People?v.?Fierro?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?173?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?426;?821?P.2d?1302
[No.?S004726.Dec?26,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DAVID?REY?FIERRO,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Riverside?County,?No.?CR-?23644,?Gerald?F.?Schulte,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.)
COUNSEL
James?S.?Thomson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Michael?Laurence?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,?Louis?R.?Hanoian?and?Lilia?E.?Garcia,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?200]
OPINION
ARABIAN,?J.
Defendant?David?Rey?Fierro?was?convicted?by?a?jury?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187)?fn.?1?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?true?the?special?circumstance?allegation?that?the?murder?was?committed?during?the?perpetration?of?a?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)),?and?also?returned?a?special?finding?that?defendant?shot?and?killed?the?victim.?As?to?each?count?the?jury?also?found?that?defendant?used?a?firearm?to?commit?the?offense.?(??12022.5.)?The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?at?death.?This?appeal?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).)
- Facts
- Guilt?Phase?Evidence
- The?Prosecution
On?the?evening?of?January?6,?1985,?Sam?Allessie?was?robbed?and?murdered?in?front?of?the?small?grocery?store?which?he?owned?with?his?wife,?Trudy,?in?Glen?Avon.?Defendant,?who?was?on?parole?for?burglary,?was?arrested?two?days?later.?He?was?linked?to?the?crimes?by?eyewitness?identifications,?fingerprints?which?he?left?on?the?victim’s?truck,?bloodstains?in?his?car,?and?money?from?the?robbery?found?in?his?wallet.?As?recounted?at?trial,?the?facts?of?this?tragic?episode?unfolded?as?follows.
About?6?p.m.?on?the?evening?in?question,?Sam?and?Trudy?Allessie?were?preparing?to?close?their?store?for?the?night.?As?was?their?custom?on?Sunday?evenings,?they?planned?to?deposit?the?day’s?receipts?in?the?night?slot?of?their?bank?and?then?go?to?dinner.?Trudy?had?placed?in?her?purse?approximately?$4,000,?comprised?of?checks,?money?orders?and?about?$1,000?in?cash.?The?cash?was?in?$50?and?$100?denominations.?Trudy?observed?Sam?look?into?his?wallet,?which?he?carried?in?his?back?pants?pocket,?for?money?to?pay?for?dinner.
They?left?through?the?front?doors?of?the?market?and?approached?Sam’s?pickup?truck.?Sam?opened?the?passenger?door?for?Trudy?and?circled?around?the?back?of?the?truck?to?the?driver’s?side.?As?Trudy?lost?sight?of?Sam,?she?heard?loud?talking?from?the?rear?of?the?truck.?Suddenly?she?saw?a?”kid”?trying?to?unlock?the?driver’s?door?with?Sam’s?keys.?She?became?scared?and?heard?Sam?holler,?”Watch?your?purse,?honey.”?Trudy?opened?her?door?to?join?her?husband?and?at?that?moment?was?confronted?by?the?same?”kid”?she?had?seen?moments?earlier.?He?demanded?money.?Trudy?responded,?”All?right,?all?[1?Cal.4th?201]?right,”?and?opened?her?purse?and?handed?him?a?bundle?of?currency.?He?then?grabbed?the?purse?and?ran?toward?the?rear?of?the?truck,?out?of?view.
Trudy?thereupon?started?out?of?the?truck?and?heard?a?shot.?fn.?2?Running?to?the?front?of?the?store?she?found?Sam?on?the?ground,?bleeding.?As?she?screamed?for?help,?a?light?colored?car?sped?out?of?the?parking?lot?and?turned?onto?Mission?Boulevard?toward?the?freeway.
About?the?time?the?Allessies?were?closing?the?store,?Robert?Gonzales?was?in?a?telephone?booth?outside?the?market?talking?to?his?girlfriend.?Gonzales?heard?a?gunshot?and?saw?a?man?with?a?gun.?Several?seconds?later,?he?observed?the?man?fire?a?second?shot?and?then?run?toward?a?yellow?Pacer.?As?Gonzales?took?cover,?he?saw?a?figure?enter?the?Pacer,?which?raced?away?in?the?direction?of?the?freeway.
That?same?evening,?Carol?DiCenso?and?her?husband,?Antonio,?were?driving?on?Mission?Boulevard?in?the?area?of?Trudy’s?Market.?Carol?was?in?the?rear?passenger?seat.?As?they?approached?the?market,?Carol?observed?three?men?standing?in?a?group;?one?was?dressed?in?a?white,?short-sleeved?T-shirt;?the?man?in?the?center,?Sam?Allessie,?was?dressed?in?dark?clothing;?the?man?to?Sam’s?left?was?dressed?in?a?black?sleeveless?tank-top?shirt.?As?the?DiCensos’?car?drove?past,?Carol?saw?and?heard?a?gunshot?blast?fired?by?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt.?Sam?Allessie?slumped?to?his?knees?and?fell?over.?Seconds?later,?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt?straddled?the?fallen?body,?stretched?out?his?arm,?and?fired?another?shot?into?the?victim.
Carol?DiCenso?then?observed?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt?bend?over,?put?his?arms?around?the?victim?in?a?”hugging”?type?motion?and?reach?underneath?him.?In?the?meantime,?the?other?man?in?the?dark?shirt,?who?had?been?standing?nearby,?started?to?run?away.?The?shooter?followed,?running?toward?a?car?which?had?its?lights?on.?Moments?later,?Benita?Watson,?who?was?a?passenger?in?another?car?travelling?down?Mission?Boulevard,?noticed?a?light?colored?AMC?Pacer?with?a?chrome?luggage?rack?travelling?in?the?same?direction.?Ms.?Watson?heard?a?woman?scream?and?heard?shouts?to?”follow?that?car.”?The?Pacer?then?accelerated?and?pulled?away.
Sam?was?dead?when?the?police?arrived?at?the?scene.?His?car?keys?and?wallet?were?missing.?Blood?spots?and?a?bloody?shoe?print?were?observed?leading?away?from?the?body.?Based?on?the?descriptions?of?the?assailant?and?the?getaway?car?and?conversations?with?local?law?enforcement?officers,?Sergeant?Turley?of?the?Riverside?Sheriff’s?Department?focused?on?defendant?[1?Cal.4th?202]?as?a?possible?suspect.?Within?several?days,?it?was?discovered?that?four?fingerprints?lifted?from?Sam?Allessie’s?truck?matched?defendant’s?fingerprints.?Shortly?thereafter,?defendant?was?detained?and?taken?into?custody.?When?he?was?stopped,?he?was?driving?an?AMC?Pacer?with?a?luggage?roof?rack.?His?girlfriend,?Laura?Garcia?(hereafter?Laura?Fierro),?fn.?3?and?a?small?child?were?passengers?in?the?car.?A?search?of?Laura?Fierro’s?purse?at?the?station?disclosed?a?man’s?wallet?containing?defendant’s?driver’s?license.?The?wallet?contained?$650?in?cash,?comprised?of?four?$100?bills?and?five?$50?bills.
Several?weeks?later,?Mrs.?Allessie?identified?defendant?from?both?a?photographic?and?a?live?lineup.?At?trial,?she?identified?defendant?as?the?man?who?had?robbed?her.?Robert?Gonzales?also?picked?defendant?from?a?photographic?lineup.?fn.?4?Although?Carol?DiCenso?could?not?identify?the?man?she?saw?that?evening,?her?description?of?the?shooter?as?wearing?a?light?colored?T-shirt?matched?Mrs.?Allessie’s?description?of?defendant.
A?search?of?Laura?Fierro’s?house,?where?defendant?lived,?revealed?several?white?short-sleeved?T-shirts?and?a?pink?slip?for?the?Pacer?signed?by?defendant.?Human?blood?was?found?on?the?sole?of?one?of?defendant’s?shoes.?Testing?could?only?determine?that?it?was?human?blood.?A?search?of?defendant’s?Pacer?revealed?dried?blood?in?the?area?of?the?front?passenger?door.?Testing?determined?that?it?was?not?that?of?defendant?but?was?consistent?with?the?blood?of?Sam?Allessie.
An?autopsy?disclosed?that?the?victim?died?of?two?gunshot?wounds?to?the?chest.?One?wound?was?consistent?with?having?been?fired?from?a?distance?of?up?to?12?inches?while?the?victim?was?standing,?allowing?the?bullet?to?exit?through?the?back.?The?other?was?a?larger?”contact”?wound,?meaning?the?muzzle?of?the?gun?was?in?contact?with?the?victim’s?clothes.?The?nature?and?size?of?the?entry?wound,?the?bullet’s?trajectory,?the?crush-type?injuries?to?the?back?and?the?piece?of?bullet?lodged?in?the?back?all?indicated?that?the?victim?was?lying?on?the?ground?when?the?shot?was?fired.?Dr.?Hunter,?who?performed?the?autopsy,?determined?that?the?smaller?wound?was?inflicted?first,?and?that?the?larger?”contact”?wound?was?inflicted?shortly?thereafter.?Either?wound?would?have?been?fatal.
- The?Defense
The?defense?called?several?witnesses?to?show?that?a?person?other?than?defendant?was?seen?leaving?the?scene?after?the?shooting.?Hubert?Joubert,?who?lived?across?the?street?from?Trudy’s?Market,?testified?that?he?saw?a?Mexican?[1?Cal.4th?203]?male?wearing?some?sort?of?checkered?jacket?walking?away?from?the?scene?shortly?after?the?shooting.?When?this?individual?was?a?block?away?he?”took?off?running.”?Joubert?also?stated?that?he?saw?two?cars?driving?away?from?the?scene?on?Mission?Boulevard.?Lori?James,?who?also?lived?near?the?market,?stated?that?she?heard?two?gunshots?and?saw?two?men?running?from?the?scene;?one?of?them?had?on?a?white?T-shirt;?she?did?not?see?the?other?because?he?had?entered?a?yellow?Pacer.?The?man?in?the?T-shirt?entered?the?passenger?side?of?the?car.?Charles?Dickey,?who?was?driving?his?tow?truck?on?Mission?Boulevard,?observed?a?Pacer?similar?to?defendant’s?but?with?a?different?license?plate.
Defendant?also?called?several?deputy?sheriffs?who?spoke?with?Trudy?Allessie?shortly?after?the?crimes;?defendant?attempted?to?impeach?Mrs.?Allessie’s?trial?testimony?with?prior?inconsistent?statements?as?to?precisely?when?and?where?she?heard?the?two?shots,?and?the?manner?in?which?the?robber?took?her?purse.
Defendant?also?called?two?expert?witnesses.?David?Duncan?testified?that?the?lack?of?damage?to?the?bullet?recovered?from?the?victim’s?back?indicated?that?it?had?been?fired?while?the?victim?was?standing,?rather?than?lying?on?the?ground.?Jules?Slaick?testified?as?to?various?distances?at?the?crime?scene?and?the?location?of?light?fixtures.
Defendant?did?not?testify?at?the?guilt?phase?of?trial.
- Penalty?Phase?Evidence
The?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?defendant’s?prior?violent?conduct?in?connection?with?a?1982?burglary?conviction.?The?victim?of?the?burglary,?Tim?Deno,?recounted?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?Defendant?stipulated?that?he?pled?guilty?to?burglary?with?use?of?a?deadly?weapon.
In?mitigation,?defendant?testified?in?his?own?behalf,?denying?that?he?shot?and?killed?Sam?Allessie.?Six?members?of?defendant’s?family?also?testified?as?to?defendant’s?poor?relationship?with?his?father,?his?participation?in?Little?League?and?school?plays,?and?his?close?and?loving?relationships?with?his?siblings,?wife?and?children.?Defendant’s?aunt?claimed?that?the?actual?killer?was?another?member?of?the?family?defendant?was?seeking?to?protect.?[1?Cal.4th?204]
- Discussion
- Guilt?Phase?Claims
- Alleged?Marsden?Error
The?law?governing?this?area?is?well?settled.?[2]?”When?a?defendant?seeks?to?discharge?his?appointed?counsel?and?substitute?another?attorney,?and?asserts?inadequate?representation,?the?trial?court?must?permit?the?defendant?to?explain?the?basis?of?his?contention?and?to?relate?specific?instances?of?the?attorney’s?inadequate?performance.?[Citation.]?A?defendant?is?entitled?to?relief?if?the?record?clearly?shows?that?the?first?appointed?attorney?is?not?providing?adequate?representation?[citation]?or?that?defendant?and?counsel?have?become?embroiled?in?such?an?irreconcilable?conflict?that?ineffective?representation?is?likely?to?result?[citations].”?(People?v.?Crandell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?833,?854?[251?Cal.Rptr.?227,?760?P.2d?423];?see?also?People?v.?Marsden?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?118,?124-?125?[84?Cal.Rptr.?156,?465?P.2d?44].)
[1b]?Defendant?complained?about?his?representation?by?the?public?defender’s?office?on?three?occasions.?The?first?occurred?on?June?17,?1985,?after?the?preliminary?hearing?but?prior?to?arraignment?on?the?information.?At?an?in?camera?hearing?out?of?the?presence?of?the?prosecutor,?defendant?expressed?dissatisfaction?with?the?fact?that?he?had?been?represented?by?three?different?deputy?public?defenders.?fn.?5?Defendant?requested?a?new?attorney,?preferably?one?outside?of?the?public?defender’s?office,?apparently?in?the?hope?that?this?would?entitle?him?to?a?new?preliminary?hearing.?The?trial?court?expressed?sympathy?with?defendant’s?frustration?over?the?change?of?attorneys?but?explained?that?it?did?not?provide?a?legal?basis?for?the?appointment?of?private?counsel;?the?court?further?explained?that?a?substitution?of?attorneys?would?not?entitle?defendant?to?a?new?preliminary?hearing.?The?court?also?assured?defendant?that?it?was?familiar?with?the?three?deputies?and?that?each?was?competent?and?well?qualified.?After?a?short?recess,?defendant?was?arraigned?and?agreed?to?waive?time?for?trial.The?record?thus?discloses?that?defendant?did?not?assert?either?incompetence?of?counsel?or?irreconcilable?differences?with?the?public?defender?at?the?[1?Cal.4th?205]?first?in-chambers?conference.?Accordingly,?there?was?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?denying?the?request?for?substitution?of?counsel.?(People?v.?Moore?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?63,?76?[252?Cal.Rptr.?494,?762?P.2d?1218].)
The?second?in?camera?hearing?was?convened?on?April?11,?1986,?to?inquire?into?an?earlier?statement?by?defendant?that?he?was?not?”comfortable”?with?his?attorney.?fn.?6?Defendant?indicated?that?he?did?not?”trust”?his?attorney?because?the?latter?had?”lied”?to?him.?When?pressed?by?the?court?to?elaborate,?however,?defendant?was?unable?to?describe?any?specific?lies?by?counsel?or?any?circumstances?where?he?had?been?misled.
Defendant?also?indicated?that?he?was?dissatisfied?with?counsel?because?the?latter?wanted?him?to?take?a?”deal”?which?he?was?unwilling?to?take.?Again,?however,?defendant?was?unable?or?unwilling?to?elaborate.?The?court?reminded?defendant?that?one?week?earlier?he?had?asked?both?attorneys,?outside?of?defendant’s?presence,?if?a?disposition?was?possible.?Although?counsel?indicated?that?defendant?would?not?plead?guilty?to?first?degree?murder?and?the?prosecutor?stated?that?he?would?not?accept?anything?less?than?life?without?possibility?of?parole,?the?court?nevertheless?directed?counsel?to?convey?the?offer?to?defendant.?After?a?short?time,?counsel?returned?to?inform?the?court?that?defendant?would?not?accept?the?plea.
The?trial?court?asked?defendant?if?this?explanation?had?helped?to?”jog”?his?memory.?Defendant?responded?that?”it?wasn’t?all?clear?like?that”?when?counsel?had?spoken?to?him.?Nevertheless,?defendant?remained?adamant?that?he?did?not?trust?his?attorney,?and?complained?about?counsel’s?performance?at?pretrial?motions.?Counsel,?in?response,?stated?that?he?had?consulted?sufficiently?with?defendant?in?preparing?the?case,?had?adequately?investigated?the?facts?and?law?and?was?prepared?for?trial.?He?acknowledged,?however,?that?defendant?did?appear?to?distrust?him,?explaining?that?defendant?had?discouraged?his?brothers?from?cooperating?with?the?investigation?because?he?feared?counsel?would?disclose?the?results?to?the?district?attorney.?Counsel?indicated?that?he?had?said?and?done?nothing?to?cause?defendant?to?distrust?him.?The?trial?court?assured?defendant?that?there?was?no?connection?between?the?public?defender’s?office?and?the?district?attorney,?and?observed?that?his?attorney?had?done?an?”exemplary”?job?at?pretrial?motions.?Finally,?the?court?asked?defendant?if?he?had?any?other?reasons?for?seeking?other?counsel.?Defendant?[1?Cal.4th?206]?responded,?”I?just?want?another?attorney.”?The?court?thereupon?found?there?was?no?basis?to?conclude?that?counsel?was?not?providing?effective?assistance?or?that?a?breakdown?in?the?attorney-client?relationship?had?occurred?such?that?defendant’s?right?to?effective?assistance?would?be?substantially?impaired.
The?record?amply?supports?the?trial?court’s?findings.?As?outlined?above,?the?court?carefully?inquired?into?defendant’s?reasons?for?requesting?substitution?of?counsel,?which?proved?to?be?either?groundless?or?patently?insufficient?to?demonstrate?”such?an?irreconcilable?conflict?that?ineffective?representation?[was]?likely?to?result.”?(People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?854;?People?v.?Moore,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?76.)
Finally,?defendant?was?accorded?a?third?in?camera?hearing?shortly?after?the?guilty?verdicts?were?rendered?and?before?the?commencement?of?the?penalty?phase.?The?purpose?of?the?hearing,?according?to?counsel,?was?to?express?defendant’s?continuing?objection?to?representation?by?the?public?defender.?Although?defendant?was?not?displeased?with?his?attorney’s?performance?and?had?cooperated?fully?throughout?the?guilt?phase,?he?did?not?feel?”comfortable”?because?the?public?defender’s?office?”worked?for?the?same?employer?as?the?District?Attorney’s?office.”
Counsel?also?noted?that?he?had?differed?with?defendant?over?trial?strategy;?while?counsel?had?originally?advised?defendant?to?admit?participation?in?the?crime?and?direct?his?defense?to?the?special?circumstance,?defendant?was?disposed?to?deny?participation?altogether.?Ultimately,?defendant’s?views?prevailed.?Counsel?also?advised?the?court?that?he?anticipated?another?potential?conflict?at?the?penalty?phase;?contrary?to?the?advice?of?counsel,?defendant?did?not?wish?to?call?members?of?his?family?as?witnesses?”because?he?feels?that?they?have?suffered?enough.”?When?asked?if?he?had?anything?to?add?to?his?attorney’s?statement,?defendant?simply?reiterated?his?displeasure?at?the?fact?that?he?had?been?represented?by?different?deputy?public?defenders;?he?added?that?he?did?not?desire?to?change?attorneys.
Thus,?the?record?of?proceedings?at?the?third?in-chambers?hearing?discloses?neither?a?request?for?substitution?of?counsel,?nor?any?credible?evidence?of?a?lack?of?diligent?representation?or?a?breakdown?in?the?attorney-client?relationship.?The?record?utterly?fails?to?support?defendant’s?repeated?claims?that?a?lack?of?”trust”?between?himself?and?counsel?impaired?his?representation.?On?the?contrary,?counsel?apparently?deferred?to?defendant’s?preferred?strategy?at?the?guilt?phase,?and?defendant?ultimately?followed?counsel’s?advice?to?call?family?members?at?the?penalty?phase.
Accordingly,?we?find?no?basis?for?concluding?that?the?trial?court?either?failed?to?conduct?a?proper?Marsden?inquiry?or?abused?its?discretion?in?[1?Cal.4th?207]?declining?to?substitute?counsel.?(People?v.?Silva?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?604,?622?[247?Cal.Rptr.?573,?754?P.2d?1070].)
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
Defendant?next?argues?that?the?prosecutor?committed?prejudicial?misconduct?at?several?points?during?voir?dire?and?closing?argument.
- Voir?Dire
(i)?The?Adversarial?Process
[3a]?Both?attorneys?commented?on?the?nature?of?the?adversarial?process?during?voir?dire.?Defense?counsel?analogized?the?upcoming?trial?to?a?”game”?and?observed?that?each?side?was?seeking?essentially?the?same?goal,?”each?of?us?is?trying?to?win?for?our?team?….”?The?prosecutor,?in?response,?emphasized?that?his?role?was?not?”strict[ly]?adversarial,”?that?his?”client”?was?the?people?of?the?state?and?that?he?was?thereby?obligated?to?ensure?that?”people?receive?fair?trials”?and?not?simply?”convict?those?charged?with?crimes?and?throw?justice?and?equity?out?the?door.”?To?illustrate?the?point,?the?prosecutor?noted?that?he?had?”an?obligation?ethically?in?seeking?justice?to?make?sure?[defense?counsel]?knows?about?all?the?witnesses?I?intend?to?call,?what?they?are?going?to?say,?what?they?saw,?all?of?those?things.?[?]?This?isn’t?just?a?game?….”?By?way?of?contrast,?the?prosecutor?observed?that?defense?counsel?”has?no?obligation?under?our?system?of?justice?to?reciprocate,?to?tell?me?where?they’re?going?or?what?they?may?do?or?who?they?may?call.”?He?is?”an?adversary,”?the?prosecutor?explained,?”pure?and?simple.”?”He?must?represent?his?client?and?his?sole?obligation?within?certain?ethical?grounds?is?to?obtain?an?acquittal?for?his?client.”Defendant?now?contends?that?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?”grossly?distorted”?the?adversarial?process,?impugned?the?ethics?of?defense?counsel?and?improperly?used?the?prestige?of?his?office?to?bolster?the?state’s?case.?As?the?People?correctly?observe,?however,?defendant?failed?to?object?to?any?of?the?prosecutor’s?remarks,?thereby?waiving?his?present?objections.?[4]?”It?is,?of?course,?the?general?rule?that?a?defendant?cannot?complain?on?appeal?of?misconduct?by?a?prosecutor?at?trial?unless?in?a?timely?fashion?he?made?an?assignment?of?misconduct?and?requested?that?the?jury?be?admonished?to?disregard?the?impropriety.”?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?794?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330];?see?also?People?v.?Ratliff?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?675,?690-?691?[224?Cal.Rptr.?705,?715?P.2d?665];?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?27?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)
[5]?,?[3b]?Furthermore,?the?prosecutor’s?statements?were?not?objectionable?on?the?grounds?asserted?by?defendant.?It?is?not?a?distortion?but?a?simple?[1?Cal.4th?208]?fact?that?the?prosecutor?”?’is?the?representative?not?of?any?ordinary?party?to?a?controversy,?but?of?a?sovereignty?whose?obligation?to?govern?impartially?is?as?compelling?as?its?obligation?to?govern?at?all;?and?whose?interest,?therefore,?in?a?criminal?prosecution?is?not?that?it?shall?win?a?case,?but?that?justice?shall?be?done.’?”?(People?v.?Superior?Court?(Greer)?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?255,?266?[137?Cal.Rptr.?476,?561?P.2d?1164],?quoting?Berger?v.?United?States?(1935)?295?U.S.?78,?88?[79?L.Ed.?1314,?1321,?55?S.Ct.?629];?accord?People?ex?rel.?Clancy?v.?Superior?Court?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?740,?746?[218?Cal.Rptr.?24,?705?P.2d?347].)?The?prosecutor?was?also?factually?correct?in?noting?that?discovery?in?the?criminal?context?was?not?a?two-way?street;?the?prosecution’s?disclosure?obligations?were?not?reciprocated?by?the?defense.?(In?re?Misener?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?543?[213?Cal.Rptr.?569,?698?P.2d?637];?but?see?Izazaga?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?356?[285?Cal.Rptr.?231,?815?P.2d?304].)?Nor?do?we?believe?the?jury?could?reasonably?have?interpreted?the?remarks?as?impugning?the?ethics?of?defense?counsel,?or?as?an?improper?attempt?to?bolster?the?state’s?case.(ii)?Right?to?Remain?Silent
Another?area?of?discussion?at?voir?dire?concerned?defendant’s?right?not?to?testify.?In?emphasizing?that?defendant’s?silence?could?not?be?used?against?him,?defense?counsel?observed?that?there?might?be?plausible?reasons?why?defendant,?although?innocent,?would?choose?not?to?take?the?witness?stand.?Later,?the?prosecutor?also?stated?that?defendant?had?a?right?to?remain?silent?and?explained,?”you?can’t?hold?that?against?the?defendant.?You?can’t?consider?that.”?Recalling?defense?counsel’s?remark?as?to?why?an?innocent?person?might?not?testify,?the?prosecutor?further?observed?that?”there?might?be?reasons?why?a?guilty?man?doesn’t?want?to?take?the?stand?also?and?testify.”?However,?he?then?repeated?his?admonishment?not?to?”even?think?about?this?….?It?would?be?totally?inappropriate?for?you?to?think?about?…?this?and?try?to?guess?about?why?somebody?does?[not?testify].”
Shortly?thereafter,?defense?counsel,?out?of?the?presence?of?the?jury?panel,?expressed?concern?about?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?and?requested?an?admonition?relating?to?defendant’s?right?to?remain?silent.?The?trial?court?declined?the?request,?explaining?that?it?had?already?admonished?each?juror?on?the?burden?of?proof?and?defendant’s?right?not?to?testify,?and?believed?that?the?subject?had?been?adequately?covered.
[6]?Defendant?now?contends?the?prosecutor’s?remark?prejudicially?urged?the?jury?to?consider?defendant’s?silence?as?evidence?of?his?guilt.?While?it?may?have?been?ill-considered?to?state?that?a?guilty?person?may?have?reasons?not?to?testify?just?as?an?innocent?person?might,?we?do?not?believe?the?prosecutor’s?[1?Cal.4th?209]?statement?could?reasonably?have?been?construed?as?urging?the?jury?to?consider?defendant’s?silence?as?evidence?of?guilt.?Indeed,?as?noted,?the?prosecutor?followed?this?remark?with?a?further?admonition?not?to?consider?the?matter.?Accordingly,?we?discern?no?possibility?that?the?statement?subjected?defendant?to?prejudice.?(People?v.?Warren?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?471,?480?[247?Cal.Rptr.?172,?754?P.2d?218].)(iii)?Hypothetical?Scenario
[7a]?Defendant?next?contends?the?prosecutor?improperly?influenced?prospective?jurors?to?”prejudge”?guilt.?[8]?It?is,?of?course,?well?settled?that?the?examination?of?prospective?jurors?should?not?be?used?”?’to?educate?the?jury?panel?to?the?particular?facts?of?the?case,?to?compel?the?jurors?to?commit?themselves?to?vote?a?particular?way,?to?prejudice?the?jury?for?or?against?a?particular?party,?to?argue?the?case,?to?indoctrinate?the?jury,?or?to?instruct?the?jury?in?matters?of?law.’?”?(People?v.?Williams?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?392,?408?[174?Cal.Rptr.?317,?628?P.2d?869],?quoting?Rousseau?v.?West?Coast?House?Movers?(1967)?256?Cal.App.2d?878,?882?[64?Cal.Rptr.?655].) [7b]?The?prosecutor?posed?a?hypothetical?scenario?to?the?jury?panel?and?asked?for?individual?responses.?Essentially,?he?asked?the?jurors?to?state?whether?they?would?be?able?to?vote?guilty?if,?after?deliberations,?they?were?persuaded?that?the?charges?had?been?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?Defense?counsel?objected?on?the?ground?that?he?did?not?understand?the?question.?The?trial?court?overruled?the?objection,?finding?that?the?question?was?clear?and?that?the?jurors?were?able?to?understand?it.?Thereafter,?the?prosecutor?explained?to?the?jurors?that?he?was?”not?trying?to?bias?you?or?trying?to?get?you?to?believe?[defendant]?is?already?guilty?….”?Rather,?he?explained,?he?posed?the?question?simply?because?some?people?have?difficulty?voting?guilty?regardless?of?the?evidence.Defendant?failed?to?object?to?the?hypothetical?question?on?the?ground?now?asserted?on?appeal;?thus?his?objection?is?waived.?(People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?691.)?Moreover,?we?discern?no?impermissible?attempt?by?the?prosecutor,?in?the?guise?of?the?hypothetical?scenario,?to?influence?prospective?jurors?to?vote?guilty;?nor?do?we?perceive?any?possibility?that?such?influence?occurred.?fn.?7?[1?Cal.4th?210]
(iv)?Hold-out?Jurors
[9]?Defendant?also?contends?the?prosecutor?impermissibly?”indoctrinated”?prospective?jurors?about?the?”impropriety”?of?hold-out?jurors.?Defendant?refers?to?a?series?of?remarks?by?the?prosecutor?in?which?he?observed?that?each?juror?must?”come?to?your?own?conclusion,”?but?also?stressed?the?value?of?”work[ing]?together?to?try?to?discover?the?truth.”?fn.?8?Defendant?failed?to?object?to?any?of?the?prosecutor’s?remarks,?thereby?waiving?his?present?objections.?(People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?690.)?Moreover,?we?have?reviewed?the?prosecutor’s?statements?and?discern?no?reasonable?possibility?that?they?misled?prospective?jurors?concerning?their?responsibility?to?exercise?independent?judgment.- Argument
Defendant?also?raises?several?instances?of?alleged?prejudicial?misconduct?during?the?prosecutor’s?closing?argument.?[1?Cal.4th?211]
(i)?Vouching
The?prosecutor?concluded?his?guilt?phase?argument?as?follows:?”The?evidence?and?the?facts?in?this?case,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?I?submit?to?you?are?very?clear.?This?is?an?outstanding?murder?case.?It?was?an?outstanding?murder?investigation.?[?]?When?you?look?at?all?of?the?evidence?in?this?case?and?you?do?your?own?analysis?…,?thinking?back?over?the?witnesses?that?have?testified?and?their?credibility,?and?then?match?that?with?the?law?that?covers?the?crimes?that?this?defendant?is?charged?with,?you,?too,?will?see?very?clearly?and?very?obviously?that?the?defendant?is?guilty?….”
[10a]?Defendant?contends?the?prosecutor’s?characterization?of?the?case?and?the?murder?investigation?as?”outstanding”?placed?the?personal?reputation?of?the?prosecutor?and?his?office?behind?the?prosecution.?[11]?Impermissible?”vouching”?may?occur?where?the?prosecutor?places?the?prestige?of?the?government?behind?a?witness?through?personal?assurances?of?the?witness’s?veracity?or?suggests?that?information?not?presented?to?the?jury?supports?the?witness’s?testimony.?(People?v.?Heishman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?147,?195?[246?Cal.Rptr.?673,?753?P.2d?629];?U.S.?v.?Wallace?(9th?Cir.?1988)?848?F.2d?1464,?1473.) [10b]?Defendant?failed?to?object?to?the?prosecutor’s?remarks,?and?thereby?waived?his?objection?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?690.)?Moreover,?we?do?not?believe?that?the?prosecutor’s?remarks,?viewed?singly?or?in?context,?could?reasonably?have?been?interpreted?as?a?personal?endorsement?of?the?state’s?witnesses.?Indeed,?the?remark?was?followed?immediately?by?an?admonition?to?the?jurors?to?”do?your?own?analysis”?of?the?evidence?and?then?”match?that?with?the?law.”?(Italics?added.)?Accordingly,?we?discern?no?impropriety.(ii)?Appealing?to?Jury’s?Prejudices
[12]?Defendant?next?asserts?the?prosecutor?attempted?to?arouse?the?jury’s?prejudices?by?implying?that?defendant?was?a?gang?member?with?a?criminal?record.?He?cites?the?prosecutor’s?reference?during?argument?to?the?fact?that?Fontana?Police?Detective?Moore?had?”known?[defendant]?for?all?of?the?years?he’s?worked?in?Fontana.”?Moore’s?testimony?that?he?had?recognized?defendant?from?having?previously?seen?him?at?a?little?market?in?Fontana?was?corroborative?of?Robert?Gonzales’s?recollection?of?having?seen?defendant?at?Trudy’s?Market?several?months?before?the?murder.?Thus,?the?prosecutor’s?reference?to?Detective?Moore’s?testimony?was?simply?to?establish?that?defendant?frequented?the?area?of?the?crime?scene?prior?to?the?murder.?At?no?point?did?the?prosecutor?suggest,?either?expressly?or?impliedly,?that?defendant?had?a?prior?record.?[1?Cal.4th?212]The?alleged?reference?to?a?gang?affiliation?occurred?earlier?in?the?trial,?during?defense?counsel’s?cross-examination?of?Mrs.?Allessie.?The?witness?acknowledged?that?she?had?not?observed?any?tattoos?on?the?robber.?Defense?counsel?thereupon?had?defendant?show?the?jury?the?tattoos?on?his?arms.?The?prosecutor?responded:?”Your?honor,?I?would?also?be?willing?to?stipulate?that?counsel?could?have?[defendant]?describe?to?the?jury?the?significance?of?each?of?the?tattoos?and?describe?them?for?the?record.”?Defense?counsel?objected?on?the?grounds?of?relevance?and?the?matter?was?dropped.?Later,?the?jury?was?instructed:?”At?one?point?a?comment?was?made?regarding?the?significance?of?[defendant’s]?tattoos.?There?is?no?evidence?before?you?regarding?any?significance?of?these?tattoos?except?on?the?issue?of?eye?witness?identification.?You?are?not?to?speculate?on?any?other?significance?of?these?tattoos.”?We?conclude,?therefore,?that?any?possible?harm?caused?by?the?prosecutor’s?brief?remark?was?cured?by?the?court’s?admonition,?which?the?jury?presumably?obeyed.?(People?v.?Rosoto?(1962)?58?Cal.2d?304,?326?[23?Cal.Rptr.?779,?373?P.2d?867].)
(iii)?Attack?on?Defense?Counsel
[13a]?Defendant?contends?the?prosecutor?made?a?number?of?statements?during?his?rebuttal?argument?attacking?the?personal?integrity?of?defense?counsel.?[14]?It?is,?of?course,?improper?for?the?prosecutor?”to?imply?that?defense?counsel?has?fabricated?evidence?or?otherwise?to?portray?defense?counsel?as?the?villain?in?the?case.?…?Casting?uncalled?for?aspersions?on?defense?counsel?directs?attention?to?largely?irrelevant?matters?and?does?not?constitute?comment?on?the?evidence?or?argument?as?to?inferences?to?be?drawn?therefrom.”?(People?v.?Thompson?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?86,?112?[246?Cal.Rptr.?245,?753?P.2d?37].) [13b]?We?note?at?the?outset?that?defendant?failed?to?object?to?any?of?the?statements?in?question,?thereby?waiving?his?right?to?object?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?690;?People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?538-?539?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129].)?Nevertheless,?we?have?reviewed?each?of?the?statements?in?question?and?find?that,?with?one?exception,?they?did?not?cross?the?line?of?acceptable?argument,?which?is?traditionally?vigorous?and?therefore?accorded?wide?latitude.?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?539;?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?112-?113.)?fn.?9 [15]?In?one?instance?the?prosecutor’s?statement?appears?to?have?been?clearly?intended?as?a?personal?rebuke?to?defense?counsel.?Counsel?had?[1?Cal.4th?213]?suggested?that?many?of?the?state’s?witnesses?altered?their?testimony?to?please?the?prosecution.?At?the?same?time,?counsel?stressed?that?he?was?not?suggesting?the?prosecutor?”put?the?witnesses?up?to?this.”?In?rebuttal,?the?prosecutor?stated:?”I?don’t?know?if?you?are?offended,?I?can?tell?you?that?I?am?certainly?offended?at?what?I?would?consider?the?duplicity?of?the?argument.?[Defense?counsel]?has?spent?the?last?three?hours?saying?that?all?of?the?witnesses?got?together?and?that?the?sheriff?and?myself?have?coached?them?and?molded?them?…?to?come?to?court?to?say?these?things.?And?then?[defense?counsel]?actually?has?the?gall?to?just?before?sitting?down?say:?Now,?folks,?I?don’t?mean?to?in?any?way?affirm-or?infer?(sic)?that?[the?prosecutor]?has?done?anything?inappropriate.”Although?the?statement?was?somewhat?ad?hominem,?we?perceive?no?realistic?likelihood?that?it?prejudiced?defendant.
(iv)?Failure?to?Testify
[16]?Finally,?defendant?asserts?that?the?prosecutor?made?improper?reference?to?defendant’s?failure?to?testify.?(Griffin?v.?California?(1965)?380?U.S.?609?[14?L.Ed.2d?106,?85?S.Ct.?1229].)?In?rebuttal?argument,?the?prosecutor?urged?the?jury?to?reject?counsel’s?assertion?that?the?special?circumstance?had?not?been?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt,?stating:?”Again,?the?defense?is?asking?you?to?do?something;?and?that?is,?find?that?particular?charge?is?not?true.?But?they’re?giving?you?no?evidence?on?which?to?do?that.”?(Italics?added.)As?the?People?correctly?observe,?defendant?failed?to?object?to?the?statement,?thereby?waiving?his?present?objection.?(People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?690.)?Moreover,?the?Griffin?rule?does?not?extend?to?remarks,?such?as?those?here,?which?merely?comment?”on?the?state?of?the?evidence?or?on?the?failure?of?the?defense?to?introduce?material?evidence?or?to?call?logical?witnesses.”?(People?v.?Szeto?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?20,?34?[171?Cal.Rptr.?652,?623?P.2d?213];?People?v.?Ratliff,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?691.)?Accordingly,?we?find?no?constitutional?violation.?[1?Cal.4th?214]
- Serological?Evidence
Defendant?challenges?the?trial?court’s?decision?to?admit?an?expert’s?electrophoretic?analysis?of?dried?bloodstains?found?in?his?car.?fn.?10?Based?on?that?analysis,?the?expert?concluded?that?the?bloodstains?could?not?have?come?from?defendant,?but?could?have?come?from?the?victim.?Defendant?also?challenges?the?expert’s?reference?to?population?frequency?statistics?which?excluded?defendant,?but?included?the?victim,?as?the?source?of?the?bloodstains.
[17a]?Defendant?contends?the?prosecution?failed?to?meet?the?standard?criteria?of?reliability?under?Kelly/Frye:?(1)?general?acceptance?in?the?relevant?scientific?community;?(2)?testimony?by?properly?qualified?experts;?and?(3)?the?application?of?correct?scientific?procedures?in?the?case?under?review.?(People?v.?Kelly?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?24,?30?[130?Cal.Rptr.?144,?549?P.2d?1240];?Frye?v.?United?States?(D.C.?Cir.?1923)?293?Fed.?1013,?1014?[54?App.D.C.?46].)We?have?recently?held?that?electrophoretic?testing?of?dried?bloodstains?is?sufficiently?accepted?in?the?scientific?community?to?be?admissible?under?the?first?prong?of?Kelly/Frye.?(People?v.?Morris?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?152,?207?[279?Cal.Rptr.?720,?807?P.2d?949];?People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?771,?812?[281?Cal.Rptr.?90,?809?P.2d?865].)?[18]?(See?fn.?11.)?Nothing?in?the?instant?record?impels?us?to?reconsider?our?rulings.?fn.?11
[17b]?Defendant?also?asserts?that?the?particular?method?of?testing?utilized?in?this?case,?the?multisystem?method,?has?not?achieved?general?acceptance?in?the?scientific?community.?As?we?recently?observed,?however,?once?electrophoresis?is?deemed?to?be?admissible,?criticism?of?any?particular?methodology?goes?to?the?weight?of?the?evidence,?not?to?its?admissibility.?(People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?812-?813.)?Moreover,?the?cases?have?uniformly?held?that?the?multisystem?method?of?analysis?enjoys?general?acceptance?within?the?scientific?community?under?Kelly/Frye?standards.?(People?v.?Smith,?supra,?215?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?26;?People?v.?Morris?(1988)?199?Cal.App.3d?377,?384-390?[245?Cal.Rptr.?52].)?Defendant?cites?no?persuasive?evidence?to?the?contrary.?[1?Cal.4th?215]As?to?the?second?prong?of?Kelly/Frye,?defense?counsel?raised?no?challenge,?either?at?the?evidentiary?hearing?or?at?trial,?to?the?qualifications?of?the?Department?of?Justice?criminalist?who?testified?in?this?case,?Faye?Springer,?and?asserts?no?specific?challenge?to?her?qualifications?on?appeal.
With?respect?to?the?third?prong,?counsel?expressly?stipulated?at?the?evidentiary?hearing?that?Springer?had?used?correct?and?appropriate?scientific?procedures?in?the?analysis?of?the?blood?samples.?Counsel?further?stipulated?that?Edward?Blake,?a?recognized?expert?in?the?field,?had?reviewed?Springer’s?notes?of?her?analysis?of?the?blood?samples?and?had?agreed?that?appropriate?scientific?procedures?were?followed?in?this?case.?Thus,?defendant?has?waived?any?objection?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Carrera?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?291,?323-324?[261?Cal.Rptr.?348,?777?P2d?121];?People?v.?Rogers?(1978)?21?Cal.3d?542,?547-548?[146?Cal.Rptr.?732,?579?P.2d?1048].)?fn.?12?In?any?event,?defendant?has?not?demonstrated?any?deficiency?in?the?testing?procedures,?or?any?act?or?omission?which?might?have?affected?the?reliability?of?the?results?in?this?case.
[19]?For?the?first?time?on?appeal,?defendant?also?attacks?the?electrophoresis?evidence?as?hearsay?(Evid.?Code,????801,?1200)?and?irrelevant?(Evid.?Code,????210,?350),?and?further?asserts?that?the?evidence?was?more?prejudicial?than?probative.?(Evid.?Code,???352.)?Defendant’s?failure?to?raise?any?of?these?objections?at?trial?constitutes?a?waiver?of?his?objections?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?323,?324.) [20]?Finally,?defendant?claims?the?court?erred?in?admitting?Ms.?Springer’s?testimony?that,?based?on?population?frequency?statistics,?only?one-half?of?1?percent?of?California’s?general?population?had?the?victim’s?blood?type.?Defendant?failed?to?object?to?the?admissibility?of?this?testimony?at?trial,?thereby?waiving?his?objection?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Rogers,?supra,?21?Cal.3d?at?p.?548.)?Moreover,?the?contention?is?unavailing.?As?we?explained?in?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512?[230?Cal.Rptr.?834,?726?P.2d?516]:?”[B]oth?California?and?the?majority?of?other?jurisdictions?have?traditionally?admitted?statistical?blood-group?evidence?of?this?kind?in?criminal?cases,?even?where?it?simply?includes?the?accused?within?the?class?of?possible?donors.?[Citations.]”?(Id.?at?p.?536,?fn.?6;?see?also?People?v.?Yorba?(1989)?209?Cal.App.3d?1017,?1026-1027?[257?Cal.Rptr.?641]?[electorphoresis?evidence?admissible?to?show?that?markers?in?bloodstain?are?found?in?4.6?to?14?percent?of?the?population];?People?v.?Morris,?supra,?199?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?391?[trial?court?properly?admitted?electrophoretic?evidence?that?3.5?percent?of?the?population?of?Ventura?County?could?have?deposited?bloodstain].)?[1?Cal.4th?216]Defendant?also?cites?People?v.?Collins?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?319?[66?Cal.Rptr.?497,?438?P.2d?33,?36?A.L.R.3d?1176],?for?the?proposition?that?statistical?evidence?may?mislead?a?jury?by?suggesting?a?mathematical?probability?of?guilt.?The?reliance?is?misplaced.?In?Collins,?the?prosecutor?called?a?mathematics?instructor?to?testify?that,?based?on?eyewitness?descriptions,?there?was?one?chance?in?twelve?million?that?any?couple?possessed?the?physical?characteristics?of?defendants.?(Id.?at?p.?325.)?We?reversed,?concluding?that?the?expert’s?deduction?was?not?based?on?statistical?data?derived?from?scientific?research,?but?on?statistical?theory?unsupported?by?any?evidence.?(Id.?at?p.?327.)?The?same?flaws?were?not?present?here.?The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?the?population?frequency?statistics.
- The?Motion?to?Suppress
The?evidence?presented?at?the?suppression?hearing?revealed?the?following:?Two?days?after?the?shooting,?defendant?was?stopped?in?his?yellow?AMC?Pacer?and?placed?under?arrest.?Defendant’s?girlfriend,?Laura?Fierro,?and?her?young?child?were?passengers?in?the?car.?fn.?13?An?officer?on?the?scene?requested?that?she?come?to?the?police?station?to?speak?with?detectives?there.?She?agreed?to?do?so?and?was?driven?to?the?station?by?one?of?the?officers,?who?recalled?that?in?addition?to?the?child?she?had?a?large?purse?in?her?possession.?After?a?short?wait?at?the?station,?Fierro?was?interviewed?by?Sergeant?Turley.?Because?she?was?not?in?custody?or?considered?a?suspect,?he?did?not?read?her?the?Miranda?rights.?(Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974].)?Ms.?Fierro’s?three-year-old?child,?Detective?Bowen?and?a?deputy?district?attorney?were?also?present?during?the?interview.
At?the?conclusion?of?the?conversation,?Laura?Fierro?asked?to?use?the?women’s?restroom.?Bowen?pointed?out?where?the?restroom?was?located,?and?Fierro?picked?up?her?purse?and?started?to?leave.?Because?it?was?large?enough?to?contain?a?handgun?and?the?murder?weapon?had?not?been?recovered,?Bowen?became?concerned?that?the?purse?might?contain?a?weapon.?Accordingly,?he?asked?her?if?he?could?search?the?purse.?She?responded,?”Go-yes,?you?may.”?[1?Cal.4th?217]?The?first?thing?Bowen?noticed?inside?the?purse?was?a?pair?of?brown?gloves.?Bowen?asked?whose?they?were?and?Fierro?responded,?”Those?are?David’s?gloves.?His?wallet?is?in?my?purse?also.”?Bowen?asked?if?he?could?remove?the?gloves?and?wallet?and?Fierro?assented.?Bowen?continued?to?search?for?a?weapon?but?found?none.?Then,?aware?that?defendant?was?on?parole?and?subject?to?parole?search?terms,?Bowen?opened?the?wallet?and?found?defendant’s?driver’s?license?and?$650?in?cash.
[21b]?Based?on?the?foregoing,?we?conclude?that?the?evidence?amply?supports?a?finding?that?Laura?Fierro?voluntarily?consented?to?the?search.?(People?v.?James?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?99,?106?[137?Cal.Rptr.?447,?561?P.2d?1135].)?She?displayed?no?hesitation?in?providing?her?permission?when?Detective?Bowen?asked?if?he?could?search?the?purse?for?weapons.?Moreover,?contrary?to?defendant’s?claim,?there?is?no?evidence?of?any?coercion,?compulsion?or?express?or?implied?assertion?of?police?authority?which?might?have?vitiated?the?consent.?Nor?was?there?any?illegal?detention?or?need?for?Miranda?warnings.?The?evidence?indicates?that?Ms.?Fierro?accompanied?the?police?to?the?station?voluntarily,?and?voluntarily?cooperated?with?their?investigation.?She?was?not?a?suspect,?and?was?not?under?arrest?or?subject?to?any?physical?constraint.?There?is?no?evidence?that?she?refused?to?talk?to?the?officers?or?voiced?a?desire?to?leave?at?any?point.?The?interview?was?conducted?in?a?large,?open?office?rather?than?an?interview?room,?and?Ms.?Fierro’s?child?was?present?throughout?the?interview.?Substantial?evidence,?therefore,?demonstrates?that?the?warrantless?search?of?Ms.?Fierro’s?purse?was?conducted?pursuant?to?a?legally?valid?consent. [22b]?The?subsequent?search?of?defendant’s?wallet?after?it?was?removed?from?Laura?Fierro’s?purse?was?also?valid?pursuant?to?defendant’s?parole?search?condition.?fn.?14?The?day?before?defendant’s?arrest,?Sergeant?Turley?contacted?Lee?Kano,?defendant’s?parole?agent,?and?informed?him?that?defendant?was?a?suspect?in?a?murder.?Kano?immediately?put?a?parole?hold?on?defendant.?The?next?day,?Turley?relayed?additional?information?to?Kano?linking?defendant?to?the?murder?and?robbery;?the?new?information?confirmed?that?fingerprints?found?on?the?victim’s?truck?belonged?to?defendant,?and?that?a?car?seen?by?several?witnesses?matched?the?description?of?defendant’s?yellow?Pacer.?[1?Cal.4th?218]?Based?on?this?information,?Kano?told?Turley?that?”he?was?free?to?go?anywhere,”?i.e.,?”to?search?his?car,?his?home,?anything”?pursuant?to?defendant’s?parole?search?condition.The?foregoing?was?more?than?adequate?to?give?rise?to?a?reasonable?suspicion?that?defendant?was?involved?in?criminal?conduct,?and?therefore?amply?justified?the?parole?agent’s?decision?to?authorize?the?search.?(People?v.?Burgener?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?505,?536?[224?Cal.Rptr.?112,?714?P.2d?1251].)?Defendant?also?asserts?that?the?purpose?of?a?criminal?investigation?cannot?justify?the?invocation?of?parole?terms.?On?the?contrary,?the?fact?”[t]hat?the?search?was?conducted?by?law?enforcement?officers?for?a?law?enforcement?purpose?is?irrelevant.?…?The?law?enforcement?purpose?of?the?police?who?seek?authorization?from?the?parole?agent?for?a?warrantless?search,?and?the?parole?supervision?purpose?of?the?agent?who?gives?that?authorization?are?indistinguishable.”?(Id.?at?p.?536;?accord?People?v.?Johnson?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?576,?594-595?[253?Cal.Rptr.?710,?764?P.2d?1087].)
Therefore?we?conclude?that?the?search?was?reasonable?under?the?Fourth?Amendment.?The?motion?to?suppress?was?properly?denied.?fn.?15
- Shackling?of?Defendant?at?the?Preliminary?Hearing
At?the?preliminary?hearing,?defense?counsel?noted?that?defendant?was?dressed?in?jail?garb,?that?he?was?handcuffed?and?that?his?feet?were?shackled.?Counsel’s?request?that?the?handcuffs?and?shackles?be?removed?was?summarily?denied.?Defendant?raised?the?shackling?issue?in?a?subsequent?section?995?motion?to?dismiss,?which?was?also?denied.?[23a]?Defendant?now?asserts?that?the?court?erred?in?refusing?to?have?the?shackles?removed,?and?that?the?error?prejudicially?tainted?the?witnesses’?identification?of?defendant?as?the?perpetrator.
[24]?It?is,?of?course,?well?settled?that?during?a?trial?”a?defendant?cannot?be?subjected?to?physical?restraints?of?any?kind?in?the?courtroom?while?in?the?jury’s?presence,?unless?there?is?a?showing?of?a?manifest?need?for?such?restraints.”?(People?v.?Duran?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?282,?290-291,?fn.?omitted?[127?Cal.Rptr.?618,?545?P.2d?1322,?90?A.L.R.3d?1];?accord?People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?651?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351];?People?v.?Stankewitz?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?72,?94-?95?[270?Cal.Rptr.?817,?793?P.2d?23].)?We?have?not?previously?addressed?the?question?whether?the?restrictions?on?the?use?of?physical?restraints?at?trial?should?apply?at?a?preliminary?hearing.?One?[1?Cal.4th?219]?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?has?reasoned?that?the?policies?which?underlie?such?restrictions?have?application?to?other?proceedings?as?well.?(Solomon?v.?Superior?Court?(1981)?122?Cal.App.3d?532,?536?[177?Cal.Rptr.?1].)?We?agree.As?early?as?1871,?we?noted?in?People?v.?Harrington?(1871)?42?Cal.?165,?the?common?law?rule?that?a?prisoner?”brought?into?the?presence?of?a?Court?for?trial?…?was?entitled?to?appear?free?of?all?manner?of?shackles?or?bonds?….”?(Id.?at?p.?167.)?As?we?explained:?”[A]ny?order?or?action?of?the?Court?which,?without?evident?necessity,?imposes?physical?burdens,?pains?and?restraints?upon?a?prisoner?during?the?progress?of?his?trial,?inevitably?tends?to?confuse?and?embarrass?his?mental?faculties,?and?thereby?materially?to?abridge?and?prejudicially?affect?his?constitutional?rights?of?defense?….”?(Id.?at?p.?168.)?The?common?law?rule?was?also?recognized?by?the?California?Legislature?with?the?enactment?in?1872?of?section?688.?That?section,?as?amended,?provides:?”No?person?charged?with?a?public?offense?may?be?subjected,?before?conviction,?to?any?more?restraint?than?is?necessary?for?his?detention?to?answer?the?charge.”
Thus,?it?was?recognized?early?on?that?the?use?of?shackles?in?court?could?prejudically?affect?the?rights?of?the?defendant,?not?just?because?of?the?impact?they?might?have?on?the?jury,?but?because?of?their?unsettling?effect?on?the?defendant?and?consequently?”his?constitutional?rights?of?defense.”?(Harrington,?supra,?42?Cal.?at?p.?168.)?More?recently,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?observed?that?”use?of?this?[shackling]?technique?is?itself?something?of?an?affront?to?the?very?dignity?and?decorum?of?judicial?proceedings?….”?(Illinois?v.?Allen?(1970)?397?U.S.?337,?344?[25?L.Ed.2d?353,?359,?90?S.Ct.?1057].)
We?reaffirmed?our?adherence?to?the?Harrington?rule,?(supra,?42?Cal.?165)?in?the?seminal?case?of?People?v.?Duran,?supra,?16?Cal.3d?282,?where?we?stated:?”We?believe?that?possible?prejudice?in?the?minds?of?the?jurors,?the?affront?to?human?dignity,?the?disrespect?for?the?entire?judicial?system?which?is?incident?to?unjustifiable?use?of?physical?restraints,?as?well?as?the?effect?such?restraints?have?upon?a?defendant’s?decision?to?take?the?stand,?all?support?our?continued?adherence?to?the?Harrington?rule.”?(Id.?at?p.?290.)
[25]?Although?we?have?not?previously?considered?the?use?of?restraints?in?a?preliminary?hearing,?the?reasoning?of?Harrington?and?Duran?leave?no?doubt?that?the?same?principles?would?apply?in?that?setting.?As?we?have?noted,?the?Harrington?rule?of?”evident?necessity”?serves?not?merely?to?insulate?the?jury?from?prejudice,?but?to?maintain?the?composure?and?dignity?of?the?individual?accused,?and?to?preserve?respect?for?the?judicial?system?as?a?whole;?these?are?[1?Cal.4th?220]?paramount?values?to?be?preserved?irrespective?of?whether?a?jury?is?present?during?the?proceeding.?Moreover,?the?unjustified?use?of?restraints?could,?in?a?real?sense,?impair?the?ability?of?the?defendant?to?communicate?effectively?with?counsel?(People?v.?Harrington,?supra,?42?Cal.?at?p.?168),?or?influence?witnesses?at?the?preliminary?hearing.?Accordingly,?we?hold?that,?as?at?trial,?shackling?should?not?be?employed?at?a?preliminary?hearing?absent?some?showing?of?necessity?for?their?use.?Nevertheless,?while?the?dangers?of?unwarranted?shackling?at?the?preliminary?hearing?are?real,?they?are?not?as?substantial?as?those?presented?during?trial.?Therefore,?a?lesser?showing?than?that?required?at?trial?is?appropriate. [23b]?No?reasons?for?the?shackling?of?defendant?appear?in?the?instant?record.?The?trial?court,?as?noted?earlier,?simply?denied?counsel’s?objection?to?the?handcuffs?and?leg?restraints?without?further?inquiry.?Therefore,?we?must?conclude?that?it?was?an?abuse?of?discretion?to?shackle?defendant.?(People?v.?Duran,?supra,?16?Cal.3d?at?p.?293.)The?error?does?not,?however,?compel?reversal.?[26]?”[I]rregularities?in?the?preliminary?examination?procedures?which?are?not?jurisdictional?in?the?fundamental?sense?shall?be?reviewed?under?the?appropriate?standard?of?prejudicial?error?and?shall?require?reversal?only?if?defendant?can?show?that?he?was?deprived?of?a?fair?trial?or?otherwise?suffered?prejudice?as?a?result?of?the?error?at?the?preliminary?examination.”?(People?v.?Pompa-Ortiz?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?519,?529?[165?Cal.Rptr.?851,?612?P.2d?941].)
[23c]?As?noted?earlier,?defendant?claims?that?the?physical?restraints?may?have?tainted?the?eyewitness?identifications?of?defendant?at?the?preliminary?hearing.?Only?one?witness,?Trudy?Allessie,?positively?identified?defendant?as?the?assailant.?The?record?of?the?preliminary?hearing,?however,?does?not?reveal?whether?she?actually?observed?the?restraints.?Her?testimony?at?trial?suggests?that?she?did?not.?On?cross-?examination,?defense?counsel?asked?Mrs.?Allessie?whether?she?recalled?how?defendant?was?dressed?at?the?preliminary?hearing.?She?responded,?”I?think?he?had?orange?overalls?on.”?Counsel?continued:?”And?he?was?handcuffed?and?shackled?at?the?preliminary?hearing,?wasn’t?he?”?She?responded:?”I?don’t?know.”Furthermore,?even?assuming?that?Mrs.?Allessie?was?aware?of?the?shackles,?she?had?previously?identified?defendant?at?both?a?photographic?and?a?live?line-up.?There?is?no?claim?that?either?of?these?identifications?was?suggestive.?Thus,?the?record?refutes?defendant’s?claim?that?the?identification?at?the?preliminary?hearing?was?suggested?by?defendant’s?prison?garb?and?shackles.?Accordingly,?we?conclude?that?the?error?was?not?prejudicial?to?defendant.?[1?Cal.4th?221]
- Hearsay?Statements
At?trial,?Mrs.?Allessie?was?positive?that?she?heard?two?shots?fired?after?defendant?left?with?her?purse,?but?was?uncertain?about?when?the?two?shots?occurred.?Initially,?she?testified,?”I?know?I?heard?one?[shot]?as?he?[i.e.,?defendant]?went?around?the?back?of?the?truck.?That’s?all?I?know.”?She?then?stated?that?she?heard?the?first?shot?while?she?was?still?sitting?in?the?truck.?She?could?not?be?sure?when?she?heard?the?second?shot.
The?prosecutor?then?introduced?Mrs.?Allessie’s?prior?statements?to?Sergeant?Turley?and?Deputy?Sheriff?McManus.?McManus?was?the?first?officer?at?the?scene?and?spoke?with?Mrs.?Allessie?within?an?hour?after?the?shooting.?Mrs.?Allessie?told?him?that?several?seconds?after?the?suspect?ran?off,?as?she?was?leaving?the?truck,?she?heard?two?shots,?”a?pop?followed?by?a?louder?pop.”?Turley?also?interviewed?Mrs.?Allessie?following?the?shooting.?She?told?Turley?that?she?heard?the?shots?after?she?had?exited?the?truck.
Section?1235?of?the?Evidence?Code?makes?admissible?the?prior?inconsistent?statement?of?a?witness?not?only?to?impeach?credibility?but?also?to?prove?the?truth?of?the?matters?stated.?(Clifton?v.?Ulis?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?99,?103-104?[130?Cal.Rptr.?155,?549?P.2d?1251];?People?v.?Green?(1971)?3?Cal.3d?981,?985?[92?Cal.Rptr.?494,?479?P.2d?998].)?However,?because?Mrs.?Allessie?could?not?remember?when?she?heard?the?second?shot,?defendant?contends?that?her?prior?statements?were?not?”inconsistent”?with?her?testimony,?and?therefore?should?not?have?been?admitted?into?evidence.
[28a]?Generally?it?is?true?that?the?testimony?of?a?witness?indicating?that?he?or?she?does?not?remember?an?event?is?not?inconsistent?with?a?prior?statement?describing?the?event.?(People?v.?Sam?(1969)?71?Cal.2d?194,?208-210?[77?Cal.Rptr.?804,?454?P.2d?700].)?”But?justice?will?not?be?promoted?by?a?ritualistic?invocation?of?this?rule?of?evidence.?Inconsistency?in?effect,?rather?than?contradiction?in?express?terms,?is?the?test?for?admitting?a?witness’?prior?statement?[citation],?and?the?same?principle?governs?the?case?of?the?forgetful?witness.”?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?3?Cal.3d?at?p.?988;?accord?Clifton?v.?Ulis,?supra,?17?Cal.3d?at?p.?104.) [27b]?Mrs.?Allessie’s?testimony?at?trial?that?she?was?still?inside?the?truck?when?she?heard?the?first?shot?directly?contradicted?her?earlier?statements?to?the?police?that?she?was?outside?and?walking?toward?the?rear?of?the?truck?[1?Cal.4th?222]?when?the?first?shot?rang?out.?Her?contemporaneous?statements?suggested?a?longer?period?of?time?between?defendant’s?departure?and?the?first?shot,?which?rebutted?defendant’s?claim?that?although?he?might?have?been?at?the?scene,?he?could?not?have?shot?the?victim?because?he?was?still?at?the?truck.?Moreover,?although?she?could?not?remember?at?trial?when?the?second?shot?occurred,?it?was?not?error?to?admit?the?prior?statements?indicating?that?she?heard?two?shots?in?rapid?succession.?[28b]?”…?Sam?stands?for?no?more?than?the?proposition?that?’prior?statements?are?not?admissible?to?impeach?a?witness?whose?answers?to?questions?are?exclusively?of?the?”I-don’t-remember”?variety.’?”?(Clifton?v.?Ulis,?supra,?17?Cal.3d?at?p.?104,?original?italics.)?[27c]?Viewed?as?a?whole,?Mrs.?Allessie’s?trial?testimony?was?inconsistent?”in?effect.”?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?3?Cal.3d?at?p.?988.)?Accordingly,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?admitting?the?prior?statements. [29]?Defendant?also?claims?that?admitting?the?prior?statements?violated?his?right?of?confrontation?as?guaranteed?by?the?Sixth?Amendment.?It?is?settled?that?admission?of?a?witness’s?prior?inconsistent?statement?to?prove?the?truth?of?the?matters?asserted?therein?does?not?violate?the?confrontation?clause?provided?that?the?statement?was?made?by?the?declarant?in?testifying?at?the?preliminary?hearing,?or?the?declarant?testifies?at?trial.?(California?v.?Green?(1970)?399?U.S.?149,?158-159?[26?L.Ed.2d?489,?497,?90?S.Ct.?1930];?People?v.?Bynum?(1971)?4?Cal.3d?589,?603?[94?Cal.Rptr.?241,?483?P.2d?1193].)?Here,?Mrs.?Allessie?testified?at?trial?and?was?subject?to?full?cross-examination.?Hence,?there?was?no?violation?of?the?confrontation?clause.- Photographs
We?disagree.?The?prosecution’s?theory?at?trial?was?that?the?killing?was?either?perpetrated?during?the?course?of?a?robbery?or?was?wilful,?deliberate?and?premeditated.?The?photographs?depicting?the?placement?and?nature?of?the?wounds?and?powder?burns?clearly?supported?the?prosecution’s?claim?that?defendant?first?shot?the?victim?while?the?two?were?facing?each?other,?and?fired?a?second?shot?from?close?range?into?the?victim’s?chest?while?the?latter?was?lying?helpless?and?prostrate?on?the?ground.?As?we?recently?observed?in?People?v.?Turner?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?668?[268?Cal?Rptr.?706,?789?P.2d?887]:?”The?prosecution?was?not?obliged?to?prove?these?details?solely?from?the?testimony?of?live?witnesses,?and?the?jury?was?entitled?to?see?how?the?physical?details?of?the?scene?and?body?supported?the?prosecution?theory?….”?(Id.?at?[1?Cal.4th?223]?p.?706;?accord?People?v.?Kelly?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?931,?963?[275?Cal.Rptr.?160,?800?P.2d?516];?People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?741?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741].)
Nor?was?the?probative?value?of?the?photographs?outweighed?by?their?prejudicial?effect.?Although?”?’murder?is?seldom?pretty,?and?pictures,?testimony?and?physical?evidence?in?such?a?case?are?always?unpleasant’?”?(People?v.?Pierce?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?199,?211?[155?Cal.Rptr.?657,?595?P.2d?91]),?we?have?independently?reviewed?the?photographs?in?question?and?conclude?that?they?were?not?unduly?gruesome?or?inflammatory.?(People?v.?Kelly,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?963;?People?v.?Turner,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?706.)
- Limiting?of?Defense?Experts
The?prosecution?attempted?to?portray?the?murder?as?a?particularly?vicious,?execution-style?slaying.?The?theory?was?based?on?the?eyewitness?testimony?of?Carol?DiCenso,?who?observed?the?assailant?fire?two?shots,?the?first?while?the?victim?was?standing,?the?second?while?the?victim?was?lying?on?the?ground.?Ms.?DiCenso’s?account?of?the?murder?was?corroborated?by?the?testimony?of?Dr.?Hunter,?a?pathologist?who?performed?the?autopsy?on?the?victim.?Dr.?Hunter?stated?that?the?second?bullet?did?not?exit?the?victim’s?back?but?rather?struck?a?hard,?flat?surface,?i.e.,?the?pavement.?He?further?testified?that?the?second?bullet?caused?an?”epithelial?crush?injury,”?which?further?indicated?that?the?victim’s?back?was?pressed?against?a?hard?surface.
To?rebut?the?foregoing?testimony?and?demonstrate?that?the?two?shots?were?fired?rapidly?while?the?victim?was?still?standing,?the?defense?attempted?to?qualify?David?Duncan,?a?retired?deputy?sheriff,?as?”an?expert?in?ballistics,?firearms,?examination?of?physical?evidence?and?crime?reconstruction?based?on?physical?evidence.”?Defendant?also?sought?to?qualify?Jules?Slaick,?a?licensed?private?investigator,?as?a?crime?scene?reconstruction?and?ballistics?expert.?At?the?prosecutor’s?request,?the?trial?court?conducted?an?Evidence?Code?section?402?hearing?to?explore?the?nature?of?the?proposed?testimony?and?determine?whether?either?witness?was?qualified?as?an?expert.
At?the?hearing,?Duncan?testified?that?the?absence?of?”mushrooming”?damage?on?the?nose?of?the?bullet?showed?it?had?not?hit?a?hard,?flat?surface?but?rather?a?bone?within?the?body?cavity.?Duncan?also?stated?that?the?autopsy?procedures?may?have?skewed?the?evidence?of?the?bullet’s?trajectory,?and?that?[1?Cal.4th?224]?a?crush-type?wound?would?have?shown?more?discoloration?than?that?found?on?the?victim’s?back.?Duncan’s?opinion?was?premised?on?his?review?of?the?autopsy?records?and?his?examination?of?the?bullet.
On?cross-examination,?Duncan?acknowledged?that?he?had?no?training?or?background?in?pathology?and?had?never?previously?testified?as?an?expert?in?that?field;?he?had?never?examined?a?bullet?wound?microscopically,?conducted?tests?to?determine?the?effects?of?a?bullet?on?the?human?body?or?removed?a?bullet?from?a?human?body.?Nor?did?he?know?the?meaning?of?the?term?”epithelial?crush?injury.”
The?trial?court?allowed?Duncan?to?testify?as?a?ballistics?expert?based?on?his?previous?experience?examining?spent?projectiles,?but?determined?that?Duncan?was?not?qualified?to?give?medical?testimony?concerning?the?nature?of?the?victim’s?injuries?or?the?trajectory?pattern?of?the?bullet.
Although?one?need?not?necessarily?be?a?licensed?physician?to?give?a?medical?opinion?(People?v.?Villareal?(1985)?173?Cal.App.3d?1136,?1142?[219?Cal.Rptr.?371]),?here?it?is?evident?that?Duncan?was?totally?deficient?in?the?requisite?background,?training?or?experience?to?state?an?opinion?on?the?nature?or?cause?of?the?victim’s?wounds.?The?trial?court?plainly?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?limiting?Duncan’s?testimony?to?ballistic?evidence.?(People?v.?Chavez?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?823,?828?[218?Cal.Rptr.?49,?705?P.2d?372].)
Defendant?also?attempted?to?qualify?Jules?Slaick,?a?licensed?private?investigator,?as?an?expert?in?ballistics?and?crime?scene?reconstruction.?Slaick?proposed?to?testify?that,?based?on?his?observations?of?the?physical?evidence,?he?believed?the?victim?was?standing?or?lunging?forward?when?both?shots?were?fired.?He?disagreed?with?Dr.?Hunter’s?conclusion?that?the?crush-?type?injuries?to?the?victim’s?back?where?the?bullet?tried?to?exit?were?caused?by?a?hard?surface.?Slaick?acknowledged?that?he?had?no?training?in?pathology?and?had?never?attended?an?autopsy.?Slaick’s?experience?in?accident?reconstruction?was?based?on?his?military?service?20?years?earlier,?when?he?took?photographs?of?plane?and?car?crashes.?He?had?never?photographed?a?crime?scene?involving?a?gunshot?death.?His?opinion?regarding?the?effect?of?the?bullets?on?the?victim’s?body?was?based?on?his?viewing?of?documentary?films?of?men?in?combat.?His?purported?ballistics?expertise?was?based?on?his?own?reading?and?experience?with?guns;?he?had?no?formal?training?in?ballistics?and?was?not?familiar?with?the?term?”epithelial?crush?injury.”
The?trial?court?found?that?Slaick?had?not?demonstrated?an?expertise?in?either?crime?reconstruction?or?ballistics,?and?limited?his?testimony?to?his?observations?of?the?crime?scene.?The?court’s?ruling?was?plainly?correct.?By?[1?Cal.4th?225]?his?own?admission,?Slaick?had?no?background,?experience?or?training?in?pathology?or?ballistics.?There?was?no?abuse?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Chavez,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?at?p.?828.)
- Firearm?Enhancement
To?recall,?the?evidence?showed?that?defendant?appeared?at?the?passenger?side?of?the?victim’s?truck?and?demanded?money?from?the?victim’s?wife,?Trudy?Allessie.?Mrs.?Allessie?opened?her?purse?and?handed?defendant?a?bundle?of?currency.?Defendant?then?grabbed?the?purse?and?ran?toward?the?rear?of?the?truck.?Moments?later,?a?passing?motorist,?Carol?DiCenso,?observed?an?individual?dressed?like?defendant?point?a?gun?at?the?murder?victim,?Sam?Allessie.?She?heard?a?shot?and?saw?a?gun?blast.?The?victim?slumped?to?his?knees?and?fell?over.?DiCenso?observed?the?assailant?straddle?the?victim’s?body,?aim?and?fire?another?shot?into?the?victim.?After?the?second?shot,?the?shooter?bent?over?and?reached?underneath?the?body?of?the?victim.?He?then?stood?up?and?ran?toward?a?car?which?had?its?lights?on?and?was?parked?in?the?lot?of?a?nearby?cafe.?Shortly?before?the?incident,?Mrs.?Allessie?observed?Sam?check?his?wallet,?which?he?habitually?kept?in?his?rear?pants?pocket.
It?is?undisputed?that?Ms.?Allessie?did?not?see?defendant?display?a?gun?when?he?robbed?her.?Nevertheless,?the?prosecutor?argued?that?defendant’s?use?of?a?gun,?moments?later,?to?rob?and?murder?her?husband,?Sam?Allessie,?facilitated?the?robbery?of?Trudy?by?preventing?Sam?from?pursuing?or?identifying?defendant.?The?prosecutor?argued,?and?the?jury?was?instructed,?that?a?robbery?is?not?complete?until?the?perpetrator?has?reached?a?place?of?temporary?safety.?Accordingly,?the?prosecutor?argued,?and?the?jury?found,?that?defendant?personally?used?a?firearm?”in?the?commission”?of?the?robbery?of?Trudy.?(??12022.5,?subd.?(a).)
[34]?In?construing?the?words?of?a?statute,?a?reviewing?court?is?required?to?read?the?statute?in?the?light?of?the?legislative?objective?sought?to?be?achieved,?and?the?evil?to?be?averted.?(People?v.?Woodhead?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1002,?1008?[239?Cal.Rptr.?656,?741?P.2d?154].)?[35]?The?intent?of?the?Legislature?in?enacting?the?firearm?use?enhancement?of?section?12022.5?was?”to?deter?the?use?of?firearms?in?the?commission?of?violent?crimes?by?prescribing?additional?punishment?for?each?use.”?(People?v.?White?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?791,?795?[129?Cal.Rptr.?769,?549?P.2d?537];?accord?People?v.?Chambers?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?[1?Cal.4th?226]?666,?672?[102?Cal.Rptr.?776,?498?P.2d?1024].)?In?light?of?the?legislative?purpose?to?discourage?the?use?of?firearms,?it?would?appear?to?be?immaterial?whether?the?gun?use?occurred?during?the?actual?taking?or?against?the?actual?victim,?so?long?as?it?occurred?”in?the?commission”?of?the?robbery.?(??12022.5,?subd.?(a).) [36]?”[I]t?is?settled?that?the?crime?of?robbery?is?not?confined?to?the?act?of?taking?property?from?victims.?The?nature?of?the?crime?is?such?that?a?robber’s?escape?with?his?loot?is?just?as?important?to?the?execution?of?the?crime?as?obtaining?possession?of?the?loot?in?the?first?place.?Thus,?the?crime?of?robbery?is?not?complete?until?the?robber?has?won?his?way?to?a?place?of?temporary?safety.”?(People?v.?Carroll?(1970)?1?Cal.3d?581,?585?[83?Cal.Rptr.?176,?463?P.2d?400];?accord?People?v.?Milan?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?185,?195?[107?Cal.Rptr.?68,?507?P.2d?956].)?Moreover,?the?traditional?”escape?rule”?has?been?applied?to?define?the?duration?of?robbery?in?the?context?of?numerous?statutes?defining?the?ancillary?consequences?of?robbery.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Salas?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?812,?823-824?[103?Cal.Rptr.?431,?500?P.2d?7,?58?A.L.R.3d?832]?[felony?murder];?People?v.?Laursen?(1972)?8?Cal.3d?192?[104?Cal.Rptr.?425,?501?P.2d?1145]?[kidnapping?committed?during?escape?from?robbery?is?kidnapping?”to?commit?robbery”?under?section?209];?People?v.?Carroll,?supra,?1?Cal.3d?581?[injury?inflicted?on?a?robbery?victim?after?the?taking?and?asportation?but?during?the?robber’s?escape?is?”in?the?course?of?commission?of?the?robbery”?for?purposes?of?the?great?bodily?injury?enhancement?of?former?section?213].)Carroll,?supra,?1?Cal.3d?581,?and?Laursen,?supra,?8?Cal.3d?192,?are?particularly?noteworthy?for?our?purposes?here.?The?former?involved?an?enhancement?statute?(great?bodily?injury?”in?the?course?of?commission?of?the?robbery”)?which,?like?the?gun?use?enhancement?of?section?12022.5,?was?plainly?intended?to?deter?conduct?which?increased?the?risk?of?physical?injury?to?the?victim?of?a?felony.?Similarly,?in?Laursen,?supra,?8?Cal.3d?192,?”we?recognized?that?the?escape?rule?served?public?policy?because?the?primary?purpose?of?the?kidnapping-to-commit-robbery?statute?is?to?impose?harsher?criminal?sanctions?to?deter?activity?that?substantially?increases?the?risk?of?harm.”?(People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1158,?1167-1168?[282?Cal.Rptr.?450,?811?P.2d?742].)?fn.?16
[33b]?Applying?these?principles?to?the?case?at?bar,?we?conclude?that?the?facts?are?sufficient?to?support?a?finding?that?defendant?personally?used?a?[1?Cal.4th?227]?firearm?in?the?commission?of?the?robbery?of?Trudy?Allessie.?As?the?prosecutor?argued,?the?jury?could?reasonably?have?inferred?that?defendant?used?the?gun?against?the?murder?victim?to?facilitate?his?escape?or?to?prevent?his?identification?as?the?robber?of?Trudy?Allessie.?The?gun?use?enhancement?was?properly?imposed.- Special?Circumstance?Claims
- Intent?to?Kill
Defendant?claims?that?the?jury?was?not?properly?instructed?as?to?the?requisite?intent?in?connection?with?the?special?circumstance?allegation.?[37]?The?Attorney?General?responds?that?any?error?is?harmless?under?People?v.?Anderson?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1104?[240?Cal.Rptr.?585,?742?P.2d?1306],?which?overruled?Carlos?v.?Superior?Court?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?131?[197?Cal.Rptr.?79,?672?P.2d?862],?in?holding?that?intent?to?kill?must?be?charged?and?proved?for?a?felony-murder?special?circumstance?only?where?the?defendant?was?an?aider?and?abettor?to?the?homicide?and?not?the?actual?killer.?(43?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1138-?1147.)?Here?the?evidence?showed,?and?the?jury?expressly?found,?that?defendant?actually?fired?the?shots?which?killed?the?victim.
To?be?sure,?we?have?held?that?retroactive?application?of?Anderson?to?pre-Carlos?crimes?does?not?violate?due?process?because?the?statute?was?”ambiguous”?and?provided?ample?”pre-Carlos?foreseeability?of?a?holding?that?such?intent?is?not?required?for?the?actual?killer.”?(People?v.?Poggi?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?306,?326-?327?[246?Cal.Rptr.?886,?753?P.2d?1082];?People?v.?Whitt?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?620,?637-638?[274?Cal.Rptr.?252,?798?P.2d?849].)?However,?defendant’s?crimes?were?committed?in?the?four-year?”window”?period?between?Carlos?and?Anderson.?Retroactive?application?of?Anderson?in?these?circumstances?would?deprive?defendant?of?a?defense?against?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?which?the?law?at?the?time?of?the?crime?plainly?permitted.?(People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955,?973?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131];?In?re?Baert?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?514,?521-522?[252?Cal.Rptr.?418],?cert.?den.?sub?nom.?California?v.?Baert?(1989)?492?U.S.?918?[106?L.Ed.2d?589,?109?S.Ct.?3242].)?Thus?we?must?address?defendant’s?claim?on?its?merits.
[38]?Defendant?contends?that?because?the?jury?was?separately?instructed?in?connection?with?the?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?that?they?must?find?an?intent?to?kill?if?defendant?was?an?accomplice?or?an?aider?and?[1?Cal.4th?228]?abettor,?fn.?17?and?was?further?instructed-at?defendant’s?request-to?determine?whether?defendant?was?the?actual?killer?or?merely?an?accomplice,?they?may?have?inferred?that?intent?to?kill?was?not?a?requirement?if?defendant?was?the?actual?killer.The?argument?lacks?merit.?The?jury?was?instructed?that?the?special?circumstance?allegation?required?findings?that?the?murder?was?committed?while?defendant?”was?engaged?in?or?was?an?accomplice?in?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?a?robbery?…;?[and]?that?the?defendant?intended?to?kill?a?human?being?or?intended?to?aid?another?in?the?killing?of?a?human?being.”?(Italics?added.)?In?summarizing?the?special?finding?forms?for?the?jury,?the?trial?court?underscored?the?intent-to-kill?requirement?in?connection?with?the?special?circumstance?allegation,?making?no?distinction?between?liability?as?the?actual?killer?or?as?an?accomplice:?”You?are?going?to?be?asked?to?make?a?finding?as?to?whether?or?not?the?special?circumstance?allegation?is?true;?that?is,?that?the?murder?was?committed?during?the?course?of?the?robbery?with?the?specific?intent?to?kill?the?alleged?victim.”?(Italics?added.)
The?prosecutor’s?argument?reinforced?the?trial?court’s?instruction?that?the?jury?must?find?”that?defendant?intended?to?kill?a?human?being?or?intended?to?aid?another?in?the?killing?of?a?human?being?….”?Moreover,?defense?counsel?made?clear?in?his?argument?that?he?had?requested?the?special?verdict?simply?to?focus?the?jury’s?attention?on?the?intent?requirement:?”You?would?want?to?know?in?your?own?mind?what?you?have?decided?as?to?who?the?killer?was?before?you?make?that?special?circumstance?finding.”?Nothing?in?the?argument?of?counsel?suggested?to?the?jury?that?intent?to?kill?was?not?a?requirement?if?they?found?that?defendant?was?the?actual?killer.
Accordingly,?we?perceive?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?jury?was?misled?with?respect?to?the?elements?of?the?special?circumstance?allegation.?(People?v.?Duncan,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?974.)
- Motion?for?Bifurcated?Trials
The?court’s?ruling?was?correct.?The?statutory?scheme?plainly?contemplates?that,?except?where?the?special?circumstance?alleged?is?that?of?a?prior?murder,?the?same?jury?which?determines?guilt?shall?also?at?the?same?time?determine?the?truth?of?the?special?circumstance?allegation:?”The?question?of?the?defendant’s?guilt?shall?first?be?determined.?If?the?trier?of?fact?finds?the?defendant?guilty?of?first?degree?murder,?it?shall?at?the?same?time?determine?the?truth?of?all?special?circumstances?charged?…?except?…?where?it?is?alleged?that?the?defendant?had?been?convicted?in?a?prior?proceeding?of?the?offense?of?murder?in?the?first?or?second?degree.”?(??190.1,?subd.?(a),?italics?added.)
Defendant’s?reliance?on?People?v.?Bigelow,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?731,?is?misplaced.?In?that?case,?one?of?the?special?circumstance?allegations?was?murder?for?the?purpose?of?avoiding?arrest?or?perfecting?an?escape.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(5).)?At?the?guilt?phase?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?highly?prejudicial?to?the?defendant,?indicating?that?he?had?committed?a?dozen?uncharged?burglaries,?robberies?and?thefts;?the?prosecution’s?primary?theory?of?relevance?was?that?the?defendant?committed?each?of?the?crimes?to?finance?and?perpetuate?an?escape?from?custody,?which?was?relevant?to?the?special?circumstance?allegation.?Because?of?the?”highly?prejudicial”?nature?of?the?prior-crimes?evidence,?we?concluded?that?the?trial?court?should?have?conducted?a?separate?trial?of?the?special?circumstance?allegation.?(37?Cal.3d?at?pp.?747-748.)
The?facts?of?the?present?case?are?not?even?remotely?similar?to?those?in?Bigelow.?No?evidence?was?presented?to?the?jury?during?the?guilt?phase?which?could?be?characterized?as?so?”highly?prejudicial”?(Bigelow,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?748)?that?the?jury’s?ability?to?render?a?fair?and?impartial?verdict?on?the?special?circumstance?allegation?would?be?impaired.?People?v.?Velasquez?(1980)?26?Cal.3d?425?[162?Cal.Rptr.?306,?606?P.2d?341],?on?which?defendant?[1?Cal.4th?230]?relies,?is?equally?inapposite.?fn.?19?There?we?approved?the?procedure,?contemplated?by?section?190.1,?subdivision?(a),?of?bifurcating?the?guilt?and?special?circumstance?trials?where?the?special?circumstance?allegation?was?that?of?a?prior?murder.?Obviously?that?was?not?the?case?here.
Defendant?also?relies?on?section?190.4,?subdivision?(c),?which?provides?that?the?same?jury?which?determines?guilt?shall?also?consider?any?plea?of?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity,?the?truth?of?any?special?circumstance?allegation,?and?the?penalty?to?be?applied,?”unless?for?good?cause?shown?the?court?discharges?that?jury?in?which?case?a?new?jury?shall?be?drawn.”?As?noted?earlier,?however,?defendant?did?not?seek?to?have?a?new?jury?empaneled?to?hear?the?special?circumstance?allegation;?he?sought?only?to?have?the?trial?bifurcated?and?the?issue?tried?before?the?same?jury.?Thus,?even?if?defendant?had?shown?good?cause,?under?the?terms?of?section?190.4,?subdivision?(c)?(which?he?did?not?invoke?at?trial),?he?would?not?have?been?entitled?to?the?relief?requested.
- Penalty?Phase?Issues
- Prior-crimes?Evidence
Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?permitting?the?prosecutor?to?present?testimony?describing?the?circumstances?of?his?1982?burglary?and?evidence?of?his?conviction?of?the?same?offense.
[40]?Defendant?argues?that?evidence?of?the?1982?burglary?was?admissible?as?either?violent?criminal?activity?under?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?or?a?prior?felony?conviction?pursuant?to?section?190.3,?factor?(c),?but?not?both.?We?have?rejected?this?claim?on?numerous?occasions.?(See?People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367,?432?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?788;?People?v.?Karis?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?612,?640?[250?Cal.Rptr.?659,?758?P.2d?1189];?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?764-765.)?As?we?explained?recently?in?Benson:?”The?People?may,?of?course,?seek?to?prove?both?the?fact?of?prior?felony?convictions?and?any?underlying?criminal?activity?involving?the?use?or?threat?of?force?or?violence.”?(52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?787-788.) [41]?Defendant?also?complains?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?of?criminal?conduct?which?went?beyond?the?parameters?of?his?1982?conviction.?Defendant?was?charged?with?burglary?(??459),?use?of?a?deadly?[1?Cal.4th?231]?weapon?(??12022,?subd.?(b)),?infliction?of?great?bodily?injury?(??12022.7)?and?one?count?of?cruelty?to?animals?(??597,?subd.?(a)).?Pursuant?to?a?plea?bargain,?he?pled?guilty?to?felony?burglary?and?admitted?the?weapon?use,?in?exchange?for?which?the?remaining?counts?and?allegations?were?dismissed.?Testimony?at?the?penalty?phase,?however,?showed?that?during?the?course?of?the?burglary?defendant?assaulted?and?inflicted?serious?bodily?injury?on?the?victim.We?have?consistently?rejected?the?contention?that?evidence?relating?to?prior?violent?activity?is?strictly?confined?to?the?circumstances?demonstrating?the?prior?felony?conviction.?(See?People?v.?Wright,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?432;?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?764;?People?v.?Gates?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1168,?1203?[240?Cal.Rptr.?666,?743?P.2d?301].)?As?we?stated?in?People?v.?Robertson?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?18?[255?Cal.Rptr.?631,?767?P.2d?1109]:?”?’When?dealing?with?violent?conduct?it?is?not?the?fact?of?conviction?which?is?probative?in?the?penalty?phase,?but?rather?the?conduct?of?the?defendant?which?gave?rise?to?the?offense.’?(Italics?in?original.)?Hence,?the?statute?permits?the?introduction?of?all?evidence?of?violent?crimes?whether?or?not?they?resulted?in?a?conviction,?except?those?of?which?the?defendant?has?been?acquitted.”?(Id.?at?p.?47,?quoting?People?v.?Gates,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1203.)
[42]?Defendant?also?claims?that?the?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?of?damage?to?the?burglary?victim’s?house?because?it?did?not?demonstrate?the?presence?of?criminal?activity?involving?the?use?of?force?or?violence.?(??190.3,?factor?(b).)?The?contention?lacks?merit.?As?we?recently?explained?in?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?771:?”[A]ll?crimes?committed?during?a?continuous?course?of?criminal?activity?which?includes?the?use?of?force?or?violence?may?be?considered?in?aggravation?even?if?some?portions?thereof,?in?isolation,?may?be?nonviolent.”?(Id.?at?p.?841.) [43]?Relying?on?People?v.?Harvey?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?754?[159?Cal.Rptr.?696,?602?P.2d?396],?defendant?next?contends?that?admitting?evidence?relating?to?the?dismissed?counts?violated?the?terms?of?the?plea?bargain.?We?have?rejected?the?identical?contention?in?prior?decisions.?(See?People?v.?Heishman,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?193;?People?v.?Taylor?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?719,?743?[276?Cal.Rptr.?391,?801?P.2d?1142].) [44]?Defendant?further?asserts?that?use?of?the?evidence?relating?to?the?prior?offenses?placed?him?in?double?jeopardy.?The?contention?lacks?merit.?In?presenting?testimony?relating?to?defendant’s?use?of?force?or?violence,?the?prosecutor?was?not?relitigating?the?prior?acts?for?purposes?of?obtaining?a?new?conviction?but?rather?for?their?relevance?as?an?aggravating?factor.?We?have?held?that?principles?of?double?jeopardy?have?no?application?under?these?circumstances.?(People?v.?McDowell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?551,?568?[250?[1?Cal.4th?232]?Cal.Rptr.?530,?758?P.2d?1060]?[“Defendant?was?not?placed?twice?in?jeopardy?for?the?same?offense;?rather,?evidence?of?the?offense?was?admitted?to?assist?the?jury?in?its?determination?of?the?appropriate?sentence.”].)?Defendant’s?claim?that?”relitigation”?of?the?1982?burglary?as?part?of?the?penalty?phase?violated?his?right?to?speedy?trial?is?similarly?without?merit.?(Ibid.) [45]?Finally,?defendant?asserts?that?admitting?the?evidence?of?the?circumstances?underlying?the?prior?conviction?violated?his?rights?to?due?process?of?law?(U.S.?Const.,?Amends.?V,?XIV),?equal?protection?of?the?laws?(id.,?Amend.?XIV),?freedom?from?an?impermissible?risk?of?arbitrary?and?capricious?decisionmaking?(id.,?Amends.?VIII,?XIV),?and?reliable?penalty?determination?(ibid.).?We?have?previously?rejected?each?of?these?claims.?As?we?stated?in?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?754:?”We?are?not?persuaded?that?the?admission?of?such?evidence-in?this?particular?case?or?generally-affects,?in?any?constitutionally?significant?way,?the?fairness?of?the?proceedings,?the?treatment?of?’similarly?situated’?defendants,?the?risk?of?arbitrary?and?capricious?decisionmaking,?or?the?reliability?of?the?outcome.?[Citations.]”?(Id.?at?p.?789.)?Defendant?was?not?denied?his?right?to?due?process?and?a?fair?trial.- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
At?the?guilt?phase?of?trial?the?prosecutor?called?defendant’s?wife,?Laura?Fierro,?as?a?witness.?In?front?of?the?jury,?she?invoked?her?privilege?against?self-incrimination.?The?prosecutor?elected?not?to?proceed?with?the?examination.?Thereafter,?during?cross-examination?of?Laura?Fierro?at?the?penalty?phase,?the?prosecutor?asked?her?whether?she?had?lied?to?the?police?to?protect?defendant.
[46a]?Defendant?now?claims?that?the?prosecutor,?with?knowledge?of?Laura?Fierro’s?intention?not?to?testify,?committed?misconduct?by?forcing?her?to?claim?a?testimonial?privilege?in?front?of?the?jury.?The?result,?he?asserts,?was?to?impeach?unfairly?her?credibility?as?a?witness?at?the?penalty?phase.?Defendant?also?argues?that?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?of?Ms.?Fierro?was?abusive?and?constituted?misconduct.Neither?contention?is?persuasive.?[47]?To?be?sure,?a?prosecutor?may?not?make?”a?conscious?and?flagrant?attempt?to?build?its?case?out?of?inferences?arising?from?use?of?the?testimonial?privilege.”?(Namet?v.?United?States?(1963)?373?U.S.?179,?186?[10?L.Ed.2d?278,?283,?83?S.Ct.?1151]?.)?And?it?has?been?held?to?be?improper?to?permit?a?witness?to?claim?a?testimonial?privilege?in?front?of?the?jury?where?the?witness’s?intention?not?to?testify?is?known?beforehand.?(United?States?v.?Chapman?(11th?Cir.?1989)?866?F.2d?1326,?[1?Cal.4th?233]?1333.)?We?have?recently?approved?the?procedure?whereby?the?Fifth?Amendment?claim?may?be?asserted?in?a?pretestimonial?hearing?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury.?(People?v.?Frierson?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?730,?743?[280?Cal.Rptr.?440,?808?P.2d?1197];?People?v.?Ford?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?431,?441,?fn.?6?[247?Cal.Rptr.?121,?754?P.2d?168,?76?A.L.R.4th?785].)
[46b]?However,?there?is?no?evidence?that?the?prosecutor?here?improperly?exploited?Ms.?Fierro’s?refusal?to?testify,?and?the?record?does?not?substantiate?defendant’s?claim?that?her?intention?was?known?beforehand.?Prior?to?trial,?the?prosecutor?informed?the?court?and?counsel?that?he?had?subpoenaed?Ms.?Fierro?as?a?witness?for?the?People.?Defendant?asserted?the?spousal?privilege?under?Evidence?Code?section?971.?At?a?hearing?to?determine?the?applicability?of?the?privilege,?the?prosecutor?indicated?that?Ms.?Fierro?would?testify?about?her?relationship?with?defendant,?the?type?of?clothes?he?wore,?his?employment?status,?the?amount?of?money?he?had,?his?ownership?of?an?AMC?Pacer?and?his?whereabouts?on?the?night?of?the?crime.?The?trial?court?ruled?that?the?spousal?privilege?was?inapplicable?under?Evidence?Code?section?972,?subdivision?(f),?and?allowed?the?prosecutor?to?call?the?witness?and?question?her?on?the?matters?set?forth?in?his?offer?of?proof.?fn.?20At?trial,?Laura?Fierro?invoked?her?privilege?against?self-incrimination?immediately?upon?taking?the?stand.?The?trial?court?thereupon?dismissed?the?jury?and?the?prosecutor?informed?the?court?that?he?had?not?anticipated?the?witness’s?action.?After?a?short?recess,?the?trial?court?recalled?the?jury,?informed?them?of?the?district?attorney’s?intention?not?to?recall?Ms.?Fierro?as?a?witness,?and?admonished?them?not?to?draw?any?inferences?as?to?the?credibility?of?the?witness?or?as?to?the?guilt?or?innocence?of?defendant?based?on?her?refusal?to?testify.
Apart?from?her?unsuccessful?attempt?to?claim?a?spousal?privilege,?nothing?in?the?record?indicates?that?the?prosecutor?knew?beforehand?of?the?witness’s?intention?to?claim?a?testimonial?privilege.?Moreover,?the?prosecutor?made?no?attempt?to?exploit?the?situation?to?his?advantage?by?asking?follow-up?questions?and?forcing?the?witness?to?claim?the?privilege?after?each?question.?(See?People?v.?Ford,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?440-?441.)?Furthermore,?the?trial?court?immediately?admonished?the?jury?not?to?draw?any?inferences?with?respect?to?[1?Cal.4th?234]?Ms.?Fierro’s?credibility?or?defendant’s?guilt?or?innocence.?Accordingly,?we?find?no?basis?to?conclude?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?in?calling?the?witness?to?testify?at?the?guilt?phase.
[48]?Nor?does?the?record?support?defendant’s?claim?that?the?prosecutor?improperly?cross-examined?Ms.?Fierro?at?the?penalty?phase.?His?questions?as?to?whether?she?had?lied?to?the?police?when?she?told?them?that?defendant?did?not?live?with?her?and?did?not?keep?any?belongings?at?her?home?were?within?the?proper?scope?of?impeachment?to?show?bias?and?untruthfulness.?(Evid.?Code,???780,?subds.?(e),?(k).)?His?questions?as?to?whether?she?had?received?welfare?while?defendant?was?living?with?her?and?whether?defendant?had?borrowed?money?from?her?were?admissible?to?impeach?Ms.?Fierro’s?testimony?that?defendant?was?supporting?the?family.?Accordingly,?the?claim?of?prosecutorial?misconduct?must?fail.- Victim?Impact?Evidence
The?comments?in?question?were?made?in?the?context?of?the?prosecutor’s?description?of?the?circumstances?of?the?killing,?which?he?argued?should?be?considered?as?a?factor?in?aggravation.?The?statement?in?full?was?as?follows?(the?specific?remarks?to?which?defendant?objects?are?italicized):?”So?the?first?thing?that?you?can?consider?is?the?actual?crime,?…?murder?during?the?course?of?those?robberies.?That’s?one?of?the?aggravating?factors?that?you?will?have?to?deal?with.?[?]?And?I?submit?to?you,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?that?this?is?an?incredibly?vicious,?an?incredibly?cold-blooded?murder.?It?is?a?murder?that?was?motivated?by?greed?during?a?robbery,?it?is?a?murder?that’s?motivated?by?an?absolute?abject?viciousness.?[?]?It?is?a?murder?that?is,?in?plain?and?brutal?terms,?an?execution.?This?is?not?a?killing?that?is?done?in?the?heat?of?some?passion,?done?by?a?person?who?has?lost?control?of?their?senses?because?of?emotional?or?social?trauma.?This?is?not?a?spur?of?the?moment?thing.?[?]?This?is?a?brutal?killing?done?in?the?robbery?of?two?totally?innocent?people.?It?is?an?execution?[in]?which?the?victim?in?this?case?was?shot,?and?then?was?shot?again,?and?literally?left?to?die?in?a?pool?of?his?own?blood?in?front?of?his?wife?of?50?years?who?was?so?traumatized,?who?was?under?so?much?pain?at?the?time,?that?she?could?not?even?go?over?to?her?husband?and?do?anything?to?assist.?[?]?That,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?is?something?that?this?woman?will?live?with?for?the?rest?of?her?life.?That?man?died?on?the?sidewalk?right?next?to?the?business?that?[1?Cal.4th?235]?he’d?owned?for?40?years,?and?there?was?no?reason?for?that?killing.?This?wasn’t?necessary.?[?]?Mr.?Fierro?had?already?gotten?his?money.?He’d?already?stolen?the?purse?of?a?defenseless?woman,?he?was?ready?to?get?away?with?his?ill-gotten?gains.?There?was?no?justification?for?simply?brutally?murdering?Sam?Allessie,?for?executing?him.?That?is?a?grossly?offensive?crime.?[?]?That?crime?stretches?the?concept?of?humanity.?A?person?who?commits?that?sort?of?senseless,?brutal?killing?starts?to?forfeit?the?definition?of?being?a?human?being.?[?]?…?That’s?the?key?factor?in?your?decision?of?whether?to?impose?death?or?whether?to?impose?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole.?That?crime,?his?behavior?in?committing?the?offenses?that?you?found?him?guilty?of?committing.?That?is?a?heinous?crime,?that?crime?is?a?gross,?aggravating?factor?in?this?case.”
During?the?pendency?of?this?appeal,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?partially?overruled?its?holdings?in?Booth?and?Gathers,?concluding?that?the?use?of?victim?impact?evidence?does?not?offend?the?Eight?Amendment?guaranty?of?an?individualized?penalty?assessment?in?a?capital?trial.?(Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597].)?Moreover,?we?have?since?held?that?evidence?of?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?defendant?is?admissible?under?California?law?(??190.3,?factor?(a))?as?one?of?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?defendant?was?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?….”?(People?v.?Edwards?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?787,?833-836?[1?Cal.Rptr.2d?696,?819?P.2d?436].)
The?prosecutor’s?remarks?here?plainly?fall?within?this?category.?His?reference?to?the?fact?that?the?victim?was?brutally?gunned?down?in?front?of?his?wife?was?a?simple?statement?of?fact?concerning?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?(People?v.?Stankewitz,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?111.)?His?notation?that?the?victim’s?wife?witnessed?the?killing?and?must?live?with?the?memory?was?equally?pertinent?to?the?circumstances?of?the?offense?and?its?obvious?effect?on?Mrs.?Allessie.?The?same?conclusion?applies?to?the?comment?that?the?victim?was?killed?in?front?of?the?business?that?he?had?owned?for?40?years.?The?statement?simply?describes?a?factual?circumstance?of?the?crime.?(Ibid.)?Furthermore,?none?of?the?remarks?was?so?inflammatory?as?to?divert?the?jury’s?attention?from?its?proper?role?or?invite?an?irrational?response.?(People?v.?Edwards,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?836.)?Accordingly,?we?find?no?error.
Defendant?objects?on?the?same?grounds?to?the?following?statement?by?the?prosecutor:?”It?has?been?so?long?since?we?spoke?about?Sam?Allessie,?we?have?heard?so?much?in?the?last?few?days?about?David?Fierro,?I?want?you?think?about?Sam?Allessie.?I?want?you?to?think?a?little?bit?about?your?own?family?and?your?own?friends,?your?own?neighbors,?your?own?fellow?members?of?society.?I?want?you?to?think?about?people?like?Tim?Deno?and?Sam?Allessie,?[1?Cal.4th?236]?those?kinds?of?peoples?[sic]?in?your?lives?and?my?life?and?the?lives?of?all?of?our?society.”?Again,?to?the?extent?that?the?remarks?could?be?construed?as?a?positive?reference?to?the?status?of?the?victim?and?the?effect?of?his?loss?on?friends,?loved?ones?and?the?community?as?a?whole,?they?were?properly?admitted?under?Payne?v.?Tennessee,?supra,?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597],?and?section?190.3,?factor?(a).
- Cross-examination?Concerning?Gang?Affiliation
Defendant’s?mother?testified?about?his?family?background,?relationship?with?his?parents?and?siblings,?educational?difficulties?and?extracurricular?activities.?She?stated?that?defendant?often?helped?his?neighbors?with?yard?work,?played?Little?League?baseball,?acted?in?school?plays?and?accompanied?his?family?on?picnics;?she?indicated?that?defendant?was?well?behaved,?was?close?to?his?brothers?and?sisters,?and?was?loved?by?his?wife?and?children.
Thereafter,?the?trial?court?ordered?an?in-chambers?hearing?to?address?defense?objections?to?several?areas?of?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?of?Dolores?Fierro.?fn.?22?Counsel?argued,?inter?alia,?that?questions?concerning?defendant’s?alleged?membership?in?street?gangs?were?irrelevant?and?beyond?the?scope?of?the?direct?examination.?The?prosecutor?responded?that?he?was?prepared?to?have?several?detectives?from?the?Fontana?Police?Department?testify?that?defendant?was?a?member?of?two?Latino?street?gangs.?Furthermore,?the?prosecutor?observed?that?Mrs.?Fierro?had?testified?generally?to?defendant’s?good?character?and?specifically?had?mentioned?his?participation?in?such?wholesome?activities?as?Little?League?and?school?plays.?The?prosecutor?[1?Cal.4th?237]?argued?that?he?was?entitled?to?rebut?such?testimony?by?inquiring?into?defendant’s?participation?in?youth?gangs.
The?trial?court?overruled?defendant’s?objection.?The?prosecutor?thereupon?questioned?Dolores?Fierro?concerning?defendant’s?membership?in?two?”street?clubs.”?Mrs.?Fierro?denied,?however,?that?defendant?was?ever?a?member?of?a?club?based?in?Fontana?called?”South?Fontana”?or?”South?Fonta”?and?further?denied?that?a?tattoo?on?defendant’s?arm?signified?his?membership?in?that?group;?she?also?denied?having?seen?similar?tattoos?on?defendant’s?friends,?and?disclaimed?any?knowledge?of?a?group?called?”Junior?Chingones.”
The?trial?court’s?decision?to?allow?the?cross-examination?was?correct.?[51]?Under?People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782]?evidence?not?falling?within?one?of?the?enumerated?statutory?factors?in?aggravation?is?inadmissible.?However,?as?we?noted?in?Boyd,?”Once?the?defense?has?presented?evidence?of?circumstances?admissible?under?factor?(k),?…?prosecution?rebuttal?evidence?would?be?admissible?as?evidence?tending?to?’disprove?any?disputed?fact?that?is?of?consequence?to?the?determination?of?the?action.’?(Evid.?Code,???210.)”?(Id.?at?p.?776.)?As?we?subsequently?explained?in?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113],?a?defendant?who?introduces?good?character?evidence?widens?the?scope?of?the?bad?character?evidence?that?may?be?introduced?in?rebuttal.?”The?theory?for?permitting?such?rebuttal?evidence?and?argument?is?not?that?it?proves?a?statutory?aggravating?factor,?but?that?it?undermines?defendant’s?claim?that?his?good?character?weighs?in?favor?of?mercy.?Accordingly,?the?prosecutor,?when?making?such?a?rebuttal?effort,?is?not?bound?by?the?listed?aggravating?factors?or?by?his?statutory?pretrial?notice?of?aggravating?evidence.?(??190.3.)”?(Id.?at?p.?791,?italics?in?original;?see?also?People?v.?Daniels?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?815,?882-883?[277?Cal.Rptr.?122,?802?P.2d?906];?People?v.?Burton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?843,?860?[258?Cal.Rptr.?184,?771?P.2d?1270].)
The?circumstances?here?are?similar?to?those?in?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?where?we?held?that?the?prosecutor?could?properly?refer?in?closing?argument?to?prior?criminal?conduct?which?had?not?been?admitted?as?evidence?in?aggravation?under?section?190.3.?As?we?explained:?”[A]ppellant?offered?substantial?evidence?and?argument?that?he?was?a?kind,?loving,?contributive?member?of?his?community,?regarded?with?affection?by?neighbors?and?family.?Once?appellant?placed?his?general?character?in?issue,?the?prosecutor?was?entitled?to?rebut?with?evidence?or?argument?suggesting?a?more?balanced?picture?of?his?personality.”?(42?Cal.3d?at?p.?791.)?To?be?sure,?we?cautioned?in?Rodriguez?that?”good?character”?evidence?does?not?open?to?door?to?any?evidence?the?prosecution?can?dredge?up.?”As?in?other?cases,?the?scope?[1?Cal.4th?238]?of?rebuttal?must?be?specific,?and?evidence?presented?or?argued?as?rebuttal?must?relate?directly?to?a?particular?incident?or?character?trait?defendant?offers?in?his?own?behalf.”?(Id.?at?p.?792,?fn.?24.)
[50b]?The?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?here?satisfied?these?requirements.?The?witness?had?testified?generally?to?defendant’s?good?character?and?offered?specific?examples?of?his?socially?useful?activities,?including?participation?in?Little?League?and?school?plays.?The?prosecution?was?entitled?to?present?”a?more?balanced?picture.”?(People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?791.)?Membership?in?youth?gangs?was?relevant?to?the?issue?of?defendant’s?character?and?activities?as?a?youth?and?specifically?rebutted?the?direct?testimony?of?the?witness.?Accordingly,?the?cross-examination?constituted?proper?rebuttal. [52]?Defendant?also?asserts?that?the?trial?court?failed?to?expressly?weigh?the?probative?value?versus?the?potential?prejudicial?effect.?(See?Evid.?Code,???352;?People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?25.)?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?however,?the?record?does?not?show?an?objection?on?these?grounds?to?this?line?of?questioning.?fn.?23?Accordingly,?the?trial?court?was?not?obligated?to?make?such?an?explicit?ruling.?(People?v.?Anderson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?453,?477?[276?Cal.Rptr.?356,?801?P.2d?1107].)?The?same?infirmity?inheres?in?defendant’s?claim?that?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?violated?his?rights?to?due?process?and?confrontation.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?27.)- Cross-examination?of?Defense?Witnesses
Defendant?alleges?several?additional?instances?in?which?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?of?defense?witnesses?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct?examination?or?introduced?inadmissible?evidence?of?defendant’s?bad?character?and?prior?criminality.
[53a]?Defendant’s?aunt,?Mrs.?Cervantez,?testified?about?defendant’s?upbringing.?She?observed,?inter?alia,?that?defendant?”never?was?disrespectful”?and?that?he?”would?never?hurt?anybody.”?During?cross-?examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?if?the?witness?was?”aware?of?…?[defendant’s]?involvement?with?law?enforcement?officers?in?Fontana?through?his?growing?up?years?”?The?witness?responded?that?she?was.?Counsel?thereupon?objected?and?the?discussion?was?continued?in?chambers.?Counsel?argued?that?the?question?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct?examination?and?was?improper?impeachment?at?the?penalty?phase.?The?prosecutor?responded?that?counsel?had?opened?the?[1?Cal.4th?239]?door?to?such?impeachment?by?eliciting?good?character?evidence.?The?court?sustained?the?objection?in?chambers?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury.Although?the?objection?was?sustained,?we?perceive?no?error?in?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination.?We?have?previously?observed?that?such?impeachment?is?permissible?when?character?testimony?is?introduced?at?the?penalty?phase.?[54]?As?we?observed?in?People?v.?Siripongs?(1988)45?Cal.3d?548?[247?Cal.Rptr.?729,?754?P.2d?1306]:?”It?is?well?established?that,?'[w]hen?a?defense?witness,?other?than?the?defendant?himself,?has?testified?to?the?reputation?of?the?accused,?the?prosecution?may?inquire?of?the?witness?whether?he?has?heard?of?acts?or?conduct?by?the?defendant?inconsistent?with?the?witness’?testimony.’?(People?v.?Wagner?(1975)?13?Cal.3d?612,?619?[119?Cal.Rptr.?457,?532?P.2d?105].)?So?long?as?the?People?have?a?good?faith?belief?that?the?acts?or?conduct?about?which?they?wish?to?inquire?actually?took?place,?they?may?so?inquire.”?(Id.?at?p.?578.)?Thus,?we?”reject[ed]?defendant’s?claim?that?cross-examination?under?Evidence?Code?section?1102?is?impermissible?at?the?penalty?phase?whenever?character?testimony?is?introduced?in?mitigation?rather?than?to?show?conformity?with?a?particular?character?trait.?A?defendant?has?no?right?to?mislead?the?jury?through?one-sided?character?testimony?during?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?trial.?We?do?not?believe?that?defendant?was?entitled?to?elicit?testimony?suggesting?that?he?was?honest,?and?at?the?same?time?to?preclude?the?People?from?introducing?contrary?evidence.”?(Ibid.)
[53b]?Here,?similarly,?defendant?was?not?entitled?to?elicit?testimony?that?he?was?a?”respectful”?youth?who?”would?never?hurt?anybody,”?and?preclude?cross-examination?as?to?whether?the?witness?was?aware?of?conduct?by?the?defendant?inconsistent?with?the?witness’s?testimony.?Defendant?does?not?contend?the?prosecutor?lacked?a?good?faith?belief?that?the?conduct?of?which?he?inquired?actually?took?place.?(People?v.?Wagner?(1975)?13?Cal.3d?612,?619?[119?Cal.Rptr.?457,?532?P.2d?105].)?Therefore,?the?cross-examination?was?appropriate. [55]?Defendant?also?claims?the?prosecutor?impermissibly?cross-?examined?defendant’s?sister,?Theresa?Sanchez,?about?certain?prior?bad?acts?of?defendant.?Ms.?Sanchez?testified?on?direct?that?defendant?”was?incapable?of?killing?a?person.”?On?cross-examination,?she?stated?that?she?had?never?seen?defendant?violent?and?denied?any?awareness?of?violence?in?his?past.?Counsel?objected?that?the?questions?were?argumentative?but?interposed?no?objection?on?the?ground?that?they?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct.?Accordingly,?the?issue?is?not?cognizable?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?34.)?Moreover,?for?the?reasons?stated?earlier,?the?prosecutor?was?entitled?to?inquire?of?the?witness?whether?she?was?aware?of?conduct?by?the?defendant?[1?Cal.4th?240]?inconsistent?with?the?witness’s?testimony.?(People?v.?Siripongs,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?578.) [56]?Defendant?also?complains?that?the?prosecutor?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct?testimony?and?insinuated?that?defendant?was?a?bad?person?by?inquiring?of?Ms.?Sanchez?whether?it?was?true?that?defendant?did?not?get?along?with?his?brother?Rey?and?sister?Tina.?Defendant?failed?to?object?to?the?question?at?trial;?accordingly,?the?issue?is?waived?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?34.)?[57]?The?prosecutor?also?asked?Ms.?Sanchez?whether?it?was?true?that?defendant?was?seeing?other?women?before?he?married?Laura?Fierro,?and?whether?defendant’s?placement?in?special?education?classes?was?based?on?truancy?and?disciplinary?problems?at?school.?In?each?instance?the?witness?denied?that?the?prosecutor’s?assertion?was?true.?Both?questions?constituted?proper?rebuttal?to?testimony?elicited?on?direct?examination.?Moreover,?the?court?admonished?the?jury?that?a?question?is?not?evidence.?Accordingly,?we?do?not?believe?the?questions?prejudicially?affected?the?verdict. [58]?On?cross-examination?of?defendant’s?aunt,?Mrs.?Cervantez,?and?defendant’s?wife,?Laura?Fierro,?the?prosecutor?asked?whether?it?was?true?that?defendant?failed?to?provide?financial?support?for?his?family;?the?prosecutor?also?inquired?of?Laura?Fierro?whether?it?was?true?that?the?family?was?receiving?welfare?benefits?while?defendant?was?living?with?them.?Defendant?contends?the?questions?were?irrelevant?and?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct?testimony.?The?record,?however,?reveals?that?both?witnesses?testified?on?direct?that?defendant?was?a?loving,?supportive?husband?and?father,?and?Laura?Fierro?stated?that?defendant?did?his?best?to?provide?financial?support?to?the?family.?Thus,?the?prosecutor’s?questions?were?appropriate?for?purposes?of?impeachment?and?rebuttal.?(People?v.?Siripongs,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?578;?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?790-793.) [59]?Finally,?defendant?complains?of?the?prosecutor’s?question?to?defendant’s?mother,?Dolores?Fierro,?as?to?whether?any?of?her?other?sons?were?”in?situations?where?they?don’t?have?the?freedom?to?meet?with?you?on?weekends.”?Defendant?contends?the?question?improperly?implied?that?the?witness’s?other?sons?were?in?prison.?However,?the?record?shows?that?counsel?interposed?an?immediate?objection?which?the?trial?court?sustained.?The?question?was?never?answered.?The?prosecutor?never?mentioned?that?the?witness?had?other?sons?in?prison?or?with?criminal?records.?No?follow-up?questions?were?asked?after?the?trial?court?sustained?the?objection.?Thus,?we?perceive?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?question,?even?if?erroneous,?was?prejudicial.?(People?v.?Ramirez?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1158,?1194?[270?Cal.Rptr.?286,?791?P.2d?965].)?[1?Cal.4th?241]- Effect?of?Execution?on?Defendant’s?Family
Defendant’s?first?witness?was?his?uncle,?Rudy?Garza.?At?the?end?of?Garza’s?testimony?on?direct,?the?following?colloquy?occurred:?”Q:?How?do?you?feel?about?the?fact?that?[defendant]?may?have?to?spend?the?rest?of?his?life?in?prison??[?]?A:?I?shudder?at?the?thought.?He?has?a?wife?and?three?lovely?children.?And?that?is?very,?very?difficult,?to?say?the?least.?[?]?Q:?What-what?kind?of?feelings?do?you?have?when-when?you?think?about?the?possibility?that?he?could?be?executed?in?the?gas?chamber??[?]?Mr.?Purbaugh?[Prosecutor]:?I’m?going?to?object?as?irrelevant.?[?]?The?Court:?Sustained.?[?]?Q:?What?would?that?do?to?the?family??[?]?A:?Devastate?them.”
[60]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erroneously?sustained?the?prosecutor’s?objection?and?thereby?excluded?otherwise?admissible?mitigating?evidence?concerning?the?emotional?impact?of?a?death?sentence?on?defendant’s?family.?The?contention?lacks?merit.?Although?the?objection?was?sustained,?the?record?discloses?that?defense?counsel?immediately?rephrased?the?question?to?ask,?”What?would?that?do?to?them,”?and?the?witness?responded,?”Devastate?them.”?Thus,?regardless?of?the?merits?of?the?objection?and?the?trial?court’s?ruling,?the?question?was?asked?and?answered.?There?is?no?basis?for?a?finding?of?prejudicial?error.Furthermore,?the?record?shows?that?four?other?members?of?defendant’s?family?subsequently?testified?without?objection?as?to?the?impact?of?defendant’s?execution?on?his?family.?Laura?Fierro,?defendant’s?wife,?was?asked:?”What?would?happen?to?you?and?to?the?children?if?David?were?executed?in?the?gas?chamber?”?She?responded:?”I?wouldn’t?know?what?to?do.?It?would?break?my?heart.”?Defendant’s?aunt,?Mrs.?Cervantez,?testified?that?a?death?sentence?”would?be?a?very?hard?thing”?on?his?family.?Defendant’s?sister,?Theresa?Sanchez,?stated?that?defendant’s?situation?was?”breaking?[the]?heart”?of?his?mother?and?stated?that?a?death?sentence?”probably?would?kill?us?inside.”?Similarly,?defendant’s?mother,?Dolores?Fierro,?testified?that?the?family?would?”all?be?broken?hearted”?if?defendant?were?given?the?death?penalty.?Thus,?assuming?without?deciding?that?defendant?has?a?right?to?introduce?evidence?of?the?effect?of?a?death?sentence?on?his?family?(People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?844,?fn.?14;?but?see?Robison?v.?Maynard?(10th?Cir.?1987)829?F.2d?1501,?1505,?cert.?denied?___?U.S.?___?[116?L.Ed.2d?463,?112?S.Ct.?445]),?that?right?was?not?violated.
- Alleged?Prosecutorial?Misconduct
Defendant?identifies?three?areas?of?misconduct?in?the?prosecutor’s?argument?at?the?penalty?phase.?He?asserts?that?the?prosecutor?improperly:?(1)?[1?Cal.4th?242]?precluded?the?jury?from?considering?lingering?doubt?of?guilt?as?a?factor?in?mitigation;?(2)?restricted?sympathy?as?a?factor?in?mitigation;?and?(3)?equated?lack?of?remorse?with?a?failure?to?confess?to?the?crime.
[61]?We?observe?initially?that?defendant?failed?to?object?to?any?of?the?statements?which?he?now?characterizes?as?prejudicial?misconduct.?Accordingly,?his?claims?are?waived?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?535;?People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?34.)?Nevertheless,?we?have?reviewed?the?allegations?of?misconduct?and?find?them?to?be?groundless.As?defendant?accurately?observes,?”[l]ingering?doubt?was?a?substantial?theme?presented?in?the?case?for?mitigation.”?Counsel?stated?prior?to?the?penalty?phase?that?he?intended?to?argue?to?the?jury?that?his?client?was?innocent?and?that?”it?would?be?a?tragedy?and?unthinkable?to?put?an?innocent?man?to?death.”?Several?defense?witnesses?testified?that?defendant?was?not?the?killer?and?implied?that?someone?else?in?defendant’s?family?was.?Defendant?himself?took?the?stand?and?stated:?”My?kids’?life,?I?didn’t?kill?nobody.”
The?prosecutor?in?argument?stated?that?defendant’s?claim?of?innocence?was?”an?incredibly?brash,?an?incredibly?cruel?statement?to?make?in?light?of?the?facts?and?the?evidence,?in?light?of?what?you?folks?know?happened?in?this?case,?in?light?of?the?verdict?you?reached?….”?He?argued?that?the?jury?should?be?”offended”?by?that?defense,?and?asserted:?”if?the?defense?wanted?you?to?hear?evidence?that?someone?else?did?it,?or?that?something?else?happened,?or?someone?else?was?involved,?the?time?and?the?place?to?do?that?is?in?the?guilt?phase?when?those?people?can?come?forward?and?sit?here?in?front?of?you?as?the?judges?of?facts?and?judges?of?truth?….”?The?prosecutor?characterized?the?lingering?doubt?defense?as?a?”cheap?shot”?and?advised?the?jury:?”You?have?no?obligation?to?try?this?case?again.?You?have?received?no?new?evidence,?the?decision?you?made?in?the?guilt?phase?was?a?correct?one.?Based?on?all?the?law?and?all?the?facts,?you?made?the?right?choice.”
[62]?Defendant?asserts?that?the?prosecutor’s?argument?effectively?”eliminated”?lingering?doubt?as?a?viable?consideration.?The?argument?lacks?merit.?Defendant?plainly?had?the?right?to?argue?his?possible?innocence?to?the?jury?as?a?factor?in?mitigation.?(People?v.?Farmer?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?888,?921,?fn.?5?[254?Cal.Rptr.?508,?765?P.2d?940];?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?134-135.)?Indeed,?defendant?did?precisely?that,?presenting?testimony?and?lengthy?argument?to?support?his?claim?of?innocence.?The?prosecutor,?by?the?same?token,?had?broad?discretion?to?argue?the?merits?of?the?case?and?comment?on?defendant’s?theory.?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?538;?People?v.?Warren,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?485,?fn.?1.)?Nothing?in?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?exceeded?the?bounds?of?proper?argument.?[1?Cal.4th?243] [63]?Defendant?also?asserts?the?prosecutor?improperly?attempted?to?”withdraw”?from?the?jury?relevant?considerations?of?sympathy?for?defendant’s?family.?The?prosecutor?argued?that?the?only?relevant?consideration?was?”sympathy?for?the?defendant,”?”not?sympathy?for?Mrs.?Fierro,?his?mother,?not?sympathy?for?his?children?or?his?aunt,?but?sympathy?for?the?defendant.”We?are?not?persuaded?that?the?prosecutor’s?argument?effectively?precluded?consideration?of?sympathy?for?defendant’s?family.?As?noted?earlier,?defense?counsel?elicited?considerable?testimony?concerning?the?impact?the?death?penalty?would?have?on?defendant’s?family.?Counsel?also?argued?the?issue?directly?and?at?length,?noting?that?defendant’s?family?was?”just?as?innocent?as?the?Allessies”?and?that?contrary?to?the?prosecutor’s?assertion,?”you?do?have?a?right?to?consider?the?consequences?that?this?will?have?on?all?the?innocent?victims.”?Defense?counsel?referred?repeatedly?to?defendant’s?family,?observing:?”[H]e’s?still?a?human?being.?He’s?still?the?father?of?three?lovely?children.?He?still?has?a?wife.?[?]?He?has?a?family?that?love?him?and?he?loves?them.?He?has?children?who?know?him?as?their?father.?And?I’m?sure?that?he?will?always?be?their?father.”?In?concluding,?counsel?returned?to?the?theme?of?family,?stating:?”And?I?think?that?his?family?does?need?him?and?his?children?do?need?him.”
Thus,?the?jury?heard?considerable?testimony?and?argument?on?the?relevance?and?importance?of?sympathy?for?defendant’s?family.?Assuming?without?deciding?that?such?testimony?and?argument?is?relevant?to?the?issue?of?mitigation?(see?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?844,?fn.?14),?it?does?not?appear?that?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?led?the?jury?to?disregard?the?evidence?in?question.?Moreover,?we?do?not?believe?the?court’s?instructions?precluded?the?jury?from?considering?defendant’s?family?situation?as?a?circumstance?in?mitigation.?The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?to?consider?the?circumstances?of?the?crime,?as?well?as?”any?other?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime?…?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.”?Although?the?instruction?refers?to?sympathetic?aspects?of?”defendant’s”?character?rather?than?defendant’s?”family,”?the?broad?based?charge?to?consider?”any?…?aspect?of?defendant’s?character?or?record,”?in?conjunction?with?the?considerable?testimony?and?argument?focused?on?the?family,?sufficiently?informed?the?jury?that?it?could?consider?sympathy?for?defendant’s?family?as?a?factor?in?mitigation.?(Italics?added.)
[64]?Lastly,?relying?on?People?v.?Coleman?(1969)?71?Cal.2d?1159?[80?Cal.Rptr.?920,?459?P.2d?248],?defendant?contends?the?prosecutor?improperly?characterized?defendant’s?claim?of?innocence?as?evidence?of?lack?of?remorse.?[1?Cal.4th?244]?In?Coleman,?we?concluded?that?”any?argument?that?failure?to?confess?should?be?deemed?evidence?of?lack?of?remorse?is?not?permissible.”?(Id.?at?p.?1169.)?Here,?the?prosecutor?stated:?”This?man?committed?those?crimes.?You?know?it?and?I?know?it?based?on?the?facts?and?the?law.?And?for?him?to?stand?up?now?and?deny?it?is?the?abject?opposite?of?sympathy.?[?]?It?is?cold-?blooded,?it?shows?his?attitude,?it?shows?a?total?lack?of?remorse.”Under?Coleman,?supra,?71?Cal.2d.?1159,?there?appears?to?be?little?practical?difference?between?a?failure?to?confess?and?a?claim?of?innocence;?neither?should?be?cited?as?evidence?of?lack?of?remorse.?Nevertheless,?we?do?not?believe?the?error?here?was?prejudicial.?The?remark?concerning?lack?of?remorse?was?brief?and?transitory.?Moreover,?the?prosecutor?did?not?impermissibly?characterize?defendant’s?lack?of?remorse?as?an?aggravating?factor.?(People?v.?Walker?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?605,?649-?650?[253?Cal.Rptr.?863,?765?P.2d?70].)?Moreover,?as?we?have?noted?on?previous?occasions,?remorse?”is?universally?deemed?to?be?relevant?at?the?penalty?stage?of?a?capital?case,?and?it?is?likely?the?jury?would?have?considered?this?factor?in?the?course?of?exercising?its?broad?sentencing?discretion?whether?or?not?the?prosecutor?noted?the?point.”?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?339.)?As?the?jury?was?not?otherwise?misled?about?the?pertinent?evidence?or?its?sentencing?responsibilities,?we?see?no?reasonable?possibility?the?prosecutor’s?brief?remark?could?have?affected?the?jury’s?decision.?(Ibid.)
- Alleged?Caldwell?Error
Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor?made?several?remarks?which?improperly?induced?the?jury?to?believe?that?the?responsibility?for?imposing?a?sentence?of?death?lay?elsewhere.?(Caldwell?v.?Mississippi?(1985)?472?U.S.?320?[86?L.Ed.2d?231,?105?S.Ct.?2633].)
[65]?First,?defendant?notes?that?the?prosecutor?mentioned?defendant’s?right?to?appeal?the?penalty?verdict?during?the?cross-examination?of?defendant’s?first?witness,?Rudy?Garza.?fn.?24?In?Caldwell?v.?Mississippi,?supra,?472?U.S.?320,?the?prosecutor?argued?to?the?jury?that?theirs?was?not?the?final?decision?as?to?life?or?death,?but?that?the?case?would?be?reviewed?by?an?appellate?court.?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?reversed?the?penalty,?holding?that?”it?is?constitutionally?impermissible?to?rest?a?death?sentence?on?a?determination?made?by?a?sentencer?who?has?been?led?to?believe?that?the?[1?Cal.4th?245]?responsibility?for?determining?the?appropriateness?of?the?defendant’s?death?rests?elsewhere.”?(Id.?at?pp.?328-329?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?239].)Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor’s?reference?to?defendant’s?right?to?appeal?falls?within?the?framework?of?Caldwell.?The?answer?to?defendant’s?claim?may?be?found?in?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659],?where?we?stated:?”Arguably?the?mere?mention?of?appeal?is?improper,?since?it?rarely?serves?any?constructive?purpose?and?may?lead?the?jury?on?its?own?to?infer?that?their?responsibility?for?penalty?determination?is?diluted.?But?when?the?context?does?not?suggest?appellate?correction?of?an?erroneous?death?verdict,?the?danger?that?a?jury?will?feel?a?lesser?sense?of?responsibility?for?its?verdict?is?minimal.”?(Id.?at?p.?1106.)?Plainly,?the?prosecutor’s?passing?reference?here?to?defendant’s?right?to?appeal?was?not?intended?to?”dilute”?the?jury’s?sense?of?responsibility,?and?we?do?not?believe?that?any?reasonable?juror?would?have?construed?it?as?such.?There?was?no?reversible?error.
[66]?Several?additional?statements?by?the?prosecutor?in?closing?argument?present?a?somewhat?closer?question,?however.?The?statements?in?question?are?set?forth?in?full?below?(the?specific?remarks?to?which?defendant?objects?are?italicized):“Starting?off?first,?what?exactly?are?the?nature?of?your?responsibilities?in?this?case??How?do?you?go?about?making?a?decision?on?which?of?two?penalties?that?are?available?is?the?appropriate?punishment?for?this?defendant’s?crime?
“The?defense?counsel?has?already?argued?to?you?in?his?opening?statement?that?this?part?of?this?case?is?substantially?or?totally?different?than?the?guilt?phase?that?you?have?already?participated?in.?In?the?guilt?phase,?he?argues,?you?were?to?base?your?verdict?on?the?law?and?the?facts?as?you?found?them?to?be.?That’s?true.
“In?the?penalty?phase,?he?has?argued?you?need?not?be?bound?by?the?law?and?the?facts.?He?proposes?instead?that?you?may?do?whatever?you?like,?that?you?must?not?be?constrained?by?the?law,?that?you?should?not-well,?that?you?should?do?whatever?feels?good;?that?sympathy?and?mercy?and?the?law?should?dictate?or?decide?your?verdict.?This?is?false,?very?false.
“The?defense?will?tell?you,?I’m?sure,?this?same?thing?again?in?his?argument?after?I?conclude.?And?he?will?probably?go?on?to?tell?you?and?attempt?to?convince?you?that?since?you?have?total?freedom?to?do?whatever?you?want,?or?whatever?feels?good,?that?thereby?when?you?return?the?verdict?of?death?in?this?case,?you?have?total,?personal?responsibility?for?that?result.?This,?too,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?is?false,?blatantly?false.?[1?Cal.4th?246]
“We,?as?a?society,?have?a?very?great?interest?in?seeing?that?our?justice?system?is?exactly?that,?just.?We?have?a?very?great?interest?in?seeing?that?this?system?does?not?proceed?on?the?basis?of?whimsy?….
“When?you?render?your?verdict?in?this?case,?it?must?be?based?on?the?evidence?that?you’ve?heard?and?the?law?and?instructions?that?the?Judge?gives?you;?that,?not?whimsy,?not?caprice,?not?whatever?feels?good?or?feels?right?must?the?basis?of?your?decision.?That?is?our?system.?A?verdict?based?on?the?facts?and?the?law?in?this?case?will?be?a?just?and?a?correct?verdict.
“Why?would?the?defense?attorney?argue?those?things?to?you?if?they?are?not?the?law,?if?they?are?not?correct??And?I?submit?to?you?that?it?is?a?very?significant?reason?why?he?argues?that?to?you,?because?he?wants?to?try?to?get?you,?as?jurors,?to?take?upon?you?a?part?of?the?guilt?that?belongs?truthfully?to?his?client.?He?wants?to?make?you?feel?personally?responsible?for?the?results?of?your?deliberations,?for?the?results?in?this?phase?of?the?trial.
“He?wants?to?try?to?make?you?feel?guilty?for?the?verdict?that?you?should?render?in?this?case?based?on?the?facts?and?the?law.?You?must?not?allow?this?to?happen,?ladies?and?gentlemen.
“You?will?not?be?doing?your?duty?as?jurors?if?you?do?allow?that?to?happen.?A?verdict?of?death?in?this?case?will?not?be?quote?your?fault?unquote,?as?the?defense?would?like?to?persuade?you.
“It?will?be?the?result?of?this?defendant’s?actions,?his?choice?to?be?greedy,?his?choice?to?satisfy?that?greed?by?committing?a?robbery,?his?choice?to?take?a?gun?along?in?the?commission?of?that?robbery,?his?choice?to?select?Sam?and?Gertrude?Allessie?as?his?victims.?[?]?…?His?display?of?absolute?viciousness,?of?total?depravity?in?stepping?over?a?mortally?wounded?Sam?Allessie,?bending?down?over?the?man,?pushing?the?end?of?the?barrel?of?his?pistol?into?Sam’s?chest,?and?shooting?him?again,?executing?him.
“It?will?be?combination?of?these?facts,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?of?his?conduct?and?his?behavior?and?his?crimes,?and?the?law?that?the?Judge?gives?you?that?will?result?in?a?death?verdict?in?this?case.
“It?will?not?be?your?responsibility,?it?will?not?be?your?fault.?The?law?determines[,]?when?the?facts?are?applied?with?the?law[,]?what?penalty?is?appropriate.
“You?are?here?as?representatives?of?our?community?to?exercise?and?carry?out?the?law.?It?is?not?a?personal-it?is,?of?course,?a?personal?decision,?but?I?[1?Cal.4th?247]?think?you?see?what?I’m?saying.?It?is?not?a?personal?responsibility,?it?is?a?personal?decision?to?follow?the?law?and?arrive?at?the?results?that?the?law?calls?for.?That’s?the?thing?that?you?must?do?as?jurors?in?this?case.”
Defendant?contends?that?the?italicized?passages?misled?the?jury?to?believe?that?they?did?not?bear?ultimate?responsibility?for?the?sentencing,?but?rather?that?the?sentence?was?predetermined?by?”the?law.”?Viewed?in?isolation,?certain?of?the?prosecutor’s?statements?do?appear?to?support?the?claim.?However,?we?must?assess?the?challenged?remarks?in?the?context?of?the?penalty?phase?arguments?as?a?whole.?(People?v.?Kaurish?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?648,?713?[276?Cal.Rptr.?788,?802?P.2d?278].)?So?viewed,?we?perceive?no?danger?that?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?misled?the?jury.?In?admonishing?the?jurors?not?to?”feel?guilty”?or?”personally?responsible,”?the?prosecutor?was?merely?suggesting,?albeit?inartfully,?that?the?moral?blame?for?the?crimes?and?their?consequences?rests?with?defendant,?not?with?the?jurors;?there?was?no?suggestion?that?the?law?simply?required?the?jurors?to?tally?the?competing?factors?in?aggravation?and?mitigation,?rather?than?to?individually?consider?and?assign?moral?weight?to?the?evidence.
Indeed,?later?in?his?argument?the?prosecutor?forcefully?and?repeatedly?reminded?the?jurors?of?their?individual?sentencing?responsibility?and?discretion.?Reading?from?the?court’s?instructions,?he?noted?that?the?jurors?were?”free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?you?deem?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors.”?Commenting?further,?he?noted?that?the?”law?instructs?you?that?you?must?be?judges,?that?you?must?do?some?balancing?and?some?weighing?and?some?careful?consideration?of?the?merits?on?both?sides?of?this?case?….?That’s?very?clear?from?the?law,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?that?that?must?be?the?basis?of?your?verdict.”?Finally,?the?prosecutor?emphasized?the?moral?component?of?the?jury’s?decision,?arguing?that?”the?death?penalty?verdict?in?this?case?is?morally?right.”
Defense?counsel?also?stressed?the?jurors’?individual?responsibility?to?weigh?the?evidence:?”Each?one?of?you?has?a?sworn?duty?to?make?your?own?decision,”?he?stated.?”[E]ach?one?of?you?has?to?…?take?that?individual?responsibility,”?he?continued,?and?”you?are?going?to?have?to?live?with?[the?decision]?the?rest?of?your?life.”?Defense?counsel?also?disputed?the?prosecutor’s?characterization?of?his?opening?argument,?stating:?”Now,?I’m?not?suggesting?to?you?that?if?you?decide?to?vote?for?death?it?would?be?your?fault.?[?]?I?am?talking?about?responsibility.?I?am?talking?about?reaching?a?decision?that?you?are?going?to?be?able?to?live?with?the?rest?of?your?life.”
In?light?of?the?foregoing,?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?could?not?have?misled?the?jurors?to?believe?that?the?responsibility?for?determining?the?appropriate?[1?Cal.4th?248]?penalty?rested?on?someone?or?something?besides?themselves.?(People?v.?Kaurish,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?712-?715;?People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1035?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627].)?Nor?do?we?perceive?any?danger?that?the?jury?misapprehended?the?weighing?process.?As?noted,?both?court?and?counsel?stressed?that?the?sentencing?process?was?not?to?be?performed?in?a?mechanical?fashion,?but?rather?involved?a?moral?judgment?to?be?made?by?each?juror?individually.?(People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?882-883.)?Although?defendant?cites?several?comments?by?the?prosecutor?referring?to?an?imaginary?”line”?which,?if?crossed,?would?indicate?a?sentence?of?death,fn.?25?it?is?clear?that?the?prosecutor?was?referring?to?a?”line”?in?the?jury’s?overall?evaluation?of?the?evidence,?not?an?arithmetic?tally?of?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors.
[67]?Finally,?defendant?contends?the?prosecutor?improperly?portrayed?the?weighing?process?as?essentially?an?inquiry?into?the?moral?justification?for?the?crimes,?and?failed?to?acknowledge?the?existence?of?mitigating?factors,?suggesting?that?there?were?none.?(See?People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?884.)?We?disagree.?The?prosecutor?characterized?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?as?”extremely?important,”?the?”crux?of?the?whole?matter?before?you.”?He?described?the?slaying?as?”senseless,”?”brutal”?and?”heinous.”?We?find?no?evidence,?however,?that?he?hinged?the?death?penalty?decision?on?whether?the?capital?offenses?were?morally?justified,?an?irrelevant?consideration?absent?evidence?of?moral?justification?by?the?defendant.?(Ibid.)?Nor?did?the?prosecutor?”fail?to?acknowledge?the?existence?of?mitigating?circumstances?….”?(Ibid.)?Although?at?one?point?he?stated,?”in?all?sincerity?there?is?no?mitigation?in?this?case,”?it?was?after?an?extensive?survey?and?rebuttal?of?the?mitigating?evidence?offered?by?defendant.?This?was?entirely?appropriate.?(People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?789-790;?People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?884.)- Death?Penalty?as?Deterrent/Future?Dangerousness
These?remarks?were?not?improper.?”[W]e?have?held?that?argument?directed?to?a?defendant’s?future?dangerousness,?when?based?on?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?past?conduct?rather?than?expert?opinion,?is?proper?and?does?not?invite?speculation?as?to?the?defendant’s?possible?release.?[Citations.]”?(People?v.?Hayes?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?577,?635-636?[276?Cal.Rptr.?874,?802?P.2d?376].)?Moreover,?”we?have?consistently?held?that?it?is?not?misconduct?for?a?prosecutor?to?argue?at?the?penalty?phase?that?if?a?defendant?were?sentenced?to?prison?he?might?kill?another?prisoner.?[Citations?and?fn.?omitted.]”?(People?v.?Taylor,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?750.)
- Alleged?Instructional?Errors
Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?committed?instructional?error?in?three?instances.
[70]?First?defendant?claims?the?court?erred?in?refusing?to?give?a?proposed?instruction?which?provided:?”You?are?instructed?that?if?your?decision?in?the?penalty?phase?of?this?trial,?is?that?the?defendant?should?be?put?to?death,?the?sentence?will?be?carried?out.?On?the?other?hand,?if?you?determine?that?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole?is?the?proper?sentence,?you?are?instructed?that?the?defendant?will?never?be?released?from?prison.”?In?response?to?the?court’s?observation?that?the?instruction?was?untrue,?defense?counsel?proposed?to?modify?the?instruction?to?provide?that?the?jurors?must?”assume?that?the?sentence?that?they?impose?will?be?carried?out.”?The?prosecutor?opposed?both?the?original?and?the?modified?instruction,?noting?that?the?jury?had?not?manifested?any?concern?about?the?issue.?The?trial?court?refused?to?give?the?instruction?in?either?form.The?trial?court?properly?refused?the?proffered?instruction.?In?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?86,?we?affirmed?a?trial?court’s?decision?to?reject?[1?Cal.4th?250]?an?instruction?virtually?identical?to?that?presented?here.?As?we?there?observed,?the?proposed?instruction?contains?the?twin?vices?of?misstating?the?facts?and?inviting?”the?same?sort?of?speculation?as?to?whether?unidentified?officials?will?in?the?future?perform?their?job”?which?we?cautioned?against?in?People?v.?Ramos?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?136?[207?Cal.Rptr.?800,?689?P.2d?430].?(People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?130;?accord?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1245,?fn.?13?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047].)?The?jury?here?received?no?information?and?raised?no?question?as?to?whether?the?sentence?would?in?fact?be?carried?out.?fn.?26?Accordingly,?the?requested?instruction?was?properly?refused.
Defendant’s?alternative?request?to?instruct?the?jury?that?they?should?assume?the?sentence?they?imposed?would?be?carried?out,?was?not?similarly?misleading,?and,?as?we?have?previously?observed,?should?have?been?given.?(People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?86,?131.)?Nevertheless,?absent?any?evidence?to?suggest?that?the?jury?was?confused?about?the?issue?or?concerned?that?their?sentence?would?not?be?carried?out,?the?failure?to?so?instruct?cannot?be?deemed?prejudicial.
[71]?Defendant?next?asserts?that?the?trial?court?should?have?instructed?the?jury,?sua?sponte,?not?to?double?count?the?instant?crimes?under?section?190.3,?factors?(a)?(circumstances?of?the?crime)?and?(c)?(prior?felony?conviction).?Defendant?cites?nothing?from?the?record?to?suggest?that?the?jury?was?somehow?led?to?believe?that?the?guilty?verdict?they?had?rendered?in?this?case?qualified?as?a?prior?felony?conviction?under?factor?(c).?Moreover,?the?jury?was?specifically?instructed?that?they?were?not?to?consider?any?evidence?of?any?other?crime,?other?than?defendant’s?prior?burglary?conviction,?as?an?aggravating?circumstance.?Hence,?we?perceive?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?jury?was?misled?into?double?counting?the?instant?offense?under?factors?(a)?and?(c)?or,?for?that?matter,?factors?(a)?and?(b)?(prior?violent?conduct).?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?763.) [72]?Defendant?also?asserts?that?the?giving?of?CALJIC?No.?8.84.1?erroneously?led?the?jury?to?double?count?his?prior?burglary?conviction?under?factors?(b)?(prior?violent?conduct)?and?(c)?(prior?felony?conviction).?Although?both?the?prosecutor?and?the?trial?court?here?informed?the?jury?that?they?should?not?consider?defendant’s?prior?felony?under?both?factors,?”the?jury?was?entitled?to?consider?the?relevance?of?defendant’s?prior?felony?conviction?[1?Cal.4th?251]?for?both?purposes?under?factors?(b)?and?(c).”?(People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?654,?fn.?26,?original?italics;?accord?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?764-765.)Finally,?defendant?claims?that?the?court’s?instructions?on?his?prior?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?and?the?lesser?crime?of?battery?were?flawed?because?they?failed?to?distinguish?between?the?culpability?of?defendant?and?his?partner.?Defendant?also?contends?there?was?insufficient?evidence?to?warrant?the?instruction?on?assault.
[73a]?To?demonstrate?defendant’s?prior?violent?conduct,?the?prosecutor?presented?evidence?that?defendant?and?a?companion?entered?the?home?of?Tim?Deno?and?assaulted?him?during?the?course?of?a?burglary.?Deno?testified?that?he?was?struck?at?least?twice?from?behind?by?defendant’s?companion.?As?Deno?was?falling,?defendant?struck?him?in?the?forehead?with?a?telephone?receiver.?As?a?result?of?the?assault,?Deno?suffered?a?concussion,?a?skull?fracture?and?three?cuts?requiring?twenty?stitches.Defendant?contends?the?evidence?did?not?support?an?instruction?on?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?or?by?means?of?force?likely?to?produce?great?bodily?injury?(??245,?subd.?(a).)?[74]?(See?fn.?27.),?[73b]?)?On?the?contrary,?the?evidence?demonstrated?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?defendant?committed?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon;?an?object?such?as?a?telephone?may?constitute?a?deadly?weapon?if?used?in?such?a?manner?as?to?be?capable?of?producing?death?or?great?bodily?injury,?and?the?jury?was?so?instructed.?(In?re?Jose?R.?(1982)?137?Cal.App.3d?269?[186?Cal.Rptr.?898].)?fn.?27Furthermore,?although?it?is?not?necessary?that?the?force?used?actually?produce?injury?(People?v.?Wingo,?supra,?14?Cal.3d?at?p.?176),?here?the?victim?was?struck?on?the?forehead?without?warning?and?with?great?force,?thus?plainly?suffering?great?bodily?injury.?(In?re?Nirran?W.?(1989)?207?Cal.App.3d?1157,?1161-1162?[255?Cal.Rptr.?327].)
[75]?Defendant?further?asserts?that?the?instructions?were?flawed?because?they?failed?to?distinguish?between?the?acts?of?assault?committed?by?himself?and?his?compatriot.?In?light?of?the?trial?court’s?instruction?to?the?jury?that?they?must?be?satisfied?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?defendant?did,?in?fact,?commit?the?acts?of?assault?on?Deno,?we?discern?no?possibility?the?jury?[1?Cal.4th?252]?attributed?the?acts?of?defendant’s?companion?to?himself.?Defendant?also?claims?the?prosecutor?improperly?”blurred”?the?actions?of?defendant?and?his?partner.?On?the?contrary,?the?prosecutor?in?opening?argument?accurately?stated?that?Deno?was?struck?from?behind?by?the?second?man?and?as?he?fell?”he?saw?Mr.?Fierro?strike?him?in?the?forehead?with?some?object?which?he?believed?was?the?receiver?of?the?phone.”?The?prosecutor’s?description?of?the?events?in?closing?argument?was?equally?accurate.?fn.?28?Accordingly,?we?conclude?there?was?no?instructional?error.- The?Modification?Motion
Defendant’s?first?contention?is?plainly?without?merit.?Under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e),?the?court?is?directed?to?independently?review?and?reweigh?the?evidence?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances,?and?to?determine?whether?the?weight?of?the?evidence?supports?the?jury?verdict.?(People?v.?Clark?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?583,?634?[268?Cal.Rptr.?399,?789?P.2d?127].)?The?only?evidence?the?court?is?to?review?is?that?which?was?before?the?jury.?(Id.?at?pp.?634-635.)?Since?the?jury?was?clearly?entitled?to?evaluate?the?prior?burglary?for?its?relevance?under?both?factors?(b)?and?(c)?(People?v.?Whitt,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?654,?fn.?26;?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?764),?the?court?was?similarly?authorized.
For?the?same?reason,?however,?the?court?should?not?have?considered?the?probation?report.?”Under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e),?the?court?is?directed?to?review?the?evidence?presented?to?the?jury;?a?probation?report?is?not?presented?to?the?jury.”?(People?v.?Lewis?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?262,?287?[266?Cal.Rptr.?834,?786?P.2d?892].)?Nevertheless,?on?the?record?presented?the?error?must?be?deemed?nonprejudicial.?In?denying?the?application,?the?court?considered?each?of?the?statutory?factors?in?light?of?the?evidence?presented?at?the?penalty?phase?hearing,?and?concluded:?”I?am?persuaded?by?my?own?[1?Cal.4th?253]?independent?review?and?determination,?based?on?all?the?facts?and?evidence?in?this?case,?that?the?aggravating?circumstances?are?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances?that?the?proper?verdict?is?death.”
The?trial?court?made?no?reference?to?any?of?the?potentially?prejudicial?matters?contained?in?the?probation?report.?fn.?29?Indeed,?it?is?apparent?from?the?record?that?they?played?no?role?whatsoever?in?the?court’s?decision.?In?articulating?its?reasons?for?denying?the?application,?the?court?relied?exclusively?on?the?circumstances?of?the?crime,?which?it?described?as?”wanton?and?brutal,”?the?presence?of?prior?violent?criminal?activity,?which?the?court?characterized?as?”particularly?reprehensible,”?and?the?presence?of?a?prior?felony?conviction.?”[A]bsent?evidence?in?the?record?to?the?contrary,?we?must?assume?that?the?court?was?not?improperly?influenced?by?the?report?in?ruling?on?the?application.”?(People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?274?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906];?accord?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?540?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640].)?Under?the?circumstances,?we?perceive?no?reasonable?possibility?the?court’s?reading?of?the?probation?report?affected?its?ruling.?(People?v.?Ramirez,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1202.)
- Disproportionate?Penalty
Defendant?also?contends?the?court?erred?in?denying?his?request?to?give?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?8.21,?which?would?have?allowed?the?jury?to?make?a?nonbinding?recommendation?to?the?court?to?reduce?the?first?degree?murder?conviction?to?second?degree?murder.?fn.?30?He?claims?the?court?erred?in?refusing?to?permit?the?jury?”to?express?its?opinion?on?the?appropriateness?of?the?felony-murder?doctrine.”?The?trial?court?properly?refused?the?proposed?instruction.?The?jury’s?duty?is?to?apply?the?law?to?the?facts,?not?to?give?recommendations?to?the?court?as?to?whether?or?not?the?conviction?should?be?reduced?to?second?degree?murder.
[80]?Finally,?defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erroneously?failed?to?exercise?its?discretion?in?denying?defendant’s?motion?to?strike?the?special?circumstance?finding?pursuant?to?section?1385.?Section?1385,?subdivision?(a),?provides?generally?that?the?court?may?order?an?action?to?be?dismissed?”in?furtherance?of?justice.”Defendant?made?three?attempts?to?set?aside?the?special?circumstance?finding?and?penalty?verdict.?First,?he?moved?for?a?new?trial?on?the?ground?that?the?evidence?was?insufficient?to?support?the?special?circumstance?finding.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion,?finding?that?the?”evidence?as?a?whole?is?sufficient?to?support?and?sustain?the?verdicts?of?the?jury?in?their?entirety?in?this?case?….”?Defendant?next?moved?under?section?1385?to?strike?the?special?circumstance?finding?in?the?interest?of?justice,?arguing?that?the?sentence?was?disproportionate?to?his?personal?culpability.?The?prosecutor?opposed?the?motion,?noting?defendant’s?history?of?violence?and?the?brutality?of?the?instant?offenses.?The?trial?court?summarily?denied?the?motion.?Finally,?defendant?made?his?application?to?modify?the?verdict?pursuant?to?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e).?As?noted,?the?trial?court?determined?that?the?evidence?and?law?substantially?supported?the?jury’s?sentence.
Defendant?now?claims?that?the?trial?court?did?not?”understand?its?responsibility”?under?section?1385,?and?speculates?that?the?court?equated?the?section?1385?motion?with?the?new?trial?motion,?which?it?denied?on?the?ground?that?the?evidence?was?sufficient?to?support?the?special?circumstance?finding.
We?have?not?previously?determined?whether?a?court?has?the?power?to?dismiss?a?special?circumstance?after?the?jury?has?returned?a?verdict?of?death.?[1?Cal.4th?255]?(See?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?849.)?We?need?not?resolve?the?issue?here,?for?the?trial?court?entertained?extensive?argument?on?the?merits?of?the?motion?before?ruling.?Thus,?assuming?arguendo?that?the?trial?court?had?that?power,?its?decision?was?a?proper?exercise?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?333.)
- Constitutionality?of?the?1978?Death?Penalty?Law
Defendant?raises?multiple?challenges?to?the?constitutionality?of?the?1978?death?penalty?law.?We?have?previously?rejected?each?of?his?claims.?(People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?234;?People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?911?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282];?People?v.?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?541;?People?v.?Caro?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1035,?1068?[251?Cal.Rptr.?757,?761?P.2d?680];?People?v.?Howard,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?443-444;?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?777-779.)?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?also?upheld?the?1978?law.?(Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?110?S.Ct.?1190];?California?v.?Brown?(1987)?479?U.S.?538?[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837].)?We?therefore?reject?defendant’s?challenges.
Conclusion
The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?concur?in?the?judgment?as?to?guilt?and?death?eligibility.?After?review,?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal?or?vacation?on?either?issue.
I?dissent,?however,?as?to?penalty.
In?Caldwell?v.?Mississippi?(1985)?472?U.S.?320?[86?L.Ed.2d?231,?105?S.Ct.?2633],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?reviewed?a?judgment?of?death.?At?the?penalty?phase?of?the?trial?below,?defense?counsel?”plea[ded]”?in?their?summations?that?”the?jury?confront?both?the?gravity?and?the?responsibility?of?calling?for?another’s?death,?even?in?the?context?of?a?capital?sentencing?proceeding.”?(Id.?at?p.?324?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?236].)?By?contrast,?in?his?summation?the?prosecutor?”sought?to?minimize?the?jury’s?sense?of?importance?of?its?role.”?(Id.?at?p.?325?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?237].)?Specifically,?he?told?the?jurors?that?”[defense?counsel]?would?have?you?believe?that?you’re?going?to?kill?this?man?and?they?know-they?know?that?your?decision?is?not?the?final?decision.?…?Your?job?is?reviewable.”?(Ibid.,?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.)?He?also?said?that?”the?decision?you?render?is?automatically?reviewable?by?the?Supreme?Court.?Automatically?….”?(Id.?at?pp.?325-326?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?237],?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.)?[1?Cal.4th?256]
The?Caldwell?court?concluded?that?the?prosecutor’s?comments?were?improper?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution:?they?”sought?to?minimize?the?jury’s?sense?of?responsibility?for?determining?the?appropriateness?of?death.”?(472?U.S.?at?p.?341?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?247].)?It?proceeded?to?vacate?the?sentence?of?death?and?reverse?the?judgment?as?to?penalty:?”Because?we?cannot?say?that?[the?prosecutor’s?remarks]?had?no?effect?on?the?sentencing?decision,?that?decision?does?not?meet?the?standard?of?reliability?that?the?Eighth?Amendment?requires.”?(Ibid.)
In?this?case?too-which?was?tried?a?year?after?Caldwell?-the?verdict?of?death?should?be?set?aside?and?the?penalty?judgment?should?be?reversed.
Here,?as?in?Caldwell,?defense?counsel?urged?the?jury?to?confront?its?grave?responsibility?for?determining?the?appropriateness?of?death.
For?example,?at?one?point?counsel?told?the?jurors?that?”each?one?of?you?has?to?make?your?own?decision?and?take?that?individual?responsibility?that?you?are?going?to?have?to?live?with?the?rest?of?your?life.”
At?another:?”Yes,?I’m?telling?you?that?it’s?your?individual?responsibility.?I’m?telling?you?that?it’s?a?responsibility?that?each?of?you?have?to?carry?on?your?shoulders.?And?it’s?one?that?you’ll?have?to?live?with?the?rest?of?your?life.”
Here,?as?in?Caldwell,?the?prosecutor?sought?to?minimize?the?jury’s?sense?of?its?responsibility-and?did?so?more?often?and?more?pointedly?than?his?counterpart?in?that?case.
Thus,?at?one?point?the?prosecutor?told?the?jurors?that?it?”is?false,?blatantly?false,”?that?”when?you?return?the?verdict?of?death?in?this?case,?you?have?total,?personal?responsibility?for?that?result.”
At?another,?he?said?that?”[defense?counsel]?wants?to?make?you?feel?personally?responsible?for?the?results?of?your?deliberations,?for?the?results?in?this?phase?of?the?trial.”?He?urged,?”You?must?not?allow?this?to?happen?….”
At?yet?another:?”It?will?be?a?combination?of?[the]?facts,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?of?[defendant’s]?conduct?and?his?behavior?and?his?crimes,?and?the?law?that?the?Judge?gives?you?that?will?result?in?a?death?verdict?in?this?case.
“It?will?not?be?your?responsibility,?it?will?not?be?your?fault.?The?law?determines?when?the?facts?are?applied?with?the?law?what?penalty?is?appropriate.
“You?are?here?as?representatives?of?our?community?to?exercise?and?carry?out?the?law.?It?is?not?a?personal-it?is,?of?course,?a?personal?decision,?but?I?[1?Cal.4th?257]?think?you?see?what?I’m?saying.?It?is?not?a?personal?responsibility,?it?is?a?personal?decision?to?follow?the?law?and?arrive?at?the?results?that?the?law?calls?for.?That’s?the?thing?that?you?must?do?as?jurors?in?this?case.”
The?prosecutor’s?comments,?quoted?above,?were?improper?under?the?Eighth?Amendment.?On?their?face,?they?”sought?to?minimize?the?jury’s?sense?of?responsibility?for?determining?the?appropriateness?of?death.”?(Caldwell?v.?Mississippi,?supra,?472?U.S.?at?p.?341?[86?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?247].)?In?essence,?the?prosecutor?declared?that?”the?responsibility?…?rested?not?on?[the?jurors]?but?on?a?reification?he?called?’the?law[.]’?”?(People?v.?Hendricks?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?635,?661?[244?Cal.Rptr.?181,?749?P.2d?836]?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)?Surely,?the?remarks?could?have?been?so?understood?by?a?reasonable?juror.?It?must?be?acknowledged?that?the?prosecutor?might?perhaps?have?intended?his?comments?to?serve?other,?permissible?purposes?as?well.?But?it?would?blink?the?facts?to?assert?that?he?did?not?aim?them?at?the?target?that?he?so?squarely?hit.
Having?reviewed?the?record,?I?cannot?say?that?the?prosecutor’s?constitutionally?improper?comments?were?without?effect.?In?the?case?at?bar,?death?was?not?a?foregone?conclusion.?The?mitigating?evidence?was?significant.?True,?the?aggravating?evidence?was?not?insubstantial.?Certainly,?the?crime?itself?was?tragic.?But?by?today’s?standards,?it?was-regrettably-routine.?In?view?of?the?foregoing,?I?cannot?conclude?that?the?jury’s?penalty?determination?is?constitutionally?reliable.?fn.?1
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?I?would?vacate?the?verdict?of?death?and?reverse?the?judgment?as?to?penalty.
KENNARD,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
The?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution?does?not?bar?consideration?of?a?victim’s?personal?characteristics?to?determine?penalty?in?a?capital?case,?but?evidence?and?argument?on?this?subject?must?be?authorized?by?statute.?Penal?Code?section?190.3?(hereafter?section?190.3),?a?part?of?our?voter-enacted?death?penalty?law,?lists?those?matters?that?the?trier?of?penalty?”shall?consider”?in?deciding?whether?to?return?a?verdict?of?death.?In?People?v.?Edwards?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?787?[1?Cal.Rptr.2d?696,?819?P.2d?436],?this?court?purported?to?hold?that?the?section?190.3?factor?for?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?generally?encompasses?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?and?the?emotional?impact?of?the?capital?[1?Cal.4th?258]?crimes?on?the?victim’s?family.?Because?the?facts?of?the?case?did?not?present?the?issue,?I?did?not?join?that?part?of?the?majority?opinion.?(Id.?at?pp.?849-850?(conc.?opn.?of?Kennard,?J.).)
This?case?does?present?an?issue?regarding?the?propriety?of?a?prosecutor’s?comments?during?penalty?phase?argument?about?a?murder?victim’s?personal?characteristics?that?were?unknown?to?the?defendant.?Although?the?comments?were?an?insignificant?part?of?the?prosecutor’s?overall?argument,?the?propriety?of?the?comments?should?be?addressed?and?determined.
The?majority?concludes?that?the?prosecutor?committed?no?misconduct?during?argument?to?the?jury?at?the?penalty?phase?by?referring?to?details?of?murder?victim?Sam?Allessi’s?personal?life?and?to?the?physical?and?emotional?suffering?of?robbery?victim?Trudy?Allessi.?As?I?shall?explain,?the?prosecutor?remained?within?statutory?bounds?when?he?referred?to?Trudy?Allessi’s?suffering?and?to?facts?about?Sam?Allessi?that?were?revealed?during?proof?of?the?events?constituting?defendant’s?heinous?crimes,?but?the?prosecutor?exceeded?those?statutory?bounds?when?he?referred?to?facts?about?Sam?Allessi?that?defendant?could?not?have?known?and?that?were?not?properly?adduced?in?proof?of?guilt.?The?impropriety?does?not?require?reversal?of?the?judgment?of?death,?however,?because?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?prosecutor’s?brief?and?mild?comments?influenced?the?penalty?verdict.?Thus,?I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?imposing?the?penalty?of?death.
I
The?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution,?which?prohibits?the?infliction?of?cruel?and?unusual?punishment,?imposes?limits?on?the?scope?of?evidence?and?jury?argument?in?death?penalty?cases.?The?Eighth?Amendment?does?not,?however,?bar?evidence?of?or?argument?on?the?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim?of?the?capital?crime,?whether?or?not?those?characteristics?were?known?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crime.?Nor?does?it?bar?evidence?or?argument?concerning?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crimes?on?members?of?the?victim’s?family.?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?held?that?these?matters?demonstrate?”the?specific?harm”?caused?by?the?defendant’s?capital?crimes,?and?that?this?in?turn?is?a?legitimate?sentencing?consideration?under?the?Eighth?Amendment.?(Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.?720,?736,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2609]?(hereafter?Payne).)
California’s?death?penalty?law,?however,?limits?the?scope?of?evidence?and?jury?argument?in?a?manner?independent?of?the?limits?imposed?by?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution.?Under?our?state?law,?the?prosecutor’s?case?in?aggravation?is?confined?to?the?factors?listed?in?Penal?Code?section?190.3.?(People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?775?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?[1?Cal.4th?259]?782].)?This?provision?does?not?expressly?list?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?crime,?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?or?the?emotional?impact?of?the?capital?crimes?on?the?victim’s?family.?Under?our?state?law,?therefore,?the?jury?may?consider?these?matters?in?making?its?penalty?determination?only?if?they?fall?within?the?ambit?of?one?of?the?listed?factors.
The?issue?presented?is?one?of?statutory?construction:?Does?the?term?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?as?used?in?factor?(a)?of?section?190.3?include?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim?that?were?not?known?or?reasonably?apparent?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?capital?offense?and?that?were?not?properly?adduced?in?proof?of?guilt??In?construing?a?statute,?a?court’s?objective?is?to?ascertain?and?effectuate?legislative?intent.?(People?v.?Woodhead?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1002,?1007?[239?Cal.Rptr.?656,?741?P.2d?154].)?To?determine?that?intent,?a?court?begins?with?the?words?of?the?statute?(Reiter?v.?Sonotone?Corp.?(1979)?442?U.S.?330,?337?[60?L.Ed.2d?931,?936,?99?S.Ct.?2326]),?giving?them?their?”usual,?ordinary,?and?common?sense?meaning”?(In?re?Rojas?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?152,?155?[151?Cal.Rptr.?649,?588?P.2d?789];?see?also?Kimmel?v.?Goland?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?202,?208-209?[271?Cal.Rptr.?191,?793?P.2d?524];?City?of?Santa?Cruz?v.?Municipal?Court?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?74,?90?[260?Cal.Rptr.?520,?776?P.2d?222]).
The?first?step,?therefore,?is?to?decide?whether?the?usual?and?ordinary?meaning?of?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?includes?within?it?the?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim.?In?performing?this?task,?it?is?helpful?to?review?certain?decisions?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court.?Although?the?high?court’s?understanding?of?the?phrase?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?does?not?provide?an?authoritative?construction?of?our?state?statute,?it?is?persuasive?on?what?the?words?are?commonly?understood?to?mean?in?the?context?of?a?capital?sentencing?scheme.
In?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?the?defendant?was?sentenced?to?death?for?murdering?an?elderly?couple.?At?the?penalty?phase?the?prosecution?had?introduced?a?”victim?impact?statement”?that?included?evidence?of?the?victims’?personal?characteristics?and?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crimes?on?the?victims’?family.?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?granted?review?to?determine?whether?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution?prohibited?a?capital?sentencing?jury?from?considering?such?evidence.?The?court?began?its?analysis?by?noting?that?the?penalty?decision?in?a?capital?case?required?an?individualized?determination?”based?on?’the?character?of?the?individual?and?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?502?[96?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?448],?italics?added.)?The?state?argued?that?”the?emotional?trauma?suffered?by?the?family?and?the?personal?characteristics?of?the?victims?…?should?be?considered?a?’circumstance’?of?the?crime?….”?(Id.?at?p.?503?[96?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?448].)?The?high?court?rejected?this?argument,?[1?Cal.4th?260]?holding?that?in?a?particular?case?this?evidence?might?be?”wholly?unrelated?to?the?blameworthiness?of?a?particular?defendant”?and?”could?divert?the?jury’s?attention?away?from?the?defendant’s?background?and?record,?and?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.”?(Id.?at?pp.?504-505?[96?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?449-450],?italics?added.)?In?a?footnote,?the?court?stated:?”Our?disapproval?of?victim?impact?statements?at?the?sentencing?phase?of?a?capital?case?does?not?mean,?however,?that?this?type?of?information?will?never?be?relevant?in?any?context.?Similar?types?of?information?may?well?be?admissible?because?they?relate?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.”?(Id.?at?p.?507,?fn.?10?[96?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?451].)
Thus,?a?majority?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?considered?it?self-?evident?that?the?words?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?generally?did?not?include?evidence?relating?to?the?personal?characteristics?of?a?murder?victim?and?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crimes?on?the?victim’s?family,?although?such?evidence?might?be?so?included?in?a?particular?case.
In?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?109?S.Ct.?2207],?the?defendant?killed?the?victim?in?a?public?park?and?scattered?his?belongings?on?the?ground.?During?argument?at?the?penalty?phase,?the?prosecutor?read?a?religious?tract?that?had?been?found?near?the?victim’s?body,?using?the?tract?to?illustrate?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics.?The?high?court?noted?that?its?decision?in?Booth?v.?Maryland,?supra,?482?U.S.?496,?had?left?open?the?possibility?that?”the?kind?of?information?contained?in?victim?impact?statements?could?be?admissible?if?it?’relate[d]?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.’?”?(South?Carolina?v.?Gathers,?supra,?490?U.S.?at?p.?811?[104?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?883].)?But?the?court?concluded?that?the?contents?of?the?tract?”cannot?be?said?to?relate?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime”?because?there?was?no?evidence?the?defendant?had?read?it?and?it?was?”extremely?unlikely”?he?had?done?so.?(Id.?at?pp.?811-812?[104?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?883].)?A?majority?of?the?high?court?thus?held?again?that?the?term?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?did?not?include?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim?that?were?unknown?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crime.
The?United?States?Supreme?Court?overruled?these?two?decisions?in?Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597].?But?the?court?did?not?retract?its?earlier?conclusions?about?what?did?and?did?not?constitute?”circumstances?of?the?crime.”?Instead,?the?court?rejected?the?more?fundamental?premises?of?its?earlier?decisions?about?what?the?Eighth?Amendment?permitted?as?penalty?considerations?in?a?capital?case.?The?court?concluded?that?the?”harm?caused?by?the?crime”?was?a?constitutionally?valid?sentencing?consideration?even?when?the?harm?resulted?from?circumstances?unknown?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crime.?The?court?concluded?that?victim?impact?evidence?was?”simply?another?form?or?method?of?informing?the?sentencing?authority?about?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?crime?in?question,”?and?[1?Cal.4th?261]?therefore?the?Eighth?Amendment?did?not?bar?its?use.?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?735-736,?111?S.Ct.?at?pp.?2608-2609].)
In?the?course?of?its?analysis,?the?high?court?said?that?the?prosecution?had?a?legitimate?interest?in?presenting?evidence?about?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?to?counteract?similar?evidence?about?the?defendant.?To?illustrate?the?potential?unfairness?that?would?result?if?evidence?about?the?victim?were?barred,?the?court?noted?that?the?defendant?in?the?case?it?was?reviewing?had?presented?evidence?about?himself:?”The?capital?sentencing?jury?heard?testimony?from?Payne’s?girlfriend?that?they?met?at?church,?that?he?was?affectionate,?caring,?kind?to?her?children,?that?he?was?not?an?abuser?of?drugs?or?alcohol,?and?that?it?was?inconsistent?with?his?character?to?have?committed?the?murders.?Payne’s?parents?testified?that?he?was?a?good?son,?and?a?clinical?psychologist?testified?that?Payne?was?an?extremely?polite?prisoner?and?suffered?from?a?low?IQ.”?(Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?___,?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?735-736,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2608-2609].)?The?court?observed:?”None?of?this?testimony?was?related?to?the?circumstances?of?Payne’s?brutal?crimes.”?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?736,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2609].)
Nothing?in?Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597],?suggests?that?the?plain?meaning?of?”circumstances?of?the?crime,”?as?used?in?a?capital?sentencing?scheme,?generally?encompasses?evidence?of?either?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?or?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crimes?on?the?victim’s?family.?To?the?contrary,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?studiously?avoided?taking?issue?with?this?aspect?of?the?decisions?it?overruled,?and?its?statement?that?the?defendant’s?personal?characteristics?were?not?related?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?clearly?implies?that?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?were?also?unrelated.?Rather?than?including?victim?impact?as?a?”circumstance?of?the?crime,”?the?high?court?in?Payne?expanded?from?two?to?three?the?number?of?considerations?permissible?for?capital?sentencing?under?the?Eighth?Amendment.?Previously?a?death?sentence?might?be?based?only?on?the?defendant’s?character?and?background?and?the?circumstances?of?the?crime,?but?after?Payne?it?might?be?based?also?on?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?crime.
In?People?v.?Edwards,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?787,?the?majority?did?not?consider?this?compelling?evidence?that?the?phrase?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?as?used?in?a?capital?sentencing?scheme?does?not?encompass?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim?that?were?unknown?to?the?defendant.?Instead,?the?majority?relied?primarily?on?a?dictionary?definition?of?the?word?”circumstance”?as?meaning?”?'[t]hat?which?surrounds?materially,?morally,?or?logically.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?833,?quoting?3?Oxford?English?Dict.?(2d?ed.?1989)?p.?240,?”circumstance,”?first?definition.)?The?majority?concluded?that?the?specific?harm?caused?by?the?crime?surrounds?it?”materially,?morally,?or?logically,”?and?therefore?is?a?[1?Cal.4th?262]?”circumstance?of?the?crime”?within?the?meaning?of?that?phrase?in?section?190.3.
Other?accepted?definitions?are?somewhat?narrower?than?the?one?on?which?the?majority?relied.?For?example,?a?legal?dictionary?defines?”circumstances”?as?”[a]ttendant?or?accompanying?facts,?events,?or?conditions.”?(Black’s?Law?Dict.?(6th?ed.?1990)?p.?243.)?A?federal?court?has?defined?”circumstances”?as?”?’facts?or?things?standing?around?or?about?some?central?fact.’?”?(State?of?Maryland?v.?United?States?(4th?Cir.?1947)?165?F.2d?869,?871?[1?A.L.R.2d?213].)?And?a?state?court?has?defined?”circumstances?of?the?offense”?as?”?’the?minor?or?attendant?facts?or?conditions?which?have?legitimate?bearing?on?the?major?fact?charged.’?”?(Commonwealth?v.?Carr?(Ct.App.?1950)?312?Ky.?393,?395?[227?S.W.2d?904,?905].)
But?courts?must?construe?statutory?language?in?context,?not?in?isolation;?they?must?harmonize?related?provisions?and?avoid?any?interpretation?that?makes?some?words?unnecessary?or?redundant.?(Dyna-Med,?Inc.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1379,?1387?[241?Cal.Rptr.?67,?743?P.2d?1323].)?When?a?statute?contains?a?list?or?catalog?of?items,?a?court?determines?the?meaning?of?each?by?reference?to?the?others,?giving?preference?to?an?interpretation?that?makes?the?items?similar?in?nature?and?scope.?fn.?1?(See?People?v.?Rogers?(1971)?5?Cal.3d?129,?142?[95?Cal.Rptr.?601,?486?P.2d?129];?Armenta?v.?Churchill?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?448,?454?[267?P.2d?303];?People?v.?Thomas?(1945)?25?Cal.2d?880,?899-900?[156?P.2d?7];?Treasure?I.?C.?Co.?v.?St.?Bd.?of?Equal.?(1941)?19?Cal.2d?181,?188?[120?P.2d?1].)?Thus,?a?court?will?adopt?a?restrictive?meaning?of?a?listed?item?if?acceptance?of?a?more?expansive?meaning?would?make?other?items?in?the?list?unnecessary?or?redundant?or?would?otherwise?make?the?item?markedly?dissimilar?to?the?other?items?in?the?list.?(See?Harris?v.?Capital?Growth?Investors?XIV?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?1142,?1159-1160?[278?Cal.Rptr.?614,?805?P.2d?873];?Peralta?Community?College?Dist.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?40,?50?[276?Cal.Rptr.?114,?801?P.2d?357];?Dyna-Med,?Inc.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1390-?1391.)
Section?190.3?contains?a?statutory?list?of?factors?relevant?to?the?penalty?decision?in?a?capital?case.?Under?the?principle?of?construction?mentioned?[1?Cal.4th?263]?above,?each?factor?should?”take?color”?from?the?others?(Armenta?v.?Churchill,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?448,?454),?and?the?scope?of?each?should?be?”enlarged?or?restricted?to?accord?with?those?terms”?(People?v.?Rogers,?supra,?5?Cal.3d?129,?142).?Thus,?the?factor?for?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?should?be?given?a?narrow?meaning?if?a?broader?meaning?would?make?other?items?superfluous.
The?majority’s?construction?of?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?makes?this?factor?so?broad?that?it?encompasses?all?of?the?other?factors?listed?in?section?190.3.?fn.?2?To?say?that?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?includes?everything?that?surrounds?the?crime?”materially,?morally,?or?logically,”?is?to?say?that?this?one?factor?includes?everything?that?is?morally?or?logically?relevant?to?an?assessment?of?the?crime,?or,?in?other?words,?every?fact?or?circumstance?having?any?legitimate?relevance?to?the?penalty?determination.?This?expansive?definition?makes?all?the?other?factors?listed?in?section?190.3?unnecessary,?because?all?are?included?within?the?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?as?defined?by?the?majority.?For?this?reason,?the?construction?adopted?by?the?majority?is?improbable?and?should?be?disfavored.
Is?there?a?reasonable?construction?of?”circumstance?of?the?crime”?that?avoids?or?at?least?minimizes?overlap?with?other?listed?factors??The?statutory?list?includes?matters,?such?as?whether?the?defendant?acted?under?duress?and?whether?the?victim?participated?in?the?defendant’s?homicidal?act,?that?would?seem?to?fall?under?even?the?narrowest?definition?of?”circumstances?of?the?crime.”?Yet?there?is?a?definition?of?the?statutory?factor?that?substantially?[1?Cal.4th?264]?reduces?the?overlap?with?other?factors?and?thus,?in?my?view,?most?accurately?reflects?legislative?intent.
As?used?in?section?190.3,?”circumstances?of?the?crime”?should?be?understood?to?mean?those?facts?or?circumstances?either?known?to?the?defendant?when?he?or?she?committed?the?capital?crime?or?properly?adduced?in?proof?of?the?charges?adjudicated?at?the?guilt?phase.?This?definition?appears?most?consistent?with?the?rule?of?construction?that?listed?items?should?be?given?related?meaning?and?with?the?United?States?Supreme?Court’s?understanding?of?the?term?as?reflected?in?its?opinions.?(See?also,?e.g.,?Franklin?v.?Lynaugh?(1988)?487?U.S.?164,?174?(lead?opn.?of?White,?J.),?188?(conc.?opn.?of?O’Connor,?J.)?[101?L.Ed.2d?155,?166,?175,?108?S.Ct.?2320]?[holding?that?residual?doubt?about?a?capital?defendant’s?guilt?is?not?a?”circumstance?of?the?crime”].)?I?would?adopt?this?construction.
II
In?this?case,?the?prosecutor?stated?in?argument?to?the?jury?at?the?penalty?phase?that?robbery?victim?Trudy?Allessi?was?so?traumatized?by?the?crimes,?and?in?such?pain,?that?she?was?unable?to?come?to?the?assistance?of?her?fatally?wounded?husband,?murder?victim?Sam?Allessi,?and?that?she?would?live?with?this?for?the?rest?of?her?life.?These?statements?were?proper.?Our?cases?establish?that?the?suffering?of?an?immediate?victim?of?a?crime,?as?shown?by?evidence?properly?received?to?prove?guilt,?is?a?proper?subject?of?argument?as?a?”circumstance?of?the?crime.”?(People?v.?Haskett?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?841,?864?[180?Cal.Rptr.?640,?640?P.2d?776].)
During?the?penalty?phase?argument,?the?prosecutor?also?mentioned?that?Sam?Allessi?died?on?the?sidewalk?next?to?the?store?he?had?owned?for?40?years?and?that?he?had?been?married?to?Trudy?Allessi?for?50?years.?Evidence?that?Sam?Allessi?owned?the?store?was?properly?received?at?the?guilt?phase?to?explain?his?presence?at?the?scene?and?his?possession?of?the?cash?taken?by?defendant?in?the?robbery;?therefore,?the?prosecutor’s?reference?to?Sam?Allessi’s?ownership?of?the?store?was?proper.?fn.?3?But?it?was?improper?for?the?prosecutor?to?refer?to?the?durations?of?the?Allessis’?marriage?and?of?Sam?[1?Cal.4th?265]?Allessi’s?ownership?of?the?store,?facts?which?reflected?favorably?on?Sam?Allessi’s?character.?These?facts?had?no?relevance?in?proof?of?defendant’s?guilt?of?the?charged?crimes,?and?the?prosecution?presented?no?evidence?showing?that?they?were?known?or?reasonably?apparent?to?defendant?when?he?committed?the?crimes.?They?were?not?”circumstances?of?the?crime,”?nor?were?they?within?any?of?the?other?factors?listed?in?section?190.3.
Defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?improper?remarks,?however.?They?were?an?insignificant?part?of?the?prosecutor’s?overall?argument,?which?remained?correctly?focused?on?the?statutory?factors.?Therefore,?I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?of?death.
III
Section?190.3?lists?the?subject?matters?a?jury?”shall?consider”?in?a?capital?case?when?deciding?whether?the?defendant?should?be?sentenced?to?death.?To?determine?the?meaning?of?the?language?used?in?that?statutory?list,?this?court?should?be?guided?by?neutral?principles?of?statutory?construction.?The?majority?has?failed?to?persuade?me?that?a?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?when?unknown?to?the?defendant?and?irrelevant?to?proof?of?guilt,?fall?within?the?statutory?factor?for?”circumstances?of?the?crime.”
When?a?jury?is?determining?the?penalty?for?a?capital?crime,?should?it?take?into?account?the?personal?characteristics?of?the?victim??This?is?a?difficult?and?controversial?question,?as?shown?by?the?various?opinions?on?this?subject?by?a?closely?divided?United?States?Supreme?Court.?What?the?trier?of?penalty?ought?to?consider,?however,?is?not?the?issue?before?this?court.?Rather,?we?must?decide?whether?the?electorate,?when?it?voted?our?current?death?penalty?statutes?into?law,?intended?to?authorize?consideration?of?these?matters.?Analysis?of?the?relevant?statutory?language?enacted?by?the?voters,?using?accepted?principles?of?statutory?construction,?leads?me?to?conclude?that?under?our?state?law?the?jury?in?a?capital?case?may,?and?indeed?must,?consider?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?that?were?known?to?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?capital?crimes?or?were?disclosed?by?evidence?properly?received?during?the?guilt?phase.?But?the?presently?existing?statutory?authorization?goes?no?further.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?noted.
FN?2.?Although?Mrs.?Allessie?testified?that?she?heard?two?shots,?she?was?unsure?when?the?second?shot?occurred.
FN?3.?Defendant?married?Laura?Garcia?10?months?after?his?arrest.
FN?4.?Gonzales?stated?that?he?was?”not?positive,”?but?identified?defendant?as?the?shooter.
FN?5.?The?first?deputy?assigned?to?the?case?left?the?office?prior?to?the?preliminary?hearing.?His?replacement,?Rick?Siref,?represented?defendant?through?the?preliminary?hearing.?On?June?10,?1985,?about?three?weeks?prior?to?the?scheduled?trial?date,?Mr.?Siref?was?relieved?as?counsel?because?he?too?was?leaving?the?office.?Siref?was?replaced?by?Deputy?Public?Defender?John?Morris,?who?represented?defendant?throughout?the?remainder?of?the?proceedings.
FN?6.?Defendant’s?statement?came?at?the?conclusion?of?a?hearing?conducted?one?week?earlier?on?his?section?995?motion?to?dismiss.?Defendant?asserts?that?the?motion?raised?a?claim?of?ineffective?assistance?at?the?preliminary?hearing,?thus?creating?a?conflict?of?interest?because?counsel?at?the?preliminary?hearing?was?a?fellow?member?of?the?public?defender’s?office.?The?record,?however,?discloses?no?such?claim.?Counsel?merely?argued?that?defendant?had?been?prejudiced?by?the?lack?of?continuity?of?counsel?and?observed?that?he?might?have?handled?the?preliminary?hearing?differently.
FN?7.?Defendant?correctly?notes?that?one?prospective?juror?indicated?she?was?”bothered”?by?the?question.?However,?the?prosecutor?explained?that?he?was?not?attempting?to?learn?how?she?would?actually?vote?at?trial,?but?simply?whether?she?could?vote?guilty?if?the?evidence?warranted?it.?The?juror?indicated?that?she?understood?the?question?and?responded?that?she?would?have?no?problem?returning?a?guilty?verdict?under?those?circumstances.
FN?8.?The?precise?comments?to?which?defendant?objects?are?as?follows:?”I?think?similarly?that’s?why?we?have?a?jury.?Okay.?We?have?12?people?because?all?of?you?have?common?sense,?all?of?you?have?life?experience?and?you?can?help?one?another?in?coming?up?with?the?truth?in?a?case?like?this.?[?]?Now,?based?on?that,?I?want?you?to?consider?a?little?bit?about?your?role?as?an?individual?juror.?Certainly?you’re?individuals?and?each?of?you?have?[sic]?to?look?at?this?case,?the?evidence?and?the?law,?and?come?to?your?own?conclusion.?That?goes?without?saying.?[?]?We?do?not?want?a?herd?here?….?That’s?not?what?we’re?looking?for.?[?]?But?on?the?other?hand,?we’re?not?looking?for?12?quote?leaders?or?12?strong,?rugged?individualists?that?will?intentionally?fight?with?the?other?11?to?try?to?show?how?individual?they?are.?[?]?…?What?we’re?looking?for?is?12?people,?individuals?who?will?work?together?to?try?to?discover?the?truth.?[?]?…?There’s?nothing?wrong?in?a?juror?with?being?a?quote?follower?if?the?reason?you?are?following?is?because?you’re?seeing?that?that?is?the?truth?and?you?concur?with?the?truth?and?you’re?going?along?with?the?truth?….?[?]?…?It’s?wrong?to?be?a?follower?to?just?say,?’I?don’t?want?to?thing?[sic]?about?this?case.?You?guys?make?up?your?minds?and?whatever?you?say?I’ll?go?along.’?That,?of?course,?we?don’t?need.?But?there’s?nothing?wrong?with?being?a?follower?if?you’re?following?based?on?the?truth.?…”
In?responding?to?one?juror?who?stated?that?she?would?work?to?persuade?the?other?jurors?if?she?were?outvoted?11?to?1,?the?prosecutor?stated:?”Okay.?And?that’s?a?good?answer.?But?I?would?hope,?ma’am,?that?you?would?also?consider?that,?say,?’You?know,?I?have?been?with?these?people?now?three?or?four?weeks.?We’ve?had?lunch?together.?We?sat?in?the?hallway?and?talked.?And?they?all?seem?to?be?reasonable?folks.?And?11?of?them?came?to?a?different?conclusion?than?I?did.?Maybe?before?I?try?to?persuade?them?to?my?view?I?ought?to?take?the?time?to?consider?where?they?came?to?a?different?conclusion?than?I?did,?listen?to?their?thoughts?and?reasoning,?see?if?maybe?I?missed?something.?[?]?…?12?individuals?not?intentionally?tugging?at?each?other,?but?rather?working?together,?if?possible,?to?get?at?what?the?truth?is?and?use?that?truth?in?arriving?at?a?verdict.?[?]?…?There?is?nothing?to?be?gained?in?our?system?of?justice?by?having?somebody?try?to?prove?how?much?of?an?individual?or?leader?they?are?just?to?show?that?fact?….”
FN?9.?The?specific?statements?to?which?defendant?objects?include?the?following:?”[Defense?counsel]?has?given?you?a?very?typical?presentation?of?a?defense?attorney?who?has?nothing?of?substance?to?say.”?”[Defense?counsel],?of?course,?doesn’t?choose?to?remind?you?that?[he]?is?on?the?pay[roll]?of?the?State?of?California?and?works?for?the?same?agency?that?I?do?and?these?[expert?witnesses]?do.”?”You?don’t?believe?for?a?moment?that?if?[defense?counsel]?could?find?somebody?out?there?who?was?an?expert?in?those?fields?that?would?come?in?and?tell?you?the?sorts?of?things?that?he’s?actually?trying?to?persuade?you?of?out?of?the?thin?air,?that?he?wouldn’t?have?had?those?people?there.”?And,?”I?am?sure?if?[defense?counsel]?had?the?chance?to?come?back,?he’d?come?back?and?say,?’Well,?these?photos?weren’t?really?taken?the?night?in?question.?We?went?out?there?and?set?up?special?lights?to?get?this?effect.’?And?that’s?just?bunk.”
FN?10.?An?analysis?was?also?done?on?a?bloodstain?found?on?one?of?defendant’s?shoes.?The?blood?was?determined?to?be?of?human?origin,?but?the?sample?was?apparently?insufficient?to?yield?any?meaningful?electrophoretic?test?results.
FN?11.?At?the?pretrial?admissibility?hearing,?defense?counsel?stipulated?that?the?trial?court?could?rely?on?the?trial?testimony?of?five?electrophoresis?experts?at?Kelly/Frye?hearings?in?two?unrelated?trials,?People?v.?Reilly?(1987)?196?Cal.App.3d?1127?[242?Cal.Rptr.?496],?and?People?v.?Walsh?(Super.?Ct.?Alameda?County,?1986,?No.?11-?6621).?The?trial?court?properly?considered?the?findings?in?the?Reilly?and?Walsh?cases?in?determining?the?reliability?of?electrophoresis?testing.?(People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?207;?People?v.?Smith?(1989)?215?Cal.App.3d?19,?25-26?[263?Cal.Rptr.?678].)
FN?12.?At?trial,?defendant?raised?no?challenge?to?the?testing?procedures?employed?by?the?state’s?expert.?On?cross-examination,?defense?counsel?merely?inquired?whether?environmental?conditions?could?degrade?the?sample,?thereby?causing?unreliable?test?results.
FN?13.?Shortly?before?trial,?defendant?and?Ms.?Fierro?were?married.?However,?at?the?time?of?the?events?in?question,?defendant?and?Ms.?Fierro?were?not?married.
FN?14.?There?is?some?evidence?that?the?consent?extended?not?only?to?a?search?of?the?purse,?but?also?the?wallet.?After?Laura?Fierro?gave?permission?to?Detective?Bowen?to?the?search?of?the?purse,?he?opened?the?purse?and?noticed?a?pair?of?brown?gloves.?He?asked?whom?they?belonged?to?and?she?told?him,?”Those?are?David’s?gloves.?His?wallet?is?in?my?purse?also.”?Fierro?then?gave?permission?to?remove?both?the?gloves?and?the?wallet?from?the?purse.?Detective?Bowen?did?so,?opened?the?wallet?and?found?defendant’s?driver’s?license?and?cash.?Thus,?although?somewhat?ambiguous,?it?could?be?argued?that?Ms.?Fierro’s?identification?of?the?wallet?carried?an?implied?consent?to?search.?However,?in?light?of?the?valid?parole?search,?we?need?not?decide?this?issue.
FN?15.?Because?we?conclude?that?the?search?of?the?purse?and?wallet?was?valid?pursuant?to?a?voluntary?consent?and?a?parole?condition,?we?need?not?address?the?question?of?defendant’s?standing?to?challenge?the?search.
FN?16.?In?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?1158,?we?held?that,?for?purposes?of?aider?and?abettor?liability,?a?robbery?continues?as?long?as?the?loot?is?being?carried?away?to?a?place?of?temporary?safety.?We?declined?to?adopt?the?traditional?escape?rule?because?the?same?policy?considerations?of?deterrence?do?not?apply?in?the?aider?and?abettor?context?if?the?defendant,?in?that?case?the?getaway?driver,?was?unaware?of?the?robbery?until?all?acts?constituting?the?robbery,?including?the?asportation,?had?ceased.?”Thus,?in?determining?liability?as?an?aider?and?abettor,?the?focus?must?be?on?the?acts?constituting?the?robbery,?not?the?escape.”?(Id.?at?p.?1168.)
FN?17.?The?instruction?in?question?stated:?”If?the?defendant?…?was?an?accomplice?or?aider?and?abettor,?but?not?the?actual?killer,?it?must?be?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?he?intended?to?aid?in?the?killing?of?a?human?being?before?you?are?permitted?to?find?that?alleged?special?circumstance?…?to?be?true?as?to?the?defendant?….”
FN?18.?Defendant?requested?only?a?separate?trial;?he?did?not?ask?to?impanel?separate?juries?for?the?guilt?phase?and?special?circumstance?allegation.?In?his?briefs,?defendant?implies?that?he?also?requested?separate?guilt?and?penalty?phase?juries?on?the?ground?that?inconsistent?defenses?would?deprive?him?of?a?fair?trial.?In?fact,?the?latter?request?was?based?exclusively?on?Hovey?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?1?[168?Cal.Rptr.?128,?616?P.2d?1301];?defendant?argued?that?death?qualification?of?the?jury?would?result?in?a?guilt-prone?jury.?The?trial?court?denied?the?Hovey?motion;?defendant?does?not?challenge?that?ruling?on?appeal.
FN?19.?People?v.?Velasquez,?supra,?26?Cal.3d?425,?was?vacated?by?the?United?States?Supreme?court?and?subsequently?reinstated?in?its?entirety?in?People?v.?Velasquez?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?461?[171?Cal.Rptr.?507,?622?P.2d?952].
FN?20.?Evidence?Code?section?972,?subdivision?(f)?makes?the?spousal?privilege?inapplicable?in?”A?proceeding?resulting?from?a?criminal?act?which?occurred?prior?to?legal?marriage?of?the?spouses?to?each?other?regarding?knowledge?acquired?prior?to?that?marriage?if?prior?to?the?legal?marriage?the?witness?spouse?was?aware?that?his?or?her?spouse?had?been?arrested?for?or?had?been?formally?charged?with?the?crime?or?crimes?about?which?the?spouse?is?called?to?testify.”
At?the?hearing,?Ms.?Fierro?testified?that?she?was?not?married?to?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crimes?in?January?1985,?and?that?she?was?aware?defendant?had?been?arrested?for?robbery?and?murder?and?formally?charged?with?those?crimes?when?she?married?him?in?December?1985.
FN?21.?Defendant?also?makes?reference?to?a?portion?of?the?prosecutor’s?cross-?examination?of?Mrs.?Cervantez,?defendant’s?aunt.?The?prosecutor?asked?the?witness?whether?it?was?true?that?defendant’s?purported?reluctance?to?have?his?friends?and?family?testify?on?his?behalf?was?because?it?was?not?considered?”macho”?among?defendant’s?”associates.”?The?witness?rejected?the?prosecutor’s?suggestion.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?we?do?not?believe?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?constituted?a?sufficiently?explicit?reference?to?gang?membership?to?warrant?analysis.
FN?22.?In?addition?to?question?about?defendant’s?membership?in?street?gangs,?counsel?objected?to?questions?implying?that?several?of?defendant’s?brothers?had?been?or?were?currently?incarcerated,?as?well?as?questions?relating?to?defendant’s?juvenile?adjudications.?The?court?excluded?the?latter?two?items?but,?as?noted?above,?permitted?the?prosecutor?to?examine?Mrs.?Fierro?with?respect?to?the?gang?issue.
FN?23.?Defendant?raised?an?Evidence?Code?section?352?objection?to?questions?implying?that?defendant’s?brothers?were?or?had?recently?been?incarcerated.?Counsel?specifically?limited?his?objection?to?that?line?of?questioning.
FN?24.?The?exchange?on?cross-?examination?occurred?as?follows:?”Q:?Now,?you?mentioned?when?you?were?asked?about-the?question?about?the?death?penalty-[?]?A:?Yes.?[?]?Q:-that?you?would?like?to?have?him?have?a?chance?for?an?appeal?or?possibly?another?trial??[?]?A:?Yes.?[?]?Q:?Now,?you’re?aware?that?he’s?going?to?get?that?opportunity?no?matter?what?the?jury?does,?aren’t?you??[?]?A:?Right.?[?]?Q:?He?has?that?opportunity?to?appeal?no?matter?what?the?jury?decides?the?penalty??[?]?A:?Yes,?he?has?that?option,?yes.”
FN?25.?The?prosecutor’s?remarks?in?this?regard?were?as?follows:?”That?line?is?established?by?the?factors?in?aggravation?and?the?factors?in?mitigation?and?how?you?weigh?those.?[?]?That?line?is?the?border?between?your?choice?of?life?without?possibility?of?parole?and?the?death?penalty.?[?]?The?law?says,?ladies?and?gentlemen,?that?when?you?cross?that?line,-when?I?say?you?cross?the?line,?I?mean?in?your?evaluation?of?the?defendant’s?conduct.?When?you?realize?that?the?defendant?in?his?crime?had?crossed?that?line,?the?law?says?death?penalty?is?the?appropriate?punishment.”
FN?26.?Defendant?suggests?that?the?instruction?was?necessary?because?the?prosecutor?referred?to?defendant’s?right?to?appeal?during?the?cross-examination?of?defendant’s?uncle,?Rudy?Garza.?As?noted?earlier?(ante,?at?pp.?244-245,?this?isolated?reference?to?defendant’s?right?to?appeal?in?no?way?suggested?that?the?sentencing?responsibility?rested?elsewhere,?and?contained?no?implication?that?the?sentence?imposed?would?not?be?carried?out.
FN?27.?Defendant?further?suggests?that?the?evidence?did?not?support?a?finding?that?defendant?struck?Deno?with?the?telephone?receiver.?On?the?contrary,?Deno’s?testimony?that?defendant?was?holding?a?telephone?receiver?and?struck?out?with?whatever?was?in?his?hand,?would?support?such?a?finding.?In?any?event,?it?is?well?settled?that?the?use?of?hands?or?fists?alone?may?support?a?conviction?of?assault?by?means?of?force?likely?to?produce?great?bodily?injury.?(People?v.?Wingo?(1975)?14?Cal.3d?169,?176?[121?Cal.Rptr.?97,?534?P.2d?1001].)?The?nature?and?force?of?the?blow?to?Deno’s?head?were?sufficient?to?satisfy?the?statute.
FN?28.?Defendant?takes?issue?with?the?prosecutor’s?statement:?”And?then?as?Mr.?Fierro?used?the?phone?purportedly?to?call?regarding?his?broken?car,?Mr.?Fierro’s?partner?smashes?Tim?Deno?in?the?back?of?the?head?and?Mr.?Fierro?smashes?Tim?Deno?in?the?face,?in?the?forehead,?knocking?him?unconscious.”?Defendant?argues?the?prosecutor?inaccurately?attributed?the?”knock-out”?blow?solely?to?defendant.?The?statement,?however,?could?reasonably?be?read?to?attribute?unconsciousness?to?both?blows.?In?any?event,?the?jury?heard?the?evidence?and?was?capable?of?distinguishing?the?actions?of?defendant?and?the?second?man.
FN?29.?The?probation?report?contained?information,?not?presented?at?the?penalty?hearing,?about?defendant’s?use?of?drugs?and?alcohol,?his?admission?that?he?participated?in?the?offense?and?habitually?carried?a?gun,?his?conviction?for?being?under?the?influence?of?heroin?while?in?jail?pending?trial?in?this?case,?numerous?disciplinary?citations?while?in?custody,?and?defendant’s?”rap?sheet”?showing?several?convictions?for?disturbing?the?peace?and?vandalism.
FN?30.?At?the?time,?CALJIC?No.?8.21?(4th?ed.?1979)?provided?as?follows?(defendant’s?proposed?modification?is?set?forth?in?italics):?”The?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being,?whether?intentional,?unintentional?or?accidental,?which?occurs?as?result?of?the?commission?of?or?attempt?to?commit?the?crime?of?[robbery],?and?where?there?was?in?the?mind?of?the?perpetrator?the?specific?intent?to?commit?such?crime,?is?murder?of?the?first?degree,?under?the?provisions?of?section?189?of?the?Penal?Code.?[?]?However,?the?jury?may?recommend?that?such?a?killing?be?murder?of?the?second?degree,?based?on?all?the?facts?and?circumstances?of?the?case.?The?Court?would?consider?such?a?recommendation?if?it?is?made.?The?specific?intent?to?commit?[robbery]?and?the?commission?or?attempt?to?commit?such?crime?must?be?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.”
FN?1.?In?passing,?I?note?my?firm?agreement?with?the?conclusion?Justice?Kennard?arrives?at?in?her?separate?opinion?herein:?for?purposes?of?Penal?Code?section?190.3,?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?must?be?construed?narrowly-and?certainly?cannot?be?given?the?practically?limitless?scope?that?the?majority?purport?to?discern.?My?views?on?the?matter,?which?I?expressed?in?my?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?in?People?v.?Edwards?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?787,?850-856?[1?Cal.Rptr.2d?696,?819?P.2d?436],?are?substantially?similar?to?those?which?she?states?in?her?separate?opinion.
FN?1.?The?principle?of?construction?that?items?grouped?in?a?list?should?be?given?related?meaning?is?known?to?legal?scholars?under?the?Latin?names?ejusdem?generis?and?noscitur?a?sociis.?(See?generally,?2A?Sutherland,?Statutory?Construction?(Sands?4th?ed.?1984?rev.)????47.16-47.22,?pp.?161-193.)?As?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?remarked,?however,?”?’One?hardly?need?rely?on?such?Latin?phrases?…?to?reach?this?obvious?conclusion.’?”?(Third?National?Bank?v.?Impac?Limited,?Inc.?(1977)?432?U.S.?312,?322,?fn.?16?[53?L.Ed.2d?368,?376,?97?S.Ct.?2307],?quoting?United?States?v.?Feola?(1975)?420?U.S.?671,?708?[43?L.Ed.2d?541,?566,?95?S.Ct.?1255]?(dis.?opn.?of?Stewart,?J.).)
FN?2.?These?are?the?section?190.3?penalty?factors:
“(a)?The?circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?defendant?was?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?and?the?existence?of?any?special?circumstances?found?to?be?true?pursuant?to?Section?190.1.
“(b)?The?presence?or?absence?of?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?which?involved?the?use?or?attempted?use?of?force?or?violence?or?the?express?or?implied?threat?to?use?force?or?violence.
“(c)?The?presence?or?absence?of?any?prior?felony?conviction.
“(d)?Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?while?the?defendant?was?under?the?influence?of?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance.
“(e)?Whether?or?not?the?victim?was?a?participant?in?the?defendant’s?homicidal?conduct?or?consented?to?the?homicidal?act.
“(f)?Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?under?circumstances?which?the?defendant?reasonably?believed?to?be?a?moral?justification?or?extenuation?for?his?[or?her]?conduct.
“(g)?Whether?or?not?defendant?acted?under?extreme?duress?or?under?the?substantial?domination?of?another?person.
“(h)?Whether?or?not?at?the?time?of?the?offense?the?capacity?of?the?defendant?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?[or?her]?conduct?or?to?conform?his?[or?her]?conduct?the?requirements?of?law?was?impaired?as?a?result?of?mental?disease?or?defect,?or?the?affects?[sic]?of?intoxication.
“(i)?The?age?of?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?crime.
“(j)?Whether?or?not?the?defendant?was?an?accomplice?to?the?offense?and?his?[or?her]?participation?in?the?commission?of?the?offense?was?relatively?minor.
“(k)?Any?other?circumstance?which?extenuated?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime.”
FN?3.?This?conclusion?is?consistent?with?a?hypothetical?that?Justice?Souter?has?provided?to?illustrate?how?in?a?given?case?victim?impact?evidence?could?be?admitted?to?establish?the?circumstances?of?the?crime:?A?minister?has?been?robbed?and?killed?by?a?stranger?while?walking?from?his?car?to?his?church?office.?The?minister’s?wife?and?daughter?are?present?in?the?car?and?witness?the?stabbing.?To?explain?the?victim’s?presence?at?the?scene?of?the?murder,?the?prosecutor?introduces?evidence?that?the?victim?was?a?minister,?a?personal?characteristic.?The?victim’s?widow?and?daughter?testify?as?eyewitnesses?of?the?murder,?and?this?testimony?inevitably?reveals?to?some?extent?how?they?were?emotionally?affected?by?the?crime.?(Payne,?supra,?501?U.S.?___,?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?745-746,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2616-?2617]?(conc.?opn.?of?Souter,?J.).)