People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 801; 818 P.2d 84 (1991)

People?v.?Mickey?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?612?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?801;?818?P.2d?84

[No.?S004567.

Oct?31,?1991.]

THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?aand?Respondent,?v.?DOUGLAS?SCOTT?MICKEY,?Defendant?and?Appellant.

(Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-11727,?John?F.?Cruikshank,?Jr.,?Judge.)

(Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)

COUNSEL

John?B.?Oakley,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.

John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Ronald?S.?Matthias,?Martin?S.?Kane,?Morris?Beatus?and?Dane?R.?Gillette,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.

OPINION

MOSK,?J.

This?is?an?automatic?appeal?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b))?from?a?judgment?of?death?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?(id.,???190?et?seq.).

On?May?29,?1981,?the?District?Attorney?of?Placer?County?filed?an?information?against?defendant?Douglas?Scott?Mickey.?Count?I?charged?that?on?or?about?September?29,?1980,?defendant?murdered?Eric?Lee?Hanson.?(Pen.?Code,???187.)?Count?II?charged?that?on?or?about?the?same?date?he?also?murdered?Catherine?Blount.?(Ibid.)?As?to?each?count,?five?special?circumstances?were?alleged:?multiple?murder?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(3));?intentional?murder?for?financial?gain?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(1));?heinous,?atrocious,?or?cruel?murder?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(14));?felony-murder-robbery?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i));?and?felony-murder-burglary?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(vii)).

Defendant?pleaded?not?guilty?to?the?murder?charges?and?denied?the?special?circumstance?allegations.?On?his?motion,?the?court?subsequently?changed?[54?Cal.3d?637]?venue?from?Placer?County?to?San?Mateo?County.?Also?on?his?motion,?it?set?aside?both?of?the?heinous-atrocious-cruel?special-circumstance?allegations.

Trial?was?by?jury.?The?panel?returned?verdicts?finding?defendant?guilty?as?charged?on?both?counts?of?murder,?determined?each?offense?to?be?in?the?first?degree,?and?found?all?the?remaining?special-circumstance?allegations?true.?It?subsequently?returned?a?verdict?of?death.?The?court?entered?judgment?accordingly.

As?we?shall?explain,?we?conclude?that?except?as?to?one?of?the?multiple-?murder?special-circumstance?findings?and?both?of?the?intentional-murder-for-?financial-gain?special-circumstance?findings,?the?judgment?must?be?affirmed.

1. Facts
2. Guilt?Phase

At?the?guilt?phase,?the?People?introduced?substantial?evidence,?both?testimonial?and?physical,?to?prove?the?murder?charges?and?special?circumstance?allegations.?The?evidence?featured?certain?extrajudicial?statements?by?defendant?to?persons?including?family?members,?friends,?and?acquaintances,?the?police,?and?a?fellow?inmate?in?jail.?It?also?included?testimony?by?Edward?Rogers,?who?was?an?accomplice?and?took?the?stand?under?a?grant?of?immunity.?The?tale?told?is?long?and?detailed.?Its?substance?is?as?follows.

In?September?1980?defendant?was?married?to?Lieutenant?Allison?W.?Mickey,?an?Air?Force?nurse,?and?resided?with?her?and?her?two?children?in?housing?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan.?The?couple?was?experiencing?difficulties?in?their?financial?situation?and?consequent?distress?in?their?personal?relationship.?By?the?time?of?trial,?their?marriage?had?been?dissolved.

About?September?17,?1980,?defendant?returned?to?California,?flying?into?Travis?Air?Force?Base?in?Solano?County.?During?much?of?his?time?in?the?state,?he?stayed?with?Rogers,?a?longtime?friend,?in?Concord;?both?were?about?31?years?of?age.

Defendant?disclosed?several?reasons?for?his?visit-including,?primarily,?an?intent?to?execute?a?plan?to?rob?and?murder?a?man?in?Placer?County?and?then?possibly?to?travel?to?Alaska?to?kill?his?wife’s?former?husband?for?the?proceeds?of?a?life?insurance?policy?of?which?she?and/or?her?children?were?beneficiaries.?[54?Cal.3d?638]

The?man?in?Placer?County?was?Eric?Lee?Hanson.?He?dealt?in?marijuana?and?hashish,?and?also?cultivated?the?former.?He?had?a?business?partner?by?the?name?of?Randy?Hoehne.?Hanson?lived?with?his?lover,?Catherine?Blount,?in?a?house?in?the?rural?community?of?Ophir;?Hoehne?lived?there?as?well,?but?at?the?time?relevant?here?slept?in?a?tent?some?distance?away?in?order?to?guard?the?marijuana?crop;?Hanson?was?about?29?years?old,?Blount?18,?and?Hoehne?24.

Defendant?had?been?a?friend?of?Hanson?for?several?years,?but?bore?secret?grievances?against?him?and?desired?revenge.?Years?earlier,?defendant?believed,?Hanson?had?stolen?certain?items?belonging?to?him?and?his?family.?In?1979?defendant?raided?Hanson’s?marijuana?crop?in?retaliation.?After?his?arrival?in?California,?he?retrieved?the?drug?from?the?place?at?which?he?had?hidden?it,?and?began?to?consume?it?continually-apparently?together?with?alcohol.?He?discussed?his?scheme?against?Hanson?with?Rogers?and?took?steps?to?accomplish?his?objective.

On?September?22,?1980,?defendant?traveled?to?Hanson’s?home?in?a?car?he?had?borrowed?from?Rogers?in?order?to?carry?out?his?plan.?He?arrived?about?11?p.m.?He?was?armed?with?a?rifle?belonging?to?Rogers,?which?he?had?fitted?with?a?homemade?silencer.?Blount?was?alone?in?the?house;?Hanson?and?Hoehne?were?out?on?the?property.?Blount?invited?defendant?in.?Hanson?soon?returned.?Defendant?did?not?do?the?deed-apparently?because?Hoehne?learned?of?his?presence?and?could?therefore?link?him?to?whatever?might?happen.?He?visited?with?Hanson?and?Blount,?stayed?overnight,?and?left?the?next?day.?During?his?time?at?the?property,?defendant?observed?Hanson?counting?”a?good?size?stack?of?money”;?he?attempted?to?sell?him?some?of?the?marijuana?he?had?stolen?the?year?before,?but?was?unsuccessful.

On?September?28,?1980,?defendant?again?traveled?to?Hanson’s?home?in?order?to?carry?out?his?plan,?this?time?accompanied?by?Rogers?in?a?pickup?truck?belonging?to?the?latter.?The?pair?established?a?rendezvous?point?at?a?public?telephone?booth?near?a?restaurant?a?few?miles?from?the?house;?defendant?took?down?the?number?of?that?telephone?and?gave?Rogers?the?number?of?Hanson’s.?They?drove?to?the?property.?Rogers?left?defendant?off.?The?time?was?near?midnight.?Defendant?was?armed?with,?at?least,?a?knife?belonging?to?himself?and?a?pistol?belonging?to?Rogers.?Hanson?and?Blount?were?alone?in?the?house;?Hoehne?was?in?his?tent.?Hanson?and?Blount?greeted?defendant?at?the?door?and?invited?him?in.

During?the?earliest?hours?of?September?29,?1980,?evidently?after?Hanson?and?Blount?went?to?sleep,?defendant?killed?the?couple:?he?bludgeoned?Hanson?with?a?baseball?bat?and?slit?his?throat?from?ear?to?ear?down?to?the?spinal?cord;?he?stabbed?Blount?seven?times?in?the?chest?in?a?close?pattern,?[54?Cal.3d?639]?piercing?her?heart?with?three?of?the?blows.?Immediately?thereafter,?he?removed?a?substantial?quantity?of?property?from?the?house,?loaded?it?into?a?black?Volkswagen?Karmann?Ghia?that?belonged?to?Hanson,?and?departed;?he?left?no?fingerprints?behind.?He?arrived?at?the?rendezvous?point.?Rogers?followed?in?the?pickup?truck.?Some?distance?away,?with?Rogers’s?help?he?transferred?the?goods?to?the?truck?and?then?wiped?the?Volkswagen?clean?of?fingerprints?and?abandoned?it?there.?Defendant?said?he?wanted?to?go?back?and?burn?the?house;?Rogers?dissuaded?him,?declaring?one?should?never?return?to?the?scene?of?the?crime.?The?pair?drove?back?to?Concord.?Once?there,?defendant?sutured?with?needle?and?thread?a?gaping?injury?he?had?sustained?to?his?left?leg?during?the?events?at?Hanson’s?home.?The?pair?proceeded?to?stash?the?stolen?goods.

On?September?30,?1980,?defendant?fled?this?country?from?Travis?Air?Force?Base,?stopped?over?in?Hawaii,?and?arrived?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan?on?October?3.?On?October?2?Rogers?made?a?statement?to?officers?at?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Department?implicating?himself?and?defendant?in?the?deeds?described?above.?Defendant?was?subsequently?arrested?in?Japan?and?was?eventually?returned?to?this?state.

In?his?defense,?defendant?introduced?little?evidence,?and?did?not?himself?take?the?stand.?It?was?his?basic?position?that?the?People?failed?to?sustain?their?burden?to?prove?him?guilty?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?any?applicable?mental?state?required?for?criminal?liability.?More?positively,?he?claimed?that?in?committing?the?acts?in?question?he?acted?in?self-defense?or?under?voluntary?intoxication?and/or?diminished?capacity?as?a?result?of?voluntary?intoxication.fn.?1?For?his?defense,?he?relied?on?certain?of?his?extrajudicial?statements?introduced?by?the?People,?which?if?believed?could?support?his?position.

1. Penalty?Phase

At?the?penalty?phase,?the?People?introduced?evidence?in?aggravation?that?they?themselves?characterized?as?”very?limited.”?Specifically,?they?attempted?to?prove?that?on?four?occasions,?in?the?course?of?domestic?disputes?involving?his?first?and?second?wives,?defendant?engaged?in?other?violent?criminal?activity,?viz.,?assault?and/or?battery.

By?contrast,?defendant?introduced?substantial?evidence?in?mitigation.?[54?Cal.3d?640]

Family?members,?friends,?and?acquaintances?narrated?a?story?of?defendant’s?background?and?character.?Its?main?points?are?these.

Defendant’s?parents,?Robert?and?Dorothy?Mickey,?were?married?in?1946;?defendant’s?brother?Ronald?was?born?in?1947,?defendant?himself?in?1948;?the?family?lived?in?the?environs?of?Placer?and?Nevada?Counties.?Defendant?was?a?good,?loving,?and?hardworking?child?and?youth.

Tragedy,?however,?touched?defendant’s?life.?When?he?was?about?five?years?of?age,?a?half?brother?named?Randall?was?killed?in?an?automobile?accident.?When?defendant?was?about?17,?his?mother?died?in?an?automobile?crash-possibly?by?accident?and?possibly?by?suicide.?He?had?been?very?close?to?her,?and?felt?her?loss?deeply.?He?turned?to?alcohol?to?deaden?the?pain.?Not?long?afterward,?his?maternal?grandfather?died.?A?little?later,?his?brother?Ronald?killed?himself.

Defendant?began?to?drift?through?life,?moving?from?job?to?job,?place?to?place,?marriage?to?marriage.?He?developed?a?taste?for?various?illicit?substances,?including?marijuana,?hashish,?mescaline,?psilocybin,?hallucinogenic?mushrooms,?phencyclidine?(PCP),?and?lysergic?acid?diethylamide?(LSD).?He?also?developed?an?interest?in?eastern?religions.?He?soon?met?Hanson,?who?shared?his?taste?and?interest.?The?two?men?quickly?became?close?friends.?They?engaged?in?unusual?behavior?under?the?influence?of?the?illicit?substances?they?ingested.?For?example,?they?”would?get?naked?and?admire?…?the?strength?in?their?bodies?….?And?they?would?talk?about?philosophies?and?run?through?the?hills?like?deer?….”

With?the?exception?of?the?crimes?of?which?he?had?been?convicted?and?the?other?unadjudicated?violent?criminal?activity,?defendant?was?nonviolent,?and?would?likely?adapt?well?to?life?in?prison.

Two?experts?gave?opinions?bearing?on?defendant’s?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?crimes.?Each?testified?in?substance?that?at?the?critical?time,?defendant?did?not?have?the?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?or?to?conform?his?conduct?to?the?requirements?of?law-or?at?best,?any?capacity?he?may?have?had?was?”severely”?or?”significantly”?impaired.?Each?identified?two?causes?of?defendant’s?condition:?long-term?and?heavy?”polysubstance”?abuse?and?psychopathology.?Each?discovered?a?delusional?system?that?was?apparently?based?on?writings?of?an?author?named?Carlos?Castaneda,?who?was?then?popular?in?the?drug?culture.?In?that?system,?as?one?of?the?experts?stated?in?pertinent?part,?Hanson?was?the?master?and?defendant?the?apprentice;?defendant?wished?to?become?a?”spiritual?warrior”;?at?one?point,?Hanson?began?to?”rob[?]”?defendant?of?the?”power”?he?needed?to?achieve?his?goal;?defendant?had?to?kill?Hanson?to?get?his?”power”?back-and?did?so.?Each?[54?Cal.3d?641]?expert’s?opinion?was?based?in?large?part?on?information?provided?by?defendant?himself.

In?rebuttal,?the?People?introduced?evidence?in?the?form?of?opinion?by?an?expert?to?counter?the?opinions?of?defendant’s?experts.?The?opinion?of?the?People’s?expert?was?based?on?information?coming?from?sources?including?defendant?as?well?as?his?family,?friends,?acquaintances,?and?others.?The?People’s?expert?contradicted?defendant’s.

1. Guilt?Issues

Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?challenging?the?judgment?as?to?guilt.?As?will?appear,?none?is?meritorious.

1. Denial?of?Motion?to?Suppress?Statements

Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?to?suppress?evidence?of?certain?statements?he?had?made.?On?October?14,?1980,?he?was?arrested?in?Japan?for?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount.?On?January?16,?1981,?he?departed?Japan?for?the?United?States?in?the?custody?of?Robert?P.?LaRoche,?a?deputy?United?States?Marshal?for?the?Eastern?District?of?California;?Donald?J.?Nunes,?the?Sheriff?of?Placer?County;?and?Curtis?A.?Landry,?a?deputy?sheriff?and?detective?under?Nunes’s?command.?The?party?flew?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu,?stayed?overnight,?and?then?flew?from?Honolulu?to?San?Francisco.?During?the?Tokyo-Honolulu?flight?and?later?in?Honolulu,?defendant?made?self-inculpatory?statements?to?Detective?Landry.?[1]?(See?fn.?2.)?As?relevant?here,?the?suppression?motion?was?based?on?the?broad?ground?that?the?statements?in?question?were?involuntary?and?hence?inadmissible:?they?were?involuntary?as?a?matter?of?fact?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution;?and?they?were?involuntary?as?a?matter?of?law?under?the?rule?of?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974]?(hereafter?sometimes?Miranda).fn.?2?[54?Cal.3d?642]

The?trial?court?conducted?a?hearing.?Defendant?and?the?People?introduced?evidence,?both?testimonial?and?documentary.?The?witnesses?included?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry,?but?not?defendant.?The?court?found?facts?expressly?and?impliedly.?Those?facts?tell?the?following?tale.fn.?3

During?the?earliest?hours?of?September?29,?1980,?defendant?killed?Hanson?and?Blount.?On?September?30?he?fled?this?country?from?Travis?Air?Force?Base,?stopped?over?in?Hawaii,?and?arrived?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan?on?October?3.?At?that?time,?he?was?still?married?to?Lieutenant?Allison?W.?Mickey,?an?Air?Force?nurse,?and?resided?with?her?and?her?two?children?in?base?housing.

On?October?7,?1980,?the?People?filed?a?complaint?in?the?Justice?Court?for?the?Auburn-Colfax?Judicial?District?of?the?County?of?Placer?accusing?defendant?of?murdering?Hanson?and?Blount?under?special?circumstances.?That?same?day,?an?arrest?warrant?was?issued?by?the?court,?indicating?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?as?defendant’s?residence.

On?October?11,?1980,?Sheriff?Nunes?left?for?Japan,?taking?with?him?the?arrest?warrant?and?supporting?papers.?A?provisional?warrant?for?detention?was?subsequently?issued?by?Japanese?authorities.

On?October?14,?1980,?defendant?was?arrested?by?United?States?Air?Force?security?police?officers?at?his?residence?on?the?Yokota?Air?Force?Base.?Shortly?thereafter,?Sheriff?Nunes?met?defendant.?He?advised?him?of?his?rights?under?Miranda.?Defendant?told?Nunes?that?”he?did?not?want?to?decide?[54?Cal.3d?643]?whether?to?talk?to?[him]?or?not?at?that?time.?That?he?wished?to?counsel?with?a?friend”-who?was?apparently?a?”military?attorney”-“before?making?a?decision.”?Thereupon,?conversation?essentially?ceased.?Nunes,?however,?did?inform?defendant?that?he?would?be?held?at?the?Tokyo?Detention?House?pending?extradition.?Defendant?was?surrendered?to?Japanese?authorities.?From?that?day?forward,?defendant’s?wife?Allison?cooperated?with?Nunes?and?other?officials.

On?October?15,?1980,?it?appears,?defendant?expressed?a?desire?to?waive?extradition?proceedings?and?return?to?the?United?States?voluntarily.?Sheriff?Nunes?learned?of?this?fact?from?the?United?States?Embassy.?Through?the?embassy?he?attempted?to?arrange?a?meeting?with?defendant?to?seek?confirmation,?but?was?informed?he?had?requested?to?speak?only?with?his?wife.

On?October?16,?1980,?at?Sheriff?Nunes’s?request,?Allison?visited?defendant?and?asked?whether?he?did?in?fact?desire?to?waive?extradition;?defendant?apparently?answered?in?the?affirmative.?The?Japanese?government,?however,?would?not?permit?a?waiver.

On?October?18,?1980,?Sheriff?Nunes?departed?Japan.?He?left?behind?certain?evidence?he?had?gathered?relating?to?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount?for?use?in?the?extradition?proceedings.?Those?proceedings?were?subsequently?conducted.?Defendant?was?represented?by?counsel.

On?January?12,?1981,?Marshal?LaRoche?arrived?in?Japan?with?a?warrant?for?defendant’s?extradition.?With?him?were?Sheriff?Nunes?and?Detective?Landry.?The?presence?of?nonfederal?officers?such?as?Nunes?and?Landry?was?not?customary.?It?was?permitted,?however,?when?authorized.?Such?was?the?case?here.?Nunes?and?Landry?went?to?Japan?to?collect?evidence?and?interview?witnesses?and?also?to?accompany?defendant?on?his?return.?They?did?not?intend?to?seek?a?statement?from?defendant,?nor?did?they?actually?try?to?do?so.?In?Nunes’s?words,?”We?were?in?transit.?…?[T]he?conditions?weren’t?conducive?to?that.”?During?their?stay?in?Japan,?Nunes?and?Landry?did?in?fact?collect?evidence?and?interview?witnesses.

About?3:30?p.m.?on?January?16,?1981,?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry?met?defendant?at?the?Tokyo?Detention?House?in?order?to?take?him?into?their?custody.?Defendant?was?alert?and?in?good?health;?he?was?also?jovial?and?extremely?talkative,?evidently?glad?to?be?in?the?company?of?Americans?and?to?be?able?to?speak?English.?He?recognized?Nunes?and?appeared?happy?to?see?him?again.?Nunes?engaged?in?”small?talk”?with?defendant?and?helped?him?with?his?tie.?Landry?explained?to?defendant?the?[54?Cal.3d?644]?operation?of?a?knee?brace?that?would?be?used?as?a?restraint.?Landry?knew?defendant?had?previously?been?Mirandized?by?Nunes.

About?3:50?p.m.?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?boarded?a?van?for?Tokyo?International?Airport?at?Narita.?The?trip?took?approximately?three?hours.?During?the?ride,?defendant?spoke?with?Nunes,?who?was?seated?next?to?him,?and?to?a?lesser?extent?with?Landry.?Although?their?conversation?touched?on?such?topics?as?the?countryside?and?Tokyo’s?congested?traffic,?in?LaRoche’s?view?”Almost?all?of?it?concerned?home?town?talk,?[defendant’s]?father,?friends,?relations,?people?that?they?knew?mutually.”?LaRoche?”thought?he?talked?an?awful?lot,”?and?was?”glad?when?he?kept?quiet.”?It?was?defendant?who?generally?opened?the?conversation?and?directed?its?course.?Throughout?this?period?of?time,?there?was?no?mention?of?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount.

About?7?p.m.?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?arrived?at?Tokyo?International?Airport.?The?group?waited?in?a?security?area?for?more?than?an?hour.?Again?there?was?”small?talk,”?but?no?mention?of?the?crimes.?Landry?was?regularly?afflicted?with?bad?breath?and?constantly?carried?mints?to?deal?with?the?problem.?The?day?before,?he?had?visited?defendant’s?wife?Allison?at?her?residence.?She?kept?a?bowl?of?mints?near?the?door,?and?gave?him?some.?As?a?result?of?their?close?proximity,?Landry?noticed?that?defendant?too?had?bad?breath.?He?offered?him?a?mint.?Defendant?took?it?and?expressed?recognition.?Landry?asked,?”[D]o?you?know?where?I?got?this?”?Defendant?replied,?”Yes,”?and?”his?chin?quivered?and?he?kind?of?bowed?his?head?and?put?his?head?in?his?hands”?and?”covered?his?eyes?….”?Some?time?later,?the?group?boarded?their?plane.

About?9?p.m.?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?began?their?journey?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu?as?their?plane?lifted?off.?The?flight?was?scheduled?to?last?about?five?hours.?Defendant?and?Nunes?took?seats?in?one?row,?the?former?at?the?window,?the?latter?on?the?aisle,?with?an?empty?seat?in?between;?Landry?and?LaRoche?took?seats?one?row?back.?Defendant?spoke?to?Nunes?about?his?family?and?hobbies.?He?was?talkative,?pleasant,?and?cooperative,?and?did?not?exhibit?any?sign?of?grief?or?sadness.?It?was?he?who?opened?the?conversation?and?directed?its?course.?No?mention?was?made?of?the?crimes.

About?an?hour?into?the?flight,?Sheriff?Nunes?changed?seats?with?Detective?Landry?in?order?to?get?some?rest,?and?a?half-hour?later?moved?to?an?empty?row,?stretched?out,?and?went?to?sleep.?A?snack?was?served.?Defendant?and?Landry?proceeded?to?consume?a?great?deal?of?coffee?during?the?remainder?of?the?flight.?Defendant?started?conversation?with?Landry?by?expressing?a?general?preference?for?Asian?food.?Apparently,?he?then?spoke?of?politics.?He?[54?Cal.3d?645]?went?on?to?talk?of?his?family?and?his?love?for?his?wife?Allison?and?her?children.?He?asked?Landry?about?his?family,?and?Landry?responded.?In?the?course?of?the?discussion,?Landry?said?that?he?remembered?that?defendant?had?played?football?in?high?school,?and?that?he?knew?of?his?father?and?had?participated?in?investigations?surrounding?the?death?of?his?mother?and?the?suicide?of?his?brother;?he?remarked?that?they?”went?back?a?long?way?together.”?Defendant?also?talked?about?such?matters?as?”the?economies?of?the?two?nations,?Japan?and?the?United?States,?the?presidential?elections?in?the?past,”?”the?present?economy?of?West?Germany,?…?and?how?much?the?mark?is?worth?on?the?market.”?Landry?generally?”answered?his?questions?and?made?the?time?go?by?as?long?as?[he]?was?there.”?He?considered?him?”well?read.”?It?was?defendant?who?opened?the?conversation?and?directed?its?course.?Again,?no?mention?was?made?of?the?crimes.

About?three?hours?into?the?flight,?”there?was?a?lull?in?the?conversation”?between?Detective?Landry?and?defendant.?Defendant?then?asked?”something?to?the?effect?if?Eric?and?Catherine?were?buried?together.”?Landry?replied?that?Hanson?and?Blount?had?separate?memorial?services,?their?bodies?were?cremated,?and?their?ashes?were?scattered?in?the?High?Sierra.

Thereupon?defendant,?in?Detective?Landry’s?words,?”suffered?an?emotional?lapse.?He?became?a?bit-crying,?he?was?openly?crying?to?me,?the?lower?lip?was?quivering,?he?found?it?difficult?to?speak.?When?he?was?able?to?maintain?some?emotional?control,?he?made?reference-he?made?the?statement?twice?that?it?should?have?never?happened,?it?should?have?never?happened?and?continued?crying.”?”[H]e?continually?suffered?this?emotional?upheaval?and?he?cried?openly.?The?inflection?of?his?voice?rose?and?he?took?a?few?moments?and?actual?few?moments?and?I?couldn’t?tell?you?the?time?lapse?to?gain?his?composure.?And?again?he?made?a?statement?to?the?effect?that?it?would?have?been?all?right?if?Eric?had?listened?to?me?and?I?didn’t?think?he?would?react?the?way?he?did.?And?he?continued?in?his?state?as?I?have?described.?…?And?he?made?mention?…?something?to?the?effect?the?marijuana?patch?that?had?been?ripped?off?the?previous?year?and?that?the?marijuana?returned?to?Eric?that?night?was?the?same?marijuana?that?he?had?ripped?off.?And?his?emotional?statement?became?again?apparent?and?he?was?crying?almost?to?the?uncontrollable?state.?And?again,?the?inflection?of?his?voice?was?up?when?he?mentioned?something?to?the?effect?of?everything?went?wrong,?if?only?Eric?hadn’t?lost?his?cool?and?he?continued?crying?….”?During?this?episode,?which?lasted?about?20?minutes,?Landry?was?passive,?saying?and?doing?nothing.

About?four?hours?into?the?flight,?having?composed?himself,?defendant?resumed?his?conversation?with?Detective?Landry.?He?spoke?of?his?family?and?his?love?for?his?wife?Allison?and?her?children,?as?well?as?his?hobbies?and?[54?Cal.3d?646]?politics.?It?was?he?who?reopened?the?conversation?and?directed?its?course.?No?further?mention?was?made?of?the?crimes.

About?6:30?a.m.?local?time-or?1:30?a.m.?Tokyo?time-Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?ended?their?journey?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu?as?their?plane?touched?down.?As?the?group?prepared?to?disembark,?defendant?said,?”Curt,?I?would?like?to?continue?our?conversation?at?a?later?time.”?Landry?replied,?”Fine,?yes.”?Defendant?appeared?in?control?of?himself.?The?group?passed?through?customs.?LaRoche,?Nunes,?and?Landry?took?defendant?to?the?Honolulu?jail?by?van;?the?ride?took?30?to?45?minutes;?there?was?not?much?conversation?between?defendant?and?the?others;?what?talk?there?was?generally?concerned?the?scenery.?Defendant?was?booked?into?the?jail?for?the?day;?the?procedure?filled?30?to?45?minutes;?LaRoche,?Nunes,?and?Landry?then?left?and?proceeded?to?the?United?States?Marshal’s?office?in?downtown?Honolulu,?at?which?they?arrived?about?45?minutes?later.

Mid-?to?late?morning,?after?they?had?parted?company?with?defendant,?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry?conversed?together.?Landry?said?that?defendant?had?made?statements?concerning?the?crimes?during?the?flight?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu,?and?had?requested?to?talk?further?about?the?subject.?Nunes?asked?whether?he?had?advised?defendant?of?his?Miranda?rights.?Landry?said?no.?Nunes?”very?sternly”?asked?why?had?he?not?done?so.?Landry?said,?”I?didn’t?feel?I?was?interrogating?Mr.?Mickey?at?the?time?and?I?saw?no?reason?to?advise?him?of?his?rights.”?Nunes?then?consulted?with?the?Placer?County?District?Attorney’s?office?by?telephone?on?how?to?proceed?with?the?matter.?Afterward,?he?instructed?Landry?in?substance?as?follows:?return?to?the?jail;?ask?defendant?if?he?desired?to?speak?further?about?the?crimes;?if?he?responded?in?the?affirmative,?advise?him?of?his?Miranda?rights?and?obtain?a?waiver;?and?then?commence?interrogation.?Landry?was?somewhat?fatigued?and?wished?to?get?some?sleep?before?conducting?the?interview.?Nunes?directed?him?to?set?about?the?task?forthwith.?He?complied.

At?12:42?p.m.?local?time-or?7:42?a.m.?Tokyo?time-Detective?Landry?met?defendant?in?an?interview?room?at?the?Honolulu?jail.?Defendant?acknowledged?that?it?was?at?his?request?that?Landry?was?present.?Landry?advised?defendant?of?his?Miranda?rights,?and?defendant?proceeded?to?make?a?waiver.?Interrogation?ensued.?Landry?asked?questions?about?the?killing?of?Hanson?and?Blount,?and?defendant?gave?answers?implicating?himself?in?the?deed?and?also?in?its?planning?and?aftermath.?Throughout?the?interview,?defendant?appeared?alert?and?aware;?at?no?time?did?he?express?any?reluctance?to?respond?or?any?desire?to?stop.?On?five?or?six?occasions,?he?became?”emotional”?and?paused?to?compose?himself.?Shortly?before?5?o’clock,?the?[54?Cal.3d?647]?session?closed.?Defendant?stated?that?he?had?spoken?voluntarily?and?had?not?been?coerced?in?any?way.

The?next?day,?it?appears,?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?returned?to?the?continental?United?States,?flying?from?Honolulu?to?San?Francisco.

In?view?of?the?foregoing?facts,?the?trial?court?denied?defendant’s?motion?to?suppress?his?statements?to?Detective?Landry.?It?made?determinations?to?the?following?effect,?among?others,?either?expressly?or?by?implication:?Sheriff?Nunes?properly?advised?defendant?of?his?Miranda?rights;?defendant?effectively?invoked?his?right?to?counsel;?all?the?same,?his?statements?on?the?flight?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu?were?voluntary?because?they?were?not?coerced?through?”softening?up”?and?did?not?result?from?interrogation,?but?were?volunteered;?the?statements?in?Honolulu?were?also?voluntary?because?they?were?not?coerced,?but?were?given?after?defendant?himself?initiated?discussion?and?was?subsequently?readvised?of,?and?waived,?his?rights.?The?statements?in?question?were?later?introduced?at?trial.

[2a]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?to?suppress?what?he?refers?to?as?his?”inflight”?and?”Honolulu?admissions.”

The?law?that?is?applicable?to?the?claim?is?well?settled.

[3]?Under?the?due?process?clauses?of?both?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution,?these?principles?are?established:?an?involuntary?confession?or?admission?is?inadmissible;?a?statement?is?involuntary?if?it?is?the?product?of?coercion?or,?more?generally,?”overreaching”;?involuntariness?requires?coercive?activity?on?the?part?of?the?state?or?its?agents;?and?such?activity?must?be,?as?it?were,?the?”proximate?cause”?of?the?statement?in?question,?and?not?merely?a?cause?in?fact.?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?778-779?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330].)

[4]?Next,?in?Miranda?v.?Arizona,?supra,?384?U.S.?436,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?laid?down?the?following?”prophylactic”?rule?(Michigan?v.?Tucker?(1974)?417?U.S.?433,?446?[41?L.Ed.2d?182,?194,?94?S.Ct.?2357])?to?implement?the?prohibition?against?compelled?self-incrimination?contained?expressly?in?the?Fifth?Amendment?and?impliedly?in?the?Fourteenth.

“…?[T]he?prosecution?may?not?use?statements,?whether?exculpatory?or?inculpatory,?stemming?from?custodial?interrogation?of?the?defendant?unless?it?demonstrates?the?use?of?procedural?safeguards?effective?to?secure?[54?Cal.3d?648]?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination.?…?Prior?to?any?questioning,?the?person?must?be?warned?that?he?has?a?right?to?remain?silent,?that?any?statement?he?does?make?may?be?used?as?evidence?against?him,?and?that?he?has?a?right?to?the?presence?of?an?attorney,?either?retained?or?appointed.?The?defendant?may?waive?effectuation?of?these?rights,?provided?the?waiver?is?made?voluntarily,?knowingly?and?intelligently.”?(384?U.S.?at?p.?444?[16?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?706-707].)

[5]?The?phrase?”custodial?interrogation”?is?crucial.?The?adjective?encompasses?any?situation?in?which?”a?person?has?been?taken?into?custody?or?otherwise?deprived?of?his?freedom?of?action?in?any?significant?way.”?(Miranda?v.?Arizona,?supra,?384?U.S.?at?p.?444?[16?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?706].)?The?noun?”refers?not?only?to?express?questioning,?but?also?to?any?words?or?actions?on?the?part?of?the?police?…?that?the?police?should?know?are?reasonably?likely?to?elicit?an?incriminating?response?from?the?suspect.”?(Rhode?Island?v.?Innis?(1980)?446?U.S.?291,?301?[64?L.Ed.2d?297,?308,?100?S.Ct.?1682],?fn.?omitted.)

[6]?Absent?”custodial?interrogation,”?Miranda?simply?does?not?come?into?play.?(See,?e.g.,?Minnesota?v.?Murphy?(1984)?465?U.S.?420,?429-431?[79?L.Ed.2d?409,?420-422,?104?S.Ct.?1136]?[no?”custody”];?Rhode?Island?v.?Innis,?supra,?446?U.S.?at?pp.?298-302?[64?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?306-309]?[no?”interrogation”].)?Miranda?does?not?”prohibit?the?police?from?merely?listening?to?…?voluntary,?volunteered?statements”?uttered?by?a?person,?whether?or?not?in?custody,?”and?using?them?against?him?at?the?trial”-nor?does?the?Fifth?or?Fourteenth?Amendment.?(Edwards?v.?Arizona?(1981)?451?U.S.?477,?485?[68?L.Ed.2d?378,?101?S.Ct.?1880]?(hereafter?sometimes?Edwards).)?Hence?if?”custodial?interrogation”?is?lacking,?Miranda?rights?are?not?implicated?and?there?is?consequently?”no?occasion?to?determine?whether?there?ha[s]?been?a?valid?waiver.”?(Edwards?v.?Arizona,?supra,?at?p.?486?[68?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?387].)

[7]?In?Edwards?v.?Arizona,?supra,?451?U.S.?477,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?laid?down?a?”prophylactic?rule”?(Oregon?v.?Bradshaw?(1983)?462?U.S.?1039,?1044?[77?L.Ed.2d?405,?411,?103?S.Ct.?2830]?(plur.?opn.))?to?implement?Miranda:?”an?accused,?…?having?expressed?his?desire?to?deal?with?the?police?only?through?counsel,?is?not?subject?to?further?interrogation?by?the?authorities?until?counsel?has?been?made?available?to?him,?unless?the?accused?himself?initiates?further?communication,?exchanges,?or?conversations?with?the?police.”?(451?U.S.?at?pp.?484-485?[68?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?386].)?An?accused?”initiates”?such?dialogue?when?he?speaks?words?or?engages?in?conduct?that?can?be?”fairly?said?to?represent?a?desire”?on?his?part?”to?open?up?a?more?generalized?discussion?relating?directly?or?indirectly?to?the?investigation.”?(Oregon?v.?Bradshaw,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?p.?1045?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?[54?Cal.3d?649]?412]?(plur.?opn.).)?In?the?event?he?does?in?fact?”initiate”?dialogue,?the?police?may?commence?interrogation?if?he?validly?waives?his?rights.?(Id.?at?p.?1046?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?413]?(plur.?opn.);?Edwards?v.?Arizona,?supra,?451?U.S.?at?p.?486,?fn.?9?[68?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?387].)

[8]?On?appeal,?the?conclusion?of?a?trial?court?on?a?pure?question?of?law?is?subject?to?independent?review,?whereas?its?finding?on?a?pure?question?of?fact?is?subject?to?review?for?substantial?evidence-which,?for?present?purposes,?is?equivalent?to?federal?”clearly?erroneous”?scrutiny.?(See?generally?People?v.?Louis?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?969,?984-988?[232?Cal.Rptr.?110,?728?P.2d?180],?following?United?States?v.?McConney?(9th?Cir.?1984)?1195,?1200-1204?[728?F.2d?1195]?(in?bank).)

Determinations?as?to?the?voluntariness?of?a?statement?for?both?the?federal?and?state?constitutional?guaranties?of?due?process?of?law-which?is?a?resolution?of?a?mixed?question?of?law?and?fact?that?is?nevertheless?predominantly?legal-are?reviewed?independently.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?779.)?So?too?determinations?as?to?the?presence?of?coercive?state?activity?and?the?existence?of?causality-also?predominantly?legal?mixed?questions.?(Ibid.)

By?contrast,?findings?on?whether?there?was?custodial?interrogation-which?appears?to?be?a?predominantly?factual?mixed?question-are?reviewed?for?substantial?evidence?or?”clear?error.”?(Cf.?United?States?v.?Poole?(9th?Cir.?1986)?806?F.2d?853,?853?[holding?that?”[t]he?determination?whether?a?defendant?was?subjected?to?custodial?interrogation?is?essentially?factual,?and?is?reviewable?under?the?[federal]?’clearly?erroneous’?standard”];?accord,?United?States?v.?Gonzalez-Sandoval?(9th?Cir.?1990)?894?F.2d?1043,?1046.)?Likewise,?findings?on?whether?the?accused?effectively?initiated?further?dialogue?relating?to?the?investigation-which,?in?our?view,?is?also?a?predominantly?factual?mixed?question.

Finally,?determinations?as?to?the?validity?of?a?waiver?of?Miranda?rights-a?predominantly?legal?mixed?question-are?reviewed?independently.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?925?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676].)

[2b]?Having?carefully?scrutinized?the?record,?we?are?of?the?opinion?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?by?denying?defendant’s?motion?to?suppress?the?”inflight”?and?”Honolulu?admissions.”

First,?after?independent?review?we?believe?that?defendant’s?”inflight?admissions”?were?voluntary?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?both?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions.?[54?Cal.3d?650]

The?requisite?coercive?activity?by?the?state?or?its?agents?is?absent.?With?regard?to?the?totality?of?the?conversations?disclosed?by?the?record,?it?was?generally?defendant?who?was?active?and?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry?who?were?passive:?he?opened?discussion?and?directed?its?course;?they?essentially?responded.?So?far?as?the?challenged?statements?are?concerned,?Landry?hardly?acted?at?all-and?manifestly?did?not?”overreach”?in?any?way.

Also?absent?is?the?necessary?causal?connection?between?any?activity?by?the?state?or?its?agents?and?the?statements?in?question.?The?record?reveals?that?there?was?only?one?proximate?cause-and?indeed,?only?one?cause?of?any?real?substance:?defendant’s?desire?to?justify,?excuse,?or?at?least?explain?his?problematic?conduct.

Defendant?argues?that?the?required?state?coercion?and?proximate?causation?were?indeed?present?in?the?”psychological?and?physiological?pressure”?he?claims?he?experienced?as?a?result?of?such?factors?as?his?extended?incarceration?in?a?foreign?detention?facility,?his?longing?for?his?family,?and?the?demands?of?travel.

There?was?no?state?coercion.?This?conclusion?follows?as?a?matter?of?law?to?the?extent?that?the?claimed?”pressure”?sprang?from?within?defendant.?The?compulsion?must?be?attributable?to?the?state.?The?conclusion?follows?as?a?matter?of?fact?to?the?extent?that?the?”pressure”?came?from?without.?Its?direct?and?substantial?source?was?defendant’s?decision?to?flee?from?California?to?Japan?in?an?attempt?to?avoid?apprehension?for?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount-a?decision?for?which?the?state?cannot?be?held?responsible.

Further,?there?was?no?proximate?causation?flowing?from?state?activity.?As?noted,?the?sole?cause?of?any?substance?for?the?statements?in?question?was?defendant’s?desire?to?justify,?excuse,?or?at?least?explain.

Defendant?asserts?in?substance?that?the?People’s?labeling?the?statements?”unreliable”?at?trial?is?an?effective?concession?of?their?involuntariness.?Not?so.?It?is?merely?a?declaration?of?the?People’s?view?that?they?are?self-?serving?in?some?particulars.

In?the?course?of?his?argument,?defendant?urges?strenuously?that?Sheriff?Nunes?and?especially?Detective?Landry?intended?to?”soften”?him?up-i.e.,?to?”coerce”?a?statement?out?of?him?by?cajolery-and?that?they?succeeded?in?doing?so.?The?trial?court?made?a?determination?to?the?contrary-soundly,?in?our?judgment.?The?finding?on?the?absence?of?the?claimed?intent?is?factual,?and?is?supported?by?substantial?evidence.?The?conclusion?on?the?lack?of?[54?Cal.3d?651]?coercion?and?proximate?causation?is?mixed?and?predominantly?legal,?and?withstands?de?novo?scrutiny.

Second,?after?independent?review?we?believe?that?defendant’s?”inflight?admissions”?were?voluntary?under?Miranda.

We?shall?assume?for?argument’s?sake?that?defendant?did?indeed?invoke?his?right?to?counsel?as?declared?by?Miranda?when?he?told?Sheriff?Nunes?that?he?wished?to?consult?with?a?friend,?who?was?apparently?a?”military?attorney,”?before?deciding?”whether?to?talk?to?[him]?or?not?at?that?time.”

Nevertheless,?we?cannot?discern?any?”custodial?interrogation”?within?the?meaning?of?Miranda.?The?trial?court?found?no?such?interrogation,?and?its?finding?is?supported?by?substantial?evidence.?To?be?sure,?defendant?was?in?custody.?But?he?was?simply?not?interrogated.?Plainly,?there?was?no?express?questioning?by?any?of?the?officers,?including?Detective?Landry.?Nor,?in?our?view,?were?there?any?words?or?actions?on?their?part?that?they?should?have?known?were?reasonably?likely?to?elicit?an?incriminating?response.?Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary-subtly,?but?unpersuasively.fn.?4?As?we?have?observed,?the?sole?cause?of?any?real?substance?underlying?the?statements?in?question?was?defendant’s?desire?to?justify,?excuse,?or?at?least?explain.?Miranda,?as?noted,?does?not?”prohibit?the?police?from?merely?listening?to?…?voluntary,?volunteered?statements”?uttered?by?a?person,?whether?or?not?in?custody,?”and?using?them?against?him?at?the?trial.”?(Edwards?v.?Arizona,?supra,?451?U.S.?at?p.?485?[68?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?387].)?Here,?Landry?merely?listened?to?the?statements,?which?were?voluntary?and?volunteered.?Defendant?argues?that?he?did?not?waive?his?Miranda?rights?beforehand.?But?when,?as?here,?”custodial?interrogation”?is?lacking,?Miranda?simply?does?not?come?into?play.

Third,?after?independent?review?we?believe?that?defendant’s?”Honolulu?admissions”?were?voluntary?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?both?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions.?For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?find?absent?both?the?requisite?coercive?activity?by?the?state?or?its?agents?and?the?necessary?causal?connection?between?any?such?activity?and?the?statements?in?question.?Defendant?argues?that?the?”psychological?and?physiological?pressure”?he?claims?he?experienced?increased?over?time?and?distance?as?a?result?of?fatigue?and?other?factors.?But?any?such?increase?was?insufficient?on?this?record?to?render?the?statements?involuntary.?Defendant?also?argues?that?the?”Honolulu?admissions”?were?involuntary?as?the?product?of?the?assertedly?involuntary?”inflight?statements”-they?were,?so?to?speak,?the?tainted?fruit?of?a?poisonous?tree.?[54?Cal.3d?652]?Because?the?tree?was?not?poisonous,?its?fruit?was?not?tainted.?Defendant?again?argues?in?substance?that?the?People’s?labeling?the?statements?”unreliable”?at?trial?is?an?effective?concession?of?their?involuntariness.?We?again?reject?the?assertion.

Fourth,?after?independent?review?we?believe?that?defendant’s?”Honolulu?admissions”?were?voluntary?under?Miranda.

We?recognize?the?prophylactic?rule?of?Edwards?v.?Arizona,?supra,?451?U.S.?477,?484-485?[68?L.Ed.2d?378,?386]:?”an?accused,?…?having?expressed?his?desire?to?deal?with?the?police?only?through?counsel,?is?not?subject?to?further?interrogation?by?the?authorities?until?counsel?has?been?made?available?to?him,?unless?the?accused?himself?initiates?further?communication,?exchanges,?or?conversations?with?the?police.”?There?was?no?violation?here.?Defendant?initiated?further?discussion?when?he?said?to?Detective?Landry,?”Curt,?I?would?like?to?continue?our?conversation?at?a?later?time.”?Certainly,?his?words?can?be?”fairly?said?to?represent?a?desire”?on?his?part?”to?open?up?a?more?generalized?discussion?relating?directly?or?indirectly?to?the?investigation.”?(Oregon?v.?Bradshaw,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?p.?1045?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?412]?(plur.?opn.).)?The?trial?court?impliedly?found?to?that?effect,?and?its?finding?is?supported?by?substantial?evidence.

At?the?threshold,?defendant?argues-again-about?the?tainted?fruit?of?a?poisonous?tree.?But?again,?no?poison,?no?taint.?[9]?He?then?argues?that?the?Edwards?rule?was?in?fact?violated.?He?says?that?the?rule?requires?the?suspect?to?initiate?the?meeting?with?the?police?and?not?merely?the?discussion,?”unless?such?a?meeting?…?was?in?the?’normal?course?of?events.’?”?We?find?no?such?requirement?in?Edwards?itself?or?elsewhere.?(See?Arizona?v.?Roberson?(1988)?486?U.S.?675,?687?[100?L.Ed.2d?704,?717,?108?S.Ct.?2093]?[holding?that?”any?’further?communication,?exchanges,?or?conversations?with?the?police’?that?the?suspect?himself?initiates,?Edwards?v.?Arizona,?451?U.S.,?at?485,?are?perfectly?valid”?(first?italics?added)].)?He?next?says?that?he?did?not?in?actuality?initiate?further?discussion.?His?assertion?founders?on?the?words?he?spoke.?Indeed,?at?one?point?in?his?briefing?he?concedes?that?”[t]he?’conversation’?to?be?continued?was?the?very?’conversation’?surrounding?and?including?the?inflight?admission[s].”

[2c]?When,?as?stated?above,?there?is?no?violation?of?the?Edwards?rule,?the?police?may?commence?interrogation?if?the?suspect?validly?waives?his?Miranda?rights.?Such?a?waiver?is?evident?here.?The?trial?court?so?determined.?And?on?independent?review?we?agree.?Defendant?argues?that?the?”psychological?and?physiological?pressure”?he?claims?he?experienced,?as?well?as?other?factors,?prevented?him?from?making?a?voluntary,?knowing,?and?[54?Cal.3d?653]?intelligent?waiver.?[10,?11,?12]?(See?fn.?5.)?The?record?does?not?support?his?position.fn.?5

1. Denial?of?Motion?to?Suppress?Letters

Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?to?exclude?more?than?24?letters?he?had?written?and?sent?to?his?wife?Allison.?As?relevant?here,?he?claimed?a?privilege?under?Evidence?Code?section?980?to?refuse?and?prevent?the?disclosure?of?the?letters?as?confidential?marital?communications.?Evidence?Code?section?980?declares?in?pertinent?part?that?”a?spouse?…?has?a?privilege?during?the?marital?relationship?and?afterwards?to?refuse?to?disclose,?and?to?prevent?another?from?disclosing,?a?communication?if?…?the?communication?was?made?in?confidence?between?him?and?the?other?spouse?while?they?were?husband?and?wife.”?The?People?opposed?the?motion.?They?denied?the?claim?of?privilege.?At?issue?(among?other?questions)?were?whether?defendant?intended?nondisclosure?of?the?letters’?contents,?and?whether?he?had?a?reasonable?expectation?of?privacy?therein.

The?trial?court?conducted?a?hearing.?Defendant?called?Detective?Landry?as?a?witness.?The?People?introduced?three?of?the?letters?into?evidence.?The?following?facts?were?established?beyond?dispute:?defendant?wrote?the?letters?in?question?to?his?wife?Allison?while?he?was?incarcerated?in?the?Tokyo?Detention?House,?and?sent?them?to?her?from?that?location;?in?the?letters?introduced?at?the?hearing,?he?revealed?a?belief?that?Japanese?and/or?United?[54?Cal.3d?654]?States?authorities?were?intercepting?all?his?mail?and?reading?its?contents;?indeed,?in?those?letters?he?directed?comments?to?such?”readers”;?Allison?received?the?letters?and?voluntarily?turned?them?over?to?Detective?Landry?in?Japan?on?January?15,?1981.

The?trial?court?rejected?the?claim?of?privilege?and?denied?the?motion.?At?trial,?the?People?introduced?portions?of?three?letters?that?had?not?been?presented?at?the?hearing?for?two?purposes:?(1)?to?show?that?around?the?time?of?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount,?defendant?and?Allison?were?experiencing?difficulties?in?their?financial?situation,?and?that?defendant?came?to?California?from?Japan?to?alleviate?that?condition;?and?(2)?to?corroborate?the?testimony?of?Edward?Rogers?on?that?point.?”I?am?really?glad?Frank?[Plunk,?Allison’s?former?husband,]?came?through,?just?think?he?might?have?loaned?us?the?money?all?of?the?time.”?”My?trip?to?Cal?wasn’t?in?vain.?I?finally?found?out?you?truly?loved?me?and?you?got?your?bills?paid.?That?is?a?pretty?good?haul?for?both?of?us.”?”I?would?sacrifice?everything?for?you.?Hell,?look?I?have.?Actions?speak?louder?than?words.?You?got?the?money?you?wanted?and?now?you?ignore?my?need.”

[13a]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion.

[14]?It?appears?that?a?ruling?on?a?motion?such?as?the?present,?which?concerns?the?admissibility?of?evidence,?is?subject?to?review?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(Cf.?United?States?v.?Marashi?(9th?Cir.?1990)913?F.2d?724,?729?[holding?to?that?effect?under?federal?standard-of-review?principles].)?The?underlying?determinations,?of?course,?are?scrutinized?in?accordance?with?their?character?as?purely?legal,?purely?factual,?or?mixed.

[13b]?We?are?of?the?opinion?that?the?ruling?of?the?trial?court?is?sound?under?any?standard.?The?letters?did?not?come?within?the?privilege?for?confidential?marital?communications.?The?record?establishes?that?the?documents?were?not?written?or?sent?”in?confidence.”?To?make?a?communication?”in?confidence,”?one?must?intend?nondisclosure?(see?People?v.?Gomez?(1982)?134?Cal.App.3d?874,?879?[185?Cal.Rptr.?155];?People?v.?Carter?(1973)?34?Cal.App.3d?748,?752?[110?Cal.Rptr.?324]),?and?have?a?reasonable?expectation?of?privacy?(see?North?v.?Superior?Court?(1972)8?Cal.3d?301,?311?[104?Cal.Rptr.?833,?502?P.2d?1305,?57?A.L.R.3d?155]).?Apparently,?defendant?did?not?have?the?required?intent.?Certainly,?he?did?not?have?the?necessary?expectation.?The?court?made?a?determination?to?that?effect.?For?purposes?of?the?privilege,?the?existence?vel?non?of?a?reasonable?expectation?of?privacy?appears?to?be?a?predominantly?factual?mixed?question.?(See?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1981)?117?Cal.App.3d?706,?715?[173?Cal.Rptr.?82]?[to?similar?effect].)?As?such,?its?resolution?is?subject?to?review?for?substantial?evidence.?[54?Cal.3d?655]?But?even?if?scrutinized?de?novo,?the?court’s?determination?is?plainly?correct.?Defendant?had?no?expectation?of?privacy,?reasonable?or?otherwise.?As?noted,?he?believed?that?the?Japanese?and/or?United?States?authorities?were?intercepting?all?his?mail?and?reading?its?contents.

Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion,?but?to?no?avail.?In?substance,?his?attack?is?against?the?trial?court’s?reasoning.?But?of?course,?we?review?the?ruling,?not?the?reasoning.?And?as?we?have?explained,?the?ruling?was?sound.?In?any?event,?the?reasoning?was?substantially?similar?to?that?set?out?above.?Defendant?asserts?that?the?court?misallocated?the?applicable?burdens?of?proof.?We?are?not?persuaded.?[15]?As?a?general?matter,?the?claimant?of?the?confidential?marital?communication?privilege?has?the?burden?to?prove,?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence,?the?facts?necessary?to?sustain?the?claim.?(1?Jefferson,?Cal.?Evidence?Benchbook?(2d?ed.?1982)???25.2(p),?p.?715?[speaking?generally?of?claimants?of?privileges].)?He?is?aided?by?a?presumption?that?a?marital?communication?was?made?in?confidence.?(Evid.?Code,???917.)?The?opponent?has?the?burden?to?prove?otherwise?(ibid.)?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?(see?id.,???115).?Although?the?court?could?have?dealt?with?the?burdens?more?explicitly,?any?deficiency?under?these?circumstances?was?certainly?not?fatal.

1. Denial?of?Motion?to?Exclude?Photographs

Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?for?a?hearing?to?determine?the?admissibility?of?certain?photographs?that?the?People?intended?to?introduce?into?evidence.?The?photographs?included?what?were?referred?to?as?items?33A,?33B,?33C,?33D,?33E,?and?33F-which?depicted?Hanson’s?body?at?the?crime?scene-and?items?36A,?36B,?36C,?36D,?36E,?and?36F-which?depicted?Blount’s?body?at?the?same?place.?At?the?hearing,?defendant?argued?that?items?33A,?33B,?33C,?33D,?36D,?and?36E?should?each?be?excluded?under?Evidence?Code?section?352?as?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative,?specifically,?as?overly?gruesome?or?merely?cumulative?or?both.?The?People?agreed?as?to?item?33C-expressly?conceding?that?it?was?cumulative?to?other?photographs-but?disagreed?as?to?the?others.?The?trial?court?reviewed?each?of?the?photographs?defendant?sought?to?exclude.?Thereupon,?it?granted?the?motion?with?regard?to?item?33C,?but?denied?it?with?regard?to?items?33A,?33B,?33D,?36D,?and?36E.?At?trial,?the?People?sought?to?introduce?the?five?nonexcluded?photographs,?among?others.?Defendant?renewed?his?motion.?The?court?denied?the?request?again.?It?then?received?items?33A,?33B,?33D,?36D,?and?36E?into?evidence?as?exhibits?33-A,?33-B,?33-D,?36-D,?and?36-E.

[16]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?erroneous?as?to?item?33D/exhibit?33-D.?The?decision?comprises?a?determination?as?to?undue?prejudice.?The?appropriate?standard?of?review?is?abuse?of?discretion.?[54?Cal.3d?656]?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?786?[speaking?specifically?of?photographs].)?No?abuse?appears.?We?have?ourselves?reviewed?the?photograph?in?question,?which?shows?Hanson’s?upper?body?and?the?wound?to?his?throat.?The?court?could?have?reasonably?concluded?that?the?evidence?was?not?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative.?It?was?relevant?to?the?crucial?issues?bearing?on?defendant’s?conduct?and?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?crimes.?Moreover,?it?was?not?overly?gruesome-at?one?point?during?the?hearing?below?defense?counsel?conceded?as?much-nor?was?it?merely?cumulative?to?other?evidence.

Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?did?indeed?err.?His?first?attack?is?”procedural.”?It?fails.?Of?course,?”on?a?motion?invoking?[Evidence?Code?section?352]?the?record?must?affirmatively?show?that?the?trial?judge?did?in?fact?weigh?prejudice?against?probative?value?….”?(People?v.?Green?(1980)27?Cal.3d?1,?25?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468],?citing?authorities;?accord,?People?v.?Wright?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?576,?582?[217?Cal.Rptr.?212,?703?P.2d?1106].)?The?record?here?does?so.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?implication,?no?more?is?required.?Certainly,?the?trial?judge?need?not?expressly?weigh?prejudice?against?probative?value-or?even?expressly?state?that?he?has?done?so?(see?People?v.?Johnson?(1987)?193?Cal.App.3d?1570,?1576?[239?Cal.Rptr.?190]).?Defendant’s?second?attack?is?”substantive.”?For?the?reasons?stated?above,?it?fails?as?well.

1. Denial?of?Motions?for?Continuance

Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying,?inter?alia,?certain?motions?he?made?for?continuance?of?proceedings.?The?record?pertinent?to?this?claim?must?be?set?out?at?some?length.

On?January?20,?1981,?Fred?P.?Tuttle?III?was?appointed?to?represent?defendant?as?counsel.?On?February?11,?1981,?Lyle?H.?Shattuck?was?appointed?as?associate?counsel.?Trial?was?later?set?for?November?9,?1981.?On?motion?by?both?the?People?and?defendant,?it?was?continued?to?March?22,?1982.?On?defendant’s?motion,?it?was?continued?again?to?November?8,?1982.?Trial?was?subsequently?reset?for?March?28,?1983.?On?defendant’s?motion,?it?was?continued?yet?again?to?May?9,?1983,?this?time?to?allow?the?National?Jury?Project,?which?had?been?retained?by?counsel?at?a?cost?of?$15,000,?to?provide?defendant?with?assistance?in?the?process?of?jury?selection.?Trial?was?later?reset?to?May?11,?1983,?with?hearings?on?a?number?of?pretrial?motions?scheduled?for?May?9,?1983.

On?May?9,?1983,?defendant?moved?for?a?continuance?of?all?proceedings.?His?grounds?were?these:?(1)?Attorney?Shattuck?had?unexpectedly?fallen?ill?and?was?absent;?and?(2)?the?defense?needed?more?time?to?locate,?contact,?and?[54?Cal.3d?657]?interview?possible?penalty?phase?witnesses?in?order?to?furnish?the?National?Jury?Project?with?certain?information?it?required.?The?trial?court?held?a?hearing?that?day.?Requesting?an?immediate?continuance?of?60?days,?Attorney?Tuttle?argued?both?the?”illness”?and?”lack?of?preparation”?claims.?He?urged?the?former?mainly?in?open?court.?He?pressed?the?latter?almost?exclusively?in?chambers,?outside?the?prosecutor’s?presence.?There,?he?stated?in?substance?as?follows:?the?defense?believed?that?the?penalty?phase?”is?the?most?important?phase?as?far?as?this?case?is?concerned.?The?guilt?phase,?there?is?very?little?to?be?done?in?that?regard?so?far?as?the?Defendant?is?concerned”;?counsel?had?three?possible?penalty?phase?witnesses;?those?persons?had?become?hostile;?as?a?result,?counsel?did?not?have?sufficient?information?to?furnish?to?the?National?Jury?Project;?if?they?failed?to?furnish?such?information,?they?”would?deprive?the?Defendant?of?his?rights”;?in?fact,?as?a?result?of?the?foregoing,?they?were?not?prepared?for?the?penalty?phase.

The?trial?court?decided?not?to?rule?on?the?motion?at?that?time.?It?was?inclined?to?reject?the?claim?of?lack?of?preparation.?But?it?wished?to?obtain?more?information?about?the?claim?of?illness.?To?accommodate?certain?personal?concerns?expressed?by?Attorney?Tuttle,?it?continued?the?previously?scheduled?matters?to?the?next?day.

On?May?10,?1983,?the?trial?court?reopened?the?hearing?on?defendant’s?motion?for?continuance.?Both?Attorney?Tuttle?and?Attorney?Shattuck?were?present.?Although?Shattuck?stated?that?he?was?not?feeling?well,?he?did?not?indicate?that?he?was?or?would?be?unavailable?because?of?illness.

At?the?hearing,?argument?focused?on?such?matters?as?when?the?defense?learned,?or?should?have?learned,?of?the?identity?of?possible?penalty?phase?witnesses;?whether?the?information?such?persons?might?supply?was?required?by?the?National?Jury?Project;?and?to?what?extent,?if?at?all,?counsel?needed?that?group’s?assistance.

In?the?course?of?argument,?Attorney?Tuttle?stated?that?defendant?might?have?a?”constitutional?right”?to?the?National?Jury?Project’s?assistance.?To?the?trial?court’s?question,?”If?the?continuance?was?not?granted,?would?that?be?a?violation?of?this?man’s?due?process?rights?,”?Tuttle?responded,?”Perhaps.”?He?went?on?to?explain:?”Well,?I?just?feel?that?it?may?be?depriving?him?of?a?right?to?adequate?representation?by?Counsel.?Since?they?are?in?effect?our?agents?and?they?are?saying?that?they?are?unable?to?provide?this?service?for?which?they?have?been?retained,?then?perhaps?he?is?not?being?provided?with?adequate?Counsel.”

The?prosecutor?remarked,?”I?just,?Your?Honor-the?claim?of?ineffective?assistance?of?Counsel,?I?just-I?think?there?is?just?too?many?ifs?….”?[54?Cal.3d?658]

Attorney?Shattuck?responded:?”This?is?the?first?capital?case?that?I?have?had.?…?I?have?been?practicing?approximately?30?years?and?I?have?handled?quite?a?few?jury?trials.?And?since?my?contact?with?the?National?Jury?Service?[sic]?I?have?realized?that?I?didn’t?know?anywheres?near?as?much?about?picking?jurors?as?I?thought?I?did.”?He?proceeded:?”I,?having?learned?as?much?as?I?have?so?far,?I?would?feel?incompetent?to?select?a?jury?in?a?capital?case?without?their?assistance.”?He?added,?”[W]e?really?feel?that?we?really?need?the?National?Jury?Service?[sic].”?He?conceded,?however,?that?the?group?would?provide?assistance?even?if?a?continuance?was?not?granted.?He?closed:?”And?we?don’t?know?what?the?evidence-they?don’t?know?what?the?evidence?is?and?they?can’t?assist?us?well?and?I?personally?feel?if?I?couldn’t?have?their?assistance,?my?client?would?be?denied?the?effective?assistance?of?Counsel?even?though?[I?have]?30?years?of?experience?and?I?tried?a?lot?of?cases.”

The?trial?court?denied?the?motion,?finding?that?”there?is?no?good?cause?for?continuance.”

Jury?selection?commenced?on?May?11,?1983.?The?National?Jury?Project?assisted?defendant?throughout?the?process.?On?May?19?defense?counsel?stated?that?defendant?would?move?for?a?continuance?based?on?the?absence?of?the?defense?investigator-who?had?evidently?been?injured?in?an?automobile?accident-as?soon?as?they?received?the?relevant?medical?reports.?On?June?9?jury?selection?was?completed.

That?same?day,?defendant?orally?moved?for?a?continuance?of?trial.?His?ground?was?lack?of?preparation?attributable?in?part?to?the?injury?suffered?by?the?defense?investigator.

The?trial?court?put?the?matter?over?to?June?14,?1983,?to?allow?defendant?an?opportunity?to?file?supporting?papers,?and?stated?that?it?would?make?its?ruling?on?that?date.

At?that?point,?defendant?began?to?speak:?”Your?Honor,?I?have?something?I?would?like?to?say,?I?feel?needs?to?be?on?the?record.”?Attorney?Tuttle?explained,?”It’s?in?regard?to?our?possible?competence?or?incompetence,?Your?Honor?….”?With?counsel’s?consent,?the?trial?court?allowed?defendant?to?proceed.?He?stated:?”It?concerns?the?preparation?of?my?defense,?Your?Honor.?I?have?been-I?have?given?my?lawyers?a?long-a?list?a?long?time?ago?of?witnesses,?and?to?my?knowledge,?75?percent?of?them?have?not?been?interviewed.?I?don’t?even?know?if?I?have?a?defense?at?the?guilt?or?the?penalty?phase.”?The?court?asked,?”At?this?time,?you?are?saying?that?your?attorneys?are?incompetent?”?Defendant?answered?nonresponsively,?”I?have?had?them?for?quite?a?while.”?He?then?went?on:?”I?would?like?to?go-if?we?could?have?a?[54?Cal.3d?659]?continuance?and?I?could?find?out?myself.?I?just?talked?to?the?investigator?on?the?phone?myself.”?The?court?reiterated?that?it?had?put?the?matter?over?and?would?not?make?a?ruling?immediately.

On?June?14,?1983,?defendant?filed?papers?supporting?his?June?9?motion?for?continuance,?asking?that?trial?be?scheduled?for?July?5,?1983.?He?restated?his?ground?as?lack?of?preparation?attributable?in?part?to?the?injury?suffered?by?the?defense?investigator?and?a?consequent?threat?to?the?effectiveness?of?counsel’s?assistance?at?the?guilt?phase.

At?the?hearing?that?day,?the?trial?court?stated?to?defense?counsel:?”I?will?be?awfully?frank?with?you?gentlemen,?I?don’t?think?there?is?any?just?cause?for?a?continuance.”?Its?reason,?in?a?word,?was?”the?age?of?the?case.”?Counsel?proceeded?to?present?argument.

With?counsel’s?consent,?the?trial?court?then?allowed?defendant?to?make?a?statement.?He?said?in?substance?that?at?the?time?the?defense?investigator?suffered?his?injury,?he?began?to?seriously?question?counsel’s?competence;?he?admitted?he?had?made?no?attempt?to?address?his?concerns?to?the?court?at?that?time;?he?now?believed?that?counsel?were?unprepared?for?trial?and?hence?incompetent?for?the?task;?he?also?believed?that?counsel?had?not?adequately?cooperated?with?his?efforts?to?aid?the?defense;?he?added:?”I?am?totally?inexperienced?in?legal?matters?and?I?am?at?a?loss?as?to?what?is?proper?steps?to?be?taken.?I?am?not?even?sure?that?a?continuation?can?or?will?rectify?the?deficiencies?of?my?defense?team?preparation.”

Thereupon,?Attorney?Shattuck?moved?to?withdraw?from?representing?defendant?”if?[that?is]?the?way?my?client?feels?about?my?competence.”

The?trial?court?denied?defendant’s?motion?for?continuance.?It?stated?in?relevant?part:?”This?case?has?been?going?for?two?and?a?half?years.?Eventually?this?whole?idea?is?to?search?for?the?truth.?Now?we?have?gotten?to?the?place?where?we?get?involved?in?the?search?for?the?truth.?Now?it?has?to?happen.”?The?court?also?denied?Attorney?Shattuck’s?motion?to?withdraw.

Attorney?Tuttle?renewed?the?motion?for?continuance,?observing?that?neither?the?People?nor?defendant?was?ready?to?proceed:?”I?can’t?see?that?there?is?any?great?crisis?as?far?as?a?one?week?or?two?week?continuance?….”

The?trial?court?effectively?set?aside?its?denial?of?the?motion?and?then?ordered?a?one-week?continuance?to?June?21,?1983,?in?order?to?”accom[m]odate?both?sides.”?It?noted?that?Attorney?Shattuck?had?unsuccessfully?moved?to?withdraw.?It?also?noted?that?defendant?”has?been?straddling?the?fence?whether?he?wants?another?attorney.?I?get?the?impression?that?he?does?….”?[54?Cal.3d?660]?It?then?stated?that?”we?have?got?[June?21]?for?you?to?do?whatever?you?have?to?do,?along?those?lines[.]”?It?reminded?counsel?as?the?hearing?was?about?to?close:?”And?if?you?could?advise?your?client?about?that?incompetency?if?he?wants?to?do?what?he?wants?he?has?got?time?to?do?whatever?he?wants?to?do.”?Attorney?Shattuck?responded:?”Yes,?Your?Honor.?I?will?confer?with?him?right?away.”

On?June?21,?1983,?the?guilt?phase?opened.?Defendant?did?not?renew?his?motion?for?continuance.?Nor?did?he?attempt?to?express?any?complaints?about?counsel.?Neither?did?Attorney?Shattuck?renew?his?motion?to?withdraw.?On?July?12?defendant?moved?for?a?continuance?of?30?days?between?the?end?of?the?guilt?phase?and?the?beginning?of?the?penalty?phase,?if?any.?On?July?20?the?guilt?phase?closed?with?the?jury’s?adverse?verdicts?and?special-circumstance?findings.?Later?that?day,?the?trial?court?ordered?a?continuance?of?about?three?weeks,?to?August?9.?On?that?date,?the?penalty?phase?opened.?On?August?26?it?closed?with?the?jury’s?verdict?of?death.

[17a]?Defendant?now?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?the?motions?for?continuance?that?he?made?on?May?9,?1983,?and?June?9,?1983.

[18]?The?granting?or?denial?of?a?motion?for?continuance?rests?within?the?sound?discretion?of?the?trial?court.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Grant?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?829,?844?[248?Cal.Rptr.?444,?755?P.2d?894].)?That?discretion,?of?course,?must?be?exercised?in?conformity?with?the?applicable?law.?A?continuance?may?be?granted?only?on?the?moving?party’s?showing?of?good?cause.?(Pen.?Code,???1050,?subd.?(e);?Pen.?Code,?former???1050,?subd.?(b),?as?amended?by?Stats.?1982,?ch.?952,???1,?p.?3444.)?Such?a?showing?requires,?inter?alia,?a?demonstration?that?both?the?party?and?counsel?have?used?due?diligence?in?their?preparations.?(People?v.?Grant,?supra,?at?p.?844.)

It?follows?that?on?appeal,?a?ruling?on?a?motion?for?continuance?is?subject?to?review?under?the?abuse-of-discretion?standard.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Grant,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?843-844.)

[17b]?In?our?view,?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?by?ruling?as?it?did?on?defendant’s?motion?of?May?9,?1983.?The?court?found?that?”there?is?no?good?cause?for?continuance.”?Its?finding?was?not?unreasonable.?As?noted,?the?motion?rested?on?grounds?involving?Attorney?Shattuck’s?illness?and?the?defense’s?lack?of?preparation.?The?former?was?effectively?withdrawn?by?Shattuck’s?presence?at?the?May?10,?1983,?hearing.?The?latter?could?certainly?have?been?deemed?insufficient.?There?was?no?demonstration?that?both?defendant?and?his?counsel?had?used?due?diligence.?Indeed,?the?facts?strongly?suggested?the?opposite:?Attorney?Tuttle?and?Attorney?Shattuck?had?been?appointed?in?early?1981,?trial?was?originally?set?to?commence?later?that?year,?[54?Cal.3d?661]?and?defendant?himself?evidently?possessed?much?of?the?information?considered?crucial,?viz.,?the?identity?of?possible?penalty?phase?witnesses.

Neither?did?the?trial?court?abuse?its?discretion?by?ruling?as?it?did?on?defendant’s?motion?of?June?9,?1983.?It?must?be?emphasized?at?the?outset?that?contrary?to?defendant’s?characterization,?the?court?granted?the?motion-although?it?continued?trial?only?to?June?21?and?not?to?July?5?as?had?been?requested.?The?court?all?but?expressly?found?that?defendant?had?failed?to?make?a?showing?of?good?cause?for?a?continuance?beyond?June?21.?Its?finding?was?not?unreasonable.?As?noted,?the?motion?rested?on?grounds?of?lack?of?preparation?and?a?consequent?threat?to?the?effectiveness?of?counsel’s?assistance?at?the?guilt?phase.?The?former?could?have?been?deemed?insufficient.?There?was?no?demonstration?that?both?defendant?and?his?counsel?had?used?due?diligence.?Indeed,?as?stated?above,?the?facts?strongly?suggested?the?opposite.?The?other?ground?could?also?have?been?deemed?insufficient.?Any?threat?to?counsel’s?effectiveness?at?the?guilt?phase?was?speculative?and?nothing?more-especially?in?view?of?Attorney?Tuttle’s?statement?in?chambers?on?May?9,?1983,?that?”The?guilt?phase,?there?is?very?little?to?be?done?in?that?regard?so?far?as?the?Defendant?is?concerned.”

Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion.?But?notwithstanding?his?assertion,?he?simply?does?not?establish?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?ruling?as?it?did?on?either?of?his?motions.

[19]?Defendant?also?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?what?he?asserts?was?his?motion?for?substitution?of?counsel?and?by?refusing?to?afford?him?a?proper?hearing?on?his?underlying?complaints?about?counsel’s?performance.?The?point?is?empty.?There?was?no?denial?of?a?motion?for?substitution.?Defendant?never?made?any?such?request.?Further,?there?was?no?refusal?to?afford?him?a?proper?hearing?on?his?complaints.?Indeed,?the?record?is?otherwise.

[20]?Defendant?next?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?Attorney?Shattuck’s?motion?to?withdraw?as?counsel.?Determination?of?such?a?request?is?entrusted?to?the?sound?discretion?of?the?trial?court.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?McCracken?(1952)?39?Cal.2d?336,?350?[246?P.2d?913].)?Accordingly,?its?decision?is?subject?to?review?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(See?ibid.)?No?abuse?appears.?As?noted,?Shattuck?made?his?motion?on?June?14,?1983,?following?the?completion?of?jury?selection?and?prior?to?the?opening?of?the?guilt?phase.?He?did?so?immediately?after?defendant?expressed?a?belief?that?counsel?were?unprepared?for?trial?and?hence?incompetent?for?the?task-stating?that?he?was?seeking?to?withdraw?”if?[that?is]?the?way?my?client?feels?about?my?competence.”?On?this?record,?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?certainly?not?unreasonable.?[54?Cal.3d?662]?Put?simply,?the?court?could?have?viewed?Shattuck’s?words?as?too?little,?too?late.

[21]?Finally,?defendant?claims?in?substance?that?the?trial?court’s?acts?and?omissions?and/or?the?acts?and?omissions?of?counsel?threatened?to?violate?and/or?did?in?fact?violate?his?right?under?the?Sixth?Amendment?to?the?effective?assistance?of?counsel?and/or?representation?free?from?conflicts?of?interest.?Having?reviewed?the?record?in?its?entirety,?we?simply?disagree.?The?acts?and?omissions?in?question?did?not?implicate?the?Sixth?Amendment?in?any?significant?way.

1. Denial?of?Separate?Guilt?and?Penalty?Juries

Prior?to?trial,?defendant?made?a?motion?to?impanel?separate?juries?to?try?the?issues?of?guilt?and?penalty.?[22]?(See?fn.?6.)?He?based?his?request?on?a?claim?that?the?exclusion?through?”California?death?qualification”?of?”guilt?phase?includables”?violates?a?criminal?defendant’s?right?to?a?jury?drawn?from?a?fair?cross-section?of?the?community?under?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution.fn.?6?He?expressly?declined?to?rely?on?a?claim?that?the?challenged?exclusion?violates?a?criminal?defendant’s?right?under?the?same?provisions?of?the?federal?and?state?charters?to?a?jury?that?is?impartial-specifically,?a?panel?that?is?neutral?on?the?question?of?guilt?and?hence?not?conviction?prone.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion.

[23]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?was?erroneous.?That?is?not?the?case.

The?claim?on?which?defendant?relied?below?is?without?merit.?The?exclusion?through?”California?death?qualification”?of?”guilt?phase?includables”?does?not?offend?a?criminal?defendant’s?right?to?a?jury?drawn?from?a?fair?cross-?section?of?the?community?under?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?342-353?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680]?(plur.?opn.);?id.?at?pp.?374-375?(conc.?opn.?of?Kaus,?J.);?People?v.?Guzman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?915,?948-949?[248?Cal.Rptr.?467,?755?P.2d?917];?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Warren?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?471,?479?[247?Cal.Rptr.?172,?754?P.2d?218]?[adhering?to?Fields].)?[54?Cal.3d?663]

Further,?the?claim?on?which?defendant?expressly?declined?to?rely?is?not?preserved?for?review.?As?noted,?there?was?no?argument?that?the?challenged?exclusion?offends?a?criminal?defendant’s?federal?and?state?constitutional?rights?to?an?impartial?jury.?Of?course,?when?an?argument?was?not?presented?to?support?a?motion,?it?may?not?be?urged?to?attack?the?subsequent?ruling.?In?any?event,?we?have?never?found?the?present?argument?persuasive.?(See?generally?Hovey?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?28?Cal.3d?at?pp.?8-69.)?Our?views?have?not?changed.

1. Excusal?From?Jury?Service?for?Hardship

Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?improperly?excusing?229?persons?from?jury?service?in?this?action?on?the?ground?of?undue?personal?hardship.?(He?lists?a?total?of?325?prospective?jurors?and?235?hardship?excusals.)?The?major?argument?is?that?the?court?used?the?challenged?excusals?to?remove?all?persons?who?simply?did?not?wish?to?serve?in?a?capital?case-or?allowed?such?persons?to?remove?themselves-and?thereby?created?a?pool?of?”volunteers.”?A?minor?argument?is?that?the?court?generally?ordered?the?challenged?excusals?without?adequate?support?in?the?law?or?the?facts?or?both.?The?claim?asserts?violation?of?California?statutory?and?decisional?law?and?also?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions.

At?defendant’s?request,?the?trial?court?employed?the?following?procedure?to?select?the?jury?that?would?try?his?case:?examination?of?prospective?jurors?in?panels,?resulting?in?excusals?for?hardship;?individual?sequestered?examination?of?those?who?remained,?leading?to?exclusion?for?cause;?the?random?drawing?into?the?jury?box?of?those?who?still?remained,?ending?with?removal?on?peremptory?challenge?by?the?People?or?defendant;?and?finally,?the?swearing?of?12?jurors?and?4?alternates.

Voir?dire?was?conducted?over?18?days.?Initially,?325?prospective?jurors?were?examined?in?4?panels.?By?way?of?introduction,?the?trial?court?stated?that?the?expected?length?of?the?proceedings?was?about?10?to?12?weeks.?It?went?on?to?solicit,?and?determine,?claims?of?undue?personal?hardship.?At?this?stage?it?received?232?requests?for?excusal;?it?granted?218?and?denied?14.?Only?then?did?it?reveal?that?the?action?was?criminal?in?nature?and?might?involve?the?death?penalty.?At?this?stage?it?received,?and?granted,?four?additional?requests.

The?103?remaining?prospective?jurors?were?then?examined?individually?and?in?sequestration.?In?the?course?of?these?proceedings,?the?People?took?11?challenges?for?cause,?all?successfully.?For?his?part,?defendant?took?eight?challenges?for?cause,?three?successfully.?The?trial?court?removed?an?additional?four?persons?for?cause,?two?clearly?on?its?own?motion?and?two?[54?Cal.3d?664]?apparently?so.?It?also?excused?12?more?persons?for?hardship.?Six?persons?did?not?appear.

From?the?67?still?remaining,?prospective?jurors?were?randomly?drawn?into?the?jury?box.?The?People?and?defendant?were?each?allotted?26?peremptory?challenges?against?prospective?jurors?and?4?against?prospective?alternate?jurors.?The?People?used?13?such?challenges?against?prospective?jurors?and?2?against?prospective?alternate?jurors.?Defendant?used?nine?against?the?former?and?four?against?the?latter.?The?jurors?and?alternates?were?sworn.?Before?the?guilt?phase?opened,?the?trial?court?excused?one?of?the?jurors?for?hardship?and?substituted?an?alternate?in?his?place.

In?total,?the?trial?court?excused?235?persons?for?undue?personal?hardship.?No?objection?whatever?was?made?by?either?the?People?or?defendant.

[24]?As?stated,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?improperly?excusing?229?persons?from?jury?service?in?this?action?because?of?undue?personal?hardship-220?at?panel?voir?dire,?8?at?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?and?1?after?swearing.

After?close?consideration,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim?on?procedural?grounds.

A?defendant?may?properly?raise?in?this?court?a?point?involving?an?allegedly?improper?excusal?for?undue?personal?hardship?only?if?he?made?the?same?point?below.?The?requirement?of?a?contemporaneous?and?specific?objection?promotes?the?fair?and?correct?resolution?of?a?claim?of?error?both?at?trial?and?on?appeal,?and?thereby?furthers?the?interests?of?reliability?and?finality.?When?a?contemporaneous?and?specific?objection?is?made,?the?parties?are?put?on?notice?to?characterize?the?claim?as?they?think?proper?and?to?set?out?the?law?and?facts?as?they?deem?necessary.?With?their?response,?the?trial?court?is?provided?with?a?basis?on?which?to?define?the?claim?and?then?determine?whether?it?is?meritorious?and,?if?so,?how?any?harm?may?be?avoided?or?cured?as?promptly?and?completely?as?possible.?On?such?a?record,?the?appellate?court?may?then?decide?whether?a?challenge?to?the?trial?court’s?ruling?is?sound.?(Cf.?People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?166?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169]?[applying?the?requirement?of?a?contemporaneous?and?specific?objection?to?a?claim?that?the?prosecutor?used?peremptory?challenges?to?remove?prospective?jurors?on?the?sole?ground?of?group?bias?in?violation?of?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???16,?as?construed?in?People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258?(148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748)].)

Plainly,?defendant?does?not?satisfy?the?rule?requiring?a?contemporaneous?and?specific?objection:?as?noted,?he?made?no?objection?whatever?to?any?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?665]?trial?court’s?hardship?excusals.?Nor?does?he?show?that?any?exception?to?the?requirement?is?available.?He?argues?that?the?rule?does?not?apply?to?claims?of?error?under?the?United?States?or?California?Constitution.?We?are?not?persuaded.?The?reasons?for?the?requirement?extend?to?all?claims?of?whatever?dimension.?Its?operation?should?therefore?extend?to?all?as?well.fn.?7

Were?we?to?proceed?beyond?the?threshold,?we?would?be?inclined?to?reject?defendant’s?claim?on?the?merits.?Of?course,?a?trial?court?has?authority?to?excuse?a?person?from?jury?service?for?undue?personal?hardship.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???204,?subd.?(b);?see?Code?Civ.?Proc.,?former???200,?added?by?Stats.?1975,?ch.?593,???3,?p.?1310,?and?repealed?by?Stats.?1988,?ch.?1245,???1,?p.?4140.)?(See?People?v.?Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?273.)

Applying?that?standard,?we?believe?that?no?pervasive?error?appears?under?California?statutory?or?decisional?law.?Almost?all?of?the?229?challenged?excusals?for?undue?personal?hardship?seem?reasonable.?To?be?sure,?the?trial?court’s?examination?was?usually?quite?brief?in?length?and?often?jocular?in?tone.?Its?result,?however,?was?virtually?always?the?sound?determination?of?the?question?presented.?(Compare?People?v.?Thompson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?134,?157-159?[266?Cal.Rptr.?309,?785?P.2d?857]?[arriving?at?a?similar?conclusion?on?a?similar?record].)

Read?fairly?and?as?a?whole,?the?record?does?not?bear?out?defendant’s?argument?that?the?trial?court?used?the?challenged?hardship?excusals?to?remove?all?persons?who?simply?did?not?wish?to?serve?in?a?capital?case-or?allowed?such?persons?to?remove?themselves.?As?the?facts?set?out?above?show,?the?court?denied?14?requests?for?excusal?on?this?ground.?Moreover,?it?ordered?[54?Cal.3d?666]?almost?all?the?challenged?excusals-224?out?of?229-before?it?revealed?that?the?action?was?criminal?in?nature?and?might?involve?the?death?penalty.

Neither?does?the?record?support?defendant’s?argument?that?the?trial?court?generally?ordered?the?challenged?hardship?excusals?without?adequate?basis.?The?court?used?its?practical?experience?and?made?pragmatic?evaluations.?As?a?general?matter,?defendant’s?criticism?in?this?regard?is?little?more?than?a?cavil.

Of?the?229?challenged?hardship?excusals,?however,?4?are?indeed?troubling.?In?each?of?these?instances,?it?appears?that?the?trial?court-although?not?without?chastisement-did?in?fact?allow?a?prospective?juror?to?remove?himself?because?he?simply?did?not?wish?to?serve.?But?it?cannot?be?said?that?any?of?these?persons?was?motivated?by?a?desire?to?avoid?participation?in?a?capital?(or?even?a?criminal)?case.?Of?the?four?prospective?jurors?here?considered,?three?were?excused?at?panel?voir?dire?before?they?had?even?been?informed?of?the?nature?of?the?proceedings.?The?fourth,?it?is?true,?was?excused?at?individual?sequestered?voir?dire?after?he?received?that?information.?But?the?record?reveals?that?he?acted?solely?out?of?economic?considerations.

[25]?Further,?we?believe?that?no?error?appears?under?the?United?States?or?California?Constitution.?In?this?regard,?defendant?claims?that?the?challenged?excusals?for?undue?personal?hardship?violated,?inter?alia,?his?rights?to?(1)?a?jury?drawn?from?a?fair?cross-section?of?the?community,?under?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution;?(2)?an?impartial?panel,?under?the?same?provisions;?(3)?a?reliable?determination?by?such?a?panel?on?the?issue?of?life?or?death,?under?the?Eighth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?and?article?I,?section?17;?and?(4)?equal?protection?of?the?laws,?under?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?7.?The?point?rests?on?an?assumption?that?all?persons?who?did?not?wish?to?serve?in?a?capital?case?were?removed.?The?assumption?is?unsupported.?Certainly,?we?cannot?conclude?that?the?pool?remaining?after?the?challenged?excusals?constituted?”volunteers.”?As?noted,?14?requests?for?excusal?were?denied.?A?fortiori,?we?cannot?conclude?that?the?pool?constituted?”volunteers”?for?a?capital?(or?even?a?criminal)?case.?As?also?noted,?almost?all?the?challenged?hardship?excusals?were?made?before?the?nature?of?the?proceedings?was?revealed.?On?this?record,?we?can?find?no?significant?infringement?of?defendant’s?fair-cross-section,?impartial-jury,?and?reliable-penalty-?determination?rights.?The?four?questionable?excusals?were?without?appreciable?effect.

[26]?In?any?event,?even?if?the?trial?court?did?in?fact?err?as?defendant?claims?under?both?California?statutory?and?decisional?law?and?also?the?[54?Cal.3d?667]?United?States?and?California?Constitutions,?reversal?would?not?be?warranted.?In?our?view,?none?of?the?asserted?violations?entails?prejudice?per?se.?And?certainly,?none?discloses?actual?prejudice.

On?the?issues?of?both?error?and?reversibility,?defendant?finds?the?state?of?the?record?unsatisfactory.?But?having?made?no?relevant?objection?below,?he?may?not?be?heard?to?complain?in?that?regard.

1. Prosecutorial?Misconduct

[27]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?in?the?course?of?both?his?opening?statement?and?his?summation.?He?complains?of?the?following:?a?reference,?in?the?former,?to?a?possible?witness?for?the?People?who?was?not?ultimately?called,?which?suggested?that?at?some?time?after?his?arrest?he?had?made?plans?to?escape;?and?an?allusion,?in?the?latter,?to?the?existence?of?facts?not?in?evidence,?to?the?effect?that?he?envied?Hanson.?He?argues?that?the?claimed?misconduct?violated?state?law?and?also?offended?the?United?States?Constitution-specifically,?the?confrontation?clause?of?the?Sixth?Amendment,?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment,?and?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.

We?reject?the?point?on?procedural?grounds.?”It?is,?of?course,?the?general?rule?that?a?defendant?cannot?complain?on?appeal?of?misconduct?by?a?prosecutor?at?trial?unless?in?a?timely?fashion?he?made?an?assignment?of?misconduct?and?requested?that?the?jury?be?admonished?to?disregard?the?impropriety.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?794.)?In?this?case,?defendant?made?no?such?assignment?and?request?at?any?time.?”It?is?true?that?the?rule?does?not?apply?when?the?harm?could?not?have?been?cured.”?(Ibid.)?Such?a?situation,?however,?was?not?present?here.?The?reference?and?allusion?now?complained?of?threatened?little,?if?any,?harm:?each?was?brief?and,?in?context,?unremarkable.?Any?possible?harm?was?readily?curable.?Defendant’s?argument?to?the?contrary?founders?on?the?record.

1. Overruling?of?Objection?to?Letters

Outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?the?People?moved?for?a?ruling?on?the?admissibility?of?portions?of?four?letters?written?by?defendant?in?the?Tokyo?Detention?House.?Three?of?the?letters?were?addressed?to?his?wife?Allison:?”I?am?really?glad?Frank?[Plunk,?Allison’s?former?husband,]?came?through,?just?think?he?might?have?loaned?us?the?money?all?of?the?time.”?”My?trip?to?Cal?wasn’t?in?vain.?I?finally?found?out?you?truly?loved?me?and?you?got?your?bills?paid.?That?is?a?pretty?good?haul?for?both?of?us.”?”I?would?sacrifice?everything?for?you.?Hell,?look?I?have.?Actions?speak?louder?than?words.?You?got?the?money?you?wanted?and?now?you?ignore?my?need.”?(See?pt.?II.B.,?ante.)?The?[54?Cal.3d?668]?fourth?letter?was?addressed?to?his?father:?”I?will?probably?be?here?til?damn?close?to?Christmas,?maybe?even?longer.?Thank?you?for?sending?my?little?family?$4,000.”?The?People?sought?(1)?to?show?that?around?the?time?of?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount,?defendant?and?Allison?were?experiencing?difficulties?in?their?financial?situation,?and?that?defendant?came?to?California?from?Japan?to?alleviate?that?condition;?and?(2)?to?corroborate?the?testimony?of?Edward?Rogers?on?that?point.

Defendant?objected?to?the?portions?of?the?four?letters?as?irrelevant?under?Evidence?Code?section?210?and?as?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.?He?argued,?in?substance,?that?the?evidence?was?of?no?consequence?to?the?action,?and?might?allow?an?assertedly?improper?inference?about?the?provenance?of?the?$4,000?mentioned?in?the?letter?to?his?father-to?the?effect?that?”the?money?was?given?to?his?father?by?Doug?Mickey?to?send?to?his?wife?and?may?have?come?from?the?Eric?Hanson?house.”

The?People?responded,?in?substance,?that?the?portions?of?the?four?letters?were?relevant?to?the?issue?of?motive,?and?were?not?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative.?They?offered?suggestions?to?prevent?the?assertedly?improper?inference?that?defendant?feared,?including?a?statement?to?the?jury?that?they?were?introducing?the?evidence?only?to?show?motive,?and?even?an?agreement?not?to?present?the?portion?of?the?letter?to?his?father.?Defendant?refused.

Overruling?defendant’s?objection,?the?trial?court?determined?that?the?portions?of?the?four?letters?were?admissible.?Before?the?jury,?the?prosecutor?stated?that?the?evidence?”will?be?offered?for?the?limited?purpose?of?showing?that?Mr.?Mickey?and?his?family-Mr.?Mickey’s?family?rather?in?Japan?were?in?a?state?of?financial?distress?when?he?came?to?California?September?of?1980.”?Defense?counsel?responded:?”I?object?to?this?as?a?conclusion?on?his?part?from?what?is?contained?in?those?letters.?…”?The?prosecutor?replied:?”I?will?withdraw?the?purpose,?Your?Honor,?that?is?fine.”?The?evidence?was?subsequently?introduced.

[28]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?this?matter.?The?appropriate?standard?of?review?for?a?ruling?on?admissibility?over?an?objection?of?irrelevance?and/or?undue?prejudice?is?abuse?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1239.)?No?abuse?appears.?The?court?could?have?reasonably?concluded?that?the?portions?of?the?four?letters?were?relevant?and?were?not?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative.?The?evidence?showed?motive-and?did?so?strongly.?By?contrast,?it?supported?the?assertedly?improper?inference?of?provenance?only?weakly,?if?at?all.?Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary,?but?unpersuasively.?[54?Cal.3d?669]

1. Admission?of?Testimony?of?Informer

[29]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?admitting?the?testimony?of?a?fellow?jail?inmate,?who?related?certain?extrajudicial?statements?he?had?made,?including?that?he?stabbed?Blount-but?only?once?and?out?of?fear?after?she?pointed?a?gun?in?his?direction.?He?argues?in?substance?that?the?introduction?of?the?evidence?under?challenge?was?violative?of?various?provisions?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions?and?assorted?prophylactic?rules?thereunder?as?the?assertedly?tainted?fruit?of?the?allegedly?poisonous?tree?comprising?his?”inflight”?and?”Honolulu?admissions”?to?Detective?Landry.?(See?pt.?II.A.,?ante.)

We?reject?the?claim.?”It?is,?of?course,?’the?general?rule?that?questions?relating?to?the?admissibility?of?evidence?will?not?be?reviewed?on?appeal?in?the?absence?of?a?specific?and?timely?objection?in?the?trial?court?on?the?ground?sought?to?be?urged?on?appeal.’?”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?786,?fn.?7,?quoting?People?v.?Rogers?(1978)?21?Cal.3d?542,?548?[146?Cal.Rptr.?732,?579?P.2d?1048].)?At?trial,?defendant?failed?to?make?any?objection?whatever.?He?now?argues?that?the?rule?is?not?applicable?here.?He?asserts?that?any?objection?would?have?been?futile.?We?disagree:?futility?simply?does?not?appear.?He?also?asserts?in?effect?that?the?rule?is?in?conflict?with,?and?must?yield?to,?his?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?a?reliable?penalty?determination?and?the?state’s?independent?interest?in?the?reliability?of?such?a?determination.?Again?we?disagree:?no?significant?conflict?appears.?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1255.)?In?any?event,?defendant’s?point?is?lacking?in?merit.?No?poison,?no?taint.?(See?pt.?II.A.,?ante.)

1. Instruction?on?Proof?of?Intent

The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?inter?alia,?that?a?defendant?is?presumed?innocent?and?that?the?People?have?the?burden?of?proving?him?guilty?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.

The?court?then?defined?the?offenses?of?murder,?manslaughter,?burglary,?and?robbery;?the?special?circumstances?of?multiple?murder,?intentional?murder?for?financial?gain,?felony-murder-burglary?and?felony-murder-robbery;?and?the?act?and?mental?state,?including?specific?intent,?requisite?to?each.

Further,?the?court?instructed?on?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication,?and?on?their?availability?if?a?reasonable?doubt?exists?as?to?the?presence?of?certain?required?mental?states.

The?court?also?explained?how?intent?is?shown,?in?accordance?with?the?standard?instruction?(which?was?subsequently?withdrawn)?set?out?in?former?[54?Cal.3d?670]?CALJIC?No.?3.34?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?rev.)):?”The?intent?with?which?an?act?is?done?is?shown?as?follows:?By?a?statement?of?his?intent?made?by?a?defendant.?By?the?circumstances?attending?the?act,?the?manner?in?which?it?is?done,?the?means?used,?and?the?soundness?of?mind?and?discretion?of?the?person?committing?the?act.?For?the?purposes?of?the?case?on?trial,?you?must?assume?that?the?defendant?was?of?sound?mind?at?the?time?of?his?alleged?conduct?which,?it?is?charged,?constituted?the?crime?described?in?the?information.”?(Brackets?and?paragraphing?omitted.)

[30a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?instruction?on?proof?of?intent-specifically,?its?”presumption?of?mental?soundness”-was?erroneous.?He?argues?in?substance?as?follows:?the?language?under?challenge?created?a?mandatory?conclusive?presumption?that?reduced?the?People’s?burden?of?proof?as?to?the?mental?elements?of?the?applicable?offenses?and?special?circumstances?by?undermining?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication;?and?such?a?reduction?in?burden?is?impermissible?under?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.

When?a?determination?of?error?depends?on?the?meaning?communicated?by?an?instruction,?we?must?ascertain?how?a?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?would?have,?or?at?least?could?have,?understood?the?words?in?question.?(See?Cage?v.?Louisiana?(1990)?498?U.S.?___,?___[112?L.Ed.2d?339,?341-342,?111?S.Ct.?328,?329]?(per?curiam)?[“could?have”];?Francis?v.?Franklin?(1985)?471?U.S.?307,?316?[85?L.Ed.2d?344,?354,?105?S.Ct.?1965]?[same];?People?v.?Warren,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?487?[“would?[have]”];?cf.?Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370,?378,?380?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?328,?329,?110?S.Ct.?1190,?1197,?1198]?[holding?that?”[t]he?legal?standard?for?reviewing?jury?instructions?claimed?to?restrict?impermissibly?a?jury’s?consideration?of?relevant?evidence”?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?”is?whether?there?is?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?has?applied?the?challenged?instruction?in?a?way?that?prevents?the?consideration?of”?such?evidence].)?To?do?so,?we?must?obviously?consider?the?language?both?in?itself?and?in?the?charge?as?a?whole.

We?find?no?error.?On?this?record,?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?presumption?of?mental?soundness?for?what?it?was,?i.e.,?a?presumption?of?sanity.?Sanity,?of?course,?was?not?at?issue.?Such?a?presumption?could?not?have?reduced?the?People’s?burden?of?proof?as?to?the?mental?elements?of?the?applicable?offenses?and?special?circumstances.?Through?the?instructions?as?a?whole,?the?jury?was?directed?to?take?into?account?all?the?evidence?introduced?by?both?the?parties?bearing?on?the?presence?or?absence?of?the?mental?elements,?and?to?decide?the?question?on?that?basis.?Certainly,?the?presumption?could?not?have?undermined?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication.?It?must?be?recalled?that?defendant?relied?on?voluntary?intoxication?and?diminished?capacity?as?a?result?of?voluntary?[54?Cal.3d?671]?intoxication.?Defendant’s?”mental?soundness”-as?a?reasonable?juror?could?have?understood?the?phrase-was?simply?not?at?issue.?Defense?counsel?conceded?as?much?in?his?summation:?”There?is?no?evidence?here?of?mental?illness?or?mental?defect?….”?The?presumption,?therefore,?could?not?have?had?any?appreciable?effect?on?the?defenses?actually?presented.?It?is?true?that?whether?defendant?was?intoxicated?was?indeed?in?dispute.?[31]?(See?fn.?8.),?[30b]?But-contrary?to?what?appears?to?be?defendant’s?argument-a?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?discerned?in?the?presumption?of?mental?soundness?a?presumption?of?sobriety.fn.?8

1. Instruction?on?Consciousness?of?Guilt

The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?in?accordance?with?the?standard?instruction?set?out?in?CALJIC?No.?2.03?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?rev.)),?as?follows:?”If?you?find?that?before?this?trial?the?defendant?made?false?or?deliberately?misleading?statements?concerning?the?charge?upon?which?he?is?now?being?tried,?you?may?consider?such?statements?as?a?circumstance?tending?to?prove?a?consciousness?of?guilt?but?it?is?not?sufficient?of?itself?to?prove?guilt.?The?weight?to?be?given?to?such?a?circumstance?and?its?significance,?if?any,?are?matters?for?your?determination.”

Subsequently,?in?People?v.?Louis?(1984)?159?Cal.App.3d?156,?161?[205?Cal.Rptr.?306],?the?Court?of?Appeal?stated:?”[T]he?instruction?should?only?be?given?when?the?statement?is?found?to?be?deliberately?false.?[Citations.]?[?]?A?[54?Cal.3d?672]?statement?can?be?false?without?being?made?wilfully?or?deliberately.?CALJIC?No.?2.03?would?be?more?accurate?if?it?included?the?word?’wilfully’?between?the?words?’made’?and?’false’?….”?That?same?year,?the?standard?instruction?was?revised?accordingly.?So?revised,?it?is?presently?set?out?in?CALJIC?No.?2.03?(5th?ed.?1988.)

[32]?Defendant?contends?that?the?instruction?given?at?his?trial?was?erroneous.?He?argues?in?substance?that?without?the?adverb?”wilfully,”?the?jury?might?have?construed?”false”?as?merely?”mistaken”?and?on?that?basis?might?have?made?an?inference?of?consciousness?of?guilt?that?was?in?fact?unsupported.

We?disagree.?We?believe?that?on?this?record?at?least,?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?adjective?”false”?as?”wilfully?false”-and?could?not?have?construed?it?as?merely?”mistaken.”?In?common?usage,?one?of?the?primary?meanings?of?”false”?is?”intentionally?untrue.”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(3d?ed.?1961)?p.?819.)?In?the?instruction?under?challenge,?that?meaning?is?suggested?by?the?word’s?pairing?with?the?adjectival?phrase?that?follows:?”false?or?deliberately?misleading.”?(See?People?v.?Louis,?supra,?159?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?162.)?In?the?case?as?it?was?actually?tried,?the?meaning?suggested?was?in?fact?confirmed.?The?People’s?position?was?that?certain?of?defendant’s?extrajudicial?statements?were?”intentionally?untrue.”?By?contrast,?defendant’s?position?was?essentially?that?the?statements?in?question?were?”true.”?Neither?party?urged?that?the?statements?were?merely?”mistaken.”fn.?9

1. Instructions?on?Lesser?Included?Offenses?and?Partial?Verdicts?as?to?Homicide

The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?in?accordance?with?the?standard?instruction?set?out?in?CALJIC?No.?17.10?(4th?ed.?1979?(1982?rev.)),?that?it?could?find?defendant?not?guilty?of?murder?but?guilty?of?the?lesser?included?offenses?of?voluntary?or?involuntary?manslaughter.?It?also?told?the?panel,?in?conformity?with?CALJIC?No.?8.75?(4th?ed.?1979?(1982?new)),?that?it?could?return?partial?verdicts?as?to?homicide.

Following?our?decision?in?Stone?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?503?[183?Cal.Rptr.?647,?646?P.2d?809],?we?held?in?People?v.?Kurtzman?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?322,?324-325?[250?Cal.Rptr.?244,?758?P.2d?572],?that?a?trial?court?may?[54?Cal.3d?673]?”restrict[?]?a?jury?from?returning?a?verdict?on?a?lesser?included?offense?before?acquitting?on?a?greater?offense”?but?may?not?”preclude?a?jury?from?considering?lesser?offenses?during?its?deliberations.”?(Italics?in?original.)

[33]?Defendant?contends?that?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did,?the?trial?court?erred?under?state?law?as?well?as?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution,?including?the?impartial-jury-trial?and?due?process?clauses.?Crucial?to?his?claim?is?the?assertion?that?the?instructions?in?question?”disrupt[ed]?and?coerc[ed]?the?jury’s?consideration?of?the?evidence?bearing?on?[his]?specific?intent.”

The?claim?is?without?merit.?In?our?view,?defendant’s?assertion?is?unsound.?On?this?record,?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?challenged?instructions?to?govern?how?the?panel?was?to?return?its?verdicts?on?homicide,?and?not?to?affect?how?it?was?to?deliberate?on?the?matter.?Certainly,?such?a?juror?could?not?have?construed?the?charge?so?as?to?interfere?in?any?significant?way?with?his?consideration?of?the?evidence.?(Compare?People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?241-?242?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906]?[rejecting?a?claim?of?error?against?similar?instructions].)

Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary,?but?he?is?unpersuasive.?Contrary?to?his?position,?the?peculiar?circumstances?of?his?particular?trial?do?not?undermine?our?conclusion.?Neither?do?any?other?factors.fn.?10

1. Instructions?on?Defendant’s?Failure?to?Testify

At?defendant’s?request,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?in?accordance?with?the?standard?instruction?set?out?in?CALJIC?No.?2.60?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?rev.)),?that?”It?is?a?constitutional?right?of?a?defendant?in?a?criminal?trial?that?he?may?not?be?compelled?to?testify.?You?must?not?draw?any?inference?from?the?fact?that?he?does?not?testify.?Further,?you?must?neither?discuss?this?matter?nor?permit?it?to?enter?into?your?deliberations?in?any?way.”?Immediately?thereafter,?also?at?defendant’s?request,?the?court?told?the?panel,?in?conformity?with?CALJIC?No.?2.61?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?rev.)),?that?”In?deciding?whether?or?not?to?testify,?the?defendant?may?choose?to?rely?on?the?state?of?the?evidence?and?upon?the?failure,?if?any,?of?the?People?to?prove?beyond?a?[54?Cal.3d?674]?reasonable?doubt?every?essential?element?of?the?charge?against?him,?and?no?lack?of?testimony?on?defendant’s?part?will?supply?a?failure?of?proof?by?the?People?so?as?to?support?a?finding?against?him?on?any?such?essential?element.”

[34]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did.?His?attack?is?focused?on?the?verb?”supply.”?He?argues?in?substance?that?the?sense?demanded?of?”supply”?by?the?applicable?law?is?”make?up?or?compensate?for”;?the?word?does?not?convey?that?meaning;?and?whatever?sense,?if?any,?it?does?in?fact?communicate?renders?the?instructions?in?question?improper?or?inadequate?statements?of?the?relevant?law,?and?also?gives?rise?to?prejudice?in?itself?and?compounds?prejudice?arising?elsewhere.

The?claim?lacks?merit.?Defendant’s?assertion?to?the?contrary?notwithstanding,?a?reasonable?juror?would?in?fact?have?understood?the?verb?”supply”?to?mean?”make?up?or?compensate?for.”?We?acknowledge?that?such?a?meaning?appears?to?be?obsolescent.?(Compare?Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(2d?ed.?1941)?p.?2534?[listing?”[t]o?make?up?or?compensate?for”?as?one?of?the?definitions?of?”supply”],?with?Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(3d?ed.?1961)?p.?2297?[not?listing?that?definition?in?ipsissimis?verbis].)?But?it?is?plainly?not?obsolete.?(See?Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(3d?ed.?1961)?p.?2297.)?More?important,?it?is?practically?compelled?by?the?context.?In?any?event,?we?do?not?believe?that?a?reasonable?juror?could?have?derived?an?improper?or?inadequate?understanding?of?the?pertinent?law.?Accordingly,?we?need?not,?and?do?not,?consider?the?issue?of?prejudice.fn.?11

1. Failure?to?Instruct?on?Testimony?of?Informer

[35]?The?trial?court?did?not?instruct?the?jury?that?they?should?consider?the?testimony?of?an?informer?to?be?inherently?unreliable?and?that?they?should?view?it?with?caution.

Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?so?instruct,?even?absent?a?request,?was?error.?He?argues?that?at?least?when,?as?here,?a?man’s?life?is?at?stake,?such?an?instruction?is?required?by?state?law?and,?apparently,?by?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.

We?reject?the?claim.?We?have?repeatedly?held?that?a?court?does?not?err?by?failing?to?instruct?the?jurors,?sua?sponte,?to?consider?an?informer’s?testimony?to?be?inherently?unreliable?and?to?view?it?with?caution.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Bonin?[54?Cal.3d?675]?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?808,?849?[254?Cal.Rptr.?298,?765?P.2d?460].)?We?have?also?held,?impliedly?but?clearly,?that?even?in?a?capital?case?such?an?instruction?is?not?required?by?California?statutory?or?decisional?law?(see?People?v.?Hovey?(1988)44?Cal.3d?543,?565-566?[244?Cal.Rptr.?121,?749?P.2d?776])?or?by?the?guaranty?of?due?process?of?law?of?either?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?or?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution?(see?People?v.?Malone?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?1,?27?[252?Cal.Rptr.?525,?762?P.2d?1249]).?O.?Failure?to?Instruct?on?Concurrence?of?Act?and?Intent?and?on?Diminished?Capacity?and?Voluntary?Intoxication?With?Regard?to?Burglary?and?Robbery

As?indicated?above,?defendant?was?charged?with?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount,?but?not?with?burglary?or?robbery;?he?was?alleged?to?have?committed?the?crimes?under?special?circumstances?including?felony-murder-burglary?and?felony-murder-robbery;?at?trial,?the?People?sought?to?prove?that?the?charged?murders?were?in?the?first?degree?on?theories?of?wilful,?deliberate,?and?premeditated?murder?and?also?felony-murder-burglary?and?felony-murder-?robbery.

[36a]?The?trial?court?generally?instructed?the?jury?on?homicide,?including?first?degree?wilful,?deliberate,?and?premeditated?murder;?first?degree?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?a?burglary?or?robbery;?second?degree?murder;?voluntary?manslaughter;?and?involuntary?manslaughter.?It?also?declared?that?for?murder?there?must?exist?a?concurrence?of?act?and?intent.?It?then?defined?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication?for?murder?(with?the?exception?of?first?degree?felony?murder)?and?voluntary?manslaughter.?It?did?not,?however,?instruct?the?jury?as?to?the?necessity?for?the?concurrence?of?act?and?intent,?or?the?availability?of?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication,?for?burglary?and?robbery-which?underlay?first?degree?felony?murder?and?the?felony-murder?special?circumstances.

Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?instruct?on?these?matters?was?erroneous.?We?agree.?[37]?”It?is,?of?course,?virtually?axiomatic?that?a?trial?court?must?correctly?instruct?on?such?legal?principles?as?are?applicable?to?the?evidence?[citation]-and?on?such?legal?principles?alone.?The?failure?or?refusal?to?do?so?constitutes?error.”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?799.)?[36b]?Here,?the?necessity?for?the?concurrence?of?act?and?intent?for?burglary?and?robbery,?and?the?availability?of?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication?for?those?same?offenses,?were?applicable?to?the?evidence.?By?failing?to?instruct?thereon,?the?court?erred.?[54?Cal.3d?676]

Each?of?the?errors,?however,?implicates?state?law?only.?Defendant?claims,?to?the?contrary,?that?the?instructional?omissions?are?violative?of?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?His?point?is?predicated?on?the?assertion?that,?separately?or?together,?the?errors?effectively?reduced?the?People’s?beyond-a-reasonable-doubt?burden?of?proof?as?to?the?intent?element?of?the?burglary?and?robbery?predicates?of?first?degree?felony?murder?and?the?felony-murder?special?circumstances.?The?assertion?is?unsupported.?The?instructions?actually?given?clearly?communicated?to?a?reasonable?juror?that?the?People?were?required?to?prove?the?required?intent?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.

We?now?turn?from?the?fact?of?error?to?its?consequences.?[38]?”It?is?the?general?rule?for?error?under?state?law?that?reversal?requires?prejudice?and?prejudice?in?turn?requires?a?reasonable?probability?of?an?effect?on?the?outcome.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1253.)?That?rule?is?plainly?applicable?here.?Defendant?claims,?to?the?contrary,?that?the?instructional?omissions?are?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis?under?the?”reasonable?doubt”?standard?of?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710-711,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065].?His?basis?is?that?the?errors?are?of?federal?constitutional?dimension.?But?as?shown?above,?that?basis?is?unsound.

[36c]?We?are?of?the?opinion?that?there?is?no?need?to?reverse?defendant’s?conviction?for?first?degree?murder?or?to?set?aside?either?of?the?felony-murder?special-circumstance?findings.?We?come?to?that?conclusion?whether?we?employ?the?applicable,?and?more?tolerant,?”reasonable?probability”?test?or?the?inapplicable,?and?less?tolerant,?”reasonable?doubt”?test.

The?omission?of?an?instruction?requiring?the?concurrence?of?act?and?intent?for?burglary?and?robbery?could?not?have?significantly?affected?the?result.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?from?the?charge?as?a?whole?that?for?burglary?and?robbery?there?must?exist?a?concurrence?of?act?and?intent,?and?could?not?have?believed?otherwise.?That?message?was?all?but?express?in?the?instructions?defining?burglary?and?robbery?as?well?as?in?the?instructions?dealing?with?the?requisite?specific?intent?to?commit?burglary?and?robbery?as?the?predicate?felony?in?first?degree?felony?murder.

Neither?could?the?result?have?been?significantly?affected?by?the?omission?of?an?instruction?on?the?availability?of?the?defenses?of?diminished?capacity?and?voluntary?intoxication?for?burglary?and?robbery.?As?noted,?defendant?relied?on?voluntary?intoxication?and?diminished?capacity?as?a?result?of?voluntary?intoxication.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?effectively?given?consideration?to?these?defenses?through?the?instructions?dealing?with?the?requisite?specific?intent?to?commit?burglary?and?robbery.?Under?the?charge?as?[54?Cal.3d?677]?a?whole,?and?in?light?of?the?evidence?the?parties?adduced?and?the?arguments?they?presented,?such?a?juror?could?not?have?inferred?that?the?issue?of?voluntary?intoxication-on?which?both?of?the?defenses?rested-was?somehow?immaterial?to?the?question?of?the?presence?vel?non?of?specific?intent?to?commit?burglary?or?robbery.

Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?there?was?no?reduction?in?the?People’s?beyond-a-reasonable-doubt?burden?of?proof?attributable?to?the?errors,?whether?considered?by?themselves?or?in?conjunction?with?any?others.?Nor?was?there?any?other?prejudicial?effect?flowing?from?the?instructional?omissions.

[39]?(See?fn.?12.),?[36d]?In?view?of?the?foregoing,?we?are?of?the?opinion?that?the?errors?were?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?and,?a?fortiori,?do?not?support?a?reasonable?probability?of?an?effect?on?the?outcome.fn.?12

1. “Cumulative?Prejudice”

Defendant?contends?that?the?effect?of?the?errors?we?have?found,?when?considered?together,?is?prejudicial.?We?disagree.

III.?Death-eligibility?Issues

Defendant?does?not?effectively?challenge?the?determination?that?he?was?subject?to?the?death?penalty.?As?relevant?here,?death?eligibility?is?established?when?the?defendant?is?convicted?of?murder?in?the?first?degree?under?at?least?one?special?circumstance.?(Pen.?Code,???190.3.)?Defendant?was?so?convicted.?As?shown?above,?he?has?not?successfully?attacked?the?jury’s?guilty?verdicts.?It?will?be?recalled?that?the?jury?made?the?following?special?circumstance?findings?as?to?each?of?the?two?murders:?multiple?murder;?intentional?murder?for?financial?gain;?felony-murder-?robbery;?and?felony-murder-burglary.?Defendant?essentially?concedes,?as?he?must,?that?at?least?one?of?these?findings-which?deals?with?multiple?murder-is?valid.?We?shall?proceed?to?consider?his?claims?because,?as?will?appear,?they?bear?on?the?question?of?penalty.?[54?Cal.3d?678]

1. Multiple-murder?Special?Circumstances

[40]?Defendant?attacks?the?”multiple”?multiple-murder?special-?circumstance?findings.?He?contends?that?any?one?case?can?support?only?one?such?finding?as?a?matter?of?law.?We?agree.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Anderson?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1104,?1150?[240?Cal.Rptr.?585,?742?P.2d?1306].)?Accordingly,?one?of?the?findings?here?must?be?set?aside.

1. Intentional-murder-for-financial-gain?Special?Circumstances

[41a]?Defendant?attacks?the?intentional-murder-for-financial-gain?special-circumstance?findings.?He?contends,?inter?alia,?that?the?evidence?in?support?is?insufficient.

In?People?v.?Bigelow?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?731,?751?[209?Cal.Rptr.?328,?691?P.2d?994,?64?A.L.R.4th?723],?in?order?to?avoid?overlap?with?the?felony-murder?special?circumstance,?we?construed?the?intentional-murder-for-financial-gain?special?circumstance?to?apply?”only?when?the?victim’s?death?is?the?consideration?for,?or?an?essential?prerequisite?to,?the?financial?gain?sought?by?the?defendant.”?Subsequently,?in?People?v.?Howard?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?375?[243?Cal.Rptr.?842,?749?P.2d?279],?we?clarified?our?construction?by?stating?that?”the?relevant?inquiry?is?whether?the?defendant?committed?the?murder?in?the?expectation?that?he?would?thereby?obtain?the?desired?financial?gain”?(id.?at?p.?409,?italics?added)-as,?for?example,?in?the?killing?of?a?victim?in?a?murder?for?hire?(id.?at?p.?410),?or?in?an?attempt?to?secure?the?proceeds?of?a?life?insurance?policy?covering?the?victim?(People?v.?Hamilton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1178?[259?Cal.Rptr.?701,?774?P.2d?730])?or?to?avoid?a?debt?owing?to?the?victim?(People?v.?Edelbacher?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?983,?1025?[254?Cal.Rptr.?586,?766?P.2d?1]?(lead?opn.?of?Kaufman,?J.)).

[42]?In?reviewing?the?sufficiency?of?evidence?for?a?special?circumstance,?the?question?we?ask?is?whether,?after?viewing?the?evidence?in?the?light?most?favorable?to?the?People,?any?rational?trier?of?fact?could?have?found?the?essential?elements?of?the?allegation?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?785.)

[41b]?In?our?judgment,?no?rational?trier?of?fact?could?have?so?found?on?this?record.?The?evidence?establishes?beyond?peradventure?that?defendant?committed?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount?squarely?under?the?special?circumstances?of?felony-murder-burglary?and?felony-murder-robbery.?Neither?death?was?”the?consideration?for,?or?an?essential?prerequisite?to,”?any?”financial?gain”?he?may?have?sought.?(People?v.?Bigelow,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?751.)?Nor?did?he?perpetrate?either?offense?”in?the?expectation?that?he?[54?Cal.3d?679]?would?thereby?obtain”?any?”financial?gain.”?(People?v.?Howard,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?409,?italics?added.)

Accordingly,?the?intentional-murder-for-financial-gain?special-?circumstance?findings?are?not?supported?by?sufficient?evidence?and?hence?must?be?set?aside.?(Compare?People?v.?Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?246?[arriving?at?the?same?conclusion?on?similar?facts].)

1. Felony-murder?Special?Circumstances

Defendant?attacks?the?felony-murder-burglary?and?the?felony-murder-robbery?special-circumstance?findings.?He?contends?that?the?trial?court?committed?various?instructional?errors?relating?directly?to?these?findings.?We?have?addressed?his?claims?above,?and?have?found?them?wanting.?(See?pts.?II.J.?&?II.O.,?ante.)

1. Penalty?Issues

Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?challenging?the?judgment?as?to?penalty.?As?will?appear,?none?is?meritorious.

1. Excusal?of?Prospective?Jurors?Because?of?Views?on?the?Death?Penalty

[43]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?under?the?impartial-jury?guaranty?of?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution?when?it?excused?eight?prospective?jurors?because?of?their?unfavorable?views?on?the?death?penalty:?Mary?Anne?Sayler,?Helen?Marie?Charles,?Richard?A.?Paroli,?Curry?R.?Jackson,?Sr.,?Marina?E.?Christman,?Barbara?J.?Lee,?Robert?Hopkins,?and?Clementene?McMillan.

In?Witherspoon?v.?Illinois,?supra,?391?U.S.?510,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?implied?that?a?prospective?juror?could?not?be?excused?for?cause?without?violating?a?defendant’s?federal?constitutional?right?to?an?impartial?jury?unless,?as?relevant?here,?he?made?it?”unmistakably?clear”?that?he?would?”automatically?vote?against?the?imposition?of?capital?punishment?without?regard?to?any?evidence?that?might?be?developed?at?the?trial?of?the?case?before?[the?juror]?….”?(Id.?at?p.?522,?fn.?21?[20?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?785],?italics?in?original.)?In?Wainwright?v.?Witt?(1985)?469?U.S.?412?[83?L.Ed.2d?841,?105?S.Ct.?844],?the?court?”clarif[ied]”?Witherspoon?and?declared?that?the?proper?standard?was?”whether?the?juror’s?views?would?’prevent?or?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?a?juror?in?accordance?with?his?instructions?and?his?oath.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?424?[83?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?851-852].)?On?[54?Cal.3d?680]?this?point,?Witt?followed?the?teaching?of?Adams?v.?Texas,?supra,?448?U.S.?38,?and?in?fact?quoted?from?that?opinion?at?page?45?of?448?U.S.?[65?L.Ed.2d?at?page?589].?In?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?767?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250],?we?adopted?the?Witt?standard?as?the?test?for?determining?whether?a?defendant’s?state?constitutional?right?to?an?impartial?jury?was?violated?by?an?excusal?for?cause.

As?stated,?defendant?claims?the?trial?court?erred?by?excusing?for?cause?prospective?jurors?Sayler,?Charles,?Paroli,?Jackson,?Christman,?Lee,?Hopkins,?and?McMillan.?At?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?the?People?challenged?each?of?the?foregoing?persons?for?actual?bias?arising?from?his?or?her?scruples?against?capital?punishment.?Defendant?presented?opposition,?expressly?or?impliedly.?The?court?sustained?the?challenges.?The?issue?of?excusal?was?litigated?in?light?of?Witherspoon?and?its?reading?of?the?impartial-jury?guaranty?of?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments.?Defendant?made?reference?to?the?California?Constitution-albeit?only?in?a?general?manner-when?he?presented?his?opposition?to?the?People’s?challenges?to?each?of?the?prospective?jurors?in?question?save?Sayler.

There?was?no?error.?The?trial?court?impliedly?determined?that?each?of?the?prospective?jurors?in?question?had?views?on?the?death?penalty?that?would?prevent?or?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?or?her?duties?as?a?juror.?The?standard?of?review?is?substantial?evidence.?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1262.)?Under?that?standard,?each?of?the?court’s?determinations?is?sound.?The?record?contains?more?than?substantial?evidence?in?support.?Sayler?stated?she?would?not?vote?for?death?under?any?circumstances.?Charles?made?assertions?to?the?same?effect.?Paroli?repeatedly?said?he?would?not?and?could?not?impose?the?ultimate?sanction.?Johnson?said?the?same.?Christman?made?it?plain?by?the?end?of?her?voir?dire?that?she?could?not?consider?death.?Lee?declared?her?unwillingness?and?inability?to?vote?to?take?a?life?throughout?her?examination.?So?too?did?Hopkins.?McMillan?did?as?well.?That?the?court?did?not?make?its?determinations?in?light?of?Witt?does?not?deprive?them?of?validity.

Defendant?argues?to?the?contrary.?He?maintains?that?we?should?adhere?to?the?Witherspoon?standard.?But?as?a?matter?of?federal?constitutional?law?we?cannot,?and?as?a?matter?of?state?constitutional?law?we?will?not.

Defendant?then?maintains?that?the?Witt?standard?may?not,?or?should?not,?be?applied?when?as?here?the?excusal?in?question?antedates?the?opinion?from?which?the?test?derives.?In?People?v.?Gallego,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?page?192,?and?People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367,?418,?footnote?16?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221],?we?concluded?that?such?an?assertion?is?without?merit.?We?adhere?to?that?conclusion?in?this?case.?Defendant?urges?in?substance?that?the?[54?Cal.3d?681]?Witt?standard?was?unforeseeable?at?the?time?of?voir?dire?in?this?case?and?hence?that?its?use?now?does?violence?to?principles?of?due?process?of?law?and?fundamental?fairness?that?are?of?federal?and?state?constitutional?dimension.?But?as?noted?above,?Witt?followed?the?teaching?of?Adams.?And?Adams?was?decided?in?1980,?almost?three?years?before?voir?dire?below.fn.?13?It?might?perhaps?be?argued?that?the?Witt?standard?was?not?foreseeable?as?the?test?for?determining?whether?a?defendant’s?state?constitutional?right?to?an?impartial?jury?was?violated?by?an?excusal?for?cause.?But?any?such?unforeseeability?cannot?be?deemed?significant?here.

Finally,?defendant?maintains?that?the?trial?court’s?excusal?of?prospective?juror?Sayler?for?cause?is?not?supported?by?a?record?that?can?be?deemed?legally?sufficient.?He?urges?that?the?People’s?examination?of?Sayler?was?”improper?and?inherently?likely?to?lead?to?an?unreliable?response.”?We?disagree.?The?court’s?ruling?was?indeed?supported?by?a?legally?sufficient?record.?Moreover,?nothing?in?the?People’s?examination?was?improper.fn.?14

1. Refusal?to?Excuse?Prospective?Juror?Because?of?Views?on?the?Death?Penalty

[44a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?under?former?Penal?Code?section?1073?(Code?Amends.?1873-1874?(Pen.?Code)?ch.?614,???56,?pp.?441-442)?and?also,?inter?alia,?the?impartial-jury?guaranty?of?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution?when?it?refused?to?excuse?prospective?juror?Jose?J.?Perez?because?of?his?favorable?views?on?the?death?penalty.?[54?Cal.3d?682]

At?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?defendant?challenged?prospective?juror?Perez?for?actual?bias?arising?out?of?his?support?for?capital?punishment.?The?People?presented?opposition.?The?court?overruled?the?challenge.?Subsequently,?the?12?jurors?were?selected?and?sworn.?Neither?the?People?nor?defendant?exhausted?the?26?peremptory?challenges?allotted?to?each?side;?neither?party?expressed?any?dissatisfaction?with?the?panel.?The?four?alternates?were?then?selected?and?sworn.?The?People?did?not?exhaust?their?four?peremptory?challenges,?but?defendant?did;?again,?neither?party?expressed?any?dissatisfaction.?Perez?was?not?among?those?chosen?to?serve.?He?had?not?been?drawn?into?the?jury?box?as?a?potential?juror.?He?had,?however,?been?called?as?a?potential?alternate,?but?was?removed?by?defendant’s?second?peremptory?challenge.?Before?the?guilt?phase?opened,?the?court?excused?one?of?the?jurors?for?hardship?and?randomly?selected?alternate?Sarah?J.?Quinn?to?take?his?place.?Quinn?had?been?the?last?person?drawn?as?a?potential?alternate,?and?the?only?person?drawn?after?defendant?had?exhausted?his?peremptory?challenges.?At?individual?sequestered?voir?dire,?defendant?had?expressly?passed?Quinn?for?cause.?Apparently,?at?no?time?did?he?manifest?any?concern?whatever?about?her?fairness?or?impartiality.

Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?overruling?his?”for?cause”?challenge?against?prospective?juror?Perez.?For?purposes?here,?we?shall?assume?the?court?did?indeed?err.?But?as?will?be?shown,?reversal?is?not?required.

[45]?”It?appears?that?with?the?exception?of?an?improper?’Witherspoon?exclusion’?”-which,?of?course,?is?not?presented?here-“an?erroneous?ruling?on?a?’for?cause’?challenge?is?not?automatically?reversible?but?is?subject?to?scrutiny?for?prejudice?under?harmless-error?analysis.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1247.)?This?principle?applies?generally:?it?matters?not?whether?the?error?merely?offends?state?law?or?amounts?to?a?violation?of?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?ibid.)?Prejudice?turns?on?whether?the?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?affected.?That?is?certainly?true?when?state?law?is?implicated.?(See?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1087?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659].)?It?is?also?true,?we?believe,?when?a?federal?constitutional?violation?is?involved.?State-law?error?of?this?sort,?bearing?as?it?does?on?penalty?in?a?capital?case,?is?reviewed?under?the?”reasonable?possibility”?standard?of?People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?446-448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].?Error?of?federal?constitutional?dimension,?by?contrast,?is?scrutinized?under?the?”reasonable?doubt”?standard?of?Chapman?v.?California,?supra,386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710-711].?(People?v.?Coleman?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?749,?768?[251?Cal.Rptr.?83,?759?P.2d?1260].)

[44b]?After?review,?we?can?discern?no?prejudice?flowing?from?the?assumedly?erroneous?overruling?of?defendant’s?”for?cause”?challenge?against?[54?Cal.3d?683]?prospective?juror?Perez-whether?any?error?involves?state?law?only?or?amounts?to?a?federal?constitutional?violation.?It?is?evident?that?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?not?affected?thereby.?Perez?did?not?sit?on?the?jury.?On?this?record,?he?could?not?have?tainted?the?panel’s?members?with?his?alleged?bias.?Accordingly,?he?could?not?have?influenced?the?process?or?result?of?the?deliberations.

Defendant?disagrees?with?our?conclusion?that?reversal?is?not?required.?He?may?be?understood?to?argue?against?the?applicability?of?harmless-error?analysis.?He?is?too?late.?Such?a?point?has?already?been?rejected.?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1247.)?He?then?argues?that?he?did?indeed?suffer?prejudice.?We?cannot?agree.?That?he?was?”compelled”?to?use?a?peremptory?challenge?against?Perez?as?a?potential?alternate,?subsequently?exhausted?his?allotment,?had?no?peremptory?challenge?remaining?to?use?against?Quinn,?and?finally?saw?Quinn?placed?on?the?jury,?does?not?support?an?inference?that?his?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?affected?in?any?way.?People?v.?Helm?(1907)?152?Cal.?532?[93?P.?99],?on?which?he?relies,?provides?no?support.?There,?this?court?held?that?”the?erroneous?overruling?of?a?good?challenge?for?cause,?thereby?compelling?the?use?of?a?peremptory?challenge,?is?not?prejudicial?error?where”-as?here-“it?is?not?made?to?appear?that?the?challenger?was?obliged?afterward?to?accept?an?objectionable?juror,?without?power?to?use?a?peremptory?challenge?upon?him?….”?(Id.?at?p.?535.)

1. Denial?of?Motion?to?Strike?the?Testimony?of?the?People’s?Witnesses

At?the?penalty?phase,?the?People?called?two?witnesses?in?its?case-in-?chief,?Nancy?Tall?and?Rochelle?Schreiber.?Each?had?formerly?been?married?to?defendant.?Each?testified?to?conduct?on?his?part?that?the?People?claimed?amounted?to?”other?[violent]?criminal?activity”?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.3?(hereafter?section?190.3),?viz.,?assault?and/or?battery.

Specifically,?Tall?related?a?single?incident:?once,?in?the?course?of?an?argument,?defendant?went?to?strike?her?and?she?twisted?away?and?dislocated?her?shoulder.?Her?testimony?was?brief,?filling?fewer?than?five?pages?of?reporter’s?transcript?on?direct?examination?and?fewer?than?two?on?cross-?examination.

Schreiber?related?three?incidents:?on?one?occasion,?during?an?argument,?defendant?”slapp[ed]?me?around”;?on?another,?defendant?and?her?brother?got?into?fist?fight,?which?she?ended?by?firing?a?gunshot?into?the?air;?later,?he?became?”mad?because?I?fired?the?gun?and?afraid?if?they?didn’t?stop?fighting?I?would?have?shot?him,”?and?proceeded?to?”kind?of?bop[]?my?head?a?couple?[54?Cal.3d?684]?of?times.”?Her?testimony?too?was?brief,?filling?about?nine?pages?on?direct?examination?and?about?four?on?cross-examination.

More?than?a?week?after?Tall?and?Schreiber?had?been?on?the?stand,?defendant?made?an?oral?motion,?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?to?strike?their?testimony.?His?grounds?were?two?in?number.?The?first?was?that?the?evidence?was?inadmissible?under?the?notice?requirement?of?section?190.3?because?the?People?did?not?give?”formal”?notice.?The?second?was?that?the?evidence?was?also?inadmissible?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution,?because?each?of?those?guaranties?bars?introduction?of?unadjudicated?criminal?activity.

After?a?hearing,?the?trial?court?denied?the?motion.?Defendant?requested?permission?to?file?moving?papers.?The?court?refused.

Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?to?strike?the?testimony?of?Tall?and?Schreiber.?As?stated?above,?a?ruling?on?a?motion?such?as?the?present,?which?concerns?the?admissibility?of?evidence,?is?apparently?subject?to?review?for?abuse?of?discretion.

[46]?The?trial?court?did?in?fact?err?by?denying?the?motion?insofar?as?it?was?based?on?the?notice?requirement?of?section?190.3.?The?statutory?provision?declares?in?pertinent?part?that?”no?evidence?may?be?presented?by?the?prosecution?in?aggravation?unless?notice?of?the?evidence?to?be?introduced?has?been?given?to?the?defendant?within?a?reasonable?period?of?time?as?determined?by?the?court,?prior?to?trial.”?(Italics?added.)?In?People?v.?Daniels?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?815,?879?[277?Cal.Rptr.?122,?802?P.2d?906],?we?construed?the?italicized?phrase?to?mean?”before?the?cause?is?called?for?trial.”fn.?15?Here,?the?People?did?not?give?any?notice?before?such?time.

Reversal,?however,?does?not?follow.?Clearly,?the?”reasonable?possibility”?standard?of?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?432,?446-448,?which?applies?to?”state-law?error?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial”?(id.?at?p.?448),?applies?here.?(See?People?v.?Taylor?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?719,?737?[276?Cal.Rptr.?391,?801?P.2d?1142].)?Under?that?test,?the?error?is?harmless.?The?testimony?of?Tall?and?Schreiber?brought?no?appreciable?weight?to?the?balance?of?aggravation?and?mitigation.?In?his?summation,?the?prosecutor?expressly?conceded?that?the?evidence?in?question?was?”[v]ery?minimal.”?No?reasonable?juror?could?have?disagreed.?[54?Cal.3d?685] [47]?By?contrast,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?by?denying?the?motion?insofar?as?it?was?based?on?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?neither?the?federal?nor?state?guaranty?bars?introduction?of?unadjudicated?criminal?activity.?(See?People?v.?McDowell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?551,?569?[250?Cal.Rptr.?530,?758?P.2d?1060]?[considering?both?the?federal?and?state?constitutional?provisions],?following?People?v.?Balderas?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?144,?204-205?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480];?see?also?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?789?[considering?only?the?federal?provision].)

[48]?Defendant?also?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?insofar?as?it?was?based?on?such?grounds?as?the?following:?(1)?the?evidence?was?inadmissible?because?it?did?not?show?”other?[violent]?criminal?activity”?within?the?meaning?of?section?190.3;?(2)?the?evidence?was?inadmissible?under?section?190.3?as?well?as?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution,?and?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?17,?because?any?”other?[violent]?criminal?activity”?it?might?have?shown?was?beyond?the?applicable?period?of?limitations;?and?(3)?the?evidence?was?inadmissible?because?it?was?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.

We?reject?the?point?on?procedural?grounds.?As?stated?above,?the?rule?is?that?a?defendant?may?not?complain?on?appeal?that?evidence?was?inadmissible?on?a?certain?ground?if?he?did?not?rely?on?that?ground?in?a?timely?and?specific?fashion?in?the?trial?court.?At?trial,?defendant?did?not?rely?on?a?basis?other?than?the?notice?requirement?of?section?190.3?and?the?”bar”?against?the?introduction?of?unadjudicated?criminal?activity?he?claimed?to?discover?in?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15.?We?discern?no?exception?to?the?applicability?of?the?foregoing?rule?here.?All?the?same,?we?note?that?in?People?v.?Jennings?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963,?982?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475],?we?held?that?”section?190.3?does?not?contemplate?limitation?of?such?evidence?to?crimes?for?which?prosecution?is?not?barred?by?the?applicable?statute?of?limitations.”

1. Denial?of?Motion?to?Bar?Expert’s?Testimony?in?Rebuttal

At?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?called?two?experts?in?his?case-in-chief:?Dr.?David?Smith,?a?physician?with?specialties?in?clinical?toxicology?and?addictionology,?and?Dr.?Jules?Burstein,?a?clinical?psychologist?with?a?specialty?in?forensic?psychology.?Each?opined?that?at?the?time?of?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount,?as?a?result?of?both?psychopathology?and?long-term?and?heavy?[54?Cal.3d?686]?polysubstance?abuse,?defendant?did?not?have?the?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?or?to?conform?his?conduct?to?the?requirements?of?law-or?at?best,?any?capacity?he?may?have?had?was?”severely”?or?”significantly”?impaired.?Each?expert’s?opinion?was?based?in?large?part?on?information?provided?by?defendant?himself.

The?People?called?an?expert?in?rebuttal:?Dr.?Kate?B.?Yago,?a?psychiatrist?with?a?specialty?in?polysubstance?abuse.

Before?Dr.?Yago?took?the?stand,?defendant?moved,?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?to?bar?her?from?testifying.?At?bottom,?his?grounds?were?in?substance?that?any?opinion?she?might?have?formed?was?inadmissible?under?sections?801?et?seq.?of?the?Evidence?Code,?which?deal?with?expert?opinion?testimony.

Evidence?Code?section?801?provides:?”If?a?witness?is?testifying?as?an?expert,?his?testimony?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?is?limited?to?such?an?opinion?as?is:?[?]?(a)?Related?to?a?subject?that?is?sufficiently?beyond?common?experience?that?the?opinion?of?an?expert?would?assist?the?trier?of?fact;?and?[?]?(b)?Based?on?matter?…,?whether?or?not?admissible,?that?is?of?a?type?that?reasonably?may?be?relied?upon?by?an?expert?in?forming?an?opinion?upon?the?subject?to?which?his?testimony?relates,?unless?an?expert?is?precluded?by?law?from?using?such?matter?as?a?basis?for?his?opinion.”

Evidence?Code?section?802?declares:?”A?witness?testifying?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?may?state?on?direct?examination?the?reasons?for?his?opinion?and?the?matter?…?upon?which?it?is?based,?unless?he?is?precluded?by?law?from?using?such?reasons?or?matter?as?a?basis?for?his?opinion.?…”

Evidence?Code?section?803?states:?”The?court?may,?and?upon?objection?shall,?exclude?testimony?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?that?is?based?in?whole?or?in?significant?part?on?matter?that?is?not?a?proper?basis?for?such?an?opinion.?…”

In?his?motion,?defendant?argued?in?substance?as?follows:?Dr.?Yago’s?opinion?was?based?in?some?part?on?matter?derived?from?a?telephone?interview?with?Allison,?who?by?then?had?divorced?him?and?remarried-viz.,?information?about?his?drug?history;?and?that?such?matter?was?not?the?kind?on?which?an?expert?might?reasonably?rely?in?forming?an?opinion?as?to?his?mental?condition.

The?People?opposed?the?motion,?conceding?the?first?point?in?defendant’s?argument?but?denying?the?second.?They?also?represented?that?they?intended?to?introduce?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison-but?only?for?[54?Cal.3d?687]?the?partial?basis?of?Dr.?Yago’s?opinion,?and?not?for?the?truth?of?the?information?itself.

After?a?hearing,?the?trial?court?denied?defendant’s?motion.?Implicit?in?its?ruling?was?a?determination?that?the?”matter”?Dr.?Yago?derived?from?her?interview?with?Allison?was?in?fact?”of?a?type?that?reasonably?may?be?relied?upon?by?an?expert?in?forming?an?opinion?upon?the?subject”?of?defendant’s?mental?condition.?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(b).)

Dr.?Yago?subsequently?took?the?stand?in?the?presence?of?the?jury.?She?opined?to?the?effect?that?defendant’s?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?or?to?conform?his?conduct?to?the?requirements?of?law?was?not?impaired?at?the?time?of?the?offenses.?She?stated?in?substance?that?she?based?her?opinion?on?matters?including?the?following:?defendant’s?”Honolulu?admissions”;?various?letters?by?defendant;?a?letter?by?Allison;?crime?scene?and?autopsy?photographs;?property?taken?from?the?Hanson?residence;?certain?statements?by?various?witnesses;?certain?testimony?by?Edward?Rogers;?a?substance?abuse?history?prepared?by?Dr.?Smith?from?information?provided?by?defendant;?the?entire?testimony?of?both?Drs.?Smith?and?Burstein;?and?the?interview?with?Allison.

As?the?prosecutor?began?to?ask?Dr.?Yago?questions?to?elicit?the?matter?she?had?derived?from?her?interview?with?Allison,?”solely”-he?stated-“for?the?purposes?and?the?basis?of?this?expert’s?opinion,”?defense?counsel?interjected,?”Renew?our?objection,?Judge,?at?this?time,”?and?the?trial?court?responded,?”All?right,?overruled.”?Before?Dr.?Yago?responded,?the?court?instructed?the?jury?that?”the?testimony?of?the?doctor?as?to?any?information?she?received?on?the?telephone”?from?Allison?”is?not?being?offered?for?the?truth?of?the?matter?asserted.?It?is?only?being?offered?for?the?purposes?of?why?the?doctor?has?come?to?the?conclusion?that?the?doctor?has?come?to?….”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)

Under?the?prosecutor’s?questioning,?Dr.?Yago?proceeded?to?summarize?the?information?Allison?provided-to?the?effect?that?in?the?period?from?about?February?1978?until?September?1980,?defendant?did?indeed?engage?in?some?polysubstance?abuse?but?not?heavily.?At?one?point?in?the?course?of?her?direct?testimony?she?conceded?that?”perhaps?the?drug?history?I?got?from?Allison?is?very?incomplete?….”

[49a]?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?to?bar?Dr.?Yago?from?testifying?in?rebuttal.

The?crucial?issue?here?is?whether?the?”matter”?Dr.?Yago?derived?from?her?interview?with?Allison-viz.,?information?about?defendant’s?drug?history-?[54?Cal.3d?688]?was?”of?a?type?that?reasonably?may?be?relied?upon?by?an?expert?in?forming?an?opinion?upon?the?subject”?of?his?mental?condition.?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(b).)?As?noted,?the?trial?court?impliedly?resolved?that?question?in?the?affirmative.

The?standard?of?review?for?such?a?determination?is?abuse?of?discretion.?(See?Board?of?Education?v.?Haas?(1978)?82?Cal.App.3d?278,?282?[147?Cal.Rptr.?88];?Board?of?Trustees?v.?Porini?(1968)?263?Cal.App.2d?784,?794-795?[70?Cal.Rptr.?73].)

On?this?record,?no?abuse?appears.?At?trial,?defendant?did?not?introduce?any?evidence?in?support?of?his?position?that?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison?was?not?reasonably?reliable?for?a?psychiatrist?forming?a?psychiatric?opinion.?He?did?indeed?present?vigorous?argument.?His?words,?however,?were?lacking?in?persuasive?force:?they?did?little?more?than?beg?the?question.?On?appeal,?defendant?presents?argument?more?vigorous?still.?But?again,?his?words?are?lacking:?he?simply?does?not?show?that?the?challenged?information?was?not?reasonably?reliable?for?a?psychiatrist?forming?a?psychiatric?opinion.?Certainly,?such?information?is?not?unreliable?per?se.?(See?People?v.?Coleman?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?69,?87-?93?[211?Cal.Rptr.?102,?695?P.2d?189]?(plur.?opn.).)

We?agree?with?defendant?that?a?psychiatrist?forming?a?psychiatric?opinion?could?not?have?reasonably?relied?on?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison?unless?he?subjected?it?to?critical?scrutiny.?Dr.?Yago?did?so.?But?we?simply?do?not?agree?that?such?an?expert?forming?such?an?opinion?could?not?have?reasonably?relied?on?such?information?at?all.?Indeed,?we?observe?in?passing?that,?as?a?general?matter,?the?challenged?information?was?not?internally?inconsistent?or?in?conflict?with?evidence?introduced?at?trial?by?the?People?and?defendant.?In?any?event,?it?is?apparent?from?Dr.?Yago’s?testimony?that?her?opinion?was?not?based?in?any?significant?part?on?the?information?in?question.

Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion?that?the?trial?court’s?denial?of?his?motion?was?not?error.

To?the?extent?that?he?invokes?sections?of?the?Evidence?Code?dealing?with?expert?opinion?testimony,?we?reject?the?point?on?the?merits?for?the?reasons?stated?above.?He?faults?the?trial?court’s?statements?attending?its?ruling?in?certain?particulars.?Any?deficiency?is?basically?verbal?and?therefore?of?no?consequence?here.?What?matters?is?whether?the?ruling?itself?is?sound.?It?is.?[54?Cal.3d?689]?Indeed,?any?other?ruling?would?have?been?improper?on?this?record.?Contrary?to?what?appears?to?be?defendant’s?implication?at?one?point,?the?plurality?opinion?in?People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?69,?90-92,?does?not?stand?for?the?proposition?that?on?direct?examination?an?expert?may?never?testify?to?extrajudicial?statements?when?he?gives?”the?reasons?for?his?opinion?and?the?matter?…?upon?which?it?is?based”?(Evid.?Code,???802).

To?the?extent?defendant?invokes?other?provisions?of?law,?including?Evidence?Code?section?352,?we?reject?the?point?on?procedural?grounds.?As?stated?above,?the?rule?is?that?a?defendant?may?not?complain?on?appeal?that?evidence?was?inadmissible?on?a?certain?ground?if?he?did?not?rely?on?that?ground?in?a?timely?and?specific?fashion?in?the?trial?court.?[50]?(See?fn.?16.),?[49b]?At?trial,?defendant?did?not?effectively?rely?on?a?basis?other?than?Evidence?Code?section?801?et?seq.fn.?16He?now?maintains?that?the?foregoing?rule?is?inapplicable?here,?but?he?is?not?persuasive.fn.?17?[54?Cal.3d?690]

1. Instructional?Errors?Relating?to?the?Determination?of?Penalty

Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?committed?various?errors?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did?on?the?determination?of?penalty.?We?shall?consider?the?claims?seriatim.

1. Instructions?on?the?Determination?of?Penalty

The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?8.84.1?(4th?ed.?1979)?as?modified?and,?ultimately,?in?accordance?with?section?190.3,?as?follows.

“In?determining?which?penalty?is?to?be?imposed?on?Douglas?Mickey,?you?shall?consider?all?the?evidence?which?has?been?received?during?any?part?of?the?trial?of?this?case?….?You?shall?consider,?take?into?account?and?be?guided?by?the?following?factors,?if?applicable:

“(a)?The?circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?Douglas?Mickey?was?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?and?the?existence?of?any?special?circumstance(s)?found?to?be?true.

“(b)?The?presence?or?absence?of?criminal?activity?by?Douglas?Mickey?which?involved?the?use?or?attempted?use?of?force?or?violence?or?the?expressed?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?Douglas?Mickey?was?under?the?influence?of?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance.

“(e)?Whether?or?not?the?victim?was?a?participant?in?Douglas?Mickey’s?homicidal?conduct.

“(f)?Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?under?circumstances?which?Douglas?Mickey?reasonably?believed?to?be?a?moral?justification?or?extenuation?for?his?conduct.

“(g)?Whether?or?not?Douglas?Mickey?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?Douglas?Mickey?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?or?to?conform?his?conduct?to?the?requirements?of?the?law?was?impaired?as?a?result?of?mental?disease?or?defect?or?the?effects?of?intoxication.?[54?Cal.3d?691]

“(i)?The?age?of?Douglas?Mickey?at?the?time?of?the?crime.

“(j)?Whether?or?not?Douglas?Mickey?was?an?accomplice?to?the?offense?and?his?participation?in?the?commission?of?the?offense?was?relatively?minor.

“(k)?Any?other?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime.”

At?defendant’s?request,?the?trial?court?gave?the?following?instruction.

“You?may?consider?pity,?sympathy?or?mercy?in?deciding?the?appropriate?punishment;?however,?you?should?not?be?governed?by?mere?conjecture,?prejudice?or?public?opinion.

“Factors?in?mitigation?may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”

The?trial?court?instructed?in?conformity?with?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2?(4th?ed.?1979)?and,?ultimately,?in?conformity?with?section?190.3.?The?following?part?(which?was?delivered?twice?in?the?course?of?the?charge)?is?pertinent?here.

“It?is?now?your?duty?to?determine?which?of?the?two?penalties,?death?or?confinement?in?the?state?prison?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole,?shall?be?imposed?upon?defendant.

“After?having?heard?all?of?the?evidence,?and?after?having?heard?and?considered?the?arguments?of?counsel,?you?shall?consider,?take?into?account?and?be?guided?by?the?applicable?factors?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?upon?which?you?have?been?instructed.

“If?you?conclude?that?the?aggravating?circumstances?outweigh?the?mitigating?circumstances,?you?shall?impose?a?sentence?of?death.?However,?if?you?determine?that?the?mitigating?circumstances?outweigh?the?aggravating?circumstances,?you?shall?impose?a?sentence?of?confinement?in?the?state?prison?for?life?without?the?possibility?of?parole.”

2. Claim?of?Error?Concerning?Failure?to?Instruct?on?”Overlapping”?Special?Circumstances

[51]?Defendant?claims,?in?substance,?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?that?the?felony-murder-burglary?and?felony-?murder-robbery?special?circumstances?found?as?to?each?of?the?two?murders?arose?from?what?he?alleges?was?”a?single?act?or?an?indivisible?course?of?conduct?[54?Cal.3d?692]?with?one?principal?criminal?objective”?(People?v.?Harris?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?36,?66?[201?Cal.?Rptr?782,?679?P.2d?433]?(plur.?opn.))?and,?as?a?result,?could?be?considered?only?as?a?single?circumstance?for?the?purposes?of?determining?penalty.?His?point?is?predicated?on?an?assertion?that?”unitary”?consideration?of?”overlapping”?special?circumstances?is?required?by?the?prohibition?against?multiple?punishment?of?Penal?Code?section?654?and?also?by?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.

The?claim?is?without?merit.?Its?premise?is?unsound.?To?be?sure,?the?Harris?plurality?supported?defendant’s?assertion.?(36?Cal.3d?at?pp.?62-67.)?But?in?People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?765-768?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741],?a?majority?of?this?court?subsequently?held?to?the?contrary.?Accordingly,?the?point?fails.?(Compare?ibid.?[rejecting?a?similar?claim].)

3. Claim?of?Skipper?Error

[52a]?Defendant?claims?in?substance?that?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did,?the?trial?court?committed?so-called?”Skipper?error.”?(Skipper?v.?South?Carolina?(1986)?476?U.S.?1?[90?L.Ed.2d?1,?106?S.Ct.?1669].)

“…?[I]n?capital?cases?the?fundamental?respect?for?humanity?underlying?the?Eighth?Amendment,?[citation],?requires?consideration?of?the?character?and?record?of?the?individual?offender?and?the?circumstances?of?the?particular?offense?as?a?constitutionally?indispensable?part?of?the?process?of?inflicting?the?penalty?of?death.

“This?conclusion?rests?squarely?on?the?predicate?that?the?penalty?of?death?is?qualitatively?different?from?a?sentence?of?imprisonment,?however?long.?Death,?in?its?finality,?differs?more?from?life?imprisonment?than?a?100-year?prison?term?differs?from?one?of?only?a?year?or?two.?Because?of?that?qualitative?difference,?there?is?a?corresponding?difference?in?the?need?for?reliability?in?the?determination?that?death?is?the?appropriate?punishment?in?a?specific?case.”?(Woodson?v.?North?Carolina?(1976)?428?U.S.?280,?304-305?[49?L.Ed.2d?944,?961,?96?S.Ct.?2978]?(lead?opn.?of?Stewart,?Powell?and?Stevens,?JJ.).)

[53]?To?guarantee?that?capital?sentencing?decisions?are?as?individualized?and?reliable?as?the?Constitution?demands,?the?Eighth?Amendment?requires?that?the?defendant?may?not?be?barred?from?introducing?any?relevant?mitigating?evidence.?(Skipper?v.?South?Carolina,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?pp.?4-8?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?6-9];?see?Eddings?v.?Oklahoma?(1982)?455?U.S.?104,?112-116?[71?L.Ed.2d?1,?9-12,?102?S.Ct.?869];?Lockett?v.?Ohio?(1978)?438?U.S.?586,?597-605?[57?L.Ed.2d?973,?985-990,?98?S.Ct.?2954]?(plur.?opn.?by?Burger,?[54?Cal.3d?693]?C.?J.);?Bell?v.?Ohio?(1978)?438?U.S.?637,?642?[57?L.Ed.2d?1010,?1016,?98?S.Ct.?2977]?(plur.?opn.?by?Burger,?C.?J.).)

It?follows?that?the?Eighth?Amendment?also?requires?that?a?jury?and?its?individual?members?(McKoy?v.?North?Carolina?(1990)?494?U.S.?433,?438-443?[108?L.Ed.2d?369,?378-381,?110?S.Ct.?1227,?1231-1234])?”may?not?…?be?precluded?from?considering?’any?relevant?mitigating?evidence[?]’?”?(Skipper?v.?South?Carolina,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?p.?4?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?6],?quoting?Eddings?v.?Oklahoma,?supra,?455?U.S.?at?p.?114?[71?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?11];?accord,?McKoy?v.?North?Carolina,?supra,?494?U.S.?at?pp.?438-443?[108?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?378-381,?110?S.Ct.?at?pp.?1231-1234];?Hitchcock?v.?Dugger?(1987)?481?U.S.?393,?394,?398-399?[95?L.Ed.2d?347,?350,?352-353,?107?S.Ct.?1821];?Mills?v.?Maryland?(1988)?486?U.S.?367,?374-375?[100?L.Ed.2d?384,?393-394,?108?S.Ct.?1860]).

Therefore,?when?any?barrier,?whether?statutory,?instructional,?evidentiary,?or?otherwise?(see?Mills?v.?Maryland,?supra,?486?U.S.?at?pp.?374-375?[100?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?393-?394]),?precludes?a?jury?or?any?of?its?members?(McKoy?v.?North?Carolina,?supra,?494?U.S.?at?pp.?438-443?[108?L.Ed.?at?pp.?378-381,?110?S.Ct.?at?pp.?1231-1234])?from?considering?relevant?mitigating?evidence,?there?occurs?federal?constitutional?error,?which?is?commonly?referred?to?as?”Skipper?error.”?(See?generally?Skipper?v.?South?Carolina,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?pp.?4-8;?Hitchcock?v.?Dugger,?supra,?481?U.S.?at?pp.?394,?398-?399;?Mills?v.?Maryland,?supra,?486?U.S.?at?pp.?374-?375;?McKoy?v.?North?Carolina,?supra,?494?U.S.?at?pp.?438-443?[108?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?378-381,?110?S.Ct.?at?pp.?1231-1234].)

When?the?claimed?barrier?to?the?jury’s?consideration?of?relevant?mitigating?evidence?is?an?instruction,?the?crucial?question?for?determining?error?”is?whether?there?is?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?has?applied?the?challenged?instruction?in?a?way?that?prevents?the?consideration?of”?such?evidence.?(Boyde?v.?California,?supra,?494?U.S.?370,?380?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?329,?110?S.Ct.?1190,?1198].)

[52b]?After?close?consideration,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim?of?error.?The?challenged?instructions?told?the?jury?that?”you?shall?consider,?take?into?account?and?be?guided?by?the?applicable?factors?of?…?mitigating?circumstances,”?which?”may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”?They?also?declared?that?”You?may?consider?pity,?sympathy?or?mercy?in?deciding?the?appropriate?punishment?….”?Further,?in?their?summations?both?the?prosecutor?and?defense?counsel?delivered?the?same?message.?[54?Cal.3d?694]

Defendant?argues?that?the?challenged?instructions?”had?two?flaws:?first,?they?did?not?require?the?sentencer?to?consider?the?mitigating?evidence?but?simply?permitted?it?to?do?so,?and,?second,?they?placed?the?mitigating?factors?of?character,?background,?history,?etc.,?on?a?different?plane?than?[sic]?the?factors?enumerated?in?CALJIC?No.?8.84.1,?[factors]?(a)?through?(k).”?The?instructions?themselves,?which?are?quoted?above,?refute?the?assertion.

In?view?of?the?foregoing,?there?is?not?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jurors?applied?the?challenged?instructions?in?a?way?as?to?prevent?themselves?from?considering?any?or?all?of?the?potentially?mitigating?evidence?adduced?at?trial.

[54]?Under?the?foregoing?analysis,?we?also?reject?defendant’s?claim?that?the?trial?court?committed?Skipper?error?by?failing?to?delete?the?italicized?word?from?each?of?the?following?penalty?factors:?”Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?while?Douglas?Mickey?was?under?the?influence?of?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”?(italics?added);?and,?”Whether?or?not?the?offense?was?committed?under?circumstances?which?Douglas?Mickey?reasonably?believed?to?be?a?moral?justification?or?extenuation?for?his?conduct”?(italics?added).

Defendant?argues?in?substance?that?the?challenged?instructions?amounted?to?an?incorrect?statement?of?the?law:?(1)?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution,?the?jury?may?not?be?precluded?from?considering?any?relevant?mitigating?evidence;?(2)?such?evidence?was?presented?in?the?form?of?”extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”?and?”reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation”-and?also?in?the?form?of?”non-extreme?disturbance”?and?”unreasonable?belief”;?and?(3)?contrary?to?the?constitutional?principle?stated?above,?the?instructions?implied?that?the?jurors?could?consider?only?the?former?and?not?the?latter.

To?be?sure,?the?major?premise?of?defendant’s?argument?is?sound.?But?a?crucial?minor?premise?is?not.?First,?the?challenged?instructions?simply?did?not?carry?the?preclusive?implication?he?asserts?they?did:?they?did?indeed?state?that?the?jury?could?consider?”extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”?and?”reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation”-but?not?only?”extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance”?and?”reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation.”?Second,?one?of?the?instructions?given?on?defendant’s?request?was?expressly?inclusive:?”Factors?in?mitigation?may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”?(Italics?added.)?On?the?record?set?out?above,?there?is?not?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?the?jury?would?have?inferred?that?they?could?not?consider?disturbance?or?belief?of?any?kind?or?degree?whatever?in?mitigation?of?penalty.?[54?Cal.3d?695] [55]?We?also?reject?defendant’s?claim?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?to?give,?on?his?request,?Defense?Instruction?No.?23:?”A?mitigating?circumstance?does?not?have?to?be?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?to?exist.?You?must?find?that?a?mitigating?circumstance?exists?if?there?is?any?substantial?evidence?to?support?it.”

A?court?may-and,?indeed,?must-refuse?an?instruction?that?is?an?incorrect?statement?of?the?law.?(See?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1275.)?A?court?may?also?refuse?an?instruction?that?is?duplicative.?(See?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?805,?fn.?12.)?The?second?sentence?of?Defense?Instruction?No.?23?is?incorrect.?The?law?simply?does?not?so?constrain?the?discretion?of?the?jury?or?its?individual?members.?The?first?sentence?is?duplicative.?Implicit?in?the?penalty?charge?as?a?whole?was?the?statement?expressed?therein.

4. Claim?of?Error?Concerning?”Sympathy”?Instruction

[56]?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?the?jury?on?”sympathy”?in?accordance?with?his?own?request:?”You?may?consider?pity,?sympathy?or?mercy?in?deciding?the?appropriate?punishment;?however,?you?should?not?be?governed?by?mere?conjecture,?prejudice?or?public?opinion.”?He?argues?that?the?instruction?allowed?the?jurors?to?take?into?account?any?sympathy?they?might?have?had?for?Hanson?and/or?Blount,?and?that?in?this?respect?it?was?violative?of?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?and?due?process?clauses?of?the?Eighth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?the?analogous?provisions?of?article?I,?sections?17?and?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution.

We?find?no?error.?Defendant’s?primary,?and?factual,?premise?is?unsupported.?The?instruction?does?not?carry?the?meaning?he?asserts.?A?reasonable?juror?would?have?understood?the?language?in?question?to?allow?consideration?of?sympathy?for?defendant.?That?meaning?is?practically?declared?by?the?words?themselves.?It?is?also?confirmed?by?their?context:?immediately?following?is?the?instruction,?”Factors?in?mitigation?may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”?In?addition,?that?meaning?was?anticipated?by?the?prosecutor?and?defense?counsel?in?their?summations:?they?agreed?that?the?jurors?could?consider?sympathy?for?defendant-but?did?not?even?suggest?that?they?could?consider?sympathy?for?the?victims.?In?our?view,?a?reasonable?juror?could?not?have?understood?the?challenged?instruction?as?defendant?claims.fn.?18?[54?Cal.3d?696]

5. Claim?of?Error?Relating?to?Certain?Refused?Instructions

Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?to?give?the?following?instructions?on?his?request.

Defense?Instruction?No.?3:?”The?mitigating?circumstances?that?I?have?read?for?your?consideration?are?given?to?you?merely?as?examples?of?some?of?the?factors?that?you?may?take?into?account?as?reasons?for?deciding?not?to?impose?a?death?sentence?in?this?case.?You?should?pay?careful?attention?to?each?of?those?factors.?Any?one?of?them?may?be?sufficient,?standing?alone,?to?support?a?decision?that?death?is?not?the?appropriate?punishment?in?this?case.?But?you?should?not?limit?your?consideration?of?mitigating?circumstances?to?these?specific?factors.?You?may?also?consider?any?other?circumstances?relating?to?the?case?or?to?Douglas?Scott?Mickey?as?shown?by?the?evidence?as?reasons?for?not?imposing?the?death?sentence.”

Defense?Instruction?No.?4:?”Another?factor?for?your?consideration?in?determining?the?appropriate?penalty?is?the?concept?of?fairness.?Not?only?must?we?strive?to?accomplish?equal?justice,?but,?just?as?importantly,?it?should?clearly?appear?to?all?observers?as?though?justice?is?being?accomplished.?In?this?case,?Edward?Rogers,?who?is?equally?culpable?as?a?principal?in?these?crimes,?was?granted?complete?immunity?from?the?charges?of?murder?in?this?case?and?was?further?granted?immunity?from?perjury?with?respect?to?statements?made?by?him?under?oath?and?will?not?serve?any?prison?sentence?whatever.?Measured?against?this,?you?are?given?a?choice?of?only?two?sentencing?alternatives-life?imprisonment?without?the?possibility?of?parole?or?death.?You?may?consider?the?disparity?of?treatment?between?Edward?Rogers?and?Douglas?Mickey?in?selecting?the?sentence?to?be?imposed.”?(Paragraphing?omitted.)

Defense?Instruction?No.?8:?”You?may?consider?Douglas?Scott?Mickey’s?potential?for?contributing?affirmatively?to?the?lives?of?his?family?and?friends?as?a?mitigating?circumstance.”

Defense?Instruction?No.?12:?”Mitigating?factors?were?not?introduced?to?justify?or?excuse?the?offense?in?question.?They?may,?however,?be?considered?as?an?extenuating?circumstance?in?determining?the?appropriate?punishment.”

Defense?Instruction?No.?15:?”You?may?consider?Douglas?Scott?Mickey’s?potential?for?rehabilitation?and?for?contributing?affirmatively?to?the?lives?of?[54?Cal.3d?697]?those?around?him?within?the?prison?as?a?mitigating?circumstances?[sic];?you?may?also?consider?the?fact?that?he?has?presented?no?custodial?problem?and?is?unlikely?to?do?so?in?the?future?as?a?mitigating?circumstances?[sic].”

Defense?Instruction?No.?21:?”I?have?previously?read?to?you?the?list?of?aggravating?circumstances?which?the?law?permits?you?to?consider?if?you?find?that?any?of?them?is?established?by?the?evidence.?These?are?the?only?aggravating?circumstances?that?you?may?consider.?You?are?not?allowed?to?take?account?of?any?other?facts?or?circumstances?as?the?basis?for?deciding?that?the?death?penalty?would?be?an?appropriate?punishment?in?this?case.”

[57a]?After?review,?we?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court’s?refusal?of?the?requested?instructions?quoted?above.

[58]?As?we?have?declared,?a?court?may,?and?must,?refuse?an?instruction?that?is?an?incorrect?statement?of?the?law.?The?same?is?true?of?”an?instruction?that?is?argumentative,?i.e.,?of?such?a?character?as?to?invite?the?jury?to?draw?inferences?favorable?to?one?of?the?parties?from?specified?items?of?evidence.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1276;?accord,?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?805.)?As?we?have?also?declared,?a?court?may?refuse?an?instruction?that?is?duplicative.

[57b]?Defense?Instruction?No.?21?is?incorrect.?”To?be?sure,?the?law?permits?the?jury?to?consider?only?penalty?factors?(a)?through?(j)?of?section?190.3,?and?evidence?relevant?thereto,?in?determining?aggravation.?[Citation.]?But?the?factors?set?out?in?the?list?the?court?delivered?omitted?[the?victim-consent?portion?of?statutory?factor?(e)].?Therefore,?the?requested?instruction?was?incorrect?in?[implying]?that?the?court’s?list?set?out?the?only?factors?the?law?permitted?the?jury?to?consider.”?(People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1275.)

Defense?Instructions?Nos.?4,?8,?12,?and?15?are?plainly?argumentative.?No?further?comment?is?required.

Defense?Instruction?No.?3?is?in?part?argumentative-to?the?extent?it?states?that?a?single?mitigating?circumstance?can?carry?potentially?dispositive?weight,?but?does?not?say?the?same?as?to?a?single?aggravating?circumstance.?And?it?is?in?part?duplicative-to?the?extent?it?overlaps?the?instruction?that?”Factors?in?mitigation?may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”

[59]?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?did?indeed?err?by?refusing?the?requested?instructions.?He?argues?he?was?entitled?to?the?instructions?under?[54?Cal.3d?698]?People?v.?Sears?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?180,?189-190?[84?Cal.Rptr.?711,?465?P.2d?847].?He?is?wrong.?Under?Sears,?a?criminal?defendant?has?a?right?to?an?instruction?that?pinpoints?the?theory?of?the?defense.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1276.)?The?instructions?here?did?not?do?so.

[60]?Defendant?also?argues?he?was?entitled?to?the?requested?instructions?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?as?construed?in?Lockett?v.?Ohio,?supra,?438?U.S.?586,?and?its?progeny.?Again?he?is?wrong.?Under?those?cases,?a?criminal?defendant?has?a?right?to?clear?instructions?that?guide?and?focus?the?jury’s?consideration?of?the?offense?and?the?offender.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1277.)?Defendant?received?such?instructions.?But?under?those?cases,?a?criminal?defendant?does?not?have?a?right?to?an?instruction-like?those?here-that?invites?the?jury?to?draw?favorable?inferences?from?the?evidence.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?at?p.?806;?People?v.?Gordon,?supra,?at?p.?1277.)

[61]?Finally,?defendant?argues?he?was?entitled?to?the?requested?instructions?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution?and?also,?apparently,?under?the?analogous?provision?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?His?premise?is?that?the?instructions?were?necessary?to?assure?that?the?penalty?phase?was?fundamentally?fair?in?procedure?and?basically?reliable?in?result.?No?such?necessity?appears.

6. Claim?of?Brown?Error

[62a]?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?committed?so-called?Brown?error?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did?on?the?process?by?which?penalty?is?to?be?determined.?(People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440],?revd.?on?other?grounds?sub?nom.?California?v.?Brown?(1987)?479?U.S.?538?[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837].)

The?final?paragraph?of?section?190.3?declares?in?relevant?part:?”the?trier?of?fact?…?shall?impose?a?sentence?of?death?if”?it?”concludes?that?the?aggravating?circumstances?outweigh?the?mitigating?circumstances.”?(Italics?added.)

In?Brown,?we?construed?the?statutory?provision?as?follows.?”In?this?context,?the?word?’weighing’?is?a?metaphor?for?a?process?which?by?nature?is?incapable?of?precise?description.?The?word?connotes?a?mental?balancing?process,?but?certainly?not?one?which?calls?for?a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?the?imaginary?’scale,’?or?the?arbitrary?assignment?of?[54?Cal.3d?699]?’weights’?to?any?of?them.?Each?juror?is?free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?he?deems?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors?he?is?permitted?to?consider?….?By?directing?that?the?jury?’shall’?impose?the?death?penalty?if?it?finds?that?aggravating?factors?’outweigh’?mitigating,?the?statute?should?not?be?understood?to?require?any?juror?to?vote?for?the?death?penalty?unless,?upon?completion?of?the?’weighing’?process,?he?decides?that?death?is?the?appropriate?penalty?under?all?the?circumstances.?Thus?the?jury,?by?weighing?the?various?factors,?simply?determines?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?appropriate?in?the?particular?case.”?(40?Cal.3d?at?p.?541,?fn.?omitted.)

Stated?simply,?the?statutory?provision?”requires?jurors?to?make?a?moral?assessment?on?the?basis?of?the?character?of?the?individual?defendant?and?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?and?thereby?decide?which?penalty?is?appropriate?in?the?particular?case.”?(People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?856.)

Although?in?Brown?we?construed?the?statutory?provision?thus,?we?nevertheless?recognized?that?when?delivered?in?an?instruction?its?mandatory-?penalty-determination?language?might?mislead?jurors?as?to?the?scope?of?their?sentencing?discretion.?(40?Cal.3d?at?p.?544,?fn.?17.)?Specifically,?a?juror?might?reasonably?understand?that?language?to?define?the?penalty?determination?as?”simply?a?finding?of?facts”?(id.?at?p.?540)?or?”a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?the?imaginary?’scale[]’?”?(id.?at?p.?541).?In?other?words,?he?might?be?misled?as?to?the?nature?of?the?process?by?which?penalty?is?to?be?determined.?A?juror?might?also?reasonably?understand?the?language?to?require?him?to?vote?for?death?if?he?finds?that?aggravation?outweighs?mitigation-even?if?he?determines?that?death?is?not?the?appropriate?penalty?under?all?the?circumstances.?(See?id.?at?pp.?540-544.)?That?is?to?say,?he?might?be?misled?as?to?the?character?of?the?ultimate?question?to?be?resolved?in?the?process?of?determining?penalty.

[63]?To?mislead?jurors?as?to?the?scope?of?their?sentencing?discretion,?as?Brown?itself?makes?plain,?is?error?under?state?law.?(See?40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?540-544.)?But?as?a?general?matter?at?least,?it?is?not?error?of?federal?constitutional?dimension:?it?does?not?implicate?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?or?apparently?any?other?provision?of?the?federal?charter.?(See?People?v.?Sanders?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?471,?534,?fn.?2,?535,?fn.?3?[273?Cal.Rptr.?537,?797?P.2d?561]?(dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)

In?deciding?whether?the?jurors?in?any?given?case?were?in?fact?misled,?”we?examine?the?whole?record?and?in?particular?the?arguments?of?counsel”?(People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1034?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627];?see?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?p.?544,?fn.?17)?as?they?would?or?could?have?been?understood?by?the?hypothetical?”reasonable?juror”?[54?Cal.3d?700]?(People?v.?Sanders,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?535?&?fn.?3?(dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?see?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?at?pp.?540-544).

[62b]?After?review,?we?are?of?the?opinion?that?the?jurors?in?this?case?were?not?misled?as?to?the?scope?of?their?sentencing?discretion.

At?the?outset,?we?recognize?that?the?trial?court’s?instruction-which?it?gave?at?two?points?in?its?charge-followed?the?potentially?misleading?language?of?the?final?paragraph?of?section?190.3.?We?also?recognize?that?the?prosecutor?paraphrased?that?language?in?his?summation-and?had?previously?paraphrased?it?during?voir?dire?of?prospective?jurors.

Be?that?as?it?may,?both?the?prosecutor?and?defense?counsel?made?it?clear?in?their?summations?that?the?jurors?were?required?to?make?a?moral?assessment?of?defendant?and?his?crimes?and?thereby?decide?which?penalty?was?appropriate.?Indeed,?both?delivered?a?message?on?that?point?that?was?all?but?express.

Moreover,?neither?the?prosecutor?nor?defense?counsel?suggested?to?the?jurors?that?the?penalty?determination?was?”simply?a?finding?of?facts”?(People?v.?Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?p.?540)?or?”a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?the?imaginary?’scale[]’?”?(id.?at?p.?541),?or?that?it?was?somehow?”compelled”?by?the?”law”?regardless?of?their?individual?views?on?the?appropriateness?of?death.?Quite?the?opposite-as?the?statements?quoted?above?reveal?beyond?peradventure.

Accordingly,?on?this?record?we?cannot?find?Brown?error.?The?jurors?here?were?not?misled?as?to?the?scope?of?their?sentencing?discretion.?Having?heard?the?summations?by?the?prosecutor?and?defense?counsel,?a?reasonable?juror?would?have?come?to?a?proper?understanding?of?both?the?nature?of?the?process?by?which?penalty?was?to?be?determined?and?the?ultimate?question?to?be?resolved?in?that?process.?Such?a?juror?could?not?have?formed?any?other?view.fn.?19

[64]?In?a?related?point,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?to?give,?on?his?request,?Defense?Instruction?No.?19:?”You?are?instructed?that?a?life?without?parole?verdict?means?exactly?what?it?says:?that?the?defendant?shall?be?imprisoned?for?the?rest?of?his?life.?And?you?are?[54?Cal.3d?701]?instructed?that?a?death?verdict?means?exactly?what?it?says:?that?the?defendant?will?be?executed.?For?you?to?conclude?otherwise,?would?be?to?rely?upon?speculation?or?conjecture?and?would?be?a?violation?of?your?oath?as?a?juror.”

We?find?no?error.?As?stated?above,?a?court?may,?and?must,?refuse?an?instruction?that?is?incorrect.?Defense?Instruction?No.?19?is?such:?”It?is?…?incorrect?to?tell?the?jury?the?penalty?of?death?or?life?without?possibility?of?parole?will?inexorably?be?carried?out”?(People?v.?Thompson?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?86,?130?[246?Cal.Rptr.?245,?753?P.2d?37]).?Defendant?argues?the?court?should?have?given?the?instruction?because:?(1)?at?least?one?of?the?jurors?had?assertedly?expressed?a?belief?during?voir?dire?that?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?might?not?mean?what?it?said;?and?(2)?the?meaning?of?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?was?assertedly?of?critical?significance?in?this?case.?The?fact?remains,?however,?that?the?instruction?is?incorrect.?Hence,?it?was?properly?refused.?(See?People?v.?Thompson,?supra,?at?p.?131.)

7. Claim?of?Error?as?to?the?Burden?of?Proof

[65]?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?refusing?to?give,?on?his?request,?Defense?Instruction?No.?17,?which?states?in?relevant?part:?”You?may?impose?a?penalty?of?death?only?where?the?aggravating?circumstances?outweigh?the?mitigating?circumstances?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?and?only?where?you?are?convinced?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?death?penalty?is?the?appropriate?punishment.”

Defendant’s?position?is?that?Defense?Instruction?No.?17?correctly?states?the?law.?In?support,?he?may?be?understood?to?argue?that?imposition?on?the?People?of?the?burden?of?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?each?of?the?following?issues?is?required?by?the?1978?death?penalty?law:?(1)?a?circumstance?in?aggravation?may?be?considered?only?if?its?existence?is?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt;?(2)?the?penalty?may?be?fixed?at?death?only?if?the?aggravating?circumstances?are?found?to?outweigh?the?mitigating?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt;?and?(3)?the?penalty?may?be?fixed?at?death?only?if?death?is?determined?to?be?the?appropriate?punishment?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?That?is?not?the?case.?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?808.)?He?then?argues?that?imposition?of?the?burden?is?required?by?the?Constitutions?of?the?United?States?and?California,?specifically:?(1)?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?17;?(2)?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?[54?Cal.3d?702]?article?I,?sections?7?and?15;?and,?apparently,?(3)?the?equal?protection?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?7.?That,?also,?is?not?the?case.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?at?p.?808;?People?v.?Marshall,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pp.?935-936.)fn.?20

1. Miscellaneous?Instructional?Errors

[66]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?the?jury?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?2.11?(4th?ed.?1979)?as?follows:?”Neither?side?is?required?to?call?as?witnesses?all?persons?who?may?have?been?present?at?any?of?the?events?disclosed?by?the?evidence?or?who?may?appear?to?have?some?knowledge?of?these?events,?or?to?produce?all?objects?or?documents?mentioned?or?suggested?by?the?evidence.”

In?support,?defendant?asserts?that?”The?vice?of?this?instruction?at?the?penalty?phase?of?a?capital?trial?is?its?implication?that?there?was?evidence?in?aggravation?not?placed?before?the?jury.?In?essence,?it?invites?the?jury?to?speculate?on?the?probable?existence?of?non-statutory?aggravating?factors,?in?violation?of?the?rule?of?People?v.?Boyd?[(1985)]?38?Cal.3d?762,?772-76.”

The?assertion?is?empty.?Plainly,?the?challenged?instruction?does?not?give?such?an?”invitation”?to?a?reasonable?juror?as?a?general?matter.?Nor?did?it?do?so?under?the?unique?facts?of?this?particular?case.

[67]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?on?another?point.?At?the?guilt?phase,?the?People?called?Edward?Rogers?and?presented?his?testimony?against?defendant.?In?its?charge,?the?court?declared-properly-in?conformity?with?CALJIC?No.?3.18?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?rev.))?that?”The?testimony?of?an?accomplice?ought?to?be?viewed?with?distrust.?This?does?not?mean?that?you?may?arbitrarily?disregard?such?testimony,?but?you?should?give?to?it?the?weight?to?which?you?find?it?to?be?entitled?after?examining?it?with?care?and?caution?and?in?the?light?of?all?the?evidence?in?the?case.”?The?court?also?declared-again?properly-that?Edward?Rogers?was?an?accomplice?as?a?matter?of?law.?At?the?penalty?phase,?the?People?did?not?call?Rogers?but?they?did?rely?on?the?testimony?he?had?previously?given,?with?the?prosecutor?extensively?quoting?his?words?in?summation.?In?its?charge,?the?court?instructed?the?jurors?to?”consider?all?the?evidence?which?has?been?received?during?any?part?of?the?trial?of?this?case?….”?It?did?not?repeat?the?instructions?referred?to?above.?[54?Cal.3d?703]

Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?failing?to?reinstruct?that?an?accomplice’s?testimony?should?be?viewed?with?distrust.?We?disagree.?Of?course,?when?the?People?present?the?testimony?of?an?accomplice,?the?court?must?instruct,?sua?sponte,?that?such?testimony?should?be?viewed?with?distrust.?(People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1314?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221].)?But?the?same?obligation?does?not?arise?when,?as?here,?they?merely?rely?on?previously?given?testimony?covered?by?previously?delivered?instructions.

1. Consideration?of?Invalid?Special?Circumstances

[68]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?allowing?the?jury?to?consider?the?invalid?special-circumstance?findings?as?to?multiple?murder?and?intentional?murder?for?financial?gain.?(See?pts.?III.A.?&?III.B.,?ante.)

Error?did?indeed?occur.?But?reversal?is?not?required.?”Certainly,?the?error?here?is?not?prejudicial?per?se,?but?rather?is?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis.?Whether?it?violates?state?law?only?or?implicates?the?United?States?Constitution?as?well?is?immaterial.?It?is?harmless?under?both?the?’reasonable?possibility’?test?of?People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?446-448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135],?and?the?’reasonable?doubt’?test?of?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065].?’Although?we?presume?that?the?jurors?[followed?their?instructions?and]?considered?the?invalid?special-?circumstance?findings?independent?of?their?underlying?facts,?we?cannot?conclude?that?they?could?reasonably?have?given?them?any?significant?independent?weight.’?”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?793.)?Indeed,?in?his?summation?the?prosecutor?himself?strongly?argued?that?the?findings?carried?no?force?apart?from?the?facts.?Any?reasonable?juror?would?have?been?persuaded.

1. Denial?of?Verdict-modification?Application

[69a]?Defendant?made?an?application?for?modification?of?the?verdict?of?death?under?Penal?Code?section?190.4,?subdivision?(e)?(hereafter?section?190.4(e)).?The?trial?court?denied?the?request.?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?by?so?doing.

[70]?”In?ruling?on?a?verdict-modification?application,?the?trial?judge?is?required?by?section?190.4(e)?to?’make?an?independent?determination?whether?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?upon?the?defendant?is?proper?in?light?of?the?relevant?evidence?and?the?applicable?law.’?[Citations.]?That?is?to?say,?he?must?determine?whether?the?jury’s?decision?that?death?is?appropriate?under?all?the?circumstances?is?adequately?supported.?[Citation.]?And?he?must?make?that?determination?independently,?i.e.,?in?accordance?with?the?weight?he?himself?[54?Cal.3d?704]?believes?the?evidence?deserves.”?(People?v.?Marshall,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?942.)

[71]?On?appeal,?we?subject?a?ruling?on?such?an?application?to?independent?review:?the?decision?resolves?a?mixed?question?of?law?and?fact;?a?determination?of?this?kind?is?generally?examined?de?novo?(see?generally?People?v.?Louis,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?984-?988).?Of?course,?when?we?conduct?such?scrutiny,?we?simply?review?the?trial?court’s?determination?after?independently?considering?the?record;?we?do?not?make?a?de?novo?determination?of?penalty.

[69b]?Defendant?claims?that?contrary?to?the?requirements?of?section?190.4(e),?the?trial?judge?failed?to?make?an?independent?determination?as?to?whether?the?jury’s?verdict?of?death?was?adequately?supported.?We?disagree.

Near?the?beginning?of?his?statement?of?reasons,?the?trial?judge?acknowledged?section?190.4(e)’s?requirement?of?independent?determination:?”In?ruling?on?this?application?for?automatic?motion?to?modify,?the?judge?shall?review?the?evidence,?consider,?take?into?account,?and?be?guided?by?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?referred?to?in?Section?190.3?of?the?Penal?Code,?and?shall?make?an?independent?determination?as?to?whether?the?weight?of?the?evidence?supports?the?jury’s?findings?and?verdicts.”?(Italics?added.)

The?trial?judge?then?made?the?following?observation:?”A?question?to?be?asked?and?answered?is?whether?the?statute?intends?to?permit?the?trial?judge?to?reverse?the?jury’s?verdict?of?death?upon?the?judge’s?own?assessment?of?the?evidence,?guided?by?the?evidence?of?aggravation?and?mitigation,?or?only?to?modify?if?the?jury’s?findings?are?not?supported?by?the?weight?of?the?evidence.”

The?trial?judge?did?not?clearly?answer?the?question-although?he?appears?to?have?adopted?the?former?interpretation.?He?did,?however,?make?plain?that?under?either?construction?the?verdict?would?stand.

In?so?doing,?the?trial?judge?discharged?his?obligation?under?section?190.4(e):?he?effectively?determined?that?the?verdict?of?death?was?adequately?supported?in?accordance?with?the?weight?he?himself?believed?the?evidence?deserved.

Defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion.?His?premise?is?that?the?trial?judge?is?required?by?section?190.4(e)?to?make?a?penalty?determination?of?his?own,?independent?of?the?jury’s?verdict.?Not?so.?[72]?”[T]he?trial?judge’s?function?is?not?to?make?an?independent?and?de?novo?penalty?determination,?[54?Cal.3d?705]?but?rather?to?independently?reweigh?the?evidence?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?and?then?to?determine?whether,?in?the?judge’s?independent?judgment,?the?weight?of?the?evidence?supports?the?jury?verdict.”?(People?v.?Lang,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?1045,?italics?in?original.)?The?trial?judge?carried?out?his?function?here.

[69c]?Next,?defendant?claims?that?the?trial?judge?refused?(or?at?least,?may?have?refused)?to?consider?certain?potentially?mitigating?evidence?defined?by?the?Eighth?Amendment-specifically,?that?relating?to?background?and?character.?He?asserts?that?the?judge?erroneously?believed?(or?at?least,?may?have?believed)?that?only?such?evidence?as?may?extenuate?the?gravity?of?the?capital?crime?can?be?mitigating,?and?that?as?a?result?he?declined?(or?at?least,?may?have?declined)?to?take?account?of?other?potentially?mitigating?evidence.?Again?we?disagree.

As?he?all?but?expressly?declared?in?his?statement?of?reasons,?the?trial?judge?considered?all?the?potentially?mitigating?evidence,?”nonextenuating”?as?well?as?”extenuating.”?We?simply?cannot?conclude?that?he?labored?under?any?misconception?about?the?scope?of?what?he?could?take?into?account.?In?his?charge?at?the?penalty?phase,?he?told?the?jurors?that?”you?shall?consider,?take?into?account?and?be?guided?by?the?applicable?factors?of?…?mitigating?circumstances,”?which?”may?include,?but?are?not?limited?to,?Douglas?Scott?Mic[k]ey’s?character,?background,?history,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”?He?also?told?them?that?”You?may?consider?pity,?sympathy?or?mercy?in?deciding?the?appropriate?punishment?….”?With?these?instructions,?he?directed?the?jurors?to?consider?all?the?potentially?mitigating?evidence,?”nonextenuating”?as?well?as?”extenuating,”?in?deciding?on?their?verdict.?It?is?inconceivable?that?he?believed?he?could?not?take?such?evidence?into?account?in?reviewing?their?decision.

“Although?the?trial?court?did?not?expressly?mention?the?mitigating?evidence?referred?to?by?defendant,?there?is?no?indication?in?the?record?that?the?court?ignored?or?overlooked?such?evidence.”?(People?v.?Ruiz?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?589,?625?[244?Cal.Rptr.?200,?749?P.2d?854],?italics?in?original.)

We?recognize?that?the?trial?judge?stated?that?he?”has?reexamined?the?material?offered?in?the?penalty?phase?by?the?defense,?and?personally?finds?beyond?any?reasonable?doubt?that?there?were?no?circumstances?which?extenuated?the?gravity?of?the?crimes,?whether?or?not?it?be?a?legal?excuse.”?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion,?these?words?do?not?manifest?a?belief?on?the?judge’s?part?that?only?”extenuating”?evidence?can?be?mitigating.?Rather,?they?merely?reveal?a?determination?by?the?judge-which?in?our?view?is?altogether?sound-that?the?potentially?mitigating?evidence?was?not?in?fact?extenuating.?[54?Cal.3d?706]

Here?too?defendant?argues?against?our?conclusion.?At?bottom,?he?does?nothing?more?than?complain?about?the?trial?judge’s?independent?weighing?of?the?evidence.?His?complaint,?however,?is?without?substance?and?must?therefore?be?dismissed.fn.?21

1. “Cumulative?Prejudice”

[73]?(See?fn.?22.)?Defendant?contends?that?the?effect?of?the?errors?we?have?found,?when?considered?together,?is?prejudicial.?We?disagree.fn.?22

1. Disposition

For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?set?aside?one?of?the?multiple-murder?special-circumstance?findings?and?both?of?the?intentional-murder-for-?financial-gain?special-circumstance?findings.?We?affirm?the?judgment?in?all?other?respects.

It?is?so?ordered.

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

FN?1.?The?defense?of?diminished?capacity,?which?was?abolished?by?statute?as?of?January?1,?1982?(Stats.?1981,?ch.?404,????2,?4,?pp.?1591-1592,?amending?Pen.?Code,???22,?and?adding?Pen.?Code,???28),?remains?available?for?crimes-such?as?the?present-committed?before?that?date.?(People?v.?Pensinger?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?1210,?1240-1241?[278?Cal.Rptr.?640,?805?P.2d?899].)

FN?2.?Before?filing?the?present?suppression?motion,?defendant?had?submitted?a?motion?under?Penal?Code?section?1538.5?to?suppress?certain?evidence,?including?the?statements?in?question,?on?the?ground?that?such?evidence?had?been?obtained?as?a?result?of?one?or?more?unreasonable?searches?or?seizures?in?violation?of?provisions?of?law?including?the?Fourth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?13,?of?the?California?Constitution.?In?the?papers?supporting?the?present?suppression?motion,?defendant?relied?on?this?ground?too.?The?trial?court?subsequently?denied?the?Penal?Code?section?1538.5?motion?in?its?entirety.?Thereafter,?defendant?effectively?abandoned?the?unreasonable-?search-and-seizure?claim?in?the?present?suppression?motion-evidently?because?the?issue?had?been?resolved?against?his?position.?He?does?not?attempt?to?raise?it?here.?In?the?briefs?submitted?on?his?behalf?by?appointed?appellate?counsel,?which?fill?about?800?pages?and?contain?16?appendices,?defendant?does?not?challenge?the?court’s?ruling?on?the?Penal?Code?section?1538.5?motion.?But?in?an?eight-page?supplemental?brief?submitted?pro?se,?he?purports?to?raise?an?attack.?The?claim?lacks?merit.?Defendant?says?the?search?of?the?murder?scene?was?unreasonable.?It?was?not.?Contrary?to?his?assertion,?the?police?had?the?consent?of?Hoehne?and?others.?He?also?says?his?arrest?was?unlawful.?It?does?not?appear?to?have?been.?In?any?event,?the?evidence?seized?was?taken?with?his?consent.?Finally,?he?says?the?search?of?his?family’s?residence?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan?was?unreasonable.?It?was?not.?The?authorities?had?the?consent?of?his?wife?Allison.

Notwithstanding?defendant’s?implication,?the?present?suppression?motion?was?not?based?on?the?ground?that?the?statements?in?question?were?inadmissible?as?obtained?in?violation?of?his?right?to?counsel?under?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?section?15,?of?the?California?Constitution,?and?related?guaranties-and?it?was?not?substantially?based?on?the?ground?that?they?were?inadmissible?as?involuntary?under?any?California?counterpart?to?the?Miranda?rule.

FN?3.?In?setting?out?the?facts?pertinent?to?the?present?suppression?motion,?we?look,?of?course,?to?the?record?of?the?hearing?thereon.?On?appeal,?both?defendant?and?the?People?look?beyond?to?the?record?of?the?hearing?on?the?previously?filed,?and?denied,?Penal?Code?section?1538.5?motion.?(See?fn.?2,?ante.)?But?it?was?not?on?that?record?that?the?present?suppression?motion?was?litigated?and?decided.?Indeed,?at?the?hearing?on?the?present?suppression?motion?the?prosecutor?expressly?declared?that?”this?is?a?separate?proceeding?than?the?1538.5,”?and?defense?counsel?did?not?disagree.

FN?4.?Hardly?worthy?of?mention?is?defendant’s?apparent?assertion?that?Sheriff?Nunes’s?question?about?extradition,?transmitted?to?him?by?his?wife?Allison,?somehow?amounted?to?”custodial?interrogation”?within?the?meaning?of?Miranda?or?otherwise?violated?the?rule?declared?in?that?decision.

FN?5.?Defendant?presents?certain?other?arguments?in?support?of?his?claim?that?the?trial?court?erroneously?denied?his?motion?to?suppress?his?”inflight”?and?”Honolulu?admissions”?as?violative?of?due?process?and?Miranda.?Most?are?reducible?to?arguments?addressed?and?rejected?above;?some?were?not?raised?below?and?go?beyond?the?legal?issues?and?factual?matters?litigated?there?(including?an?assertion?that?the?exercise?of?his?right?to?counsel?under?Miranda?was?somehow?frustrated?by?federal?and/or?state?agents);?and?none?is?meritorious.

We?reject?on?procedural?grounds?defendant’s?claim?that?the?trial?court?erroneously?denied?his?motion?to?suppress?the?statements?in?question?as?violative?of?his?federal?and?state?constitutional?rights?to?counsel?and?related?guaranties.?As?noted,?defendant?did?not?move?to?suppress?the?statements?on?such?a?basis.?(See?fn.?2,?ante.)?Accordingly,?he?may?not?attack?the?ruling?on?that?ground.?When?an?argument?was?not?presented?to?support?a?motion,?it?may?not?be?urged?to?attack?the?subsequent?ruling.?(See?People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1264-1265?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251].)?We?observe?in?passing?that?the?right?to?counsel?under?Miranda?is?not?itself?a?”right[]?protected?by?the?[United?States]?Constitution?but?[is]?instead?[a]?measure[?]?to?insure?that?the?[Fifth?Amendment]?right?against?compulsory?self-incrimination?[is]?protected.”?(Michigan?v.?Tucker,?supra,?417?U.S.?at?p.?444?[41?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?193].)?In?other?words,?Miranda’s?right?to?counsel?was?declared?”in?order?to?protect?the?Fifth?Amendment?privilege?against?self-incrimination?rather?than?to?vindicate?the?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?counsel.”?(United?States?v.?Gouveia?(1984)?467?U.S.?180,?188,?fn.?5?[81?L.Ed.2d?146,?154,?104?S.Ct.?2292].)

We?reject?on?the?merits?defendant’s?claim?that?the?trial?court?erroneously?denied?his?motion?to?suppress?the?statements?in?question?as?violative?of?any?California?counterpart?to?the?Miranda?rule.?Having?found?no?deviation?from?the?federal?standard,?we?cannot?find-and?surely?defendant?does?not?show-a?deviation?from?any?state?analogue.

FN?6.?”California?death?qualification”?limits?”[t]he?pool?of?jurors?eligible?to?serve?in?a?capital?trial?in?California”?to?”those?persons?eligible?to?serve?in?a?noncapital?case?whose?attitudes?toward?capital?punishment?would?place?them?in?either?the?’favor?death?penalty,’?’indifferent,’?or?’oppose?death?penalty’?group.”?(Hovey?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?1,?63?[168?Cal.Rptr.?128,?616?P.2d?1301].)?”[G]uilt?phase?includables”?(id.?at?p.?17,?fn.?36)?are?those?persons?who?would?”automatically?vote?against?death?at?the?penalty?phase”?but?could?be?”fair?and?impartial”?at?the?guilt?phase?(id.?at?p.?17,?italics?deleted).

FN?7.?As?authority?for?the?proposition?that?the?contemporaneous-and-?specific-objection?rule?does?not?apply?to?claims?of?constitutional?error,?defendant?cites?People?v.?Velasquez?(1980)?26?Cal.3d?425?[162?Cal.Rptr.?306,?606?P.2d?341],?judgment?vacated?and?case?remanded?sub?nomine?California?v.?Velasquez?(1980)?448?U.S.?903?[65?L.Ed.2d?1132,?100?S.Ct.?3042],?for?further?consideration?in?light?of?Adams?v.?Texas?(1980)?448?U.S.?38?[65?L.Ed.2d?581,?100?S.Ct.?2521],?reiterated?in?its?entirety?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?461?[171?Cal.Rptr.?507,?622?P.2d?952].?But?in?that?case,?we?dealt?with?a?narrow?issue,?viz.,?did?the?trial?court?err?under?the?impartial-jury?guaranty?of?the?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?by?excusing?a?prospective?juror?on?the?People’s?challenge?because?of?her?views?on?the?death?penalty,?in?violation?of?Witherspoon?v.?Illinois?(1968)?391?U.S.?510?[20?L.Ed.2d?776,?88?S.Ct.?1770].?(26?Cal.3d?at?pp.?436-445?(plur.?opn.);?see?id.?at?p.?447?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Newman,?J.).)?We?held?only?that?a?defendant?may?properly?raise?such?a?claim?whether?or?not?he?made?an?objection?to?the?ruling.?(Id.?at?p.?443?(plur.?opn.);?see?id.?at?p.?447?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Newman,?J.).)?Our?holding?is?not?inconsistent?with?the?general?applicability?of?the?rule?stated?above.?This?is?because?the?reasons?for?the?requirement?do?not?extend?to?this?particular?kind?of?claim:?functionally,?a?challenge?for?cause?by?the?People?is?similar?to?an?objection?to?the?subsequent?excusal?by?the?defendant-that?is?to?say,?it?puts?the?Witherspoon?question?at?issue?in?timely?fashion.

FN?8.?In?a?related?point,?defendant?claims?for?the?first?time?in?his?reply?brief?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?the?jury?as?it?did?on?voluntary?manslaughter?and?the?defense?of?honest?but?unreasonable?belief?in?the?necessity?to?defend?oneself?against?imminent?peril?to?life?or?limb.

In?accordance?with?the?standard?instruction?set?out?in?CALJIC?No.?8.40?(4th?ed.?1979?(1979?re-rev.)),?the?trial?court?declared?in?pertinent?part:?”The?crime?of?voluntary?manslaughter?is?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice?aforethought?when?there?is?an?intent?to?kill.?There?is?no?malice?aforethought?if?the?killing?occurred?upon?a?sudden?quarrel?or?heat?of?passion,?or?in?the?honest?but?unreasonable?belief?in?the?necessity?to?defend?oneself?against?imminent?peril?to?life?or?great?bodily?injury.?In?order?to?prove?the?commission?of?the?crime?of?voluntary?manslaughter,?each?of?the?following?elements?must?be?proved:?1.?That?a?human?being?was?killed,?2.?That?the?killing?was?unlawful,?and?3.?That?the?killing?was?done?with?the?intent?to?kill.”?(Brackets?and?paragraphing?omitted.)

We?believe?that?the?trial?court?adequately?instructed?on?voluntary?manslaughter?and?the?honest-but-unreasonable-belief?defense.?Defendant?essentially?concedes?that?the?instruction?quoted?above?was?proper.?But?he?goes?on?to?argue?that?certain?others?were?not.?In?our?view,?any?and?all?of?the?defects?that?he?assertedly?uncovers?are,?in?context,?relatively?minor?and?without?notable?significance.?It?may?perhaps?be?argued?that?the?other?instructions?of?which?defendant?complains?had?a?potential?to?merge?the?defense?of?sudden?quarrel?and?heat?of?passion?into?that?of?honest?but?unreasonable?belief.?But?the?applicable?defense?actually?put?forth?by?defendant?was?to?the?effect?that?he?was?led?to?entertain?an?honest?if?unreasonable?belief?in?the?need?for?self-defense?as?a?result?of?a?sudden?quarrel?and?in?the?heat?of?passion.?Accordingly,?we?cannot?conclude?that?defendant?was?denied?the?honest-but-unreasonable-belief?defense?or?deprived?of?its?benefits.

FN?9.?We?agree?with?Louis?that?when?the?adverb?”wilfully”?is?inserted,?an?instruction?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?2.03?becomes?”more?accurate.”?(159?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?161.)?But?we?do?not?agree?that?without?the?word,?such?an?instruction?is?ipso?facto?erroneous.?To?the?extent?that?it?so?holds?(see?id.?at?p.?162),?Louis?is?inconsistent?with?the?analysis?set?forth?above?and,?for?that?reason,?is?hereby?disapproved.

FN?10.?We?recognize?that?in?People?v.?Kurtzman,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?page?336,?we?broadly?stated?that?instructions?like?those?under?challenge?here?”may?confuse?jurors?…?as?to?how?deliberations?should?proceed,”?”may?create?ambiguity?as?to?just?what?is?prohibited?and?what?is?required,”?and?are?”potentially?misleading.”?Whatever?its?validity?in?the?abstract,?that?statement?does?not?affect?our?view?as?to?how?a?reasonable?juror?would?have,?or?could?have,?understood?the?instructions?actually?given?in?this?case.?(Compare?People?v.?Hunter?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?957,?976?[264?Cal.Rptr.?367,?782?P.2d?608]?[concluding?to?similar?effect?on?the?record?there?considered];?People?v.?Hernandez?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?315,?352?[253?Cal.Rptr.?199,?763?P.2d?1289]?[same].)

FN?11.?We?note?in?passing?that?the?verb?”supply”?has?been?replaced?with?”make?up?for”?in?CALJIC?No.?2.61?(5th?ed.?1988?(1990?rev.)).

FN?12.?Defendant?claims?error?in?the?failure?by?the?People?to?separately?charge?and?prove?the?offenses?of?burglary?and?robbery.?He?argues?that?separate?charging?and?proof?is?required.?He?is?wrong.?There?is?no?such?requirement?insofar?as?the?crimes?in?question?underlie?first?degree?felony?murder.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Morris?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1,?14?[249?Cal.Rptr.?119,?756?P.2d?843].)?Neither?is?there?any?such?requirement?insofar?as?they?underlie?a?felony-murder?special?circumstance.?(Id.?at?pp.?14-18.)?Therefore,?the?People’s?failure?in?this?regard?was?not?erroneous.?Without?error,?of?course,?there?can?be?no?prejudice.

FN?13.?True,?in?People?v.?Velasquez,?supra,?28?Cal.3d?461,?462?(per?curiam),?we?stated?that?Adams?did?not?”alter”?a?finding?of?Witherspoon?error?that?we?had?made?in?People?v.?Velasquez,?supra,?26?Cal.3d?425,?which?sub?nomine?California?v.?Velasquez,?supra,?448?U.S.?903,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?subsequently?vacated?and?remanded?for?further?consideration?in?light?of?Adams.?Our?statement,?of?course,?did?not?alter?Adams’s?plain?words?or?their?clear?meaning.

FN?14.?In?People?v.?Kaurish?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?648,?699?[276?Cal.Rptr.?788,?802?P.2d?278],?we?stated?that?”The?real?question?[under?Witt]?is?whether?the?juror’s?attitude?will?’?”prevent?or?substantially?impair?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?a?juror?in?accordance?with?his?instructions?and?his?oath.”?’?[Citation.]?A?prospective?juror?personally?opposed?to?the?death?penalty?may?nonetheless?be?capable?of?following?his?oath?and?the?law.?A?juror?whose?personal?opposition?toward?the?death?penalty?may?predispose?him?to?assign?greater?than?average?weight?to?the?mitigating?factors?presented?at?the?penalty?phase?may?not?be?excluded,?unless?that?predilection?would?actually?preclude?him?from?engaging?in?the?weighing?process?and?returning?a?capital?verdict.”?Read?reasonably?and?in?context,?the?final?sentence?is?to?the?following?effect:?”A?juror?whose?personal?opposition?toward?the?death?penalty?may?predispose?him?to?assign?greater?than?average?weight?to?the?mitigating?factors?presented?at?the?penalty?phase?may?not?be?excluded,?unless?that?predilection?would?actually?preclude,?or?appreciably?impede,?him?from?engaging?in?the?weighing?process?and?returning?a?capital?verdict.”

FN?15.?We?recognize?that?certain?language?in?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?page?459,?may?perhaps?be?read?to?suggest?that?for?purposes?of?section?190.3,?trial?begins?sometime?after?the?cause?is?called.?Following?Daniels,?that?language?is?no?longer?viable.

FN?16.?In?moving?to?bar?Dr.?Yago?from?testifying,?defendant?asserted?through?counsel?that?any?opinion?she?might?have?formed?was?inadmissible?as?violative?of?”our?constitutional?right?to?confrontation?….”?He?now?urges?that?these?words?amounted?to?timely?and?specific?reliance?on?the?confrontation?clause?of?the?Sixth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?as?applied?to?the?states?through?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?Having?reviewed?the?pertinent?record,?we?cannot?agree.?But?if?we?were?inclined?to?proceed?beyond?the?threshold,?we?would?reject?the?point?on?the?merits.?Defendant’s?assertion?was?predicated?on?a?claim?that?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison?was?hearsay.?Of?course,?it?was?not.?For?purposes?of?the?confrontation?clause?(e.g.,?Tennessee?v.?Street?(1985)?471?U.S.?409,?413-414?[85?L.Ed.2d?425,?430-431,?105?S.Ct.?2078])-as?well?as?the?Evidence?Code?(Evid.?Code,???1200)-a?statement?is?hearsay?if?it?was?made?out?of?court?and?if?it?is?subsequently?introduced?in?court?for?its?truth.?Here,?the?People?did?not?seek?to?introduce?the?challenged?information?for?its?truth,?and?did?not?actually?do?so.?The?trial?court’s?instruction,?quoted?above,?was?an?”appropriate?way?to?limit?the?jury’s?use?of?that?evidence?in?a?manner?consistent?with?the?Confrontation?Clause.”?(Tennessee?v.?Street,?supra,?at?p.?417?[85?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?433].)

FN?17.?Defendant?claims?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?allowing?introduction?of?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison?for?any?purpose?whatever.?But?as?noted,?a?defendant?may?not?complain?here?that?evidence?was?inadmissible?on?a?certain?ground?if?he?did?not?rely?on?that?ground?in?a?timely?and?specific?fashion?below.?A?fortiori,?he?may?not?attack?the?admission?of?evidence?now?if?he?made?no?attack?before.?At?trial,?defendant?effectively?opposed?the?introduction?of?Dr.?Yago’s?testimony-but?not?the?introduction?of?the?information?provided?to?her?by?Allison:?his?motion?outside?the?jury’s?presence?sought?to?bar?Dr.?Yago?from?testifying;?his?objection?in?its?presence?expressly?”[r]enew[ed]”?that?motion.?Any?prejudice?that?the?challenged?information?may?have?threatened?must?be?deemed?to?have?been?prevented?by?the?court’s?limiting?instruction?to?the?jury.?We?presume?that?jurors?comprehend?and?accept?the?court’s?directions.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?699?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217].)?We?can,?of?course,?do?nothing?else.?The?crucial?assumption?underlying?our?constitutional?system?of?trial?by?jury?is?that?jurors?generally?understand?and?faithfully?follow?instructions.?(Francis?v.?Franklin,?supra,?471?U.S.?at?p.?325,?fn.?9?[85?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?360].)?Defendant’s?assertion?to?the?contrary?notwithstanding,?that?presumption?stands?unrebutted?here.?We?recognize?that?in?summation?the?prosecutor?referred?to?the?information?provided?to?Dr.?Yago?by?Allison?as?though?it?had?been?introduced?for?its?truth.?But?that?reference-which?was?brief?and?isolated-does?not?undermine?our?conclusion.

FN?18.?Defendant?appears?to?imply?that?the?trial?court?should?have?given,?on?his?request,?Defense?Instruction?No.?1,?which?states?as?relevant?here:?”[I]n?this?part?of?the?trial?the?law?does?not?forbid?you?from?being?influenced?by?pity?for?Douglas?Mickey?and?you?may?be?governed?by?mere?sentiment?and?sympathy?for?Douglas?Mickey?in?arriving?at?a?proper?penalty?in?this?case;?however,?the?law?does?forbid?you?from?being?governed?by?mere?conjecture,?prejudice,?public?opinion?or?public?feeling.”?Defendant?fails?to?acknowledge?that?he?himself?withdrew?his?request.

FN?19.?In?passing,?defendant?claims?that?”the?instruction?violated?the?federal?Constitution?by?leading?the?jury?to?believe?that?the?law?compelled?a?death?verdict?and?therefore?responsibility?for?the?verdict?lay?elsewhere?[citation]?and?by?unconstitutionally?curtailing?the?jurors’?discretion?to?return?a?punishment?less?than?death?if?they?believed?the?same?to?be?appropriate?under?all?the?relevant?evidence?placed?before?them.”?The?assertion?is?refuted?by?the?analysis?set?out?above.

FN?20.?We?note?that?the?trial?court?gave?the?following?instruction:?”Before?you?may?consider?a?particular?aggravating?circumstance?to?be?true,?you?must?be?satisfied?of?the?existence?of?that?aggravating?circumstance?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.”?Rightly?so.?The?only?potential?circumstances?in?aggravation?comprised?crimes,?present?adjudicated?or?prior?unadjudicated.?The?reasonable?doubt?standard,?of?course,?applies?both?to?the?former?(see,?e.g.,?Pen.?Code,???1096)?and?to?the?latter?(see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?809).

FN?21.?In?supplemental?briefing?before?oral?argument,?defendant?makes?a?perfunctory?attempt?to?clothe?various?of?his?contentions?in?federal?and?state?constitutional?garb.?He?fails.

FN?22.?Having?reviewed?the?record?in?its?entirety,?we?conclude?that?the?jury?found?that?defendant?actually?killed,?and?intended?to?kill,?Eric?Lee?Hanson?and?Catherine?Blount?within?the?meaning?of?Enmund?v.?Florida?(1982)?458?U.S.?782,?788-801?[73?L.Ed.2d?1140,?1145-1154,?102?S.Ct.?3368].?We?also?conclude?that?these?findings?are?amply?supported?and?adopt?them?as?our?own.?Accordingly,?we?hold?that?imposition?of?the?penalty?of?death?on?defendant?does?not?violate?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?Cabana?v.?Bullock?(1986)?474?U.S.?376,?386?[88?L.Ed.2d?704,?716,?106?S.Ct.?689].)