable?to?understand?and?waive?his?right?to?be?present.?Counsel?concurred?in?the?waiver.?The?court?found?it?was?knowing?and?voluntary.?It?is?not?irrational?for?a?defendant?represented?by?experienced?counsel?to?not?want?to?physically?endure?the?lengthy?jury?selection?process.?Defendant?validly?waived?his?right?to?be?present?during?jury?selection.

  1. Public?Trial

To?”minimize”?potential?prejudice?to?criminal?defendants?in?capital?cases,?we?held?in?Hovey?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?1,?80?[168?Cal.Rptr.?128,?616?P.2d?1301],?”that?portion?of?the?voir?dire?of?each?prospective?juror?which?deals?with?issues?which?involve?death-qualifying?the?jury?should?be?done?individually?and?in?sequestration.”?(Fn.?omitted.)?In?compliance?with?this?mandate?each?prospective?juror?at?the?first?trial?was?questioned?individually?in?one?of?the?jury?rooms,?a?room?selected?”so?that?everyone?would?be?[54?Cal.3d?812]?able?to?spread?out?and?so?that?the?prospective?jurors?would?feel?more?comfortable.”?It?was?”tacitly?understood?that?the?sequestered?voir?dire?that?would?occur?in?the?jury?room?…?was?not?to?be?an?open?proceeding?during?which?members?of?the?press?or?public?could?simply?wander?in.?…?[M]embers?of?the?press?or?public?could?not?walk?into?the?jury?room?any?more?than?they?would?have?been?able?to?walk?into?chambers?were?the?voir?dire?being?held?there.”

Prior?to?the?commencement?of?this?individual?questioning,?a?local?television?station?requested?permission?to?conduct?”extended?media?coverage”?of?the?duration?of?the?trial?with?a?”Standard?portable?videotape?minicamera?&?recorder.”?Defendant?objected.?The?court?denied?the?request?at?least?as?to?jury?selection.?The?record?reflects?no?other?media?request?to?be?present?during?voir?dire,?and?no?specific?request?to?report?or?observe?the?sequestered?questioning?in?any?fashion.

After?the?trial,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?held?in?a?”free?press”?case?that?jury?voir?dire?should?presumptively?be?conducted?in?open?court,?which?presumption?may?be?overcome?only?upon?specified?express?findings?by?the?court.?(Press-Enterprise?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?of?Cal.?(1984)?464?U.S.?501?[78?L.Ed.2d?629,?104?S.Ct.?819]?(hereafter?Press-?Enterprise),?discussed?in?People?v.?Thompson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?134,?156?[266?Cal.Rptr.?309,?785?P.2d?857];?see?also?Ukiah?Daily?Journal?v.?Superior?Court?(1985)?165?Cal.App.3d?788?[211?Cal.Rptr.?673]?(hereafter?Ukiah?Daily?Journal).)?[7a]?Defendant?contends?the?Press-?Enterprise?rule?was?violated?in?this?case.?Although?he?objected?to?the?request?for?extended?media?coverage,?and?never?asserted?any?public?trial?right?of?his?own,?he?further?contends?the?violation?requires?his?conviction?be?reversed.?(Cf.?Waller?v.?Georgia?(1984)?467?U.S.?39?[81?L.Ed.2d?31,?104?S.Ct.?2210]?[closing?a?suppression?hearing?to?the?public?over?defense?objection?requires?a?new?suppression?hearing].)

We?considered?a?similar?contention?in?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?134.?There,?unlike?both?Press-?Enterprise?and?Ukiah?Daily?Journal,?”neither?the?media?nor?any?representative?of?the?public?asked?to?witness?the?voir?dire.”?(50?Cal.3d?at?p.?157.)?Because?of?this,?we?were?”concerned?solely?with?the?right?of?a?defendant?to?a?public?trial,”?and?found?that?defendant?had?waived?that?right?by?the?failure?to?assert?it?in?timely?fashion.?(Ibid.,?fn.?omitted.)

Defendant?argues?that?here?the?press?did?request?coverage?of?the?voir?dire?proceedings.?He?relies?on?the?television?request?for?extended?media?coverage?of?the?entire?trial?and?on?a?newspaper?request?to?cover?the?trial?made?after?the?sequestered?voir?dire?was?completed.?The?latter?clearly?was?not?a?request?to?cover?the?earlier?portions?of?trial.?We?need?not?decide?whether?the?general?[54?Cal.3d?813]?request?for?extended?coverage?of?the?entire?trial?was?a?sufficient?request?for?normal?coverage?of?the?sequestered?jury?selection,?for?defendant’s?objection?to?the?media?request?waived?his?right?to?complain?of?the?court’s?ruling?on?appeal.

[8]?A?defendant?”may,?by?his?own?acts?or?acquiescence,?waive?his?right?[to?a?public?trial]?and?thereby?preclude?any?subsequent?challenge?by?him?of?an?order?excluding?the?public.?Unlike?the?jury?trial?right?which?requires?an?express?personal?waiver?[citation],?the?constitutional?guarantee?of?a?public?trial?may?be?waived?by?acquiescence?of?the?defendant?in?an?order?of?exclusion.”?(5?Witkin?&?Epstein,?Cal.?Criminal?Law?(2d?ed.?1989)?Trial,???2618,?p.?3137,?italics?in?original;?see?also?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1309?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221]?[defense?request?for?private?Hovey?voir?dire?waives?right?to?public?voir?dire;?no?personal?waiver?necessary].)

[7b]?This?result?is?consistent?with?Press-Enterprise,?supra,?464?U.S.?501,?where?the?press?won?the?right?to?cover?voir?dire,?but?the?criminal?conviction?of?Albert?Greenwood?Brown,?the?defendant?in?the?underlying?case,?was?not?affected.?(See?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440],?revd.?on?other?grounds?sub?nom.?California?v.?Brown?(1987)?479?U.S.?538[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837].)?Defendant?is?not?entitled?to?the?windfall?of?a?reversal?of?his?conviction?because?the?court?may?have?violated?a?public?right?to?which?he?objected.

  1. Sufficiency?of?the?Evidence?of?Premeditation
[9a]?Defendant?contends?there?was?insufficient?evidence?of?premeditation?and?deliberation?to?support?the?verdict?of?first?degree?murder.?[10]?”In?reviewing?the?sufficiency?of?the?evidence,?we?must?draw?all?inferences?in?support?of?the?verdict?that?can?reasonably?be?deduced?and?must?uphold?the?judgment?if,?after?viewing?all?the?evidence?in?the?light?most?favorable?to?the?prosecution,?any?rational?trier?of?fact?could?have?found?the?elements?of?the?crime?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.”?(People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?86?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)?[9b]?The?evidence?of?this?case?supports,?even?compels,?a?finding?of?premeditation.

[11]?Defendant?relies?on?the?familiar?tripartite?test?set?forth?in?People?v.?Anderson?(1968)?70?Cal.2d?15,?26-27?[73?Cal.Rptr.?550,?447?P.2d?942],?which?requires?us?to?focus?upon?evidence?of?(1)?the?defendant’s?planning?activity?prior?to?the?killing;?(2)?his?motive?to?kill,?derived?from?his?prior?relationship?or?conduct?with?the?victim;?and?(3)?the?manner?of?killing,?indicating?some?preconceived?design?to?kill?in?a?certain?way.?Evidence?of?all?three?elements?is?not?essential,?however,?to?sustain?a?conviction.?A?reviewing?[54?Cal.3d?814]?court?will?sustain?a?conviction?where?there?exists?evidence?of?all?three?elements,?where?there?is?”extremely?strong”?evidence?of?prior?planning?activity,?or?where?there?exists?evidence?of?a?motive?to?kill,?coupled?with?evidence?of?either?planning?activity?or?a?manner?of?killing?which?indicates?a?preconceived?design?to?kill.?(People?v.?Hovey?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?543,?556?[244?Cal.Rptr.?121,?749?P.2d?776].)

[9c]?Viewing?the?evidence?most?favorably?to?the?prosecution,?there?was?extremely?strong?evidence?of?planning,?the?most?important?of?the?Anderson?factors.?(People?v.?Alcala?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?604,?627?[205?Cal.Rptr.?775,?685?P.2d?1126].)?Defendant?carried?a?loaded?handgun?in?the?cab?of?the?truck.?Before?the?shooting,?defendant?drove?past?the?two?girls?as?they?were?leaving?the?campground,?looked?at?them,?and?then?turned?around?and?followed?them.?He?caught?up?to?them?in?a?remote?spot,?where?he?could?most?effectively?kill?and?escape.?He?drove?alongside?his?victims,?stopped,?said?”Girls”?to?get?their?attention,?and,?while?Vanessa?was?looking?straight?at?him?and?was?thus?an?excellent?target,?shot?and?killed?her.?The?inference?of?cool,?calculated?premeditation?is?inescapable.

Additionally,?the?manner?of?killing?was?exact-a?single?bullet?between?the?eyes?by?an?expert?marksman.?This?strongly?implies?a?preconceived?design?to?kill?in?precisely?that?fashion.

Defendant?argues?there?is?no?evidence?of?motive.?Motive?here?is,?indeed,?elusive.?This?was?apparently?a?random?killing?for?a?reason?known?only?to?defendant,?a?reason?he?has?elected?not?to?disclose,?as?is?his?right.?The?Attorney?General?aptly?notes,?”The?reason?persons?commit?despicable?crimes?is?often?a?mystery?in?a?land?where?an?accused?has?a?Fifth?Amendment?privilege.”?We?have?never?required?the?prosecution?to?prove?a?specific?motive?before?affirming?a?judgment,?even?one?of?first?degree?murder.?A?senseless,?random,?but?premeditated,?killing?supports?a?verdict?of?first?degree?murder.

  1. Admissibility?of?Prosecution?Evidence
  2. Defendant’s?Statement
[12a]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?of?his?statement?in?county?jail.

At?an?in?camera?hearing,?Deputy?Sheriff?Gregory?Allen?testified?that?he?was?on?duty?in?the?county?jail?on?January?12,?1983.?Defendant?asked?the?deputy?to?”call?me?out,”?i.e.,?to?let?him?out?of?his?cell.?This?was?a?”fairly?common?occurrence.”?Deputy?Allen?let?him?out,?and?defendant?entered?a?[54?Cal.3d?815]?vestibule?area.?Defendant?said,?”?’I’m?depressed,?man.?May?I?light?a?cigarette?’?”?The?deputy?responded,?”?’Yes,?go?ahead.’?”?Defendant?then?made?the?statement?now?challenged,?”?’Off?the?record,?I’m?guilty.?I?don’t?know?why?I?shot?those?two?little?girls.?I’m?guilty?as?sin.?I’m?depressed?for?what?I?put?their?families?through.’?”?Deputy?Allen?did?not?ask?defendant?any?questions.?After?the?hearing,?the?court?admitted?the?statement,?finding?it?was?”spontaneous”?and?”volunteered,”?and?that?there?”was?no?interrogation?by?the?deputy.”

Defendant?contends?that?”Deputy?Allen?had?an?obligation?to?terminate?the?conversation?immediately?upon?Mr.?Edward’s?uttering?the?qualifying?words,?’Off?the?record’;?Allen’s?failure?to?do?so?renders?the?statement?inadmissible.”?He?relies?primarily?on?our?decision?in?People?v.?Braeseke?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?691?[159?Cal.Rptr.?684,?602?P.2d?384].

In?Braeseke,?the?defendant?was?advised?of?and?waived?his?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974].?After?some?questioning?by?two?officers,?he?stated?he?wanted?an?attorney,?and?the?questioning?ceased.?Later,?during?a?booking?procedure,?the?defendant?asked?if?he?could?speak?with?one?officer?alone?and?”off?the?record.”?The?officer?agreed,?and?eventually?took?a?taped?confession.?(25?Cal.3d?at?pp.?695-696.)

We?reversed,?reasoning?that?after?a?defendant?asserts?his?right?to?counsel?the?interrogation?must?cease;?it?may?not?be?resumed?without?counsel?unless?compelling?evidence?of?a?waiver?of?the?suspect’s?rights?appears.?”When,?as?here,?the?defendant?has?asserted?his?right?to?the?presence?of?an?attorney?that?burden?[of?proving?a?knowing?and?intelligent?waiver?of?rights]?is?particularly?onerous?[citations]?and?usually?is?discharged?only?by?a?showing?that?the?defendant?initiated?without?reservation?the?renewed?interrogation.?[Citations.]”?(25?Cal.3d?at?p.?702.)?We?held?that?a?”request?to?speak?’off?the?record’?cannot?constitute?a?knowing?and?intelligent?waiver?of?rights?which?include?the?advisement?that?’anything?[a?suspect]?says?can?be?used?against?him?in?a?court?of?law.’?[Citations.]”?(Ibid.)?We?also?pointed?out?that?the?officer?”contributed?to?defendant’s?lack?of?understanding?by?agreeing?to?the?request?rather?than?informing?defendant?that?there?could?be?no?such?thing?as?an?off?the?record?discussion.”?(Id.?at?p.?703.)

Citing?this?last?sentence,?defendant?argues?that?Deputy?Allen?was?required?to?interrupt?him?as?soon?the?words?”off?the?record”?were?spoken.?Braeseke,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?691,?however,?holds?only?that?an?officer?cannot?affirmatively?agree?to?take?an?”off?the?record”?statement?before?recommencing?a?previously?discontinued?interrogation.?It?does?not?affect?the?settled?rule?that?volunteered?statements?not?the?product?of?interrogation?are?admissible.?[54?Cal.3d?816]?[13]?As?Miranda?itself?made?clear,?”There?is?no?requirement?that?police?stop?a?person?who?enters?a?police?station?and?states?that?he?wishes?to?confess?to?a?crime,?or?a?person?who?calls?the?police?to?offer?a?confession?or?any?other?statement?he?desires?to?make.?Volunteered?statements?of?any?kind?are?not?barred?by?the?Fifth?Amendment?and?their?admissibility?is?not?affected?by?our?holding?today.”?(Miranda?v.?Arizona,?supra,?384?U.S.?at?p.?478?[16?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?726],?fn.?omitted.)

[12b]?Deputy?Allen?asked?no?questions;?he?merely?listened.?He?was?under?no?obligation?to?try?to?prevent?defendant?from?volunteering?the?statement.

Defendant?next?contends?the?statement?was?irrelevant.?He?did?not?object?on?this?ground?at?trial,?and?therefore?has?waived?the?point.?(People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?22?&?fn.?8?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)?In?any?event,?defendant?concedes?that?the?admission?that?he?was?”guilty?as?sin”?and?the?reference?to?shooting?the?girls?was?”an?express?statement?of?his?culpability?for?the?shootings.”?This?is?obviously?relevant?to?the?murder?charge.?His?real?contention?seems?directed?not?so?much?to?the?admissibility?of?the?statement?itself?as?to?the?prosecution?argument?that?it?supported?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?With?one?exception,?he?failed?to?object?to?such?argument,?thus?waiving?the?issue.?(Id.?at?p.?34.)

[14]?Defendant?objected?as?speculative?to?rebuttal?argument?that?by?using?the?phrase?”guilty?as?sin,”?defendant?admitted?the?elements?of?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?The?court?overruled?the?objection,?stating?that?the?prosecutor?was?”entitled?to?try?to?convince?the?jury?what?he?thinks?it?means.”?The?court?was?correct.?The?jury?had?heard?evidence?that?defendant?had?been?fully?informed?of?the?charges?against?him,?and?had?been?present?in?court?when?extensive?argument?was?presented?regarding?the?elements?of?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?This?arguably?supports?the?inference?the?prosecutor?was?urging.?The?prosecution?has?broad?discretion?to?state?its?views?as?to?what?the?evidence?shows?and?what?inferences?may?be?drawn?therefrom.?(People?v.?Kelly?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?931,?967?[275?Cal.Rptr.?160,?800?P.2d?516].)?Defendant’s?claim?that?the?argument?was?illogical?was?for?the?jury?to?decide.?As?we?have?repeatedly?explained,?the?adverse?party?cannot?complain?if?the?reasoning?be?faulty?and?the?deductions?illogical,?as?such?matters?are?ultimately?for?the?consideration?of?the?jury.?(People?v.?Warren?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?471,?485,?fn.?1?[247?Cal.Rptr.?172,?754?P.2d?218],?and?cases?cited?therein.)

Defendant?next?contends?he?was?”precluded”?from?presenting?rebuttal?evidence?because?the?court?refused?to?admit?certain?hearsay?statements?he?made?shortly?before?and?after?his?arrest?on?these?charges.?The?correctness?of?[54?Cal.3d?817]?the?court’s?rulings?is?discussed?in?part?II.?A.?5.,?post.?Suffice?it?to?say?at?this?point?that?the?admission?of?defendant’s?statement?did?not?somehow?entitle?him?to?present?inadmissible?hearsay.?The?court?never?”precluded”?defendant?from?testifying?himself?or?from?presenting?other?testimony?consistent?with?the?rules?of?evidence?to?rebut?this?or?any?other?item?of?prosecution?evidence.

Defendant?finally?claims?he?was?improperly?”penalized”?for?his?presence?at?the?court?hearing?at?which?issues?regarding?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?were?argued.?He?was?not.?His?presence,?coupled?with?his?later?statement?that?he?was?”guilty?as?sin,”?gave?rise?to?a?possible?relevant?inference?in?the?same?way?that?a?multitude?of?actions?and?events?may?give?rise?to?relevant?inferences.?We?find?no?impropriety.

  1. Other?Prosecution?Evidence

Defendant?contends?that?other?items?of?prosecution?evidence?were?improperly?admitted?because?they?were?irrelevant?or?their?prejudicial?effect?outweighed?their?probative?value?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.?[15]?In?general,?the?trial?court?is?vested?with?wide?discretion?in?determining?relevance?and?in?weighing?the?prejudicial?effect?of?proffered?evidence?against?its?probative?value.?Its?rulings?will?not?be?overturned?on?appeal?absent?an?abuse?of?that?discretion.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?19;?People?v.?Pierce?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?199,?211?[155?Cal.Rptr.?657,?595?P.2d?91].)

[16]?Defendant?first?objects?to?evidence?regarding?his?firearms?at?the?gun?club?where?he?worked.?The?court?overruled?defendant’s?objection?to?testimony?about?storage?of?the?guns,?but?disallowed?as?”prejudicial”?admission?of?the?weapons?themselves.?These?rulings?were?within?the?court’s?discretion.?A?number?of?weapons?were?found?in?defendant’s?truck,?and?at?least?one?was?in?the?truck?cab?at?the?time?of?the?shooting.?The?prosecution?argued?this?showed?preparation?for?the?shooting.?The?defense?established?that?defendant?lived?in?his?truck,?and?sought?to?show?that?he?routinely?kept?his?guns?there.?Evidence?that?he?had?an?alternate?site?to?store?guns?was?relevant?to?show?that?he?did?not?keep?weapons?in?the?truck?merely?out?of?necessity.

Defendant?also?contends?the?record?does?not?show?the?court?weighed?the?probative?value?against?any?prejudicial?effect.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?25.)?We?have?never?required?any?particular?formula?for?engaging?in?the?weighing?process?so?long?as?the?record?reflects?in?some?fashion?that?the?court?has?done?so.?(People?v.?Thompson?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?86,?104?[246?Cal.Rptr.?245,?753?P.2d?37].)?The?fact?the?court?disallowed?admission?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?818]?weapons?themselves?as?prejudicial?indicates?the?court?properly?performed?its?function.

[17]?Defendant?next?contends?the?court?erroneously?admitted?evidence?the?two?victims?were?friends.?Over?objection,?the?court?allowed?both?Kelly?and?Vanessa’s?mother?to?testify?the?girls?were?close?friends,?but?sustained?objections?to?other?questions?regarding?the?relationship.?This?brief?testimony?was?neither?particularly?probative?nor?prejudicial.?It?provided?the?jury?with?background?information?to?help?it?understand?the?circumstances?surrounding?the?shooting.?For?example,?it?suggested?that?the?girls?were?preoccupied?with?each?other’s?companionship,?and?thus?were?not?concerned?about?the?approach?of?defendant’s?truck.?Allowing?this?slight?touch?of?humanity?was?well?within?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court.?(People?v.?Carrera?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?291,?330-331?[261?Cal.Rptr.?348,?777?P.2d?121].)

[18]?Finally,?defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?admitting?over?objection?testimony?that?shortly?after?the?shooting,?Kelly?said,?”?’I?don’t?want?to?die.?Why?me??Is?Vanessa?all?right?’?”?This?testimony?was?preliminary?to?other?statements?by?Kelly?that?the?prosecution?sought?to?present?as?spontaneous?statements?under?Evidence?Code?section?1240.?Ultimately,?the?latter?statements?were?never?introduced.?Because?of?this,?the?admitted?words?were?of?little?relevance.?They?also?were?the?kind?of?statements?any?juror?would?expect?Kelly?to?make?under?the?circumstances,?and?thus?had?little,?if?any,?prejudicial?effect.?We?discern?no?abuse?of?discretion,?and?certainly?no?prejudice.

  1. Exclusion?of?Defense?Evidence

Defendant?was?arrested?in?Maryland?on?September?28,?1981,?nine?days?after?the?murder.?Some?time?before?this,?but?apparently?after?the?shooting,?defendant?recorded?certain?thoughts?in?a?notebook.?For?example,?he?referred?to?having?headaches?and?feeling?sick,?and?often?referred?to?”Tommy”?in?the?third?person.?After?the?arrest,?defendant?was?interviewed?on?tape?at?length.?He?cried?at?several?points,?claimed?not?to?remember?anything?about?the?shooting?and?the?immediately?surrounding?events,?and?complained?of?headaches.?He?mentioned?the?notebook.?After?the?interview,?the?police,?having?obtained?a?search?warrant,?seized?the?notebook?from?defendant’s?motel?room.

At?trial,?defendant?sought?to?admit?into?evidence?both?the?notebook?and?the?taped?interview?without?testifying?himself.?The?prosecution?objected?on?hearsay?grounds.?After?a?hearing,?the?court?sustained?the?objection.?Later,?defendant?renewed?his?motion,?and?asked?the?court?to?read?a?transcript?of?the?interview.?The?court?did?so,?and?again?sustained?the?hearsay?objection.?[54?Cal.3d?819]

The?court?did?not?state?reasons?for?sustaining?the?objection?at?the?guilt?phase,?but?did?when?it?sustained?a?similar?objection?to?the?same?evidence?at?the?third?penalty?trial.?It?specifically?found?that?the?statements?”were?not?given?under?circumstances?which?would?make?them?trustworthy?….?[B]oth?statements?were?given?under?circumstances?where?they?were?not?indicating?that?they?would?be?trustworthy.”?It?also?found?that?seeking?to?admit?the?evidence?without?defendant?testifying?or?presenting?psychiatric?testimony?”really?is?an?attempt?to?put?on?a?whole?defense?without?ever?putting?the?defendant?on?the?stand?subject?to?cross-examination.”

[19a]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred.?He?first?argues?the?notebook?and?interview,?though?hearsay,?were?admissible?as?statements?of?mental?or?physical?state?under?either?Evidence?Code?sections?1250?or?1251.fn.?4?We?quickly?reject?the?contention?under?Evidence?Code?section?1251,?which?requires?that?the?”declarant?[be]?unavailable?as?a?witness?….”?Defendant?was?certainly?not?unavailable?to?himself.?Although?he?possessed,?and?exercised,?a?privilege?not?to?testify,?the?choice?was?his.?He?could?have?testified?had?he?so?elected.?As?stated?in?the?Comment?of?the?Assembly?Committee?on?the?Judiciary?to?Evidence?Code?section?240,?the?section?defining?the?phrase?”unavailable?as?a?witness,”?”if?the?out-of-court?statement?is?that?of?the?party?himself,?he?may?not?create?’unavailability’?under?this?section?by?invoking?a?privilege?not?to?testify.”

[20]?Evidence?Code?section?1250?also?does?not?aid?defendant.?Assuming,?without?deciding,?that?the?statements?otherwise?qualify?for?admission,?Evidence?Code?section?1250?(like?Evidence?Code?section?1251)?is?subject?to?Evidence?Code?section?1252,?which?provides,?”Evidence?of?a?statement?is?inadmissible?under?this?article?if?the?statement?was?made?under?circumstances?such?as?to?indicate?its?lack?of?trustworthiness.”?”The?decision?[54?Cal.3d?820]?whether?trustworthiness?is?present?requires?the?court?to?apply?to?the?peculiar?facts?of?the?individual?case?a?broad?and?deep?acquaintance?with?the?ways?human?beings?actually?conduct?themselves?in?the?circumstances?material?under?the?exception.?Such?an?endeavor?allows,?in?fact?demands,?the?exercise?of?discretion.”?(People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1251?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251]?[interpreting?Evid.?Code,???1230].)?A?reviewing?court?may?overturn?the?trial?court’s?finding?regarding?trustworthiness?only?if?there?is?an?abuse?of?discretion.?(Id.?at?pp.?1250-1251;?People?v.?Frierson?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?730,?745?[280?Cal.Rptr.?440,?808?P.2d?1197].)

[19b]?The?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion.?”A?defendant?in?a?criminal?case?may?not?introduce?hearsay?evidence?for?the?purpose?of?testifying?while?avoiding?cross-examination.”?(People?v.?Harris?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?36,?69?[171?Cal.Rptr.?679,?623?P.2d?240]?(plur.?opn.?by?Broussard,?J.).)?That?rule?applies?here.?To?be?admissible?under?Evidence?Code?section?1252,?statements?must?be?made?in?a?natural?manner,?and?not?under?circumstances?of?suspicion,?so?that?they?carry?the?probability?of?trustworthiness.?Such?declarations?are?admissible?only?when?they?are?”?’made?at?a?time?when?there?was?no?motive?to?deceive.’?”?(People?v.?Howard?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?375,?405?[243?Cal.Rptr.?842,?749?P.2d?279],?quoting?6?Wigmore,?Evidence?(3d?ed.?1940)???1730,?p.?94;?see?also?People?v.?Milner?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?227,?248-249?[246?Cal.Rptr.?713,?753?P.2d?669].)

When?defendant?made?the?statements,?nine?days?had?elapsed?since?the?shooting.?He?knew?he?had?killed?one?12-year-old?girl?and?had?wounded?a?second.?He?had?a?compelling?motive?to?deceive?and?seek?to?exonerate?himself?from,?or?at?least?to?minimize?his?responsibility?for,?the?shootings.?There?was?”ample?ground?to?suspect?defendant’s?motives?and?sincerity”?when?he?made?the?statements.?(People?v.?Whitt?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?620,?643?[274?Cal.Rptr.?252,?798?P.2d?849].)?The?need?for?cross-examination?is?especially?strong?in?this?situation,?and?fully?warrants?exclusion?of?the?hearsay?evidence.?(See?also?People?v.?Kaurish?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?648,?704-705?[276?Cal.Rptr.?788,?802?P.2d?278]?[self-serving?statement?tape-recorded?shortly?after?the?defendant’s?arrest?properly?excluded?as?inadmissible?hearsay];?People?v.?Cruz?(1968)?264?Cal.App.2d?350,?356-360?[70?Cal.Rptr.?603]?[same].)

Defendant?next?contends?that?admission?of?the?statements,?even?if?prohibited?by?the?Evidence?Code,?is?constitutionally?compelled.?We?disagree.?[21]?In?limited?circumstances,?reliable?hearsay?evidence?must?be?admitted?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial?even?if?the?state?rules?of?evidence?provide?otherwise.?(Green?v.?Georgia?(1979)?442?U.S.?95?[60?L.Ed.2d?738,?99?S.Ct.?2150];?see?post,?pt.?II.?C.?3.)?[19c]?Assuming,?without?deciding,?that?this?rule?might?also?apply?to?the?guilt?phase,?these?statements?were?[54?Cal.3d?821]?inherently?untrustworthy.?Defendant?was?fully?allowed?to?present?a?defense.?He?could?have?testified?had?he?so?chosen.?(Cf.?Rock?v.?Arkansas?(1987)?483?U.S.?44?[97?L.Ed.2d?37,?107?S.Ct.?2704].)?Defendant?has?no?right?to?effectively?”address?the?jury?without?subjecting?himself?to?cross-?examination.”?(People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?644?[evidence?of?a?prison?interview?with?the?defendant?properly?excluded].)

Defendant?finally?complains?that?the?court?did?not?listen?to?the?tape?recordings?themselves.?The?record?in?this?regard?is?not?entirely?clear,?but?we?need?not?decide?whether?there?was?error,?for?it?was?harmless?under?any?standard.?Defendant?argues?that?the?”emotional?content?conveyed”?by?the?tapes?was?crucial?to?a?ruling?on?their?admissibililty.?But?the?emotion?portrayed?on?the?tapes?themselves?does?not?obviate?the?compelling?motive?to?deceive?that?existed?during?the?interview,?nor?does?it?otherwise?add?sufficient?reliability?to?warrant?admission?of?the?tapes.

  1. Special?Circumstance?Issues
  2. Lying?in?Wait

The?jury?found?that?defendant?”intentionally?killed?the?victim?while?lying?in?wait.”?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15).)?Defendant?challenges?the?finding?on?several?grounds.?The?contentions?are?generally?answered?by?our?recent?decision?of?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?553-?559?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244].?Defendant?argues?that?Morales?is?distinguishable?in?certain?respects,?and?should?be?reconsidered?in?others.?We?disagree.

  1. Instructional?and?Constitutional?Contentions

Before?the?jury?could?decide?the?special?circumstance?question,?it?had?to?find?defendant?guilty?of?first?degree?murder.?The?only?theory?of?first?degree?murder?on?which?the?court?instructed?was?a?premeditated?and?deliberate?killing?with?malice.

The?court?instructed?on?lying?in?wait?as?follows:?”The?term?’lying?in?wait’?is?defined?as?a?waiting?and?watching?the?victim?for?an?opportune?time?to?act,?together?with?the?concealment?by?ambush?or?some?other?secret?design?to?take?the?victim?by?surprise.?The?lying?in?wait?need?not?continue?for?any?particular?period?of?time,?provided?that?its?duration?is?sufficient?to?establish?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt,?one,?the?elements?of?waiting,?watching?and?concealment?or?other?secret?design?to?take?the?victim?unawares?and?by?surprise;?and?two,?that?[54?Cal.3d?822]?during?the?period?of?lying?in?wait?the?defendant?had?the?intention?to?kill?the?victim?….[fn.?5?]

“If?the?murder?is?done?suddenly,?without?a?period?of?waiting,?watching?and?concealment,?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait?is?not?present.?[?]?The?term?’lying?in?wait’?does?not?require?a?showing?that?the?defendant?was?in?a?position?of?lying?down.?He?may?be?shown?to?be?sitting?or?standing,?and?he?may?be?stationary?or?in?motion.?The?requirement?of?concealment?does?not?require?that?the?defendant?be?not?visible?to?the?victim,?nor?that?the?victim?be?totally?unaware?of?the?physical?presence?of?the?defendant.?Concealment?may?be?shown?by?either?an?ambush?or?by?the?defendant’s?intentional?creation[fn.?6?]?of?a?situation?where?the?victim?is?taken?unawares?and?by?surprise,?even?though?the?victim?sees?the?defendant.

“In?order?to?find?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait?to?be?true,?you?must?also?find?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?lying?in?wait?continued?up?to?the?moment?of?the?killing,?without?interruption?of?time?between?lying?in?wait?and?the?act?of?killing.”

When?the?court?reinstructed?the?jury?during?deliberations,?it?added?at?defense?request:?”Before?you?may?find?that?a?murder?was?committed?while?lying?in?wait,?the?prosecution?is?required?to?prove?something?more?than?just?…?first?degree?murder.”

[22]?In?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?page?557,?we?held?that?”an?intentional?murder,?committed?under?circumstances?which?include?(1)?a?concealment?of?purpose,?(2)?a?substantial?period?of?watching?and?waiting?for?an?opportune?time?to?act,?and?(3)?immediately?thereafter,?a?surprise?attack?on?an?unsuspecting?victim?from?a?position?of?advantage,?presents?a?factual?matrix?sufficiently?distinct?from?’ordinary’?premeditated?murder?to?justify?treating?it?as?a?special?circumstance.”?We?upheld?a?lying-in-wait?finding?against?a?defendant?who,?in?plain?view,?sat?behind?his?intended?victim?in?an?automobile?and?waited?until?the?car?was?in?a?more?deserted?location?before?attempting?to?strangle?her?and?eventually?bludgeoning?her?to?death.

[23a]?Defendant?asserts?the?instructions?of?this?case?were?deficient?under?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?527.?As?we?explain,?the?actual?instructions?fulfill?[54?Cal.3d?823]?all?of?the?legal?requirements?even?though?the?words?are?not?always?precisely?the?same?as?we?used?in?Morales?(which?is?not?surprising?since?the?trial?predated?that?opinion).

Defendant?first?claims?that?the?instructions?erroneously?require?only?a?”mere?concealment?of?purpose”?to?establish?lying?in?wait.?He?focuses,?however,?on?only?one?of?the?instructional?requirements.?The?instructions?also?required?waiting?and?watching?for?an?opportune?time?to?act,?an?intent?to?kill,?and?no?interruption?of?time?between?lying?in?wait?and?the?killing.

Defendant?next?contends?the?instructions?do?not?require,?in?the?words?of?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?page?557,?a?”position?of?advantage.”?That?precise?phrase?is?not?found?in?the?instructions,?but?the?meaning?is.?An?ambush?or?a?”situation?where?the?victim?is?taken?unawares?and?by?surprise,”?combined?with?an?intent?to?kill,?necessarily?places?the?intended?killer?in?a?position?of?advantage.?We?did?not?require?any?particular?phraseology?in?Morales,?only?the?substance.

Defendant?next?contends?the?instructions?do?not?require?a?”substantial”?period?of?waiting?and?watching.?Again,?the?specific?word?”substantial”?was?not?used.?However,?the?jury?was?told?that?the?lying?in?wait?must?be?of?sufficient?duration?to?establish?the?elements?of?waiting,?watching?and?concealment?or?other?secret?design?to?take?the?victim?unawares?and?by?surprise,?and?that?a?murder?done?suddenly?without?such?waiting,?watching?and?concealment?is?not?murder?by?lying?in?wait.?These?requirements?necessarily?include?a?substantial?temporal?element.?We?have?never?required?a?certain?minimum?period?of?time,?only?a?period?not?insubstantial.?The?instructions?sufficiently?convey?this?meaning.

[24]?Defendant?also?reiterates?some?contentions?rejected?in?Morales.?As?explained?in?that?decision,?concealment?of?physical?presence?is?not?a?requirement?of?lying?in?wait.?(48?Cal.3d?at?pp.?554-556.)?We?also?held?that?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance,?as?interpreted?in?that?and?prior?decisions,?is?constitutional.?(Id.?at?pp.?557-558;?accord?People?v.?Edelbacher?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?983,?1023?[254?Cal.Rptr.?586,?766?P.2d?1].)?We?decline?defendant’s?invitation?to?reconsider?these?decisions.

Defendant?makes?additional?contentions?not?specifically?addressed?in?Morales.?He?claims?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?impermissibly?duplicates?the?special?circumstances?involving?murder?by?explosive?devices?and?by?poison.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(4),?(6)?&?(19);?see?People?v.?Montiel?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?910,?927?[218?Cal.Rptr.?572,?705?P.2d?1248].)?However,?under?the?instructions,?a?murder?by?explosive?device?or?poison?would?also?be?by?lying?in?wait?only?if?the?actual?use?of?the?explosive?device?or?poison?was?[54?Cal.3d?824]?contemporaneously?with,?or?immediately?following,?the?lying?in?wait.?There?is?no?substantial?overlap?among?these?special?circumstances,?and?certainly?not?so?much?as?to?invalidate?any?of?them.

Defendant?claims?the?special?circumstance?is?unconstitutionally?vague?because?it?fails?”to?provide?notice,?guidance?or?any?principled?method?to?identify?a?class?of?murderers?that?are?more?deserving?of?death.”?On?the?contrary,?as?interpreted?in?Morales?and?prior?decisions,?it?has?specific?and?clear?requirements?which?sufficiently?distinguish?a?lying-in-?wait?murder?from?other?first?degree?murders?to?justify?treating?it?as?a?special?circumstance.?(People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?557;?People?v.?Edelbacher,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1023.)

Defendant?also?contends?that?Morales?changed?the?law,?and?that?applying?it?to?this?case?would?violate?ex?post?facto?principles.?On?the?contrary,?Morales?merely?applied?established?law.?(People?v.?Webster?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?411,?448,?fn?21?[285?Cal.Rptr.?31,?814?P.2d?1273].)

[23b]?Defendant?next?argues?that?the?court?was?required?sua?sponte?to?instruct?the?jury?under?CALJIC?No.?17.01?that?it?had?to?agree?unanimously?which?acts?constituted?the?lying?in?wait.?We?disagree.?[25]?”A?requirement?of?jury?unanimity?typically?applies?to?acts?that?could?have?been?charged?as?separate?offenses.”?(People?v.?Beardslee?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?68,?92?[279?Cal.Rptr.?276,?806?P.2d?1311].)?”A?jury?may?convict?a?defendant?of?first?degree?murder,?however,?without?making?a?unanimous?choice?of?one?or?more?of?several?theories?proposed?by?the?prosecution,?e.g.,?that?the?murder?was?deliberate?and?premeditated?or?that?it?was?committed?in?the?course?of?a?felony.”?(Ibid.)?”?'[I]t?is?sufficient?that?each?juror?is?convinced?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?defendant?is?guilty?of?first?degree?murder?as?that?offense?is?defined?by?the?statute.’?”?(Ibid.,?quoting?People?v.?Milan?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?185,?195?[107?Cal.Rptr.?68,?507?P.2d?956].)?This?rule?passes?federal?constitutional?muster.?(Schad?v.?Arizona?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___-___,?___-___?[115?L.Ed.2d?555,?564-574?(plur.?opn.),?576-578?(conc.?opn.?of?Scalia,?J.),?111?S.Ct.?2491,?2496-2504,?2505-2507].)?[23c]?The?same?rationale?applies?to?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait.?A?unanimity?instruction?is?not?required.fn.?7

Defendant?also?claims?that?because?there?was?no?evidence?that?he?physically?concealed?his?presence,?the?court?was?required?sua?sponte?to?delete?from?the?instructions?all?reference?to?concealment?of?presence.?However,?full?and?correct?instructions?on?the?elements?of?lying?in?wait?were?appropriate,?[54?Cal.3d?825]?and?could?not?have?misled?the?jury.?No?one?suggested?there?was?physical?concealment,?only?that?it?was?one?way,?but?not?the?only?way,?to?establish?lying?in?wait.fn.?8

  1. Sufficiency?of?the?Evidence?of?Lying?in?Wait
[26]?Defendant?contends?there?is?insufficient?evidence?to?support?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?We?disagree.?After?drawing?all?reasonable?inferences?in?support?of?the?verdict?(see?ante,?pt.?II.?A.?3.),?we?find?sufficient?evidence?to?support?each?of?the?elements?of?lying?in?wait.?The?trial?court’s?summary?is?apt.?”There?was?watching?and?waiting?from?inside?the?campgrounds?out?to?the?road.?There?was?a?secret?plan?to?take?them?by?a?surprise?which?was?as?effective?as?any?ambush?that?he?could?have?accomplished?from?hiding,?and?perhaps?even?more?so?because?this?way?he?didn’t?have?to?wait?behind?a?tree?or?a?rock?hoping?that?they?would?come?his?way.?In?this?way?he?was?able?to?move?his?point?of?ambush?right?directly?in?front?of?the?girls.”

Defendant?first?claims?there?is?no?evidence?of?concealment?to?gain?a?position?of?advantage.?To?be?sure,?he?did?not?conceal?his?physical?presence,?but?that?is?not?required.?(People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?555.)?A?concealment?of?purpose?suffices?if?it?is?combined?with?a?surprise?attack?on?an?unsuspecting?victim?from?a?position?of?advantage.?(Id.?at?pp.?555,?557;?People?v.?Webster,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?448.)?Defendant?drove?alongside?the?victims?where?there?were?no?witnesses?and?where?they?would?be?most?vulnerable.?While?they?were?completely?unsuspecting,?he?called?to?them?so?they?would?look?his?way?and?become?ideal?live?targets.?After?gaining?this?position?of?advantage,?he?shot?and?killed.

Defendant?next?claims?there?is?no?evidence?of?waiting?and?watching.?Again,?we?disagree.?Defendant?was?first?seen?entering?the?campground?about?three?hours?before?the?shooting.?He?then?reentered?it,?and?observed?his?victims?going?in?the?opposite?direction.?Rather?than?shoot?them?when?he?first?saw?them,?he?turned?around,?followed?them,?and,?when?they?had?reached?the?most?isolated?spot?in?the?area,?struck.?He?knew?the?area?well?from?prior?visits.?The?jury?could?reasonably?infer?defendant?waited?and?watched?until?the?girls?reached?the?place?of?maximum?vulnerability?before?shooting.?This?was?sufficient.?A?killer?need?not?view?his?intended?victim?during?the?entire?period?of?watching?and?waiting.?(See?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?555.)

There?was?also?evidence?of?a?substantial?period?of?watching?and?waiting.?The?jury?could?reasonably?find?that?defendant?first?saw?the?victims?as?they?[54?Cal.3d?826]?were?walking?by?a?restroom?near?the?entrance?to?the?Blue?Jay?campground,?and?that?he?turned?around?and?followed?them.?Since?more?than?a?quarter?of?a?mile?separated?the?spot?where?defendant?first?saw?the?girls?and?where?he?shot?them,?and?they?were?on?foot,?the?jury?could?reasonably?infer?that?a?matter?of?minutes?elapsed?from?the?time?defendant?first?saw?them?until?he?shot?them.?This?was?substantial.

Defendant?claims?he?did?not?kill?”while”?lying?in?wait,?i.e.,?the?lying?in?wait?did?not?”result?in?an?opportune?moment?for?attack,?provide?a?position?of?advantage,?or?put?the?decedent?in?a?particular?state?of?vulnerability.”?However,?it?did?all?of?these.?The?evidence?suggests?that?the?lying?in?wait?might?have?been?crucial?to?defendant’s?murderous?design;?it?certainly?furthered?it.?Vanessa,?the?victim?most?taken?by?surprise,?was?shot?between?the?eyes?when?she?looked?at?defendant?upon?hearing?his?call.?Kelly,?the?second?target,?had?a?brief?moment?to?react,?and?turned?her?head,?thus?affecting?defendant’s?aim?enough?to?survive.?Moreover,?the?shooting?occurred?without?any?”cognizable?interruption”?following?the?lying?in?wait?under?any?legal?standard.?(Cf.?Domino?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?129?Cal.App.3d?1000,?1011?[181?Cal.Rptr.?486],?with?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?558.)

Defendant?also?challenges?the?prosecution?reliance?on?the?evidence?that?his?truck?was?first?seen?entering?the?campground?around?11?that?morning.?The?witness?testified?he?was?”reasonably?sure”?it?was?defendant’s?truck.?This?evidence,?although?alone?far?from?dispositive,?was?relevant,?and?the?prosecution?properly?relied?on?it?as?one?bit?of?evidence?supporting?the?special?circumstance.

Sufficient?evidence?supports?each?element?of?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.

  1. Alleged?Vindictive,?Discriminatory?and?Capricious?Prosecution

On?September?22,?1981,?three?days?after?the?shooting,?and?before?defendant’s?arrest,?a?complaint?was?filed?and?a?warrant?for?defendant’s?arrest?was?obtained.?The?complaint?charged?first?degree?murder?but?no?special?circumstance.?Defendant?was?arrested?in?Maryland?on?September?28.?Twelve?days?later,?on?October?10,?1981,?an?amended?complaint?was?filed?charging?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?[27]?Defendant?claims?the?amendment?was?unlawful?because?it?was?discriminatory,?capricious,?and?a?vindictive?retaliation?for?defendant’s?assertion?of?the?right?to?counsel,?his?temporary?refusal?to?waive?extradition,?and?his?eventual?refusal?to?talk?to?the?police.?[54?Cal.3d?827]

The?Attorney?General?argues?that?the?issue?is?not?properly?before?us?because?defendant?neither?moved?to?dismiss?the?amended?complaint?nor?otherwise?objected?on?this?basis.?We?agree.?”[B]ecause?a?claim?of?discriminatory?prosecution?generally?rests?upon?evidence?completely?extraneous?to?the?specific?facts?of?the?charged?offense,?we?believe?the?issue?should?not?be?resolved?upon?evidence?submitted?at?trial,?but?instead?should?be?raised?…?through?a?pretrial?motion?to?dismiss.”?(Murgia?v.?Municipal?Court?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?286,?293-294,?fn.?4?[124?Cal.Rptr.?204,?540?P.2d?44].)?This?rationale?applies?to?claims?of?vindictive?prosecution.?(See?also?People?v.?Toro?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?966,?976?[254?Cal.Rptr.?811,?766?P.2d?577]?[defendant?must?object?to?amendment?of?information?at?trial?to?preserve?a?lack-of-notice?objection];?People?v.?Sperl?(1976)?54?Cal.App.3d?640,?656-657?[126?Cal.Rptr.?907].)

Defendant?argues?he?repeatedly?objected?to?the?lying-in-wait?charge.?True,?but?not?on?this?basis.?He?also?claims?he?raised?the?issue?during?jury?selection?on?February?11,?1983.?At?that?time,?defendant?requested?a?”proportionality?hearing”?under?the?then?recent?decision?of?Harris?v.?Pulley?(9th?Cir.?1982)?692?F.2d?1189,?1196,?reversed?sub?nomine?Pulley?v.?Harris?(1984)?465?U.S.?37?[79?L.Ed.2d?29,?104?S.Ct.?871].?(In?Pulley?v.?Harris,?supra,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?ultimately?reversed?the?Ninth?Circuit’s?decision,?and?held?that?proportionality?review?of?capital?cases?is?not?necessary.)?Portions?of?the?defense?argument?would?have?been?relevant?to?a?claim?of?vindictive?prosecution?had?that?claim?been?made.?The?claim,?however,?was?never?actually?made.?The?instant?contention?is?not?properly?before?us.

The?contention?is?also?meritless.?Defendant?claims?the?district?attorney?amended?the?complaint?in?retaliation?for?his?exercise?of?constitutional?rights.?(See?generally?In?re?Bower?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?865?[215?Cal.Rptr.?267?[700?P.2d?1269];?Twiggs?v.?Superior?Court?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?360?[194?Cal.Rptr.?152,?667?P.2d?1165].)?He?relies?largely?on?media?reports?that?the?sheriff?and?to?a?lesser?extent?a?deputy?district?attorney?criticized?the?early?involvement?of?the?public?defender?in?the?case.

We?start?our?analysis?by?observing?that?generally?a?complaint?or?information?may?be?amended?even?as?late?as?trial.?(??1009;?People?v.?Witt?(1975)?53?Cal.App.3d?154,?165?[125?Cal.Rptr.?653].)?Here,?the?amendment?was?filed?within?two?weeks?of?defendant’s?arrest,?even?before?the?preliminary?hearing,?and?well?over?a?year?before?trial.

In?In?re?Bower,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?at?pages?874-?877,?and?Twiggs?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?at?pages?369-374,?we?found?a?presumption?of?vindictiveness?when?charges?were?increased?after?the?assertion?of?constitutional?rights?and?after?jeopardy?had?attached.?As?stated?in?Bower,?supra:?”The?[54?Cal.3d?828]?timing?of?the?prosecutor’s?action?is?important?because?'[a]?prosecutor?should?remain?free?before?trial?to?exercise?the?broad?discretion?entrusted?to?him?to?determine?the?extent?of?the?societal?interest?in?prosecution.?An?initial?decision?should?not?freeze?future?conduct.?[Fn.?omitted.]?As?we?made?clear?in?Bordenkircher?[v.?Hayes?(1978)?434?U.S.?357(54?L.Ed.2d?604,?98?S.Ct.?663)],?the?initial?charges?filed?by?a?prosecutor?may?not?reflect?the?extent?to?which?an?individual?is?legitimately?subject?to?prosecution.’?([United?States?v.?Goodwin?(1982)457?U.S.?368,?382?(73?L.Ed.2d?74,?86,?102?S.Ct.?2485)].)

“The?court?[in?United?States?v.?Goodwin]?noted?that?an?important?factor?in?assessing?the?timing?element?is?the?attachment?of?jeopardy.?At?the?pretrial?stage?’the?prosecutor’s?assessment?of?the?proper?extent?of?prosecution?may?not?have?fully?crystallized.?In?contrast,?once?a?trial?begins-and?certainly?by?the?time?a?conviction?has?been?obtained-it?is?much?more?likely?that?the?State?has?discovered?and?assessed?all?of?the?information?against?an?accused?and?has?made?a?determination,?on?the?basis?of?that?information,?of?the?extent?to?which?he?should?be?prosecuted.’?([457?U.S.?368,?381,?(73?L.Ed.2d?74,?85),?italics?added?in?Bower].)”?(In?re?Bower,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?at?pp.?875-876,?quoting?United?States?v.?Goodwin?(1982)?457?U.S.?368?[73?L.Ed.2d?74,?102?S.Ct.?2485].)

The?initial?complaint?of?this?case?was?filed?within?three?days?of?the?crime,?even?before?defendant?was?arrested.?It?is?natural,?not?suspicious,?that?at?that?point?the?prosecution?had?not?”discovered?and?assessed?all?of?the?information”?against?defendant.?(In?re?Bower,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?at?p.?875.)?It?is?not?surprising?the?prosecution?did?not?fully?assess?a?possible?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?while?defendant?was?still?at?large?and?the?most?pressing?need?was?to?obtain?an?arrest?warrant.?Deciding?whether?to?charge?a?special?circumstance?is?obviously?a?major?decision,?one?not?to?be?rushed.?The?judicial?process?serves?to?weed?out?inflated?charges.?As?discussed?ante,?in?part?II.?B.?1.,?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?was?fully?warranted?by?the?evidence.?It?was?charged?within?days?of?defendant’s?arrest,?and?thereafter?consistently?and?effectively?prosecuted.?There?is?no?hint,?much?less?an?affirmative?showing,?of?vindictive?prosecution.

Defendant?also?claims?the?prosecution?was?discriminatory?and?capricious.?He?asserts,?without?evidentiary?support,?that?”others,?similarly?situated,?were?not?prosecuted?[in?Orange?County]?for?lying?in?wait?….”?Even?if?the?record?supported?the?claim?that?the?Orange?County?District?Attorney?does?not?prosecute?all?lying-in-wait?cases?(it?does?not),?this?would?not?state?a?claim?of?discriminatory?prosecution.

In?People?v.?Keenan?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?478?[250?Cal.Rptr.?550,?758?P.2d?1081],?we?upheld?a?refusal?to?grant?the?defendant?discovery?about?the?San?[54?Cal.3d?829]?Francisco?District?Attorney’s?capital?charging?policies?and?practices?to?aid?in?a?claim?of?arbitrary?charging.?”[P]rosecutorial?discretion?to?select?those?eligible?cases?in?which?the?death?penalty?will?actually?be?sought?does?not?in?and?of?itself?evidence?an?arbitrary?and?capricious?capital?punishment?system?or?offend?principles?of?equal?protection,?due?process,?or?cruel?and/or?unusual?punishment.?[Citations.]?[?]?Many?circumstances?may?affect?the?litigation?of?a?case?chargeable?under?the?death?penalty?law.?These?include?factual?nuances,?strength?of?evidence,?and,?in?particular,?the?broad?discretion?to?show?leniency.?Hence,?one?sentenced?to?death?under?a?properly?channeled?death?penalty?scheme?cannot?prove?a?constitutional?violation?by?showing?that?other?persons?whose?crimes?were?superficially?similar?did?not?receive?the?death?penalty.?[Citations.]?The?same?reasoning?applies?to?the?prosecutor’s?decisions?to?pursue?or?withhold?capital?charges?at?the?outset.”?(Id.?at?pp.?505-506.)

The?district?attorney?prosecuted?this?case?vigorously,?as?well?he?might.?Vigorous?prosecution?is?not?capricious?prosecution.?This?crime,?involving?the?effective?execution?of?one?12-year-old?girl?and?the?attempted?execution?of?another,?is?particularly?aggravated.?It?cannot?be?compared?to?other?superficially?similar?lying-in-wait?cases.?(See?People?v.?Keenan,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?506.)?There?was?no?impropriety?in?prosecuting?this?as?a?capital?case.

  1. Penalty?Phase?Issues
  2. Jury?Selection
  3. Restrictions?on?Voir?Dire
[28]?Defendant?argues?the?trial?court?improperly?limited?his?questioning?of?11?prospective?jurors?during?selection?of?the?jury?that?returned?the?death?verdict?now?under?review.

In?People?v.?Williams?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?392,?407?[174?Cal.Rptr.?317,?628?P.2d?869],?we?held?that?counsel?”should?be?allowed?to?ask?questions?reasonably?designed?to?assist?in?the?intelligent?exercise?of?peremptory?challenges?whether?or?not?such?questions?are?also?likely?to?uncover?grounds?sufficient?to?sustain?a?challenge?for?cause.”?We?also,?however,?expressly?”le[ft]?intact?the?considerable?discretion?of?the?trial?court?to?contain?voir?dire?within?reasonable?limits.”?(Id.?at?p.?408;?see?People?v.?Mason?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?909,?939?[277?Cal.Rptr.?166,?802?P.2d?950].)fn.?9?[54?Cal.3d?830]

Our?review?of?the?record?discloses?that?in?general?the?court?allowed?a?wide?scope?of?voir?dire,?and?the?limits?it?imposed?were?within?its?considerable?discretion.?But?we?need?not?discuss?the?merits?in?detail,?for?defendant?has?failed?to?show?prejudice?even?if?we?assume?an?occasional?abuse?of?discretion.

In?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659],?the?trial?court?posed?four?questions?to?the?prospective?jurors?regarding?their?attitude?towards?the?death?penalty.?It?sometimes?asked?further?questions,?but?did?not?allow?the?attorneys?to?ask?questions?on?the?subject.?(Id.?at?pp.?1081-1082.)?We?found?the?procedure?unduly?restrictive,?but?rejected?the?argument?that?the?error?was?reversible?per?se.?”Judicial?limitations?on?voir?dire?vary?in?scope?and?severity,?and?in?their?impact?on?the?jury?selection?and?the?ultimate?outcome?of?trial.?We?see?no?reason?why?the?courts?should?not?recognize?those?differences,?and?limit?reversals?to?those?cases?in?which?the?erroneous?ruling?affected?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury.”?(Id.?at?p.?1086.)

The?court?here?restricted?counsel?far?less?than?in?Bittaker.?None?of?the?11?jurors?involved?in?the?restrictions?sat?on?the?actual?jury.?When?defendant?accepted?the?jury,?he?had?10?peremptory?challenges?remaining.?Our?conclusion?in?Bittaker?applies?equally?to?this?case:?”When?the?jury?was?finally?selected,?defendant?did?not?claim?that?any?juror?was?incompetent,?or?was?not?impartial.?We?therefore?find?no?prejudicial?error.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?1087.)

  1. Denial?of?Challenges?for?Cause
[29]?Defendant?next?argues?the?court?erred?in?denying?his?challenge?for?cause?as?to?11?prospective?jurors?(many?of?them?the?same?as?those?involved?in?the?voir?dire?restrictions?discussed?in?the?previous?contention).?Again,?our?review?of?the?record?discloses?no?error?but?defendant?has?failed?to?show?prejudice?even?assuming?the?court?erred?as?to?all?11.?None?sat?on?the?actual?jury;?each?was?either?challenged?peremptorily?by?defendant?or?was?never?seated?in?the?jury?box.?The?10?peremptory?challenges?defendant?had?when?he?accepted?the?jury?exceeded?the?total?number?of?remaining?prospective?jurors?that?were?involved?in?the?restricted?voir?dire?or?were?unsuccessfully?challenged?for?cause?by?defendant.?Defendant?did?not?express?dissatisfaction?with?the?jury?as?selected.?Any?erroneous?inclusion?of?prospective?jurors?was?therefore?harmless.?(Ross?v.?Oklahoma?(1988)?487?U.S.?81,?87-89?[101?[54?Cal.3d?831]?L.Ed.2d?80,?89-?91,?108?S.Ct.?2273];?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?808,?and?cases?cited?therein.)

Defendant?claims?he?was?afraid?to?use?more?peremptory?challenges?for?fear?the?actual?panel?would?only?get?worse.?Nothing?in?the?record?supports?the?claim.?He?never?suggested?such?concerns?at?trial,?and?never?requested?additional?peremptory?challenges.?Defendant?also?cites?Gray?v.?Mississippi?(1987)?481?U.S.?648?[95?L.Ed.2d?622,?107?S.Ct.?2045]?for?the?proposition?that?any?error?is?reversible?per?se.?Gray,?however,?involves?the?erroneous?exclusion?of?a?prospective?juror?because?of?views?on?the?death?penalty.?The?subsequent?decision?of?Ross?v.?Oklahoma,?supra,?487?U.S.?81,?which?rejects?a?reversible?per?se?rule,?controls?the?erroneous?inclusion?of?jurors.?(See?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?808-809.)

  1. Peremptory?Challenges?of?Jurors?Who?Disliked?Death?Penalty
[30]?Defendant?claims?the?district?attorney?improperly?used?his?peremptory?challenges?to?excuse?prospective?jurors?who?expressed?”even?the?slightest?reservation?and?concern?about?the?death?penalty.”?We?have?repeatedly?rejected?the?contention.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1263.)?Defendant?urges?us?to?follow?a?federal?district?court?decision,?apparently?the?only?court?ever?to?find?merit?in?his?position.?(Brown?v.?Rice?(W.D.N.C.?1988)?693?F.Supp.?381,?revd.?sub?nom.?Brown?v.?Dixon?(4th?Cir.?1989)?891?F.2d?490,?496-498,?cert.?den.?(1990)?495?U.S.?953?[109?L.Ed.2d?545,?110?S.Ct.?2220].)?We?are?not?persuaded.?Nor?was?the?circuit?court?that?reversed?that?decision?on?this?very?point.?(Brown?v.?Dixon,?supra.)?We?agree?with?the?circuit?court,?and?with?the?opinion?of?Justice?O’Connor?concurring?in?the?denial?of?certiorari?in?an?earlier?appeal?of?the?same?case.?(Brown?v.?North?Carolina?(1986)?479?U.S.?940,?940-942?[93?L.Ed.2d?373,?107?S.Ct.?423]?(conc.?opn.?of?O’Connor,?J.);?cf.?the?dissenting?opinion?of?Justice?Brennan?in?the?same?case,?id.?at?pp.?942-945?[93?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?375-377].)

  1. Admissibility?of?Prosecution?Evidence
  2. Evidence?of?the?Search?for?Defendant
[31]?Over?defense?objection,?the?court?admitted?evidence?that?for?five?days?after?the?shooting,?multijurisdictional?law?enforcement?personnel?conducted?a?massive?but?futile?ground?and?air?search?for?defendant.?Defendant?argues?that?the?evidence?was?not?relevant?to?any?aggravating?factor?and?was?unduly?prejudicial.?However,?evidence?relating?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?is?admissible?at?the?penalty?phase.?(??190.3,?factor?(a);?People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?336.)?”The?question?thus?remains?whether?the?[54?Cal.3d?832]?testimony?was?relevant,?and?whether?its?probative?value?outweighed?any?prejudicial?effect.”?(Carrera,?supra,?at?p.?336.)

The?court?acted?within?its?discretion.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?the?evidence?did?not?relate?merely?to?police?activity?but,?by?reasonable?inference,?to?his?own?actions.?It?was?relevant?for?the?jury?to?know?that?despite?a?major?manhunt,?defendant?had?the?presence?of?mind?after?the?shooting?to?elude?capture?and?slip?out?of?the?area.?This?suggests?advance?planning?and,?rather?than?remorse,?a?cool?determination?to?avoid?the?consequences?of?his?actions.?It?also?tends?to?negate?a?possible?defense?claim?that?the?shooting?was?a?spur-of-the-moment?affair?by?a?momentarily?deranged?individual.

The?evidence?was?not?particularly?prejudicial.?Defendant?claims?it?showed?the?police?considered?him?especially?dangerous.?No?doubt.?But?that?proved?only?the?obvious.?Once?the?jury?learned?the?facts?of?the?shooting,?it?knew?that?defendant?was?dangerous.?That?massive?efforts?would?be?undertaken?to?capture?him?was?to?be?expected.?What?was?less?obvious,?but?relevant,?was?that?defendant?eluded?those?efforts.?There?was?no?error.

  1. Photographs?of?the?Victims
[32a]?Over?objection,?the?court?admitted?into?evidence?three?photographs?of?the?victims?while?alive-one?of?both?Kelly?and?Vanessa?taken?at?the?campground?the?night?before?the?shooting,?and?two?of?Kelly?taken?about?a?month?later.?The?latter?two?showed?a?bandanna?around?Kelly’s?head.?The?court?initially?admitted?only?the?photograph?of?the?two?girls,?finding?that?it?”shows?the?girls,?arguably,?as?they?were?walking?down?the?roadway.?It?shows?the?girls?as?the?defendant?saw?them,?arguably.”?Later,?the?court?admitted?the?two?photographs?of?Kelly.?She?had?grown?substantially?in?the?five?years?between?the?crime?and?the?third?trial,?and?the?photographs?showed?her?stature?at?the?time?defendant?shot?her.?None?of?the?photographs?had?been?admitted?at?the?first?trial.

Defendant?contends?the?photographs?were?”inflammatory?and?irrelevant.”?They?were?not,?and?the?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?them.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?329.)?They?depict?the?victims?at?the?time?of?the?crimes,?not?as?Kelly?looked?at?trial?five?years?later.?They?properly?aided?the?jury?in?judging?the?size,?age?and?vulnerability?of?the?victims.?(People?v.?Frank?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?718,?734?[274?Cal.Rptr.?372,?798?P.2d?1215].)

Defendant?contends?the?photographs?(and?the?prosecution?argument?referring?to?the?impact?of?the?crime?on?Vanessa’s?family-see?part?II.?C.?4.,?post)?[54?Cal.3d?833]?were?improper?under?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529]?(Booth)?and?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?109?S.Ct.?2207]?(Gathers),?which?generally?barred?admission?of?victim?impact?evidence?and?related?prosecution?argument?during?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial.?During?the?pendency?of?this?appeal,?however,?those?holdings?were?overruled.?(Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597]?(Payne).)?In?Payne,?the?high?court?held?that?”if?the?State?chooses?to?permit?the?admission?of?victim?impact?evidence?and?prosecutorial?argument?on?that?subject,?the?Eighth?Amendment?erects?no?per?se?bar.?A?State?may?legitimately?conclude?that?evidence?about?the?victim?and?about?the?impact?of?the?murder?on?the?victim’s?family?is?relevant?to?the?jury’s?decision?as?to?whether?or?not?the?death?penalty?should?be?imposed.”?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?736,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2609].)?It?also?held?”that?a?State?may?properly?conclude?that?for?the?jury?to?assess?meaningfully?the?defendant’s?moral?culpability?and?blameworthiness,?it?should?have?before?it?at?the?sentencing?phase?evidence?of?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant.”?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?735,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2608].)

We?requested?and?received?supplemental?briefing?on?the?impact?of?Payne?on?this?case.?Defendant?now?contends?that?even?aside?from?Eighth?Amendment?considerations,?victim?impact?evidence?is?inadmissible?in?California?because?it?does?not?come?within?any?of?the?aggravating?factors?listed?in?section?190.3.?(See?People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?775-776.)?One?of?the?statutory?aggravating?factors?is?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?defendant?was?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?….”?(??190.3,?factor?(a).)?The?issue?is?thus?whether?”evidence?of?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant”?(Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?735,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2608])?is?a?circumstance?of?the?crime?admissible?under?factor?(a).?We?think?it?generally?is.

[33]?In?construing?statutes,?we?apply?the?usual,?ordinary?import?of?the?language?used.?(California?Teachers?Assn.?v.?San?Diego?Community?College?Dist.?(1981)?28?Cal.3d?692,?698?[170?Cal.Rptr.?817,?621?P.2d?856].)?[32b]?The?word?”circumstances”?as?used?in?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?does?not?mean?merely?the?immediate?temporal?and?spatial?circumstances?of?the?crime.?Rather?it?extends?to?”[t]hat?which?surrounds?materially,?morally,?or?logically”?the?crime.?(3?Oxford?English?Dict.?(2d?ed.?1989)?p.?240,?”circumstance,”?first?definition.)?The?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant?does?surround?the?crime?”materially,?morally,?or?logically.”

Defendant?relies?primarily?on?language?from?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pages?1266-1267:?”In?the?general?case-and?certainly?here-the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?is?not?relevant?to?any?material?[54?Cal.3d?834]?circumstance.?Nor?is?sympathy?for?the?victim.?Obviously,?evidence?on?these?matters?is?inadmissible.?Just?as?obviously,?argument?on?them?is?barred.?It?is?manifest?that?the?remark?was?improper?under?Boyd?in?these?respects.”?The?remark?found?improper?was,?”?’Not?only?did?the?defendant?take?William?Wiley’s?life?and?his?entire?future?and?destroy?his?family,?he?now?wants?to?take?sympathy?away?from?him?too.?The?sympathy?that?is?rightfully?due?William?Wiley.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?1266.)

Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?1223,?cites?only?the?general?language?of?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?in?finding?state-law?error.?In?the?next?paragraph,?it?also?finds?error?under?Booth?and?Gathers.?(50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1267.)?Its?conclusion?on?the?state-law?question?was?colored?by?these?now?overruled?decisions,?and?must?be?reconsidered?in?light?of?Payne?and?other?decisions?by?this?court.

The?leading?pre-Booth?case?is?People?v.?Haskett?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?841?[180?Cal.Rptr.?640,?640?P.2d?776].?There?the?prosecutor?invited?the?jurors?”to?put?themselves?in?the?shoes?of?Mrs.?Rose?[the?attempted?murder?victim?and?mother?of?the?two?murder?victims]?and?imagine?suffering?the?acts?inflicted?on?her.”?(Id.?at?p.?863.)?We?permitted?these?comments:?”Although?appeals?to?the?sympathy?or?passions?of?the?jury?are?inappropriate?at?the?guilt?phase?[citation],?at?the?penalty?phase?the?jury?decides?a?question?the?resolution?of?which?turns?not?only?on?the?facts,?but?on?the?jury’s?moral?assessment?of?those?facts?as?they?reflect?on?whether?defendant?should?be?put?to?death.?It?is?not?only?appropriate,?but?necessary,?that?the?jury?weigh?the?sympathetic?elements?of?defendant’s?background?against?those?that?may?offend?the?conscience.?[Citations.]?In?this?process,?one?of?the?most?significant?considerations?is?the?nature?of?the?underlying?crime.?(See?Pen.?Code,???190.3,?[factor]?(a).)?Hence?assessment?of?the?offense?from?the?victim’s?viewpoint?would?appear?germane?to?the?task?of?sentencing.”?(Id.?at?pp.?863-864.)

Thus,?before?Booth?we?found?argument?regarding?the?suffering?the?defendant?inflicted?proper?as?a?circumstance?of?the?crime?under?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3.fn.?10?Although?the?mother?in?People?v.?Haskett,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?841,?was?both?a?victim?of?noncapital?crimes?and?a?relative?of?the?murder?victims,?nothing?in?that?opinion?suggests?the?jury?could?consider?her?suffering?only?as?a?direct?victim?and?not?also?as?a?relative?of?the?murder?victims.

In?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?536?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640],?the?prosecutor?argued,?”?’What?huge?offense?that?is,?and?then?on?[54?Cal.3d?835]?top?of?that,?what?does?it?do?to?that?person’s?family??This?is?a?tragedy,?not?just?for?the?person?you?killed,?but?the?family?and?society?….’?”?We?found?no?error?in?this?and?other?comments,?finding?that?they?”merely?emphasized?the?aggravating?circumstances?of?the?crime,?namely,?the?inhumane?nature?of?the?violent?acts?inflicted?on?two?victims?….”?(Id.?at?p.?537,?italics?added.)

In?People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?795-?797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330],?we?upheld?argument?regarding?the?impact?other?criminal?conduct?of?the?defendant?had?upon?the?victims.?We?expressly?left?open?the?question?whether?Booth?or?Gathers?would?prohibit?other?kinds?of?evidence?such?as?”the?emotional?impact?of?such?criminal?activity?on?the?victim’s?family?….”?(Id.?at?p.?797,?fn.?9.)?We?now?know?there?is?no?such?prohibition.?Benson?strongly?implies?that?such?evidence?comes?within?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?”criminal?activity”?involving?force?or?violence.?If?victim?impact?evidence?is?permitted?under?factor?(b),?it?should?certainly?be?permitted?under?factor?(a).

The?assumption?in?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?page?1267,?that?the?”effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?is?not?relevant?to?any?material?circumstance,”?is?suspect?in?light?of?these?cases,?and?was?largely?based?on?Booth?and?Gathers.?The?assumption?is?no?longer?valid?under?Payne,?which?explained,?”the?assessment?of?harm?caused?by?the?defendant?as?a?result?of?the?crime?charged?has?understandably?been?an?important?concern?of?the?criminal?law,?both?in?determining?the?elements?of?the?offense?and?in?determining?the?appropriate?punishment.”?(501?U.S.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?725,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2605].)?Generally?speaking,?”victim?impact?evidence?serves?entirely?legitimate?purposes.?In?the?event?that?evidence?is?introduced?that?is?so?unduly?prejudicial?that?it?renders?the?trial?fundamentally?unfair,?the?Due?Process?Clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?provides?a?mechanism?for?relief.”?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?735,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2608].)

For?these?reasons,?we?believe?that?the?injury?inflicted?is?generally?a?circumstance?of?the?crime?as?that?phrase?is?commonly?understood.?We?need?not?divorce?the?injury?from?the?acts.?[34]?We?thus?hold?that?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?allows?evidence?and?argument?on?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant,?including?the?impact?on?the?family?of?the?victim.?This?holding?only?encompasses?evidence?that?logically?shows?the?harm?caused?by?the?defendant.?We?do?not?now?explore?the?outer?reaches?of?evidence?admissible?as?a?circumstance?of?the?crime,?and?we?do?not?hold?that?factor?(a)?necessarily?[54?Cal.3d?836]?includes?all?forms?of?victim?impact?evidence?and?argument?allowed?by?Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597].fn.?11

Our?holding?also?does?not?mean?there?are?no?limits?on?emotional?evidence?and?argument.?In?People?v.?Haskett,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?at?page?864,?we?cautioned,?”Nevertheless,?the?jury?must?face?its?obligation?soberly?and?rationally,?and?should?not?be?given?the?impression?that?emotion?may?reign?over?reason.?[Citation.]?In?each?case,?therefore,?the?trial?court?must?strike?a?careful?balance?between?the?probative?and?the?prejudicial.?[Citations.]?On?the?one?hand,?it?should?allow?evidence?and?argument?on?emotional?though?relevant?subjects?that?could?provide?legitimate?reasons?to?sway?the?jury?to?show?mercy?or?to?impose?the?ultimate?sanction.?On?the?other?hand,?irrelevant?information?or?inflammatory?rhetoric?that?diverts?the?jury’s?attention?from?its?proper?role?or?invites?an?irrational,?purely?subjective?response?should?be?curtailed.”?(See?also?the?cautionary?language?in?Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?735,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2608],?quoted?previously.)

[32c]?Under?this?standard,?the?photographs?were?clearly?admissible.?Although?we?have?cautioned?against?admitting?irrelevant?photographs?of?the?victims?while?alive?at?a?guilt?phase?(People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?115,?and?cases?cited?therein),?the?same?considerations?do?not?apply?at?a?penalty?phase.?Evidence?irrelevant?and?prejudicial?to?determining?guilt?may?be?relevant?to?judging?the?appropriate?punishment?once?guilt?is?established.?(People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?687-688?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351].)?Defendant?assaulted?both?girls?depicted?in?the?photographs.?Whatever?the?photographs?suggested?of?the?preciousness?of?their?lives?was?relevant?to?determining?the?proper?punishment?for?taking?one?of?those?lives,?and?attempting?to?take?the?other.?(Id.?at?p.?688.)

  1. Other?Prosecution?Evidence
[35]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?admitting,?over?objection,?other?items?of?evidence.?The?court?allowed?Vanessa’s?mother?to?testify?about?the?girls’?friendship,?her?search?for?her?daughter,?and?her?seeing?her?daughter?at?the?hospital.?Evidence?about?the?friendship?aided?the?jury?to?understand?the?shooting,?including?that?the?girls?might?have?been?preoccupied?with?each?other?and?thus?presented?easy?targets?for?defendant.?(See?People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?330-331?[admitting?similar?testimony?at?the?[54?Cal.3d?837]?guilt?phase].)?The?testimony?about?the?mother?looking?for?her?daughter?was?exactly?what?the?jury?would?expect.?It?was?factual?and?unemotional,?and?was?admissible?as?a?circumstance?of?the?crime.

As?with?the?guilt?phase,?defendant?objects?to?penalty?phase?testimony?regarding?his?firearms?found?in?a?storage?area?of?the?gun?club.?For?the?reasons?previously?discussed?(see,?ante,?at?pt.?II.?A.?4.?b.),?this?evidence?was?properly?admitted?to?aid?the?jury?assess?the?crime.

Defendant?finally?objects?to?testimony?by?a?police?officer?that?at?the?time?of?the?crime,?unlike?the?time?of?trial,?Kelly?was?”small,?fragile.”?This?testimony,?like?the?photographs?of?the?victims,?was?relevant?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?and?to?judging?defendant’s?moral?culpability.

  1. Exclusion?of?Defense?Evidence
[36]?At?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?unsuccessfully?renewed?his?motion?to?admit?his?taped?statement?to?the?police?after?his?arrest?and?the?notebook?he?compiled?after?the?shooting.?(See,?ante,?at?pt.?II.?A.?5.)?Defendant?reiterates?the?arguments?we?have?already?rejected.?He?also?argues?that?the?court?violated?his?federal?constitutional?right?at?the?penalty?phase?to?have?the?sentencer?consider?all?”relevant?mitigating?evidence.”?(See?Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?733,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2606];?Skipper?v.?South?Carolina?(1986)?476?U.S.?1,?4?[90?L.Ed.2d?1,?6,?106?S.Ct.?1669];?People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?647.)

Defendant?contends?that?this?constitutional?right?entitles?him?to?present?any?evidence?relevant?to?mitigation?in?any?form?he?desires,?even?if?the?prosecution?right?of?cross-examination?is?thereby?defeated.?We?agree?that?the?”range?of?constitutionally?pertinent?mitigation?is?…?broad.”?(People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?647.)?But?neither?this?court?nor?the?high?court?has?suggested?that?the?rule?allowing?all?relevant?mitigating?evidence?has?abrogated?the?California?Evidence?Code.

In?Green?v.?Georgia,?supra,?442?U.S.?95,?the?high?court?considered?when?a?state’s?rules?of?evidence?must?yield?to?the?constitutional?right?to?present?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?case.?In?Green,?the?defendant?attempted?to?show?that?he?was?not?an?active?participant?in?the?murder?of?which?he?was?convicted.?He?offered?the?testimony?of?a?witness?that?another?person?admitted?killing?the?victim.?The?trial?court?refused?to?admit?the?statement?under?Georgia?law?which,?unlike?California?law,?had?no?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule?for?declarations?against?penal?interest.?Under?these?”unique?circumstances,”?the?court?found?a?due?process?violation.?(Id.?at?p.?97.)?”Green?held?that?a?defendant’s?due?process?rights?are?violated?when?[54?Cal.3d?838]?hearsay?testimony?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial?is?excluded,?if?both?of?the?following?conditions?are?present:?(1)?the?excluded?testimony?is?’highly?relevant?to?a?critical?issue?in?the?punishment?phase?of?the?trial,’?and?(2)?there?are?substantial?reasons?to?assume?the?reliability?of?the?evidence.”?(People?v.?Kaurish,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?704,?quoting?Green,?supra,?at?p.?97;?see?also?People?v.?Frierson,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?746.)

As?discussed?previously?(ante,?at?pt.?II.?A.?5.),?defendant’s?statements?were?not?sufficiently?reliable?to?qualify?under?a?recognized?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule.?Similarly,?they?were?not?reliable?enough?to?compel?admission?under?Green?v.?Georgia,?supra,?442?U.S.?95.

Defendant?contends?the?statement?and?notebook?were?relevant?to?show?”his?mental?life,?personality,?moods,?emotions,?contrition,?and?overall?psyche,”?and?as?rebuttal.?Defendant?could?have?presented?evidence?on?these?subjects?in?a?proper?manner.?He?could?have?testified?and,?if?appropriate,?refreshed?his?recollection?with?the?tape?or?notebook.?This?would?have?subjected?him?to?cross-examination,?which?the?defense?apparently?wanted?to?avoid.?As?the?trial?court?suggested,?the?defense?could?also?have?presented?expert?testimony?which?could?have?used?these?materials?as?a?basis?for?an?expert?opinion.?(See?People?v.?Lucero?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?1006,?1026-1029?[245?Cal.Rptr.?185,?750?P.2d?1342].)?But?defendant?had?no?right?to?effectively?have?someone?else?testify?for?him?and?thereby?prevent?cross-?examination.?(People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?644;?see?also?People?v.?Nye?(1969)?71?Cal.2d?356,?372?[78?Cal.Rptr.?467,?455?P.2d?395]?[“Objectionable?hearsay?evidence?is?no?more?admissible?at?the?penalty?phase?than?at?the?guilt?phase.”].)

Defendant?also?contends?the?notebook?was?a?”prose?poem,”?and?thus?admissible?under?People?v.?Harris,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?pages?68-71?(plur.?opn.?by?Broussard,?J.).?He?did?not?make?this?claim?at?trial,?and?therefore?may?not?do?so?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Kaurish,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?704.)?In?addition,?the?notebook?did?not?contain?the?indicia?of?reliability?that?the?Harris?plurality?found?existed?in?the?poetry?of?that?case.?(Harris,?supra,?at?pp.?70-71.)?The?court?properly?excluded?the?statement?and?notebook.

In?a?related?issue,?the?defense?also?sought?to?admit?statements?defendant?allegedly?made?regarding?his?experiences?while?housed?in?the?children’s?ward?of?a?hospital?before?the?shooting.?Counsel?argued?the?testimony?was?relevant?to?show?defendant’s?”observations?and?his?concerns?about?the?children?and?their?plight.”?The?court?sustained?a?hearsay?objection?to?the?testimony.

Defense?counsel?conceded?the?testimony?was?hearsay,?but?argued?it?should?have?been?admitted?under?Green?v.?Georgia,?supra,?442?U.S.?95.?The?alleged?[54?Cal.3d?839]?statements?were?made?before?the?shooting,?so?the?reasons?to?suspect?defendant’s?motives?and?sincerity?that?exist?with?the?taped?statement?and?notebook?do?not?exist.?Nevertheless,?10?other?witnesses?testified?about?defendant’s?relationship?with?children,?presenting?a?picture?of?a?person?who?cared?for?and?loved?them.?The?witness?in?question?testified?in?detail?about?how?good?defendant?was?with?her?children.?In?light?of?this,?the?hearsay?statements?would?have?been?cumulative,?not?”highly?relevant?to?a?critical?issue.”?(Id.?at?p.?97?[60?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?741];?see?also?People?v.?Kaurish,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?704.)?There?was?no?error?and?no?prejudice.

  1. Alleged?Prosecutorial?Misconduct

Defendant?contends?the?prosecutor?committed?various?acts?of?misconduct.?We?disagree.

[37]?He?first?contends?the?district?attorney?violated?the?rule?of?Booth,?supra,?482?U.S.?496,?and?Gathers,?supra,?490?U.S.?805,?when?he?argued?to?the?jury,?”You?can?imagine?what?the?experience?was?like?for?[Kelly]?to?go?through.?You?can?imagine?Vanessa’s?family?and?what?it’s?like.”?The?trial?court?sustained?an?objection?to?the?reference?to?Vanessa’s?family.?In?any?event,?as?discussed?previously,?Booth?and?Gathers?have?been?overruled?in?this?regard.

Defendant?next?claims?the?prosecutor?engaged?in?”speculation?regarding?inflammatory?inferences?not?supported?by?the?evidence.”?Based?upon?the?testimony?that?after?the?shooting?defendant?got?out?of?the?truck?and?went?to?the?rear,?and?Kelly’s?testimony?that?she?heard?something?slam,?the?prosecutor?”suggest[ted]?to?[the?jury?that?defendant]?was?going?to?put?the?girls?in?the?vehicle.”?The?court?overruled?defendant’s?objection?to?the?argument,?and?admonished?the?jury,?”It’s?up?to?you,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?what?you?believe?to?be?the?facts?and?what?inferences?can?be?drawn.”?The?court?was?correct.?The?prosecutor’s?comment?came?within?the?broad?range?of?permissible?argument.?Whether?the?inference?was?reasonable?was?for?the?jury?to?decide.?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?967;?People?v.?Warren,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?485,?fn.?1.)?Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?the?prosecutor?never?implied?he?had?information?not?available?to?the?jury.

Defendant?next?claims?the?prosecutor?improperly?converted?”neutral?and?mitigating?evidence?into?aggravation.”?He?did?not?object?on?this?basis?at?trial,?and?thus?may?not?raise?the?issue?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?547?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129].)?In?addition,?the?contention?lacks?merit.?The?prosecutor?properly?argued?that?defendant’s?age-37?at?the?time?of?the?crimes-was?aggravating,?not?mitigating.?(People?v.?Beardslee,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?112.)?He?also?properly?argued?the?absence?of?certain?[54?Cal.3d?840]?mitigating?evidence,?and?commented?on?the?mitigating?evidence?the?defense?did?present.?(People?v.?Caro?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1035,?1062-1063?[251?Cal.Rptr.?757,?761?P.2d?680].)

Defendant?next?contends?the?prosecutor?improperly?argued,?”There?is?no?reason?for?feeling?sympathy.?You?should?try?to?understand?Mr.?Edwards;?I’m?not?suggesting?that?you?shouldn’t.?But?not?in?terms?of?sympathy.”?Again,?he?did?not?object,?so?he?may?not?raise?the?issue?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?547.)?In?addition,?the?contention?lacks?merit.?Although?a?jury?is?entitled?to?consider?sympathy?in?its?penalty?determination-and?it?would?be?improper?to?suggest?otherwise?(People?v.?Robertson?(1982)?33?Cal.3d?21,?56-?59?[188?Cal.Rptr.?77,?655?P.2d?279])-the?jury?is?not?required?to?feel?sympathy?for?murderers.?The?prosecution?may?properly?argue?that?the?particular?facts?do?not?warrant?sympathy;?the?defense?may?properly?argue?the?opposite.

Defendant?finally?complains?that?the?prosecutor?used?the?word?”execution”?in?his?opening?statement?to?describe?the?shooting.?This?appears?to?be?an?apt?one-word?description?of?the?crime.?In?any?event,?the?court?sustained?an?objection.?Since?an?admonition?could?have?cured?any?harm,?the?matter?has?been?waived?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?319-320.)

  1. Instructional?Issues
  2. Instruction?During?Jury?Selection
[38]?During?jury?selection,?the?court?briefly?summarized?the?process?the?prospective?jurors?would?be?involved?in?should?they?be?selected?for?the?actual?jury.?In?so?doing,?the?court?sometimes?referred?to?mitigating?evidence?as?”good?evidence”?and?aggravating?evidence?as?”bad?evidence.”?Although?he?did?not?object?at?the?time,?defendant?now?contends?this?was?an?incomplete?and?hence?misleading?explanation?of?mitigating?and?aggravating?factors.?Defendant?is?correct?that?the?terms?”good”?and?”bad”?do?not?thoroughly?explain?the?nature?of?mitigating?and?aggravating?factors,?but?he?does?not?demonstrate?error.

The?purpose?of?these?comments?was?to?give?prospective?jurors,?most?of?whom?had?little?or?no?familiarity?with?courts?in?general?and?penalty?phase?death?penalty?trials?in?particular,?a?general?idea?of?the?nature?of?the?proceeding.?The?comments?were?not?intended?to?be,?and?were?not,?a?substitute?for?full?instructions?at?the?end?of?trial.?Indeed,?the?court?informed?the?jurors?that?it?would?instruct?them?on?how?to?deliberate?after?the?evidence?portion?of?trial.?[54?Cal.3d?841]

This?court?in?the?past?has?used?the?terms?”good”?and?”bad”?evidence?as?shorthand?for?mitigating?and?aggravating?evidence.?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?541-542,?fn.?13.)?To?do?the?same?during?jury?selection?does?no?harm?as?long?as?the?jurors?are?aware-as?these?were-that?the?complete?instructions?which?they?had?to?follow?would?be?given?at?the?end?of?the?trial.?If?defendant?wanted?the?court?to?give?a?fuller?explanation?during?jury?selection,?he?should?have?requested?it.?(See?People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?902?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282],?and?cases?cited?therein.)?He?did?not?do?so.

  1. Instructions?on?the?Deliberative?Process

In?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?page?544,?footnote?17,?we?found?that?the?then-standard?jury?instructions?on?the?deliberative?process?were?potentially?misleading.?For?the?future?guidance?of?the?trial?courts,?we?stated?that?a?proposed?modification?of?the?standard?instruction?”would?conform?to?our?opinion.”?(Id.?at?p.?545,?fn.?19.)?The?court?in?this?case?instructed?the?jury?in?language?substantially?identical?to?that?approved?in?Brown.fn.?12?Now?defendant?contends?that?the?Brown?instruction?is?incorrect?and?misleading.?We?have?already?rejected?such?contentions.?(People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1243-1244;?People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955,?977-979?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131];?People?v.?Cox,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?679-680.)

  1. Instruction?on?Evaluation?of?Mitigating?Factors
[39]?The?court?gave?a?”catch-all”?mitigation?instruction?substantially?identical?to?that?recommended?in?People?v.?Easley?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?858,?878,?footnote?10?[196?Cal.Rptr.?309,?671?P.2d?813].?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?refusing?to?give?an?additional?instruction.fn.?13The?Easley?instruction,?however,?is?sufficient?to?advise?the?jury?of?the?full?range?of?[54?Cal.3d?842]?mitigating?evidence,?and?nothing?more?is?required.?(People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1244-1245;?see?also?People?v.?Malone?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?1,?54-55?&?fn.?30?[252?Cal.Rptr.?525,?762?P.2d?1249]?[trial?court?properly?refused?the?same?instruction].)?Indeed,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?upheld?an?arguably?narrower?instruction.?(Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370,?377-383?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?327-331,?110?S.Ct.?1190,?1196-?1199].)

[40]?Defendant?also?contends?the?court?erred?in?refusing?his?request?to?instruct?the?jury,?”If?you?determine?that?the?aggravating?factors?substantially?outweigh?the?mitigating?factors,?you?may?return?a?finding?of?death?or?a?finding?of?life?in?prison?without?the?possibility?of?parole.”?(Italics?added.)?In?Boyde?v.?California,?supra,?494?U.S.?at?page?376-377?[108?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?326,?110?S.Ct.?at?pp.?1195-1196],?the?high?court?upheld?an?almost?diametrically?opposite?instruction-that?the?jury?”shall?impose”?the?death?penalty?if?it?concluded?that?the?aggravating?circumstances?outweigh?the?mitigating?circumstances.?We?expressed?misgivings?about?the?word?”shall”?in?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?pages?544-545,?and?footnote?17,?and?recommended?that?future?courts?instruct?as?was?done?in?this?case.?We?have?never?suggested?the?instruction?now?urged?was?required.?The?Brown?instruction?was?sufficient.

  1. Instruction?on?Circumstantial?Evidence?and?Reasonable?Doubt
[41]?The?court?refused?defendant’s?request?to?instruct?that?the?jury?could?not?draw?any?inference?based?on?circumstantial?evidence?unless?the?underlying?facts?were?proven?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?and?the?inference?is?the?only?reasonable?one.?(See?CALJIC?No.?2.01.)?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred.

The?contention?fails?for?two?reasons.?First,?the?prosecution?did?not?substantially?rely?on?circumstantial?evidence?for?proof?of?guilt.?(People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367,?406?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221].)?More?fundamentally,?the?reasonable?doubt?instruction?was?inappropriate?at?the?penalty?phase.?At?a?penalty?phase,?unlike?the?guilt?phase,?the?jury?does?not?engage?in?factfinding?as?such,?but?rather?determines?the?appropriate?penalty?for?the?crime?or?crimes?of?which?the?defendant?has?already?been?convicted.?Although?other?crimes?must?be?proven?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?before?they?can?be?considered?in?aggravation?(People?v.?Davenport?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?247,?280-281?[221?Cal.Rptr.?794,?710?P.2d?861]),?none?was?offered?in?this?case.?Aggravating?factors?other?than?criminal?activity?need?not?be?proven?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?before?the?jury?may?consider?them.

In?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-?779?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113],?we?rejected?the?claim?that?a?valid?death?penalty?law?must?[54?Cal.3d?843]?require?”proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?of?any?…?aggravating?factors?….”?(Id.?at?p.?777.)?As?we?explained,?”instructions?like?those?discussed?in?[People?v.]?Brown?[,supra,?40?Cal.3d?512,?and?given?in?this?case]?are?better?suited?to?the?normative?task?of?sentencing?than?are?admonitions,?such?as?those?urged?by?appellant,?which?speak?in?terms?associated?with?traditional?factfinding.”?(42?Cal.3d?at?p.?779.)

  1. “Lingering?Doubt”?Instruction
[42]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?failing?to?instruct?that?the?jury?could?consider?a?lingering?doubt?as?to?premeditation?or?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?in?its?penalty?determination.?Although?defendant?claims?otherwise,?he?did?not?request?such?an?instruction?at?trial.fn.?14?The?issue?is?thus?whether?there?is?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?give?such?an?instruction.?There?is?not.?(People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?1245;?People?v.?Cox,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?675-679.)

  1. Instruction?to?View?Defendant’s?Admissions?With?Caution
[43]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?his?admissions?should?be?viewed?with?caution.?As?at?the?guilt?phase,?Deputy?Allen?testified?at?the?penalty?phase?that?defendant?told?him,?”Off?the?record,?I’m?guilty.?I?don’t?know?why?I?shot?those?two?little?girls.?But?I’m?guilty?as?sin.?I’m?depressed?about?what?I?put?their?families?through.”

Assuming?the?instruction?applies?to?the?penalty?phase?(see?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?569),?its?omission?could?not?have?prejudiced?defendant.?”The?purpose?of?the?cautionary?instruction?is?to?assist?the?jury?in?determining?if?the?statement?was?in?fact?made.”?(People?v.?Beagle?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?441,?456?[99?Cal.Rptr.?313,?492?P.2d?1].)?Although?the?inferences?to?be?drawn?from?defendant’s?statement?were?disputed,?there?was?no?claim?that?the?statement?was?not?made?or?was?not?accurately?reported.?(Ibid.)?Indeed,?defense?counsel,?arguing?in?mitigation,?stressed?that?the?precise?words?defendant?used?were?”an?admission?of?a?man?with?a?very?tortured?soul.”

The?defense?did?not?dispute?that?defendant?shot?the?girls.?Telling?the?jury?to?view?his?words?with?caution?might?have?been?more?damaging?to?the?defense?than?to?the?prosecution.?[45]?(See?fn.?15.)?There?is?no?reasonable?[54?Cal.3d?844]?possibility?that?the?failure?to?give?the?cautionary?instruction?affected?the?penalty?verdict.?(People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?448-449?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].)fn.?15

  1. Instruction?on?Age
[45]?Defendant?contends?the?court?should?have?deleted?age?as?a?factor?for?the?jury?to?consider.?We?have?rejected?the?contention.?(People?v.?Beardslee,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?112;?People?v.?Lucky?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?259,?301-?302?[247?Cal.Rptr.?1,?753?P.2d?1052].)?Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?age?has?not?been?”manipulated?into?an?all?purpose?sentencing?aggravator.”?In?a?given?case,?the?prosecution?may?argue?age?is?an?aggravating?factor,?and?the?defense?may?argue?it?is?mitigating.?It?is?up?to?the?jury?to?decide.?That?is?the?nature?of?the?adversarial?process.

  1. Instruction?on?the?Reasons?for?the?Penalty?Retrial

At?the?beginning?of?the?penalty?phase?jury?selection,?defendant?asked?the?court?to?inform?the?jury?”that?there?has?been?a?prior?trial?but?that?no?verdict?on?death?was?reached.”?Defense?counsel?expressed?the?concern?that,?given?the?length?of?time?between?the?crime?and?the?trial,?the?jurors?might?think?that?a?prior?death?verdict?had?been?”overturned?by?the?Supreme?Court,?which?I?think?the?court?is?well?aware?in?today’s?climate?would?probably?go?against?my?client.”?The?court?informed?the?first?jury?panel?only?that?defendant?previously?had?been?found?guilty?of?murder?with?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait,?and?that?the?new?jury?would?determine?the?penalty.?The?court?did?tell?the?second?panel?that?the?first?jury?was?unable?to?reach?a?penalty?verdict.?Some,?but?not?all,?of?the?actual?jurors?heard?this?latter?statement.?At?the?outset?of?his?argument?to?the?jury,?defense?counsel?told?the?entire?jury,?without?objection,?that?the?first?jury?had?been?unable?to?reach?a?penalty?verdict.

[46]?Defendant?argues?that?at?the?time?of?the?penalty?retrial,?the?summer?of?1986,?a?confirmation?election?campaign?was?underway?involving?members?of?this?court,?and?”emotion?and?rhetoric?ran?high,?focussing?attention?particularly?on?this?Court’s?treatment?of?death?penalty?appeals.”?He?contends?the?trial?court?should?have?instructed?the?jury?”that?the?retrial?was?not?the?result?of?a?California?Supreme?Court?reversal,?and?dispel[led]?the?prejudice?and?emotion?surrounding?the?proceeding.”?He?understandably?does?not?argue?the?trial?court?should?have?informed?the?jury?of?the?entire?history?of?the?case,?[54?Cal.3d?845]?including?that?a?second?jury?did?return?a?verdict?of?death?but?that?the?verdict?was?set?aside?because?of?a?decision?of?this?court?rendered?the?very?day?of?the?verdict.?(See?ante,?at?p.?804.)

This?court?has?recently?twice?confronted?the?reverse?contention,?that?the?trial?court?erroneously?told?the?jury?that?we?had?overturned?an?earlier?death?verdict?in?the?case.?(People?v.?Anderson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?453,?466-469?[276?Cal.Rptr.?356,?801?P.2d?1107];?People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?pp.?639-?641.)?We?found?no?error?in?those?cases,?but?have?never?suggested?that?the?trial?court?is?required?to?inform?the?jury?of?the?history?of?the?prior?proceedings,?and?certainly?not?a?partial?history.?In?any?event,?the?court’s?comments?to?the?second?panel?and?defense?counsel’s?argument?effectively?informed?the?jury?that?the?first?jury?had?been?unable?to?reach?a?penalty?verdict.?There?is?no?basis?even?for?speculation?that?the?jury’s?verdict?might?have?resulted?from?resentment?over?some?presumed?reversal?by?this?court.

  1. Lying-in-wait?Instruction
[47]?The?court?did?not?originally?instruct?the?penalty?jury?on?the?elements?of?the?special?circumstance.?During?deliberations,?the?jury?asked?for?the?definition?of?”lying?in?wait.”?The?court?gave?the?then-standard?lying-in-wait?instruction,?which?differed?somewhat?from?the?one?the?court?gave?at?the?guilt?trial.fn.?16?Defendant?objected?to?both?lying-in-wait?instructions,?but,?if?either?were?given,?he?preferred?the?one?which?the?court?gave.

Defendant?reiterates?the?arguments?regarding?lying?in?wait?which?we?have?previously?rejected.?(Ante,?at?pt.?II.?B.?1.?a.)?In?addition,?contrary?to?his?position?at?trial,?he?now?asserts?the?new?instruction?(and?the?current?standard?instruction,?see?CALJIC?No.?8.81.15?(5th?ed.?1989))?was?”[w]orse”?than?the?previous?instruction?in?that?the?”mens?rea?only?had?to?be?equivalent?to?’premeditation?or?deliberation.’?”?(Italics?by?defendant.)?This?was?not?error.?(People?v.?Ruiz?(1988)44?Cal.3d?589,?614-615?[244?Cal.Rptr.?200,?749?P.2d?854].)?[54?Cal.3d?846]?j.?Refusal?to?Instruct?That?Absence?of?a?Mitigating?Factor?Is?Not?Necessarily?an?Aggravating?Factor

[48]?The?court?refused?defendant’s?request?to?instruct?the?jury,?”The?absence?of?a?statutory?mitigating?factor?does?not?necessarily?constitute?an?aggravating?factor.”?Defendant?contends?this?was?error.?However,?use?of?the?word?”necessarily”?would?itself?have?been?potentially?misleading.?(People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?769?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741].)?In?addition,?the?instruction?had?little?relevance?to?this?case.?At?defense?request,?the?court?deleted?from?the?instructions?the?assertedly?inapplicable?mitigating?factors?(unnecessarily,?see?People?v.?Malone,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?47).?Although?the?prosecutor?properly?discussed?the?absence?of?certain?mitigating?evidence,?and?argued?that?age?was?an?aggravating?factor,?no?one?suggested?the?mere?absence?of?mitigating?factors?was?itself?aggravating.?There?was?no?error.

  1. Other?Instructions

Defendant?raises?other?instructional?issues?involving?reasonable?doubt?and?the?burden?of?proof?that?we?have?repeatedly?rejected.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?777-779.)?We?adhere?to?our?prior?decisions.

  1. Accumulated?Error

Defendant?contends?the?cumulative?effect?of?the?alleged?errors?requires?reversal?of?the?penalty?verdict.?There?was,?however,?little?error?to?accumulate.?After?reviewing?the?record,?we?find?no?reasonable?possibility?any?error?affected?the?penalty?verdict.?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?448-449.)

  1. Automatic?Motion?to?Modify?Death?Verdict
[49a]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?his?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?verdict?under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e).?[50]?The?court?must?independently?reweigh?the?evidence?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?and?then?determine?whether,?in?the?court’s?independent?judgment,?the?weight?of?the?evidence?supports?the?jury?verdict.?It?must?set?forth?its?reasons?with?sufficient?particularity?to?allow?effective?appellate?review.?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?970.)?The?record?reveals?the?court?understood?and?fully?executed?its?responsibilities.

[49b]?At?defense?request,?the?court?followed?an?unusual?procedure?in?this?case.?It?allowed?the?defense?to?present?a?substantial?amount?of?new?[54?Cal.3d?847]?expert?testimony.?Thereafter,?it?denied?the?section?190.4?motion,?expressly?considering?only?the?evidence?presented?to?the?jury.?Defendant?then?moved?under?sections?1181?and?1385?to?reduce?the?sentence?in?light?of?the?new?evidence.?The?court?expressed?doubt?that?it?had?authority?to?consider?such?a?motion,?but?assumed?it?did?and?denied?the?motion.?It?found?the?additional?expert?testimony?not?very?helpful?to?the?defense.?Defendant?challenges?these?rulings?on?a?host?of?grounds.

Defendant?first?contends?the?court?did?not?fully?consider?the?mitigating?evidence.?He?pulls?from?context?a?statement?that?the?mitigating?factors?”do?not?extenuate?the?gravity?of?the?crime,”?points?out?that?the?court?used?the?statutory?word?”extreme”?in?discussing?one?of?the?statutory?factors,?and?claims?the?court?did?not?recognize?the?full?range?of?mitigating?evidence?it?had?to?consider.?We?rejected?a?similar?claim?in?People?v.?Siripongs?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?548,?585?[247?Cal.Rptr.?729,?754?P.2d?1306].?As?noted?above?(ante,?at?pt.?II.?C.?5.?c.),?the?court?correctly?gave?the?”catch-all”?instruction?on?mitigating?evidence?recommended?in?People?v.?Easley,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?at?page?878,?footnote?10.?The?court’s?discussion?as?a?whole?showed?an?awareness?it?had?to?independently?reweigh?all?the?evidence,?including?the?mitigating?evidence.?(See?Siripongs,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?585.)?The?court?did?not?fail?to?consider?any?mitigating?evidence;?rather,?it?found?that?the?”aggravating?circumstances?far?outweigh?…?the?mitigating?circumstances.”

Defendant?next?contends?the?court?improperly?treated?the?absence?of?a?mitigating?factor?as?an?aggravating?factor.?The?record?does?not?support?the?claim.?Indeed,?the?court?expressly?stated?that?the?prosecution?had?offered?no?aggravating?evidence?other?than?the?facts?of?the?crime.?It?merely?commented?on?the?absence?of?certain?mitigating?factors,?which?was?proper.?(People?v.?Siripongs,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?585.)

Defendant?also?contends?the?court?improperly?considered?the?probation?report?in?its?modification?ruling.?(See?People?v.?Lewis?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?262,?287?[266?Cal.Rptr.?834,?786?P.2d?892].)?On?the?contrary,?the?court?stated?that,?for?purposes?of?the?section?190.4?motion,?it?had?”disregarded?any?evidence?other?than?that?which?was?presented?to?the?jury?at?the?penalty?hearing?….”

Defendant?also?argues?that?the?court?improperly?refused?to?consider?the?new?evidence?he?presented?at?the?modification?hearing.?The?modification?hearing?is,?however,?limited?to?consideration?of?the?evidence?presented?to?the?jury.?(People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?942?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676].)?In?any?event,?after?it?denied?the?automatic?motion?to?modify,?the?court?assumed?defendant?had?the?right?to?present?new?evidence,?and?denied?a?new?motion?to?modify?based?upon?that?evidence.?[54?Cal.3d?848]

Defendant?disputes?some?of?the?factual?points?the?court?made?in?the?course?of?these?rulings.?Our?review?of?the?record?shows?the?court?was?generally?accurate.?Any?misstatements?were?minor;?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?they?affected?the?rulings.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?812.)

Defendant?finally?contends?the?denial?of?the?motion?to?modify?was?inconsistent?with?earlier?actions?of?the?court.?Before?the?third?trial,?the?court?wrote?that?it?”believes?that?an?appropriate?disposition?of?the?Edwards?case?would?be?to?impose?a?sentence?of?life?in?prison?without?the?possibility?of?parole,?with?defendant?waiving?his?right?to?appeal.”?The?stated?reason?was?that?an?appellate?court?might?find?that?for?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance,?there?must?be?physical?concealment?of?presence,?which?was?not?present?in?this?case.?Thus?the?court?suggested?a?compromise,?which?was?not?accepted.?It?is?now?settled?that?there?need?not?be?physical?concealment?of?presence.

Defendant?argues?that?once?the?court?suggested?the?compromise?settlement,?due?process?and?the?Eighth?Amendment?prohibit?a?death?verdict.?We?disagree.?The?court?believed?the?case?raised?a?difficult?legal?question?that?might?result?in?reversal?and?a?possible?fourth?trial.?It?never?found?the?death?penalty?factually?inappropriate.?An?offer?to?dispose?of?a?case?by?a?negotiated?plea?does?not?preclude?an?ultimate?sentence?more?severe?than?that?offered,?including?death.?(Bundy?v.?Dugger?(11th?Cir.?1988)?850?F.2d?1402,?1423?[offer?of?a?life?sentence?before?trial?does?not?preclude?ultimate?imposition?of?the?death?penalty];?People?v.?Szeto?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?20,?35?[171?Cal.Rptr.?652,?623?P.2d?213]?[more?severe?sentence?after?trial?than?offered?before?trial?in?noncapital?case?upheld].)

As?in?Francis?v.?Dugger?(S.D.Fla.?1988)?697?F.Supp.?472,?479,?affirmed?(11th?Cir.?1990)?908?F.2d?696,?705-706,?certiorari?denied?(1991)?___?U.S.?___?[114?L.Ed.2d?90,?111?S.Ct.?1696],?”the?trial?judge?imposed?the?death?penalty?after?fully?considering?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?and?the?jury’s?recommendation,?and?he?set?forth?in?a?clear?fashion?his?reasons?for?the?death?sentence.”?There?was?no?error.

  1. Propriety?of?the?Death?Sentence

Defendant?reiterates?constitutional?challenges?to?the?1978?death?penalty?law?which?we?have?long?since?rejected,?and?which?we?continue?to?reject.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?777-779.)

[52]?He?also?contends?that?as?applied?to?him?the?death?sentence?is?”arbitrary,?discriminatory?and?disproportionate.”?We?disagree.?Defendant?[54?Cal.3d?849]?carefully?selected?as?his?victims?two?12-year-old?girls,?who?were?of?no?possible?threat?to?him,?and?who?should?have?had?their?entire?lives?ahead?of?them.?He?shot?one?victim?between?the?eyes,?killing?her,?and?shot?the?second?in?the?head,?fortunately?only?wounding?her.?The?evidence?supports?the?trial?court’s?assessment?that?the?crime?was?an?”intended?execution?and?the?defendant?did?not?intend?to?leave?any?survivors.?[?]?The?lying?in?wait?in?this?case?was?a?procedure?that?the?defendant?intentionally?used?to?accomplish?bringing?the?two?girls?into?such?close?range?unsuspecting?and?without?warning?so?that?he?could?hardly?miss.?Neither?one,?neither?girl?would?have?time?to?run,?to?duck,?or?to?scream?even.”?Under?these?facts,?the?death?sentence?is?not?”?’?”so?disproportionate?to?the?crime?…?that?it?shocks?the?conscience?and?offends?fundamental?notions?of?human?dignity.”?’?”?(People?v.?Cox,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?690,?quoting?People?v.?Frierson?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?142,?183?[158?Cal.Rptr.?281,?599?P.2d?587]?(plur.?opn.?by?Richardson,?J.),?italics?omitted.)

III.?Conclusion

The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety.

Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.

KENNARD,?J.,

Concurring.

I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?imposing?the?death?penalty,?but?I?am?unable?to?join?that?portion?of?the?majority?opinion?discussing?the?admissibility?of?victim?impact?evidence.?I?agree?that?the?evidence?at?issue?in?this?case-photographs?of?the?victims-was?properly?admitted?at?the?penalty?phase.?But?I?see?no?justification?for?the?majority?opinion’s?expansive?dicta?about?the?admissibility?of?victim?impact?evidence?in?general.

Under?our?state?law,?Penal?Code?section?190.3?governs?the?scope?of?permissible?evidence?and?argument?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?prosecution.?Factor?(a)?of?that?section?permits?evidence?and?argument?about?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime.”?Whatever?the?outer?boundaries?of?that?concept?may?be,?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?must?include?the?events?that?make?up?the?crime?itself?and?facts?about?the?victim?known?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crime.

In?this?case,?the?evidence?showed?that?defendant?saw?the?victims?before?he?shot?them.?Because?the?victims’?physical?appearance?was?a?fact?about?the?victims?known?to?defendant?when?he?committed?the?crimes,?it?was?one?of?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?as?that?phrase?is?used?in?factor?(a)?of?Penal?Code?section?190.3.?The?photographs?in?question?were?offered?to?show,?and?did?show,?the?physical?appearance?of?the?two?victims?at?the?time?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?850]?crimes.?Because?the?photographs?showed?what?defendant?saw?while?he?committed?the?crimes,?they?were?admissible?to?demonstrate?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime.”

The?prosecution’s?use?of?this?evidence?is?in?no?way?contrary?to?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution.?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?always?held?that?the?Eighth?Amendment?permits,?and?indeed?requires,?that?the?sentencing?decision?in?a?capital?case?be?based?at?least?in?part?on?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?(see?Zant?v.?Stephens?(1983)?462?U.S.?862,?879?[77?L.Ed.2d?235,?251,?103?S.Ct.?2733])?and?it?has?recently?held?as?well?that?the?Eighth?Amendment?erects?no?per?se?bar,?at?the?sentencing?phase?of?a?capital?case,?to?evidence?and?argument?about?the?victims’?individual?characteristics.?(Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?736,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2609].)

The?majority?purports?to?hold?that?”factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?allows?evidence?and?argument?on?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant,?including?the?impact?on?the?family?of?the?victim.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?835.)?There?can?be?no?such?holding?in?this?case?because?”?’the?language?of?an?opinion?must?be?construed?with?reference?to?the?facts?presented?by?the?case,?and?the?positive?authority?of?a?decision?is?coextensive?only?with?such?facts.’?”?(Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?711,?734-735?[257?Cal.Rptr.?708,?771?P.2d?406],?quoting?River?Farms?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(1933)?131?Cal.App.?365,?369?[21?P.2d?643].)?This?appeal?presents?no?issue?about?the?propriety?of?evidence?or?argument?on?the?impact?of?a?capital?crime?on?the?victim’s?family,?or?the?propriety?of?evidence?or?argument?offered?only?to?show?the?”specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant,”?and?so?there?can?be?no?holding?on?those?issues.?Their?resolution?must?await?a?case?that?actually?presents?them.

MOSK,?J.,

Concurring?and?Dissenting.

I?concur?in?the?judgment?as?to?guilt.?After?review,?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal.

I?dissent?from?the?judgment?as?to?penalty.?For?the?reasons?stated?in?my?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?in?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?574-575?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244],?I?believe?that?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?of?the?1978?death?penalty?law?is?invalid?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?Lying?in?wait?was?the?only?special?circumstance?alleged?and?found?true?in?this?case.?Because?it?should?be?vacated?on?federal?constitutional?grounds,?the?verdict?of?death?should?be?set?aside?as?unsupported.

Although?I?need?not?consider?any?other?issue?bearing?on?penalty?in?this?particular?case,?I?write?further?to?address?a?question?of?general?and?substantial?[54?Cal.3d?851]?importance?to?the?jurisprudence?of?capital?punishment?in?California:?Does?the?1978?death?penalty?law?allow?the?introduction?of?so-?called?”victim?impact”?evidence?

I?shall?begin,?where?I?must,?with?the?language?of?the?1978?death?penalty?law.?Its?background?is?this.

In?1977,?the?Legislature?enacted?Senate?Bill?No.?155,?1977-1978?Regular?Session.?(Stats.?1977,?ch.?316,???1?et?seq.,?p.?1255?et?seq.)?This?statute,?among?other?things,?repealed?Penal?Code?section?190?et?seq.?as?those?provisions?then?stood,?and?added?new?provisions?in?their?place.?This?was?the?1977?death?penalty?law.

At?the?November?7,?1978,?General?Election,?the?people?enacted?a?statute?when?they?approved?an?initiative?denominated?on?the?ballot?as?Proposition?7.?This?statute,?in?its?turn,?repealed?Penal?Code?section?190?et?seq.?as?those?provisions?stood?under?Senate?Bill?No.?155,?and?added?new?provisions?in?their?place.?This?is?the?1978?death?penalty?law.

Now?to?the?relevant?statutory?language.?Penal?Code?section?190.3?declares?in?pertinent?part?that?”In?the?proceedings?on?the?question?of?penalty,?evidence?may?be?presented?by?both?the?people?and?the?defendant?as?to?any?matter?relevant?to?aggravation,?mitigation,?and?sentence?including,?but?not?limited?to,?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?present?offense,?any?prior?felony?conviction?or?convictions?whether?or?not?such?conviction?or?convictions?involved?a?crime?of?violence,?the?presence?or?absence?of?other?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?which?involved?the?use?or?attempted?use?of?force?or?violence?or?which?involved?the?express?or?implied?threat?to?use?force?or?violence,?and?the?defendant’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”fn.?1

This?language?of?Penal?Code?section?190.3?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?evidently?derives?directly?from?former?Penal?Code?section?190.3?under?the?1977?death?penalty?law.?It?is?virtually?identical?to?its?predecessor?except?for?added?words?dealing?with?prior?felony?convictions.?(Compare?Pen.?Code,???190.3?with?Pen.?Code,?former???190.3,?Stats.?1977,?ch.?316,???11,?pp.?1258-1259.)fn.?2?[54?Cal.3d?852]

In?People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?772-?776?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782],?we?construed?the?1978?death?penalty?law?to?allow?the?introduction?of?only?such?evidence?as?is?relevant?to?one?or?more?of?the?following?issues:?(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?mitigating?matter.

I?return?to?the?question?whether?the?1978?death?penalty?law?allows?the?introduction?of?”victim?impact”?evidence.?At?the?outset,?it?is?necessary?to?define?the?scope?of?the?evidence?and?the?coverage?of?the?law.

First,?the?scope?of?”victim?impact”?evidence.?In?its?broadest?definition,?evidence?of?this?sort?appears?to?embrace?four?matters:?(1)?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim;?(2)?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics;?(3)?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?(and?perhaps?others);?and?(4)?the?opinions?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal?held?by?family?members?(and?perhaps?others).?(See?generally?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___-___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?726-739,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2601-2611],?overruling?in?part?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496,?502-509?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?448-452,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?and?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)490?U.S.?805,?810-812?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?882-883,?109?S.Ct.?2207]?[each?of?the?three?decisions?referring?wholly?or?mainly?to?the?second,?third?and?fourth?matters];?People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?796-797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330]?[referring?to?all?four?matters];?People?v.?Haskett?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?841,?863-864?[180?Cal.Rptr.?640,?640?P.2d?776]?[referring?to?the?first?matter].)

Next,?the?coverage?of?the?1978?death?penalty?law.?The?only?issue?as?to?which?”victim?impact”?evidence?may?possibly?be?relevant?is,?of?course,?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?But?to?what?does?this?phrase?refer??The?answer?cannot?come?from?an?abstract?consideration?of?the?dictionary?definitions?of?the?individual?words.fn.?3?Rather,?it?entails?an?inquiry?into?the?intent?of?the?people?when?they?enacted?the?present?statute?by?approving?Proposition?[54?Cal.3d?853]?7-and?ultimately?into?the?intent?of?the?Legislature?when?it?enacted?Senate?Bill?No.?155,?the?direct?source?of?the?operative?language.

To?give?its?clear?words?their?plain?meaning,?the?phrase?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?evidently?refers?to?such?facts?as?are?”part”?of?the?crime?itself-including,?for?example,?the?manner?in?which?the?actus?reus?was?performed?and?the?motive?that?underlay?the?mens?rea.?Put?differently,?it?relates,?as?it?were,?to?what?journalism?would?call?the?”who,?what,?where,?when,?and?why”?of?the?offense.

The?same?meaning?arises?from?the?relevant?legal?context.

In?Gregg?v.?Georgia?(1976)?428?U.S.?153,?189?[49?L.Ed.2d?859,?883,?96?S.Ct.?2909],?one?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court’s?landmark?capital?punishment?decisions,?the?plurality?opinion?of?Justices?Stewart,?Powell,?and?Stevens?quoted?from?the?opinion?of?the?court?in?Pennsylvania?v.?Ashe?(1937)?302?U.S.?51,?55?[82?L.Ed.?43,?46,?58?S.Ct.?59],?to?declare?that?”?'[f]or?the?determination?of?sentences,?justice?generally?requires?…?that?there?be?taken?into?account?the?circumstances?of?the?offense?together?with?the?character?and?propensities?of?the?offender.’?”?(Italics?added.)?The?italicized?phrase?is?not?expressly?defined.?Its?meaning,?however,?is?suggested?by?the?case?law?from?which?Ashe?evidently?drew?the?words:?it?refers-unsurprisingly-to?such?facts?as?are?part?of?the?crime?itself.?(Note?(1990)?56?Brooklyn?L.Rev.?1045,?1073-1076.)

It?is?reasonable?to?conclude?that?such?a?definition?was?intended?by?the?Legislature?in?enacting?Senate?Bill?No.?155.?Gregg?stood?immediately?behind?the?statute?and?informed?its?substance.?(See?People?v.?Frierson?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?142,?172-184?[158?Cal.Rptr.?281,?599?P.2d?587]?(plur.?opn.);?see?also?Rockwell?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?18?Cal.3d?420,?426-445?[134?Cal.Rptr.?650,?556?P.2d?1101].)?It?is?also?reasonable?to?conclude?that?the?same?definition?was?intended?by?the?people?in?enacting?the?present?statute?through?their?approval?of?Proposition?7.?Gregg?was?present?and?influential?there?as?well.?(See?People?v.?Frierson,?supra,?at?pp.?172-184?(plur.?opn.);?see?also?Rockwell?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?at?pp.?426-445.)?Further,?the?pertinent?language?of?the?initiative?derives?directly?from?the?statute.

In?view?of?the?foregoing,?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?should?be?deemed?to?include?such?facts?as?are?part?of?the?crime?itself.

It?is?sometimes?argued?that?the?phrase?in?question?can?be?read,?in?the?abstract,?to?reach?”victim?impact”?evidence?in?its?broadest?definition.?But?I?cannot?conclude?that?the?people?intended?such?coverage.?[54?Cal.3d?854]

To?be?sure,?in?1978?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim?himself?appears?to?have?been?firmly?accepted?as?a?factor?bearing?on?penalty.?(See,?e.g.,?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?former?Div.?I-A,?Sentencing?Rules?for?the?Superior?Courts,?adopted?eff.?July?1,?1977,?now?Div.?III,?renumbered?eff.?Jan.?1,?1984?(hereafter?Cal.?Rules?of?Court),?former?rule?421(a)(1)?[“Circumstances?in?aggravation?include”?”[f]acts?relating?to?the?crime,?including?the?fact?that”?”[t]he?crime?involved?great?violence,?great?bodily?harm,?threat?of?great?bodily?harm,?or?other?acts?disclosing?a?high?degree?of?cruelty,?viciousness?or?callousness?….”].)

But?by?1978,?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?and?others,?and?the?opinions?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal?held?by?such?persons?had?not?yet?received?acceptance?as?penalty?factors.?(See,?e.g.,?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?supra,?former?rule?421?[not?including?such?matters?among?the?defined?”[c]ircumstances?in?aggravation”?either?expressly?or?impliedly].)?Indeed,?they?began?to?receive?some?recognition?only?in?the?early?1980’s.?(Hudson,?The?Crime?Victim?and?the?Criminal?Justice?System:?Time?for?A?Change?(1984)?11?Pepperdine?L.Rev.-Symposium-23,?51-53;?see?Payne?v.?Tennessee,?supra,?501?U.S.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?533,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2606]?[stating?that?”the?admission?of?this?particular?kind?of?evidence?…?is?of?recent?origin”].)

Significant?in?this?regard?is?the?leading?case?of?People?v.?Bernette?(1964)?30?Ill.2d?359?[197?N.E.2d.?436].?There,?the?Illinois?Supreme?Court?reversed?a?judgment?of?death?because?of?the?erroneous?introduction?of?what?is?now?called?”victim?impact”?evidence.?In?so?doing,?it?declared:?”[T]his?court?has?consistently?condemned?the?admission?of?evidence?that?the?deceased?left?a?spouse?and?a?family,?inasmuch?as?such?evidence?has?no?relationship?to?…?the?punishment?to?be?inflicted?upon?[the?defendant],?but?serves?ordinarily?only?to?prejudice?him?in?the?eyes?of?the?jury.”?(Id.?at?p.?371?[197?N.Ed.2d?at?p.?443].)

Therefore,?in?its?broadest?definition?”victim?impact”?evidence?was?novel?when?the?people?considered?Proposition?7.?There?is?no?basis?to?conclude?that?evidence?of?this?sort?was?within?contemplation.?There?is?less?basis?still?to?conclude?that?it?would?have?been?permitted.?Clearly,?those?who?drafted?the?initiative?desired?to?assure?its?constitutionality.?(See?Ballot?Pamp.,?Proposed?Stats.?and?Amends.?to?Cal.?Const.?with?arguments?to?voters,?Gen.?Elec.?(Nov.?7,?1978),?rebuttal?to?argument?against?Prop.?7,?p.?35.)?Presumably,?those?who?voted?for?the?measure?shared?that?desire.?If?constitutionality?was?the?end,?novelty?was?not?the?means.?In?his?briefing?on?the?People’s?behalf?in?this?appeal,?the?Attorney?General?effectively?concedes?the?point:?”California?law?does?not?allow?the?full?measure?of?victim?impact?information?….”?[54?Cal.3d?855]

Now?I?address?the?question?whether?the?1978?death?penalty?law?allows?the?introduction?of?”victim?impact”?evidence.?The?circumstances?of?the?crime?constitute?the?only?issue?as?to?which?evidence?of?this?sort?may?possibly?be?relevant.?They?include?such?facts?as?are?part?of?the?crime?itself.?Plainly,?they?embrace?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim?himself.?He?is?the?very?focus?of?the?defendant’s?act?and?intent.?Just?as?plainly,?they?generally?do?not?reach?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?and?others,?and?the?opinions?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal?held?by?such?persons.?Typically,?these?facts?are?not?part?of?the?crime.

The?majority?conclude?that?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?embrace?”the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant,?including?the?impact?on?the?family?of?the?victim.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?835.)?To?the?extent?they?hold?that?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim?himself?is?material,?I?agree.?Otherwise,?I?do?not.?My?analysis?has?shown?that?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?is?generally?immaterial.

Indeed,?just?a?year?ago?in?People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1266-1267?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251],?we?concluded?unanimously?that?”the?only?circumstances?material?to?the?determination?of?penalty?[under?the?1978?death?penalty?law]?are?those?defined?in?Penal?Code?section?190.3?….?In?the?general?case?…?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?is?not?relevant?to?any?material?circumstance.”

The?majority?now?assert?that?what?they?call?Gordon’s?”assumption”?”is?suspect?in?light?of”?People?v.?Haskett,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?841,?863-864,?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?536-537?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640],?and?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?754,?796-797,?and?”was?largely?based?on?Booth?and?Gathers.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?835.)?They?are?wrong.?First,?Haskett?holds?only?that?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?under?the?1977?death?penalty?law?embraces?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?the?victim?himself;?Douglas?and?Benson?do?not?even?address?a?statutory?issue.?Second,?in?part?pertinent?here?Gordon?was?based?solely?on?the?1978?death?penalty?law?and,?specifically,?Penal?Code?section?190.3-and?not?at?all?on?Booth?or?Gathers.?The?opinion?speaks?for?itself.

With?the?foregoing?in?mind,?let?me?briefly?consider?the?”victim?impact”?issues?raised?in?this?case.

First,?the?admission?of?the?photographs?of?the?victims?before?the?attack-Kelly?Cartier,?who?survived,?and?Vanessa?Iberri,?who?did?not.?There?was?no?error.?The?evidence?was?relevant?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?It?bore?on?[54?Cal.3d?856]?facts?that?were?part?of?the?crime?itself:?it?revealed?the?crime’s?effect?on?the?girls?by?revealing?the?girls?themselves.

Second,?the?prosecutor’s?summation,?which?touched?on?the?effect?of?the?crime?on?Kelly?and?on?Vanessa’s?family.?Of?course,?one?cannot?present?argument?on?issues?that?are?not?material.?The?comment?about?Kelly?was?not?misconduct.?It?related?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?because?it?bore?on?facts?that?were?part?of?the?crime?itself,?specifically,?the?crime’s?effect?on?the?girl.?By?contrast,?the?comment?about?Vanessa’s?family?was?misconduct.?It?did?not?relate?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?Neither?did?it?refer?to?any?other?material?issue.?Reversal,?however,?is?not?warranted?on?this?basis.?The?comment?was?brief?and?neutral.?At?defendant’s?request,?the?trial?court?struck?the?remark?and?admonished?the?jury?not?to?consider?it?in?any?way.?There?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?words?in?question?affected?the?outcome.?(People?v.?Brown?(1988)46?Cal.3d?432,?446-?448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].)

For?the?reasons?stated?above,?I?am?of?the?view?that?the?judgment?should?be?affirmed?as?to?guilt?and?reversed?as?to?penalty.

FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.

FN?2.?Defendant?contends?that?reviewing?the?trial?court’s?factual?determinations?under?the?deferential?substantial-evidence?standard?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?676-677)?violates?the?mandate?of?Maine?v.?Superior?Court?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?375,?382-383?[66?Cal.Rptr.?724,?438?P.2d?372],?that?we?independently?review?the?entire?record?to?satisfy?ourselves?that?the?defendant?received?or?will?receive?a?fair?trial.?On?the?contrary,?we?review?the?entire?record?to?assure?ourselves?that?the?court’s?specific?factual?findings?are?factually?supported,?and?review?the?ultimate?question?de?novo.?As?discussed?in?Bonin,?this?conforms?to?well-?settled?principles?of?appellate?review.?Maine?requires?no?more.

FN?3.?Section?977,?subdivision?(b),?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”In?all?cases?in?which?a?felony?is?charged,?the?accused?must?be?present?at?the?arraignment,?at?the?time?of?plea,?during?the?preliminary?hearing,?during?those?portions?of?the?trial?when?evidence?is?taken?before?the?trier?of?fact,?and?at?the?time?of?the?imposition?of?sentence.?The?accused?shall?be?personally?present?at?all?other?proceedings?unless?he?shall,?with?leave?of?court,?execute?in?open?court,?a?written?waiver?of?his?right?to?be?personally?present,?approved?by?his?counsel,?which?waiver?must?then?be?filed?with?the?court;?provided,?however,?that?the?court?may?specifically?direct?that?defendant?be?personally?present?at?any?particular?proceeding?or?portion?thereof.?The?waiver?shall?be?substantially?in?the?following?form:?[the?form?follows].”

FN?4.?Evidence?Code?Section?1250?provides:

“(a)?Subject?to?Section?1252,?evidence?of?a?statement?of?the?declarant’s?then?existing?state?of?mind,?emotion,?or?physical?sensation?(including?a?statement?of?intent,?plan,?motive,?design,?mental?feeling,?pain,?or?bodily?health)?is?not?made?inadmissible?by?the?hearsay?rule?when:

“(1)?The?evidence?is?offered?to?prove?the?declarant’s?state?of?mind,?emotion,?or?physical?sensation?at?that?time?or?at?any?other?time?when?it?is?itself?an?issue?in?the?action;?or

“(2)?The?evidence?is?offered?to?prove?or?explain?acts?or?conduct?of?the?declarant.

“(b)?This?section?does?not?make?admissible?evidence?of?a?statement?of?memory?or?belief?to?prove?the?fact?remembered?or?believed.”

Evidence?Code?section?1251?provides:

“Subject?to?Section?1252,?evidence?of?a?statement?of?the?declarant’s?state?of?mind,?emotion,?or?physical?sensation?(including?a?statement?of?intent,?plan,?motive,?design,?mental?feeling,?pain,?or?bodily?health)?at?a?time?prior?to?the?statement?is?not?made?inadmissible?by?the?hearsay?rule?if:

“(a)?The?declarant?is?unavailable?as?a?witness;?and

“(b)?The?evidence?is?offered?to?prove?such?prior?state?of?mind,?emotion,?or?physical?sensation?when?it?is?itself?an?issue?in?the?action?and?the?evidence?is?not?offered?to?prove?any?fact?other?than?such?state?of?mind,?emotion,?or?physical?sensation.”

FN?5.?The?court?originally?added?the?phrase?”or?cause?her?great?bodily?harm”?at?this?point.?During?deliberations,?however,?it?expressly?deleted?that?phrase,?and?told?the?jury?it?had?to?find?an?intent?to?kill,?not?merely?to?cause?great?bodily?harm.

FN?6.?When?the?court?reread?these?instructions?during?deliberations,?it?apparently?misspoke,?and?used?the?word?”consideration”?instead?of?”creation.”?This?mistake?could?not?have?prejudiced?defendant.?The?court?correctly?instructed?the?jury?originally,?and?the?prosecutor?correctly?read?this?instruction?in?his?argument?to?the?jury.?(See?People?v.?Heishman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?147,?164?[246?Cal.Rptr.?673,?753?P.2d?629].)

FN?7.?Defendant?also?claims?he?was?given?insufficient?notice?of?the?lying-in-wait?charge.?The?claim?is?specious.?He?was?charged?with?the?statutory?special?circumstance?at?an?early?stage.?He?does?not?claim?he?received?inadequate?discovery.?This?was?sufficient.

FN?8.?Defendant?makes?other?summary?challenges?to?the?instructions.?Since?he?does?not?develop?the?arguments,?and?they?are?specious?in?light?of?the?actual?instructions,?we?reject?them.

FN?9.?The?passage?of?Proposition?115?has?significantly?changed?the?law?in?this?regard.?(Prop.?115,???7,?codified?as?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???223;?see?Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282,?286-287?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434];?Raven?v.?Deukmejian?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?336,?344?[276?Cal.Rptr.?326,?801?P.2d?1077].)?Because?of?our?disposition?of?this?issue,?we?need?not?consider?the?effect?of?the?new?provision?on?this?case.

FN?10.?The?crime?in?Haskett,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?841,?was?committed?under?the?1977?law,?not?the?current?1978?law,?and?hence?was?not?subject?to?the?Boyd?(supra,?38?Cal.3d?762)?restriction.?(See?People?v.?Hovey,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?543,?575.)?However,?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?is?identical?under?both?statutes.?Thus,?to?the?extent?Haskett?interprets?that?factor,?it?is?relevant?to?this?case.

FN?11.?By?quoting?certain?language?out?of?context,?the?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?claims?the?Attorney?General?”effectively?concedes?the?point.”?(Conc.?&?dis.?opn.?by?Mosk,?J.,?post,?at?p.?854.)?The?Attorney?General?went?on?to?state:?”Victim?impact?evidence?which?does?not?relate?to?a?statutory?aggravating?circumstance?under?Penal?Code?section?190.3?remains?inadmissible?in?California.?(See,?People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?772-780.)”?The?Attorney?General?did?not?concede?the?instant?issue;?he?accurately?stated?it.

FN?12.?The?court?instructed:?”The?weighing?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?does?not?mean?the?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?factors,?you?simply?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?and?appropriate?by?considering?the?totality?of?the?aggravating?circumstances?with?the?totality?of?the?mitigating?circumstances.

“However,?to?return?a?judgment?of?death,?each?of?you?must?be?persuaded?that?the?aggravating?evidence?is?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances,?that?it?warrants?death?instead?of?life?in?prison?without?the?possibility?of?parole.”

FN?13.?Defendant?requested?the?court?also?instruct,?”In?addition?to?those?mitigating?circumstances?previously?provided?to?you,?a?mitigating?circumstance?additionally?is?that?which?does?not?constitute?a?legal?justification?or?excuse?of?the?offense?in?question,?but?which?in?fairness?and?mercy,?may?be?considered?as?extenuating?or?reducing?the?degree?of?moral?culpability.”

FN?14.?During?deliberations,?the?jury?asked?for?a?definition?of?lying?in?wait.?When?the?parties?and?court?discussed?the?appropriate?response,?the?concept?of?lingering?doubt?was?mentioned,?and?the?defense?reiterated?its?request?that?the?court?give?the?instruction?on?circumstantial?evidence?and?reasonable?doubt.?Defendant?never?requested?a?lingering-doubt?instruction.

FN?15.?The?Attorney?General?argues?that?the?reasonable?probability?standard?of?harmless?error?should?apply.?That?would?be?correct?as?to?the?guilt?phase.?(People?v.?Beagle,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?at?p.?456.)?However,?the?stricter?reasonable?possibility?standard?applies?even?to?errors?of?state?law?at?the?penalty?phase.?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?448-449.)

FN?16.?The?court?instructed,?”The?term?’while?lying?in?wait’?within?the?meaning?of?the?law?of?special?circumstances?is?defined?as?a?waiting?and?watching?for?an?opportune?time?to?act,?together?with?a?concealment?by?ambush?or?some?other?secret?design?to?take?the?other?person?by?surprise.?The?lying?in?wait?need?not?continue?for?any?particular?period?of?time?provided?that?its?duration?is?such?as?to?show?a?state?of?mind?equivalent?to?premeditation?or?deliberation.

“Thus,?for?a?killing?to?be?perpetrated?while?lying?in?wait,?both?the?concealment?and?watchful?waiting?as?well?as?the?killing?must?occur?during?the?same?time?period,?or?in?an?uninterrupted?attack?commencing?no?later?than?the?moment?concealment?ends.

“If?there?is?a?clear?interruption?separating?the?period?of?lying?in?wait?from?the?period?during?which?the?killing?takes?place,?so?that?there?is?neither?an?immediate?killing?nor?a?continuous?flow?of?the?uninterrupted?lethal?events,?the?special?circumstance?is?not?proved.”?(CALJIC?No.?8.81.15?(4th?ed.?1983).)

FN?1.?Penal?Code?section?190.3?restates?the?substance?of?the?language?quoted?above?in?its?list?of?penalty?factors.

FN?2.?Similarly,?the?language?of?Penal?Code?section?190.3?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?that?is?referred?to?in?footnote?1,?ante,?derives?directly?from?former?Penal?Code?section?190.3?under?the?1977?death?penalty?law.?It?too?is?virtually?identical?to?its?predecessor?except?for?added?words?dealing?with?prior?felony?convictions.?(Compare?Pen.?Code,???190.3?with?Pen.?Code,?former???190.3,?Stats.?1977,?ch.?316,???11,?pp.?1259-1260.)

FN?3.?And?certainly?not,?as?the?majority?evidently?believe?(see?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?833),?from?the?historically?most?primitive?sense?(1?Oxford?English?Dict.?(2d?ed.?1989)?pp.?xxviii-xxix)?of?the?single?word?”circumstance”?(3?Oxford?English?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?240)?as?reported?in?the?Oxford?English?Dictionary.?Why?is?it?that?the?majority?turn?to?the?Oxford?English?Dictionary-which?is?cited?rarely?in?our?opinions-instead?of?Webster’s?Third?New?International?Dictionary-which?is?referred?to?commonly??The?reader?will?soon?discover?the?answer?if?only?he?or?she?notes?that?the?first?sense?of?”circumstance”?as?reported?in?Webster’s?Third?New?International?Dictionary?is?”a?specific?part?…?of?the?surroundings?or?background?of?an?event?….”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(3d?ed.?1961)?p.?410,?italics?added.)