People?v.?Nicolaus?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?551?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?628;?817?P.2d?893
[No.?S004766.?Oct?24,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ROBERT?HENRY?NICOLAUS,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?109681,?Taketsugu?Takei,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Fern?M.?Laethem,?State?Public?Defender,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Dee?Hayashi?and?Nancy?Gayno,?Deputy?State?Public?Defenders,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?Gillette,?Ronald?S.?Matthias?and?Sharon?G.?Birenbaum,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[54?Cal.3d?561] OPINION
BAXTER,?J.
Defendant?Robert?Henry?Nicolaus?appeals?from?a?judgment?of?death?imposed?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law.?(Pen.?Code,???190.1?et?seq.)fn.?1?He?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murder?of?his?ex-wife,?Charlyce?Robinson.?(??187.)?A?firearm-use?enhancement?was?found?true.?(??12022.5.)?The?murder?was?committed?in?Sacramento?County;?defendant?successfully?moved?for?a?change?of?venue?and?the?case?was?ordered?transferred?to?Santa?Clara?County?for?trial.
Upon?his?conviction,?defendant?admitted?the?truth?of?the?three?alleged?prior-murder?special?circumstances,?having?been?previously?convicted?of?the?murders?of?his?three?children?in?1964.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(2).)?The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?at?death;?this?appeal?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).)
For?the?reasons?set?forth?hereafter,?we?conclude?that?the?judgment?should?be?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
- Facts
- Guilt?Phase
The?Murder
At?4?p.m.?on?February?22,?1985,?Ron?Landrith?and?his?father?Leon?were?in?a?lot?adjacent?to?their?residence?on?Eleanor?Street?in?Sacramento.?A?turquoise?Rambler?parked?in?the?alleyway?next?to?their?property?suddenly?pulled?into?an?adjoining?lot?and?came?to?a?stop?in?front?of,?and?blocking,?a?red?Volkswagen.?Defendant?got?out,?walked?over?to?the?Volkswagen,?and?began?screaming?at?a?woman?seated?therein,?stating?words?to?the?effect?of,?”How?could?you?do?this?to?me?”?He?reached?into?the?Volkswagen?and?started?beating?the?woman,?then?retrieved?a?handgun?from?the?Rambler?and?shot?her?in?the?chest.?Ron?ran?inside?to?call?the?police.?Leon?observed?defendant?walk?back?to?his?car,?stand?there?several?seconds,?then?return?to?the?Volkswagen?and?shoot?the?victim,?who?had?exited?or?fallen?from?the?car?to?the?ground,?a?second?time?at?point-blank?range.
As?defendant?drove?off,?the?Volkswagen?rolled?across?the?alley?and?came?to?a?stop?against?a?pole.?A?young?child?was?in?the?backseat.?Moments?later?defendant?drove?back?into?the?alley,?pulled?up?alongside?the?victim?who?was?lying?on?the?ground,?looked?at?her?for?several?seconds,?then?drove?off?again.?[54?Cal.3d?562]
The?Landriths?furnished?defendant’s?license?plate?number?to?police?who?arrived?on?the?scene?within?minutes.?Officer?Scott?testified?that?the?victim?was?found?lying?on?her?back?in?the?parking?lot,?her?face?covered?with?blood?and?a?gunshot?wound?to?her?chest,?crying,?”Oh?my?God,?my?baby,?where’s?my?baby?”?The?victim?was?later?identified?as?defendant’s?ex-wife?Charlyce?(Lisa)?Robinson.?When?asked?who?shot?her,?Lisa?replied,?”Robert?Nicolaus.”?She?repeated?defendant’s?name,?spelled?it,?and?stated?he?lived?on?Erickson?Street,?apartment?1.?The?officers?took?custody?of?Lisa’s?three-year-old?son?who?was?in?a?hysterical?state.?Defendant’s?address?was?obtained?through?a?Department?of?Motor?Vehicles?(DMV)?check;?officers?arrived?at?his?apartment?less?than?20?minutes?after?the?shooting?but?did?not?find?him?there.
The?victim?died?en?route?to?the?hospital.?An?autopsy?performed?the?following?day?revealed?extensive?facial?injuries?consistent?with?her?having?been?beaten?with?fists.?She?had?been?shot?twice;?once?through?the?lower?chest,?and?once?through?the?buttock.?Both?bullets?were?retrieved.?The?cause?of?death?was?hemorrhage?from?a?severed?aorta?caused?by?the?gunshot?wound?to?her?lower?chest.?Ballistics?tests?established?that?the?fatal?gunshot?had?been?fired?from?a?distance?of?four?to?eight?inches.
The?next?day,?police?located?defendant’s?Rambler?in?a?public?parking?lot.?A?.25-caliber?semiautomatic?handgun?was?observed?in?plain?view?on?the?front?floorboard?and?seized,?and?the?car?was?impounded.?A?second?handgun?in?a?bag?was?later?recovered?from?the?vehicle?during?the?execution?of?a?search?warrant.?Ballistics?tests?established?that?the?.25-caliber?handgun?was?the?murder?weapon.
Events?Leading?up?to?the?Murder
The?subsequent?investigation?revealed?defendant’s?bitter?and?long-standing?grudge?against?his?ex-wife.
Wilber?”Deke”?Bennett?had?known?defendant?since?1955.?Defendant?had?repeatedly?told?Bennett?that?Lisa?had?stolen?money?from?him.?Defendant?was?angry?and?bitter?about?this,?and?would?get?upset?when?he?talked?about?Lisa.?Prior?to?the?murder?he?sought?Bennett’s?assistance?in?locating?Lisa.?Bennett?denied?defendant?told?him?he?wanted?to?kidnap,?torture,?or?kill?Lisa,?or?that?he?(Bennett)?had?told?his?girlfriend,?Jillette?Kruhalski,?that?defendant?wanted?to?kidnap?Lisa.
Kruhalski?testified?that,?one?year?prior?to?the?murder,?defendant?had?asked?her?to?befriend?Lisa.?At?defendant’s?request,?Kruhalski?went?to?speak?with?Lisa?at?a?store?where?Lisa?worked;?on?another?occasion?she?and?defendant?[54?Cal.3d?563]?waited?for?Lisa?to?leave?work?and?then?followed?her.?Sometime?thereafter,?Bennett?told?Kruhalski?that?Lisa?had?stolen?money?from?defendant,?and?that?defendant?was?going?to?get?even?with?her.?Contrary?to?Bennett’s?testimony,?Kruhalski?recalled?that?six?months?before?Lisa?was?killed,?Bennett?informed?her?that?defendant?was?going?to?kidnap?Lisa.
Bennett’s?sister,?Orra?Thompson,?testified?that?sometime?in?1984?defendant?told?her?Lisa?and?her?mother?had?taken?$5,000?from?his?savings?account,?which?money?was?supposedly?earmarked?for?funeral?arrangements?for?defendant’s?children,?and?had?spent?it?on?themselves?instead.?Defendant?also?asked?Thompson?if?she?would?like?to?”work”?for?him,?offering?her?$1,000?plus?expenses?to?”get?to?know”?Lisa.?Thompson?was?to?obtain?information?for?him?on?Lisa’s?daily?activities?and?also?find?out?what?she?could?about?the?validity?of?defendant?and?Lisa’s?Mexican?divorce.?Defendant?told?Thompson?he?stood?to?inherit?some?money?when?his?mother?died?and?did?not?want?Lisa?to?get?any?of?it.?Thompson?never?actually?met?Lisa.?On?two?occasions?defendant?paid?her?$7?and?$25?respectively?for?her?attempts?to?contact?Lisa.?Although?defendant?never?expressed?a?desire?to?harm?his?ex-wife,?Thompson?perceived?that?he?harbored?bad?feelings?about?her,?and?that?she?would?not?cooperate?with?him.
“Deke”?Bennett’s?brother?Harry?knew?defendant?and?had?introduced?him?to?one?Dick?Winn?in?the?spring?of?1984.?Winn?testified?that?Harry?Bennett?and?defendant?asked?him?to?obtain?a?couple?of?pistols?for?them.?Winn?was?told?”throwaways”?would?be?fine.?Defendant?agreed?to?pay?for?the?guns,?and?$150?was?discussed?as?the?purchase?price.?Winn?understood?that?the?guns?were?to?be?used?in?retaliation?for?a?long-standing?grudge?which?defendant?bore?against?his?former?wife.?Defendant?claimed?she?had?run?off?with?his?”defense?money.”?When?Winn?suggested?defendant?consider?whether?he?could?get?away?with?the?plan,?defendant?replied?that?there?would?be?no?doubt?about?who?did?it,?and?that?he?did?not?care.?Defendant?and?Bennett?also?wanted?Winn?to?”grab”?Lisa?and?take?her?someplace?”where?noise?wouldn’t?make?no?difference”?so?that?defendant?could?”spend?some?time?with?her.”?They?offered?Winn?$2,000?to?do?the?”grabbing,”?and?he?agreed.?Winn?specifically?asked?defendant?whether?he?planned?to?kill?Lisa,?which?defendant?denied.?When?asked?why?he?wanted?to?”grab”?his?ex-wife,?defendant?replied?that?”it?wasn’t?for?any?picnic.”?Winn?was?unsuccessful?in?locating?any?handguns?and?ultimately?lost?interest?in?the?plan.
Lisa?had?a?15-year-old?daughter,?Donna?Johnson,?who?was?residing?with?her?in?1985.?Donna?testified?that?before?her?death?her?mother?was?involved?in?a?religious?organization?called?”The?Saints.”?She?recalled?frequently?seeing?defendant?at?the?grocery?store,?and?in?front?of?the?apartment?where?they?lived,?during?the?months?prior?to?her?mother’s?death.?Two?weeks?before?the?[54?Cal.3d?564]?murder,?defendant?confronted?Donna?and?Lisa?in?a?laundromat?and?”stared”?at?them?for?a?prolonged?period.?About?that?same?time?defendant?appeared?at?a?Saints’?meeting,?pounded?on?the?door,?and?demanded?to?speak?with?Lisa,?who?refused?to?see?him.
Donna?testified?she?was?acquainted?with?Pasquale?D’Antonoli,?who?was?an?alcoholic.?Shortly?before?the?murder?he?had?come?to?their?apartment?and?told?Lisa?he?needed?to?move?from?his?apartment?within?a?week.?He?returned?on?the?afternoon?of?her?mother’s?murder;?Lisa?was?not?home?at?that?time.
D’Antonoli?testified?he?had?known?defendant?since?1954?and?had?met?defendant’s?ex-wife?Lisa?while?they?were?married.?Three?or?four?days?prior?to?the?murder,?defendant?sought?his?assistance?in?”contacting”?Lisa.?D’Antonoli?agreed?to?offer?Lisa?some?money?to?help?him?”move?from?his?apartment.”?Defendant?told?D’Antonoli?he?could?not?contact?Lisa?himself?because?they?were?not?too?friendly,?and?that?he?wanted?to?discuss?the?legality?of?their?Mexican?divorce.?D’Antonoli?testified?that?defendant’s?desire?and?intent?to?harm?his?ex-wife?”showed.”?Defendant?promised?D’Antonoli?vodka?and?money?in?exchange?for?his?assistance.
During?the?days?prior?to?the?murder?defendant?drove?D’Antonoli?to?Lisa’s?apartment?three?times.?On?the?first?occasion?she?was?not?home;?defendant?gave?D’Antonoli?a?bottle?of?whiskey?for?his?efforts.?On?the?second?occasion?D’Antonoli?contacted?Lisa?and?she?agreed?to?help?him?move;?defendant?gave?D’Antonoli?some?liquor?and?”a?few?bucks”?for?these?accomplishments.?According?to?plan,?D’Antonoli?was?to?meet?Lisa?at?a?Lucky’s?market?and?have?her?drive?him?to?the?alley?off?Eleanor?Street.?Defendant?and?D’Antonoli?visited?the?location.?The?night?before?the?murder?D’Antonoli?stayed?at?defendant’s?apartment,?got?drunk,?and?went?over?the?plan.
On?the?afternoon?of?the?murder?D’Antonoli?and?defendant?drove?to?the?vicinity?of?Lucky’s?and?parked.?Defendant?began?jogging.?D’Antonoli?met?Lisa?according?to?plan?and?got?in?her?car.?While?they?were?driving,?Lisa?saw?defendant?jogging?and?pointed?him?out?to?D’Antonoli,?who?revealed?nothing?of?the?plan.?When?they?reached?the?alley,?D’Antonoli?noticed?defendant’s?car?parked?nearby.?Once?in?the?alley,?D’Antonoli?told?Lisa?he?would?be?right?back?and?walked?off.?He?passed?defendant,?who?was?alone?in?his?car?with?the?motor?running.?Defendant?asked,?”Is?she?in?the?car?over?there?”?D’Antonoli?replied,?”Yes,?I’ll?see?you?later.”?D’Antonoli?testified?that?Lisa’s?little?boy?was?in?her?car?at?the?time.?D’Antonoli?left?the?scene?to?buy?liquor?with?the?$30?defendant?had?given?him.?[54?Cal.3d?565] Events?Subsequent?to?the?Murder
On?the?day?following?the?murder,?Sacramento?police?officers?executed?a?search?warrant?at?defendant’s?apartment.?Defendant?had?not?returned?to?the?apartment.?During?the?search?a?manila?folder?was?seized?from?atop?a?desk?in?the?living?room.?Numerous?handwritten?documents?were?inside?the?folder;?expert?testimony?established?they?had?been?written?by?defendant.?The?bulk?of?the?documents?contained?notations?of?defendant’s?feelings?about?Lisa?and?various?schemes?for?revenge.?They?outlined?plans?to?get?the?victim?to?various?locations,?and?items?that?defendant?would?have?to?procure?in?order?to?carry?out?his?intentions?of?kidnapping?or?harming?her.?Several?of?the?plans?tracked?the?testimony?of?D’Antonoli,?Bennett,?Winn,?Thompson,?and?Kruhalski?concerning?the?events?leading?up?to?Lisa’s?murder.?One?writing?described?plans?for?D’Antonoli?to?direct?Lisa?to?a?chosen?spot,?ostensibly?to?help?him?move,?with?references?to?an?alternate?plan?if?she?balked.?There?was?a?reference?to?D’Antonoli?removing?her?blindfold?and?gag.?Other?documents?contained?notations?about?how?Lisa’s?confidence?might?be?gained.?Another,?entitled?”Contract,”?made?reference?to?a?$1,000?contract?with?”Orra”?for?the?befriending?of?Lisa.?Yet?another?appeared?to?be?a?packing?list,?and?included?items?such?as?acid,?an?ax,?a?sleeping?bag,?rope,?tape,?and?things?to?”get?from?car.”?Another?document,?entitled?”Disposal,”?made?reference?to?various?Sacramento?bars?and?contained?the?notations?”dumpster,”?”hospital,”?and?”church.”
Several?documents?evidenced?defendant’s?scorn?and?hatred?of?religion,?in?particular?the?sect?of?Christianity?to?which?his?ex-wife?belonged.?Others?revealed?his?apparent?intense?hatred?of?Lisa,?her?mother?Ione,?a?couple?surnamed?the?”Nieces,”?and?the?wrongs?he?believed?they?had?all?committed?against?him.?He?referred?to?Lisa?and?her?mother?as?the?”Satanic?Sisterhood,”?”evil?incarnate,”?and?the?”two?main?ultimate?causes?of?my?children’s?demise.”?Lisa?was?characterized?in?one?document?as?the?”accursed?whore?…?who?destroyed?all?possible?chances?for?a?good?life?for?my?children?and?myself,”?and?as?”the?archdemon?of?destruction”?in?a?document?dated?January?1,?1985?(less?than?two?months?prior?to?the?murder),?which?read:
“It?is?my?single?resolve?to?avenge?my?children’s?destruction?before?I?enter?my?52nd?year,?so?that?I?may?slip?away?from?this?world?at?peace?with?myself.?Woe?to?the?archdemon?who?destroyed?us?almost?21?years?ago.?[?]?Before?I?entered?my?32nd?year,?my?children?were?destroyed.?Before?I?enter?my?52nd?year,?the?archdemon?who?destroyed?my?children?will?be?brought?to?book,?so?I?swear.?The?archdemon?of?destruction?will?itself?suffer?destruction.?I?swear?this.?Some?people,?the?fortunate,?die?quickly.?Other?people,?the?unfortunate,?[54?Cal.3d?566]?die?slowly.?I?am?one?of?the?unfortunates.”?(Defendant?turned?52?years?old?exactly?6?days?before?killing?his?ex-wife.)
“Deke”?Bennett?testified?he?learned?about?Lisa’s?death?from?news?reports.?He?received?a?collect?call?from?defendant?on?the?day?following?her?murder.?Defendant?asked?Bennett?whom?he?had?hurt;?Bennett?replied?that?as?far?as?he?knew,?only?Lisa,?who?had?died.?Defendant?said?nothing?to?indicate?any?surprise?at?hearing?this?news.?When?Bennett?asked?defendant?where?he?was,?defendant?replied,?”I’m?buried.”?Although?contacted?by?a?Sacramento?detective?the?following?day,?Bennett?did?not?reveal?that?he?had?spoken?with?defendant?at?that?time.
Bennett?received?another?collect?call?from?defendant?10?days?after?the?murder.?Defendant?wanted?to?know?who?had?been?questioned?or?arrested?for?the?crime.?This?time?Bennett?informed?police?defendant?had?called.?Bennett’s?telephone?bill?reflected?that?the?call?had?been?placed?from?New?York?City.
Defendant?was?arrested?by?FBI?agents?in?York,?Pennsylvania?on?July?20,?1985.?At?first?he?claimed?his?name?was?Pasco?D’Antonoli.?After?admitting?his?true?name?and?waiving?his?Miranda?rights,?defendant?asserted?he?had?no?knowledge?of?the?murder?of?his?ex-wife.?He?claimed?he?left?Sacramento?a?day?or?two?before?the?date?of?the?murder?and?traveled?to?New?York?City,?Washington,?D.C.,?and?Virginia.?He?admitted?feeling?the?victim?owed?him?$5,000,?but?claimed?he?did?not?know?where?she?lived?and?had?not?spoken?to?her?since?sometime?in?1984.?He?denied?knowing?he?was?wanted?for?murder?and?maintained?he?had?not?touched?a?handgun?since?1964.?When?confronted?with?the?fact?that?Lisa?had?named?him?as?her?murderer?in?her?dying?declaration,?he?suggested?she?was?confused?or?lying?and?that?he?was?being?”framed.”
Defense
At?the?close?of?the?People’s?case-in-chief,?the?defense?rested?without?presenting?any?evidence.?The?thrust?of?defense?counsel’s?argument?to?the?jury?was?that?defendant?was?guilty,?at?most,?of?second?degree?murder.?Counsel?emphasized?passages?from?the?documents?seized?from?defendant’s?apartment?which,?it?was?argued,?indicated?his?desire?to?harm,?but?not?kill,?his?ex-wife.?Counsel?argued?it?was?a?mere?fortuity?that?the?first?bullet?had?severed?the?victim’s?aorta?and?proved?fatal,?urging?that?if?defendant?had?intended?to?kill?Lisa,?he?would?have?finished?her?off?with?the?second?shot?instead?of?shooting?her?in?the?buttock.?[54?Cal.3d?567]
- Special?Circumstances
Defendant?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murders?of?his?three?children?in?1964,?and?was?sentenced?to?death.?In?1967,?this?court?modified?the?judgment?by?reducing?the?crimes?to?murder?of?the?second?degree?and,?as?so?modified,?affirmed?the?judgment.?(People?v.?Nicolaus?(1967)?65?Cal.2d?866,?883-884?[56?Cal.Rptr.?635,?423?P.2d?787]?[maj.?opn.?by?Burke,?J.;?dis.?opn.?by?Mosk,?J.].)?Defendant?served?a?prison?term?until?his?release?on?parole?in?1977.
These?three?convictions?formed?the?basis?of?the?prior-murder?special?circumstances?alleged?herein.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(2).)?According?to?a?pretrial?agreement,?the?jury?was?never?informed?at?the?guilt?phase?of?the?fact?that?defendant?had?been?convicted?of?the?murders?of?his?three?children.?After?the?jury?returned?its?verdict?finding?defendant?guilty?of?first?degree?murder,?defendant?elected,?for?tactical?reasons,?to?admit?the?truth?of?the?prior-murder?special-circumstance?allegations?(so?that?the?jury?would?not?learn?he?had?initially?been?sentenced?to?death?for?those?murders),?and?the?trial?proceeded?to?the?penalty?phase.
- Penalty?Phase
Prosecution?Case
The?prosecution’s?penalty?phase?case?consisted?of?the?brief?testimony?of?two?witnesses?to?establish?the?essential?facts?underlying?defendant’s?convictions?of?the?murders?of?his?children.?Roberta,?age?seven,?and?Donald,?age?five,?were?the?children?of?defendant?and?his?former?common?law?wife,?Jeannie?Lara.?Heidi,?age?two,?was?the?child?of?defendant?and?Lisa.
Alejo?Lara,?Jeannie?Lara’s?husband?at?the?time,?testified?that?defendant?would?regularly?pick?up?Donald?and?Roberta?to?visit?with?them.?On?May?23,?1964,?he?picked?them?up?to?have?their?portraits?done.?On?the?following?day?Lara?received?a?phone?call?from?Lisa,?defendant’s?wife?at?the?time.?She?indicated?defendant?had?locked?his?three?children?in?the?trunk?of?his?car,?which?was?parked?in?Sacramento.?Lara?went?out?in?search?of?his?two?stepchildren?and?found?defendant’s?car?about?the?same?time?police?located?it.?The?three?children?were?found?shot?to?death?in?the?trunk.?Two-year-old?Heidi?had?four?bullet?wounds?to?her?head;?seven-year-old?Roberta?and?five-year-old?Donald?each?had?three?gunshot?wounds?to?their?heads.?All?the?shots?had?been?fired?at?point-blank?range.
Defense?Case
Defendant?presented?evidence?regarding?the?circumstances?leading?up?to?his?murder?of?his?three?children?and,?twenty?years?later,?his?ex-wife.?Various?[54?Cal.3d?568]?witnesses?testified?about?his?upbringing?and?psychological?profile;?defendant?himself?took?the?stand?but?limited?his?testimony?to?facts?surrounding?Lisa’s?murder.
Defendant’s?mother?was?a?strict?Catholic.?He?attempted?to?conform?to?her?standards;?until?age?20?he?did?not?smoke,?drink,?or?date?women.?In?his?teenage?years?he?began?to?harbor?doubts?about?religion,?which?created?a?conflict?at?home.?Defendant?was?characterized?throughout?his?college?years?as?quiet,?shy,?somewhat?naive?and?studious.?One?friend?characterized?him?as?”brilliant,”?and?a?defense?psychiatrist?testified?he?had?a?relatively?high?IQ.
In?1953,?at?age?20,?defendant?joined?the?Air?Force.?While?in?the?service?he?began?to?smoke,?drink?heavily,?and?visit?prostitutes.?He?studied?Marxism?and?became?an?atheist.?On?one?occasion?he?got?drunk?and?”passive?oral?copulation”?was?performed?on?him?by?another?man.?As?a?result?of?this?incident,?defendant?was?discharged?from?the?armed?services.
In?1956,?defendant?began?cohabiting?with?Jeannie?Lara.?Although?they?never?married,?two?children,?Donald?and?Roberta,?were?born?of?the?relationship.?Defendant?characterized?Lara?as?promiscuous?and?as?having?low?moral?and?social?standards.
In?1960,?defendant?sought?to?gain?custody?of?Donald?and?Roberta.?An?attorney?advised?him?he?would?have?to?establish?a?home?and?family?life?to?demonstrate?he?could?provide?for?the?children.?Shortly?thereafter?he?married?Lisa,?who?was?15?years?old?at?the?time.?He?married?Lisa?because?she?was?pregnant,?because?he?wanted?to?get?her?away?from?her?mother?Ione,?and?to?further?his?objective?of?establishing?a?family?to?gain?custody?of?the?children.
After?the?birth?of?their?daughter?Heidi,?defendant?was?determined?that?they?live?decent?lives.?He?quit?drinking,?began?living?very?frugally,?and?fed?the?family?spaghetti?and?beans?in?order?to?save?all?his?money.?He?felt?Lisa’s?mother?Ione?was?promiscuous?and?would?be?a?bad?influence?on?the?children,?so?he?prohibited?Lisa?from?seeing?her.
On?May?22,?1964,?Lisa?told?defendant?she?was?leaving?him.?He?became?despondent,?not?wanting?Lisa?and?Heidi?to?move?in?with?Ione,?and?viewing?the?circumstances?as?destroying?his?hope?of?establishing?a?stable?family?life?by?which?to?gain?custody?of?his?other?two?children.?On?the?following?day?he?took?all?three?of?his?children,?ostensibly?to?have?their?photographs?taken.?He?bought?them?toys?and?candy?to?make?them?happy,?took?them?for?a?ride,?placed?them?in?the?trunk?of?his?car?and?fatally?shot?each?child?in?the?order?of?their?birth.?Defendant?told?a?court-appointed?psychiatrist?at?the?time?of?his?[54?Cal.3d?569]?trial?for?the?murders?that?he?had?come?to?believe?the?children?would?be?better?off?dead,?and?that?his?deeds?were?the?”final?fatherly?act”?he?could?do?for?them.
Evidence?was?also?presented?regarding?defendant’s?service?of?his?13-year?prison?term?for?the?3?murders.?He?was?interested?in?behavioral?psychology,?and?had?a?job?scoring?fellow?inmates’?psychological?tests?while?incarcerated.?He?also?corresponded?with?his?former?psychology?professor?at?Sacramento?State?University.?Defendant?was?released?in?1977?and?remained?violation?free?while?on?parole.?He?worked?as?a?warehouseman,?custodian,?and?gardener;?his?employers?testified?that?he?was?a?hard?worker.?He?kept?up?his?contacts?with?his?Sacramento?State?psychology?professor?and?was?introduced?to?another?psychology?professor?whose?class?defendant?audited.?He?was?particularly?interested?in?”operant?conditioning,”?and?submitted?two?articles?to?a?behavioral?psychology?association?that?were?ultimately?published.?Several?people?testified?to?defendant’s?good?character?since?boyhood;?a?neighbor?testified?she?had?observed?defendant?with?his?children?and?never?heard?him?utter?a?cross?word?on?those?occasions.
Defendant?testified?about?the?circumstances?culminating?in?his?shooting?of?Lisa.?He?identified?what?he?believed?were?the?”three?unfinished?items?of?business”?at?the?time?of?his?release?from?prison:?his?strong?desire?to?reunite?his?three?children?in?a?common?grave,?his?belief?that?he?might?come?into?an?inheritance?and?the?concern?that?Lisa?could?lay?claim?to?it?if?their?Mexican?divorce?was?invalid,?and?his?obsession?with?Lisa’s?prior?misuse?or?diversion?of?his?money.
Once?paroled,?defendant?contacted?Lisa?in?1978?to?obtain?her?written?consent?to?his?plan?for?the?children’s?joint?burial.?She?never?followed?through?or?took?any?action.?”The?idea?floated?through?[his]?mind”?to?harm?her?in?some?way?at?that?time,?but?defendant?testified,?”I?had?no?money,?I?had?no?car.?I?was?totally?without?resources.?Any?chance?of?getting?away,?quite?frankly,?would?have?been?extremely?unlikely.?And?so?I?let?the?matter?drop.?…?I?thought,?well,?I’ll?wait?and?see?what?develops.”
Defendant?then?lost?contact?with?Lisa,?other?than?a?few?chance?encounters?in?1981?through?1983.?On?March?20,?1984,?he?visited?his?daughter?Heidi’s?grave.?It?was?”a?very?terrible?emotional?experience”?for?him,?and?he?began?contemplating?a?plan?to?harm?his?ex-wife.?He?testified?he?thought?at?that?time,?”Well,?I’ve?got?some?money?now.?I?want?to?leave?Sacramento?anyway.?I?can’t?go?anywhere?except?downhill.?I?think?I’ll?settle?this?old?account?and?leave.”?He?began?writing?the?documents?later?seized?upon?his?arrest,?kept?them?together?in?a?folder?on?his?desk,?and?continued?writing?them?up?to?[54?Cal.3d?570]?within?a?few?days?of?the?killing?(February?22,?1985).?He?testified?he?wrote?things?down?so?he?would?not?forget?them?or?become?too?forgiving.
Defendant?admitted?enlisting?the?assistance?of?Jillette?Kruhalski?and?Orra?Thompson?in?1984?to?help?him?reestablish?contact?with?Lisa.?On?August?21,?1984,?he?observed?Lisa?driving?a?van?for?a?local?church?group.?He?characterized?this?encounter?in?his?writings?as?”the?first?sighting,”?and?began?what?he?deemed?was?his?final?”six-month?effort”?to?do?her?harm.
Defendant?admitted?listing?”acid”?as?an?item?to?bring?along?for?his?final?confrontation?with?Lisa.?He?claimed?he?was?only?planning?to?use?it?to?”scare?her,”?and?admitted?he?had?a?bottle?of?battery?acid?in?his?trunk?on?the?day?of?the?killing.?He?explained?that,?according?to?one?of?his?plans,?”the?sleeping?bag?was?to?cover?her?up?with?so?that?she?wouldn’t?be?seen?in?the?course?of?being?transported.”?When?asked?what?he?meant?by?his?notation,?”Dispose?at?Nugget,?Larry’s,?Nite?Hawk,?Honey?Bucket,?Busy?Bee,?Sigot,?North?Highlands,”?defendant?testified,?”Apparently?what?I?was?thinking?of?then,?I?wanted?to?make?sure?I?would?drop?her?off?at?a?place?where?she?would?quickly?be?discovered?so?she-so?that?she?could?be?rushed?to?the?hospital.”
Defendant?denied?any?intent?to?kill?Lisa.?He?only?wanted?to?”punish”?her?psychologically?and?physically,?to?inflict?pain?and?cause?her?unhappiness,?by?putting?her?in?the?hospital?for?two?or?three?weeks.?He?knew?he?might?face?a?prison?sentence?for?his?actions,?but?carried?through?with?his?plan?out?of?extreme?bitterness?toward?Lisa?for?having?unforgivably?enriched?herself?at?the?expense?of?his?children.?He?still?blamed?her?for?the?children’s?deaths.?He?planned?to?drop?Lisa?off?at?a?hospital?after?harming?her?to?ensure?she?would?get?proper?care?and?survive.?He?knew?he?would?have?to?leave?town?since?she?would?call?the?police.?After?shooting?her,?”something?went?wrong”?and?help?did?not?arrive.?He?returned?to?the?scene?to?make?sure?her?child?was?safe.?The?following?day,?when?he?called?Deke?Bennett,?defendant?first?learned?Lisa?had?died?of?her?gunshot?wounds.?Defendant?could?not?figure?out?how?she?had?died.
- Jury?Selection?Issues
- Denial?Of?Jury?Selected?From?Representative?Cross-section?of?Community.
We?have?repeatedly?rejected?this?claim.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1214?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047];?People?v.?Harris?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1047,?1076-1078?[255?Cal.Rptr.?352,?767?P.2d?619];?People?v.?Milan?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?185,?195-196?[107?Cal.Rptr.?68,?507?P.2d?956].)?”Claims?of?denial?of?a?fair?cross-sectional?jury?are?analyzed?by?ascertaining?whether?a?cognizable?class?has?been?excluded.?(People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?345?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680].)”?(People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1214.)?As?in?People?v.?Harris,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?page?1078,?”[Defendant]?has?not?established?that?the?persons?excluded?on?hardship?grounds?in?this?case?constitute?a?cognizable?class.?He?suggests?that?the?resulting?panel?consisted?only?of?persons?who?did?not?need?employment,?or?whose?employers?continued?their?salaries,?but?the?record?confirms?neither?this?claim?nor?the?implicit?assertion?that?those?persons?who?were?excused?constitute?a?cognizable?class.?[Fns.?omitted.]”fn.?2
Furthermore,?there?was?a?lengthy?discussion?of?the?issue?of?jury?fees,?and?what?constitutes?a?”cognizable?class,”?prior?to?jury?selection.?The?record?reflects?that?the?trial?court?was?fully?aware?of?its?duty?to?be?”alert?to?prevent?…?excessive?excuses?on?such?grounds?as?sex,?age,?job?obligations,?or?inadequate?jury?fees?….”?(People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258,?273?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748].)
- Separate?Guilt?and?Penalty?Phase?Juries.
Prior?to?trial,?it?was?agreed?by?the?court?and?both?parties?that?no?evidence?of?defendant’s?prior?murder?convictions?would?be?introduced?at?the?guilt?phase.?Thereafter,?before?commencement?of?jury?voir?dire,?the?defense?moved?for?separate?guilt?and?penalty?phase?juries.?Since?the?People’s?case-?in-aggravation?at?the?penalty?phase?would?center?around?defendant’s?prior?murder?of?his?three?children,?counsel?argued?separate?juries?were?necessary?to?permit?full?voir?dire?of?the?jury?for?penalty?phase?bias-while?ensuring?that?the?jurors?would?not?learn?of?the?convictions?from?the?voir?dire?questions?[54?Cal.3d?572]?prior?to?the?guilt?phase.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion?for?separate?juries;?it?was?renewed?at?the?completion?of?the?guilt?phase?and?again?denied.
[2a]?Defendant?contends?he?was?thereby?denied?the?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?penalty?phase?jury.?While?recognizing?that?our?death?penalty?statute?calls?for?a?single?jury?to?hear?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases?of?a?capital?trial,?he?urges?that?a?unitary?jury?is?not?mandatory,?that?separate?juries?are?authorized?on?a?showing?of?”good?cause,”?and?that?good?cause?existed?in?this?case?due?to?the?uniquely?inflammatory?nature?of?his?prior?conviction?of?the?murders?of?his?three?young?children. [3]?Section?190.4,?subdivision?(c),?provides:?”If?the?trier?of?fact?which?convicted?the?defendant?of?a?crime?for?which?he?may?be?subject?to?the?death?penalty?was?a?jury,?the?same?jury?shall?consider?…?the?truth?of?any?special?circumstances?which?may?be?alleged,?and?the?penalty?to?be?applied,?unless?for?good?cause?shown?the?court?discharges?that?jury?in?which?case?a?new?jury?shall?be?drawn.?The?court?shall?state?facts?in?support?of?the?finding?of?good?cause?upon?the?record?and?cause?them?to?be?entered?into?the?minutes.”The?statute?thus?expresses?a?clear?legislative?intent?that?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases?of?a?capital?trial?be?tried?by?the?same?jury.?(People?v.?Beardslee?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?68,?102?[279?Cal.Rptr.?276,?806?P.2d?1311];?People?v.?Balderas?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?144,?204?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480];?People?v.?Thornton?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?738,?753?[114?Cal.Rptr.?467,?523?P.2d?267].)?”The?preference?for?a?single?jury?is?by?no?means?a?one-sided?matter;?such?a?procedure?may?provide?distinct?benefits?for?both?the?prosecution?and?the?defense.?From?the?prosecution’s?point?of?view,?the?use?of?a?single?jury?to?determine?both?guilt?and?penalty?may?make?it?less?likely?that?a?juror’s?belief?as?to?the?inappropriateness?of?the?death?penalty?will?improperly?skew?the?determination?of?guilt?or?innocence?….?From?defendant’s?perspective,?the?use?of?a?single?jury?may?help?insure?that?the?ultimate?decision-maker?in?capital?cases?acts?with?full?recognition?of?the?gravity?of?its?responsibility?throughout?both?phases?of?the?trial?and?will?also?guarantee?that?the?penalty?phase?jury?is?aware?of?lingering?doubts?that?may?have?survived?the?guilt?phase?deliberations.”?(People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?352?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680]?[plur.?opn.?of?Broussard,?J.];?see?id.?at?p.?374?[conc.?opn.?of?Kaus,?J.];?Buchanan?v.?Kentucky?(1987)483?U.S.?402,?417?[97?L.Ed.2d?336,?351-352,?107?S.Ct.?2906];?Lockhart?v.?McCree?(1986)?476?U.S.?162,?180-181?[90?L.Ed.2d?137,?152-153,?106?S.Ct.?1758].)
Recently,?we?held?that?a?pretrial?arrangement?for?separate?juries?was?proper?where?”the?arrangement?was?agreed?to,?prior?to?trial,?by?both?the?[54?Cal.3d?573]?prosecution?and?the?defense,?and?implemented?by?order?of?the?court?pursuant?to?its?discretion?under?section?190.4,?subdivision?(c).”?(People?v.?Beardslee,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?101-?102.)?Absent?such?mutual?consent?and?court?approval,?however,?”[s]ection?190.4,?subdivision?(c)?protects?the?prosecution?and?the?defense?against?being?deprived?of?the?benefits?of?a?single?jury?against?either?party’s?will.”?(Id.?at?p.?102,?italics?added.)
[2b]?In?this?case?the?motion?for?separate?juries?was?grounded?solely?on?the?defense?desire?to?voir?dire?in?one?way?for?the?guilt?phase?and?a?different?way?for?the?penalty?phase.?Unlike?the?situation?in?Beardslee,?here?the?prosecutor?opposed?the?motion,?observing?that?there?were?neutral?ways?to?frame?questions?to?the?prospective?jurors?to?probe?for?potential?biases?regarding?prior?murder?convictions?without?arousing?their?suspicions?that?defendant?had?in?fact?been?convicted?of?murdering?his?children.?For?example,?several?special?circumstances?could?have?been?defined,?including?the?”prior?murder”?special?circumstance,?and?the?prospective?jurors?asked,?regarding?each?such?special?circumstance,?whether?it?would?cause?him?or?her?to?automatically?vote?for?death.?Or?they?could?have?been?asked?if?they?could?be?impartial?regardless?of?whether?the?victim?was?male?or?female,?an?adult?or?child,?related?to?the?defendant?or?a?stranger,?etc.Indeed,?at?one?point?during?the?hearing?on?the?pretrial?motions,?when?the?court?was?defining?the?scope?of?its?order?excluding?guilt?phase?evidence?of?the?prior?murders,?defense?counsel?indicated,?”As?to?whether?we?mention?in?voir?dire?how?much?negative?information?we?give?to?the?jury,?with?the?court’s?ruling?that?we’re?talking?about?now,?I’m?sure?that?I?could?tailor?my?inquiry?of?the?jurors?in?such?a?way?as?to?alert?them?to?the?importance?of?the?trial?without?really?going?into?the?matters?we’re?seeking?to?exclude?here.”
In?almost?every?capital?trial,?regardless?of?the?special?circumstances?alleged,?there?will?be?evidence?introduced?at?the?penalty?phase?(i.e.,?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?background,?criminal?record,?or?propensity?for?violence?admissible?under?one?or?more?statutory?aggravating?factors)?which?would?otherwise?be?irrelevant?or?inadmissible?in?the?determination?of?guilt.?Defense?counsel?are?routinely?faced?with?difficult?tactical?decisions?in?having?to?fashion?voir?dire?inquiries?that?probe?for?possible?penalty?phase?biases?regarding?such?evidence,?while?stopping?short?of?revealing?information?otherwise?prejudicial?and?excludable?in?the?guilt?phase.?Certainly?such?will?almost?always?be?the?case?where?the?special?circumstance?alleged?is?a?prior?murder?or?murders.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Lanphear?(1980)?26?Cal.3d?814,?831?[163?Cal.Rptr.?601,?608?P.2d?689].)?The?mere?desire?to?lessen?or?eliminate?such?tactical?decisions?in?the?voir?dire?of?a?capital?jury,?without?more,?and?absent?a?mutual?arrangement?by?the?parties?for?separate?juries?approved?by?the?trial?court,?does?not?constitute?”good?cause”?for?deviating?from?the?clear?[54?Cal.3d?574]?legislative?mandate?of?section?190.4,?subdivision?(c)-that?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases?of?a?capital?trial?be?tried?by?the?same?jury.
III.?Guilt?Phase?Issues
- Validity?of?the?Search?Warrant.
Minutes?after?the?shooting,?the?victim,?still?conscious,?informed?police?arriving?on?the?scene?that?she?had?been?shot?by?Robert?Nicolaus?who?lived?in?the?”first?apartment”?on?Erickson?Street.?Eyewitness?Ron?Landrith?furnished?a?description?of?defendant,?his?vehicle,?and?its?license?plate?number.?Defendant’s?exact?address?was?obtained?through?DMV?records;?officers?arrived?at?his?apartment?less?than?20?minutes?after?the?shooting.?On?the?following?day?defendant’s?car?was?located?and?the?murder?weapon?was?observed?in?plain?view?and?seized?from?the?passenger?compartment.?Homicide?investigators?also?learned?from?the?Department?of?Justice?Command?Center?that?defendant?had?been?convicted?of?three?counts?of?murder?in?1964?and?released?on?parole?in?1977.
Armed?with?this?information,?the?police?obtained?the?first?search?warrant?for?defendant’s?Erickson?Street?apartment?that?same?day.fn.?3?The?warrant?directed?officers?to?search?for?a?number?of?items,?including:?”1.?Letters,?papers,?bills?tending?to?show?the?occupants?of?2335?Erickson?St.?#1.”?The?manila?folder,?containing?a?number?of?handwritten?and?typed?documents,?was?seized?from?the?top?of?defendant’s?desk?during?the?search?pursuant?to?this?warrant.?At?oral?argument,?appellate?counsel?conceded?that?”the?folder?was?out?in?plain?view.”
We?conclude?that?the?trial?court?properly?denied?defendant’s?pretrial?motion?to?quash?the?warrant?and?suppress?the?contents?of?the?seized?folder.?(??1538.5.)?The?search?authorized?under?item?No.?1?of?the?warrant?was?[54?Cal.3d?575]?sufficiently?particularized,?permitting?the?officers?to?search?for?letters,?papers?and?bills?tending?to?show?who?occupied?the?apartment.?Similar?dominion-and-control?clauses?in?warrants?have?been?upheld?by?the?courts.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Rogers?(1986)?187?Cal.App.3d?1001,?1005-1008?[232?Cal.Rptr.?294];?United?States?v.?Whitten?(9th?Cir.?1983)706?F.2d?1000,?1008-1009,?cert.?den.?465?U.S.?1100?[80?L.Ed.2d?125,?104?S.Ct.?1593].)
We?note?the?record?reflects?that?one?police?report?indicated?defendant?may?have?had?several?addresses.?Nor?was?there?any?evidence?presented?at?the?hearing?to?suggest?the?police?knew?defendant?lived?alone.?The?investigating?officers’?good?faith?is?further?reflected?in?the?fact?that?a?deputy?district?attorney’s?review?of?the?search?warrant?application?was?obtained?before?it?was?presented?to?the?magistrate.?In?any?event,?the?officers?acted?entirely?properly?in?seeking?independent?evidence?to?establish?defendant’s?occupancy?of?the?apartment,?and?defendant’s?control?over?any?evidence?seized?therefrom,?for?presentation?in?court.
Defendant’s?further?suggestion?that?even?if?the?officers?were?authorized?to?look?into?the?folder?for?indicia?of?occupancy,?they?were?nevertheless?not?justified?in?”reading”?and?seizing?the?documents,?is?unavailing.?[5]?”[W]hen?conditions?justify?an?agent?in?examining?a?ledger,?notebook,?journal,?or?similar?item,?he?or?she?may?briefly?peruse?writing?contained?therein.?[Citations.]?The?justification?may?arise?from?’a?”reasonable?suspicion”?to?believe?that?the?discovered?item?is?evidence,’?[citation]?…;?or?it?may?arise?from?the?authority?conferred?by?a?warrant?to?search?for?certain?items?which?might?reasonably?be?expected?to?be?found?within?such?a?book?….?In?either?case,?the?plain?view?doctrine?would?permit?brief?perusal?of?the?book’s?contents?and,?consequently,?its?seizure?if?such?perusal?gives?the?examining?agent?probable?cause?to?believe?that?the?book?constitutes?evidence.”?(United?States?v.?Issacs?(9th?Cir.?1983)?708?F.2d?1365,?1370,?cert.?den.?464?U.S.?852?[78?L.Ed.2d?150,?104?S.Ct.?165].)
[4b]?For?purposes?of?applying?the?plain?view?doctrine?in?this?context,?the?search?of?the?folder?for?indicia?of?occupancy?here?is?no?different?than?the?federal?agents’?perusal?of?bound?journals?for?rent?receipts?and?counterfeit?notes?in?Issacs.?A?rent?receipt,?bill?stub?or?lease?might?reasonably?be?expected?to?be?found?in?a?folder?on?a?desk.?Finally,?the?trial?court?opined?that?the?incriminating?nature?of?the?documents?here?in?question?”hit?my?eyes?within?seconds?after?I?was?asked?to?look?at?[them],”?and?that?they?were?”immediately?recognizable?as?evidence?in?this?case.”?Our?own?review?of?the?record?confirms?the?validity?of?these?findings.- Sufficiency?of?Evidence?of?Premeditation?and?Deliberation.
We?must?determine?whether?there?was?evidence?of?(1)?defendant’s?planning?activity?prior?to?the?homicide;?(2)?his?motive?to?kill,?as?gleaned?from?his?prior?relationship?or?conduct?with?the?victim;?and?(3)?the?manner?of?killing,?from?which?may?be?inferred?that?defendant?had?a?preconceived?design?to?kill.?”[T]his?court?sustains?verdicts?of?first?degree?murder?typically?when?there?is?evidence?of?all?three?types?and?otherwise?requires?at?least?extremely?strong?evidence?of?(1)?or?evidence?of?(2)?in?conjunction?with?either?(1)?or?(3).”?(People?v.?Anderson?(1968)?70?Cal.2d?15,?27?[73?Cal.Rptr.?550,?447?P.2d?942].)
[6b]?Ample?evidence?under?all?three?Anderson?categories?was?presented?in?this?case.?We?have?fully?set?forth?the?record?facts?(ante,?at?pp.?561-570)?and?need?not?recount?them?all?here.?The?many?personal?documents?seized?from?defendant’s?apartment,?and?the?testimony?of?numerous?witnesses?whose?assistance?defendant?solicited?to?execute?his?plan,?overwhelmingly?established?his?premeditated?and?deliberate?plan?to?kill?his?ex-wife.?He?stalked?his?victim?for?months,?successfully?conceived?a?plan?to?lure?her?into?an?alley,?brought?along?two?guns,?an?ax?and?battery?acid,?argued?with?and?beat?his?victim?before?shooting?her?at?point-blank?range?in?the?chest,?momentarily?left?and?then?returned?to?fire?a?second?shot?into?her,?and?then?fled?the?state,?remaining?a?fugitive?until?his?arrest?by?FBI?agents?five?months?after?the?[54?Cal.3d?577]?murder.?Defendant’s?motive?to?kill?his?ex-?wife?was?patently?clear?from?the?evidence;?his?perceived?grounds?for?revenge?were?threefold:?Lisa?stole?his?money,?thwarted?his?efforts?to?have?his?three?children?buried?together,?and?may?have?failed?to?obtain?a?valid?divorce?before?remarrying?after?she?left?him.?He?also?loathed?her?”particular?stripe?of?Christianity.”?Finally,?the?manner?of?the?fatal?shooting?of?this?victim?at?point-blank?range,?in?her?young?son’s?presence,?bespeaks?none?other?than?a?merciless,?planned?and?deliberate?murder.We?conclude?that?the?evidence?is?manifestly?sufficient?to?support?the?verdict?of?first?degree?murder.
- Evidence?of?Defendant’s?Hostility?Toward?Religion.
“?’Relevant?evidence’?means?evidence?…?having?any?tendency?in?reason?to?prove?or?disprove?any?disputed?fact?that?is?of?consequence?to?the?determination?of?the?action.”?(Evid.?Code,???210.)?As?defense?counsel?himself?put?it?below:?”The?crux?of?the?defense?is?degree?of?the?homicide.”?Any?evidence?tending?to?establish?a?motive?on?defendant’s?part?to?kill?his?ex-wife?was?thus?plainly?relevant?and?probative?to?proving?a?premeditated,?intentional?first?degree?murder.
At?the?time?Lisa?was?killed,?she?was?very?involved?with?her?church.?Defendant’s?writings?reflect?that?he?held?practicing?Christians?in?extreme?disdain?and?contempt.?He?felt?himself?at?war?with?Christian?society.?The?very?fact?of?the?victim’s?involvement?in?the?church?itself?furnished?one?possible?motive?for?the?fatal?shooting.?Defendant?wrote?that?he?”hoped?to?live?long?enough?to?see?the?end?of?religion.”?He?identified?the?victim?and?her?mother?Ione?as?one?of?the?”gang?of?four”?Christians?who?”have?been?my?downfall,?my?worst?enemies.?They?have?robbed?me?of?my?children,?stolen?all?my?money,?and?sought?almost?endlessly?to?return?me?to?prison.”?He?identified?the?”Christian”?Lisa,?amongst?others,?as?being?”totally?without?principle,?without?conscience,?without?mercy?or?any?higher?sensibility.?Stupid,?selfish,?greedy,?and?vicious?….?In?my?war?against?Christianity,?I?might?logically?start?with?these?contemptible?vermin.”?He?described?the?victim?and?her?mother?as?”Evil?incarnate”?and?”The?Satanical?Sisterhood.”?In?one?passage?he?wrote,?”Perhaps?it?is?time?that?these?Christian?bandits?got?to?know?me?better.”?[54?Cal.3d?578] [9]?”Evidence?Code?section?352?permits?the?trial?court?’to?strike?a?careful?balance?between?the?probative?value?of?the?evidence?and?the?danger?of?prejudice,?confusion?and?undue?time?consumption.’?[Citation.]?The?court’s?exercise?of?discretion?in?admitting?or?rejecting?proffered?evidence?will?not?be?disturbed?on?appeal?unless?there?is?a?manifest?abuse?of?that?discretion?resulting?in?a?miscarriage?of?justice.?[Citations.]”?(People?v.?Milner?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?227,?239?[246?Cal.Rptr.?713,?753?P.2d?669].)
[8b]?While?evidence?of?the?type?here?in?question?obviously?carried?some?potential?for?prejudice,?it?was?patently?relevant?and?probative?to?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief.?The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?the?documents.fn.?4- Instructions?on?Flight?and?Wilfully?False?Statements?as?Consciousness?of?Guilt.
Defendant?fled?the?state?immediately?after?murdering?the?victim,?traveled?to?New?York?City,?Washington,?D.C.,?and?Charlottesville,?Virginia,?and?was?eventually?arrested?by?FBI?agents?in?York,?Pennsylvania?on?July?20,?1985,?for?unlawful?flight?to?avoid?prosecution,?some?five?months?after?his?commission?of?the?offense.?Upon?his?arrest?he?gave?a?false?name,?and?after?waiving?his?Miranda?rights,?denied?any?knowledge?of?Lisa’s?murder?or?that?he?was?wanted?for?the?crime.?When?police?told?him?the?victim?had?identified?him?as?her?assailant?before?expiring,?he?claimed?she?was?either?confused?or?lying.?Admitting?he?owned?a?blue?Rambler,?he?claimed?he?had?left?the?car?parked?at?his?apartment?when?he?left?Sacramento.
Accordingly,?the?jury?was?instructed?with?the?standardized?instructions?on?flight?(CALJIC?No.?2.52)?and?wilfully?false?statements?(CALJIC?No.?2.03)?as?those?factors?bear?on?consciousness?of?guilt.?Defense?counsel’s?objections?to?these?instructions?were?overruled.fn.?5?[54?Cal.3d?579] [10]?Defendant?argues?that?it?was?error?to?give?these?instructions?because?he?ultimately?admitted?committing?the?homicide-leaving?his?state?of?mind?at?the?time?the?crime?was?committed?as?the?only?remaining?contested?issue?in?the?guilt?phase.?He?urges?that?through?these?instructions?the?jury?was?permitted?to?draw?irrational?and?irrelevant?inferences?about?his?state?of?mind?at?the?relevant?time.
We?have?rejected?this?argument?respecting?CALJIC?No.?2.03?in?People?v.?Crandell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?833,?871?[251?Cal.Rptr.?227,?760?P.2d?423],?wherein?we?explained?that:?”A?reasonable?juror?would?understand?’consciousness?of?guilt’?to?mean?’consciousness?of?some?wrongdoing’?rather?than?’consciousness?of?having?committed?the?specific?offense?charged.’?The?instruction[?]?advise[s]?the?jury?to?determine?what?significance,?if?any,?should?be?given?to?evidence?of?consciousness?of?guilt,?and?caution?that?such?evidence?is?not?sufficient?to?establish?guilt,?thereby?clearly?implying?that?the?evidence?is?not?the?equivalent?of?a?confession?and?is?to?be?evaluated?with?reason?and?common?sense.?The?instruction[?]?[does]?not?address?the?defendant’s?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?offense?and?[does]?not?direct?or?compel?the?drawing?of?impermissible?inferences?in?regard?thereto.”
Defendant’s?parallel?claim?regarding?the?instruction?on?flight?as?consciousness?of?guilt?is?likewise?unavailing.?”If?there?is?evidence?identifying?the?person?who?fled?as?the?defendant,?and?if?such?evidence?’is?relied?upon?as?tending?to?show?guilt,’?then?it?is?proper?to?instruct?on?flight.?(??1127c.)?’The?jury?must?know?that?it?is?entitled?to?infer?consciousness?of?guilt?from?flight?and?that?flight,?alone,?is?not?sufficient?to?establish?guilt.?([?]???1127c.)”?(People?v.?Mason?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?909,?943?[277?Cal.Rptr.?166,?802?P.2d?950].)
Defendant?having?fled?the?state?immediately?after?committing?the?murder,?the?prosecution?was?plainly?entitled?to?rely,?in?part,?on?such?evidence?”to?support?an?inference?of?consciousness?of?guilt?for?the?killing?….”?(People?v.?Perry?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?756,?776?[103?Cal.Rptr.?161,?499?P.2d?129];?People?v.?Turner?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?668,?694?[268?Cal.Rptr.?706,?789?P.2d?887];?People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?869.)?Moreover,?the?analysis?in?Crandell?regarding?the?instruction?on?false?statements?as?evidence?of?consciousness?of?guilt?(ante,?this?page)?applies?with?equal?force?to?defendant’s?claim?of?error?directed?at?the?flight?instruction.?Like?the?instruction?on?false?or?deliberately?misleading?statements,?the?flight?instruction?”[does]?not?address?the?defendant’s?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?offense?and?[does]?not?[54?Cal.3d?580]?direct?or?compel?the?drawing?of?impermissible?inferences?in?regard?thereto.”?(Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?871.)
- Instruction?Pursuant?to?CALJIC?No.?8.75
In?People?v.?Kurtzman?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?322?[250?Cal.Rptr.?244,?758?P.2d?572],?we?construed?our?holding?in?Stone?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?503?[183?Cal.Rptr.?647,?646?P.2d?809]?”to?authorize?an?instruction?that?the?jury?may?not?return?a?verdict?on?the?lesser?offense?unless?it?has?agreed?…?that?defendant?is?not?guilty?of?the?greater?crime?charged,?but?it?should?not?be?interpreted?to?prohibit?a?jury?from?considering?or?discussing?the?lesser?offenses?before?returning?a?verdict?on?the?greater?offense.”?(46?Cal.3d?at?p.?329,?original?italics.)?This?is?precisely?what?CALJIC?No.?8.75?does.?As?in?People?v.?Hunter,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?page?976,?”we?find?nothing?in?the?pertinent?language?of?the?instruction?as?given?here?or?in?the?record?of?the?jury’s?deliberations?as?a?whole,?to?suggest?that?the?jury?believed?it?must?return?a?verdict?on?the?greater?offense?before?it?could?consider?or?discuss?the?lesser?included?offenses.?(People?v.?Hernandez?[(1988)]?47?Cal.3d?[315]?at?pp.?352-353?[253?Cal.Rptr.?199,?763?P.2d?1289].)?Accordingly,?we?find?no?error?in?the?court’s?instructing?in?the?language?of?CALJIC?No.?8.75.”
- Penalty?Phase?Issues
- Introduction?of?Document?Reflecting?Defendant’s?Views?on?Christianity.
At?the?penalty?phase?defendant?testified?that?although?he?never?intended?to?kill?Lisa,?he?did?intend?to?harm?her.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?defendant?about?the?significance?of?his?written?remarks?regarding?his?views?on?Christianity?in?People’s?exhibit?No.?34.?Defendant?had?written,?”In?my?own?case,?nihilism?seems?to?have?been?the?inevitable?result?of?being?harried?and?tormented?by?Christians.?Not?Jews?or?Moslems,?but?lowly,?filthy,?rotten,?contemptible?Christians.”?Defendant?testified?that?Lisa?was?one?of?the?four?Christians?”of?a?particular?stripe”?(fundamentalist?Christian)?that?had?caused?him?”the?most?trouble?since?[his]?release?from?prison.”?He?explained?[54?Cal.3d?581]?that?when?he?and?Lisa?disagreed?on?theological?matters,?she?would?take?the?position?that?”she?was?on?God’s?side?and?[he]?was?on?Satan’s?side.”
There?was?no?defense?objection?to?this?line?of?questioning?until?the?prosecutor?asked,?”Who?is?Nietzsche?,”?in?reference?to?several?quotes?of?the?German?philosopher?contained?in?the?document.?Defense?counsel?objected?on?grounds?that?the?prosecutor?was?now?getting?into?”philosophical?things”?that?did?not?fall?within?the?statutory?aggravating?factors.?The?prosecutor?countered?that?the?line?of?questioning?was?relevant?to?motive;?the?court?agreed?and?overruled?the?objection.?When?the?prosecutor?next?asked?defendant?whether?one?of?the?quotations?from?Nietzsche-characterizing?Christianity?as?”the?one?great?curse”?and?”the?one?innermost?perversion”-expressed?the?way?he?felt?about?Lisa?and?her?”stripe?of?Christianity,”?defendant?testified?he?wrote?down?the?quote?thinking?it?was?”an?interesting?commentary”?that,?in?a?”more?generalized”?sense,?was?useful?in?helping?him?cope?with?the?”continual?war”?he?had?been?”fighting”?for?30?years.?The?line?of?questioning?was?then?dropped,?and?the?document?admitted?into?evidence?the?following?day?over?defense?counsel’s?renewed?objection.
[12a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?allowing?the?prosecution?to?cross-examine?him?regarding?the?document,?and?in?admitting?it?into?evidence.?He?characterizes?the?references?to?Christianity?therein?as?”irrelevant?and?inherently?prejudicial.”?We?disagree. [13]?”Once?the?defense?has?presented?evidence?of?circumstances?admissible?under?[section?190.3,]?factor?(k)?…?prosecution?rebuttal?evidence?would?be?admissible?as?evidence?tending?to?’disprove?any?disputed?fact?that?is?of?consequence?to?the?determination?of?the?action.’?(Evid.?Code,???210.)”?(People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?776?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782].) [12b]?Notwithstanding?the?jury’s?guilt?phase?determination?that?this?was?a?premeditated?and?intentional?murder,?defendant?took?the?stand?for?the?first?time?at?the?penalty?phase?and?testified?he?never?intended?to?kill?Lisa,?but?only?to?harm?her.?Although?he?characterized?his?penned?hatred?of?her?”stripe?of?Christianity”?as?merely?”interesting?commentary”?which?he?found?”useful”?in?his?”continual?war”-the?evidence?was?plainly?relevant?to?rebut?the?penalty?phase?defense?and?reaffirm?what?loomed?as?a?strong,?contributing?motive?for?this?murder;?defendant’s?bitter?hatred?and?contempt?of?his?ex-wife’s?affiliation?with?a?fundamentalist?Christian?sect.In?any?case,?it?is?not?reasonably?possible?that?this?evidence?prejudiced?the?penalty?verdict.?(People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].)?The?jury?had?already?considered?numerous?other?documents?and?evidence?at?the?guilt?phase?establishing?defendant’s?scorn?and?[54?Cal.3d?582]?hatred?of?religion?and,?in?particular,?the?sect?of?Christianity?to?which?Lisa?belonged.?All?such?evidence?was?generally?relevant?and?admissible?at?the?penalty?phase?as?a?”circumstance[?]?of?the?crime?of?which?defendant?was?convicted.?…”?(??190.3,?factor?(a).)?Finally,?as?noted,?much?of?the?prosecutor’s?cross-examination?of?defendant?in?this?vein?passed?without?defense?objection.
- Exclusion?of?Documents?Relied?on?by?Defense?Expert.
Dr.?Kenneth?Hjortsvang?testified?as?a?psychiatric?expert?witness?for?the?defense?at?the?penalty?phase.?In?preparing?his?opinion?in?this?case?he?interviewed?defendant?twice,?and?reviewed?a?mass?of?police?reports,?autopsy?reports,?transcripts,?letters?written?by?defendant,?professional?articles?on?the?psychiatric?mechanisms?of?child?murderers,?and?other?documents?relating?to?the?instant?case?as?well?as?defendant’s?trial?for?the?murder?of?his?three?children.?Dr.?Hjortsvang?concluded?defendant?suffered?from?a?mixed?characteristic?personality?disorder-exhibiting?traits?of?paranoia,?schizoid?personality,?compulsive?elements,?and?narcissism-and?that?he?had?planned?to?harm?Lisa?but?not?kill?her.
[14a]?Defense?counsel?sought?to?have?admitted?into?evidence?various?journal?articles,?and?several?letters?written?by?defendant,?upon?which?Dr.?Hjortsvang?had?relied,?in?part,?in?making?his?evaluation.?The?trial?court?refused?to?formally?admit?the?documents?into?evidence.?Defendant?claims?the?ruling?denied?him?his?right?to?present?evidence?relevant?to?his?defense.Evidence?Code?section?802?provides,?in?pertinent?part,?that?”[a]?witness?testifying?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?may?state?on?direct?examination?the?reasons?for?his?opinion?and?the?matter?(including,?in?the?case?of?an?expert,?his?special?knowledge,?skill,?experience,?training?and?education)?upon?which?it?is?based?….”?(Italics?added.)?Here,?Dr.?Hjortsvang?did?testify?at?some?length?about?the?many?documents?he?reviewed?in?the?course?of?his?evaluation?of?defendant?in?this?case.?Nothing?in?Evidence?Code?section?802,?however,?requires?a?trial?court?to?admit?into?evidence?documentary?or?other?evidence?of?matters?relied?on?by?an?expert?witness?in?forming?his?or?her?opinion.
We?have?observed?that?”?'[w]here?expert?opinion?evidence?is?offered,?much?must?be?left?to?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court’?(People?v.?Cole?[(1956)]?47?Cal.2d?99,?105?[301?P.2d?854,?56?A.L.R.2d?1435]).”?(People?v.?McDonald?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?351,?373?[690?P.2d?709,?46?A.L.R.4th?1011].)?It?is?well?established?that?the?court?may,?within?its?sound?discretion,?exclude?the?hearsay?basis?of?an?expert’s?opinion.?(Evid.?Code,???352;?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Fair?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?1303,?1310-1311?[250?Cal.Rptr.?486];?People?v.?[54?Cal.3d?583]?Bowker?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?385,?390?[249?Cal.Rptr.?886];?People?v.?Young?(1987)?189?Cal.App.3d?891,?913?[234?Cal.Rptr.?819];?People?v.?Odom?(1980)?108?Cal.App.3d?100,?115-116?[166?Cal.Rptr.?283]?[exclusion?of?reports?relied?on?by?expert?witness?proper?where?expert?testified?about?the?reports].)
[15]?”?’While?an?expert?may?state?on?direct?examination?the?matters?on?which?he?relied?in?forming?his?opinion,?he?may?not?testify?as?to?the?details?of?such?matters?if?they?are?otherwise?inadmissible.?[Citations.]?The?rule?rests?on?the?rationale?that?while?an?expert?may?give?reasons?on?direct?examination?for?his?opinions,?including?the?matters?he?considered?in?forming?them,?he?may?not?under?the?guise?of?reasons?bring?before?the?jury?incompetent?hearsay?evidence.?[Citation.]’?”?(People?v.?Coleman?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?69,?92?[211?Cal.Rptr.?102,?695?P.2d?189].) [14b]?No?abuse?of?discretion?is?shown?in?the?exclusion?of?the?documents.?Moreover,?insofar?as?Dr.?Hjortsvang?testified?about?the?critical?portions?of?the?documents?and?letters?that?informed?his?opinion,?the?admission?of?the?documents?themselves?into?evidence?would?have?merely?been?cumulative.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Milner,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?240.)- Allocution.
We?have?held?that?a?capital?defendant?has?no?right?of?allocution.?(See?People?v.?Keenan?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?478,?511?[250?Cal.Rptr.?550,?758?P.2d?1081],?cert.?den.?490?U.S.?1012?[104?L.Ed.2d?169,?109?S.Ct.?1656];?People?v.?Robbins?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?867,?888-890?[248?Cal.Rptr.?172,?755?P.2d?355],?cert.?den.?488?U.S.?1034?[102?L.Ed.2d?981,?109?S.Ct.?849].)?Moreover,?when?the?trial?court?asked?for?an?offer?of?proof?as?to?what?defendant?would?say?to?the?jury,?counsel?stated?that?defendant?wanted?to?explain?the?meaning?of?some?of?the?words?he?had?used?in?several?documents?seized?from?his?apartment,?and?wanted?to?inform?the?jurors?that?he?had?adjusted?well?in?prison?and?would?continue?to?be?a?good?prisoner.?As?the?trial?court?aptly?observed,?defendant?would?thereby?have?been?”testifying”?as?to?”new?factual?information?without?the?benefit?of?an?oath?and?without?cross-?examination,”?a?patently?improper?procedure.?[54?Cal.3d?584]
- Improper?Argument?Under?Booth?v.?Maryland.
The?prosecutor?argued?as?follows:?”Now,?I’m?sure?defense?counsel?will?argue?to?you,?and?if?he?doesn’t,?you’re?still?entitled?to?consider,?some?basis?for?sympathy?for?Mr.?Nicolaus.?And?you?might?feel?some?sympathy?for?him,?but?I?urge?you?to?consider?that?sympathy?works?both?ways.?And?consider?the?consequences?that?Mr.?Nicolaus?has?inflicted?on?not?only?the?people?that?he?killed,?but?on?the?other?people.?First?of?all,?he?took?Jean?Laras’?two?children?from?her,?and?he?took?Heidi?from?Lisa.?Lisa?had?to?live?with?that?for?21?years.?She?ended?up?in?a?mental?institution?for?a?month?and?a?half?following?the?killing?of?Heidi.?[?]?And?now,?Mr.?Nicolaus?has?taken?Lisa?from?her?children.?Genesis?[one?of?Lisa’s?surviving?children]?has?no?mother.?So?when?you?consider?sympathy?for?Mr.?Nicolaus,?consider?that?it?goes?both?ways.?And?if?you?weigh?that?factor,?there’s?really?no?comparison.”
In?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?the?high?court?held?that?the?admission?of?so-called?victim?impact?statements?in?capital?sentencing?proceedings?violated?the?principle?that?a?sentence?of?death?must?be?related?to?the?moral?culpability?of?the?defendant.?In?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805,?810-812?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?882-884,?109?S.Ct.?2207],?the?court?followed?Booth?in?concluding?that?the?presentation?of?prosecutorial?argument?relating?to?such?matters?might?likewise?violate?a?defendant’s?Eighth?Amendment?rights.?Recently,?however,?the?high?court?overruled?both?Booth?and?Gathers?in?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597].
Even?before?Payne?v.?Tennessee,?the?court?in?Booth?took?care?to?note?that?”[s]imilar?types?of?information?may?well?be?admissible?because?they?relate?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.”?(482?U.S.?at?p.?507,?fn.?10?[96?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?451].)?This?court?also?recognized?that?”Booth?and?Gathers?[did]?not?extend?to?evidence?or?argument?concerning?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?capital?offense?or?the?effect?of?that?offense?on?the?victim.?…?[Nor?do?they]?extend?to?…?other?criminal?activity?involving?the?use?or?threat?of?force?or?violence?or?the?effect?of?such?criminal?activity?on?the?victims?….”?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330],?citing?People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?929?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676].)
Here,?the?jurors?might?reasonably?infer?that?defendant’s?act?of?killing?his?three?children?in?1964?was?indeed?motivated,?in?one?sense,?by?his?desire?to?[54?Cal.3d?585]?”impact”?upon?the?life-style?of?his?ex-wife?Lisa.?Similarly,?it?is?a?circumstance?of?the?instant?crime?that?defendant?at?one?point?weighed?or?considered?the?impact?of?Lisa’s?murder?on?her?children.?He?initially?drew?up?alternate?plans?for?the?manner?in?which?he?would?kidnap?or?kill?Lisa,?depending?upon?whether?her?children?were?with?her?during?the?confrontation.?Ultimately,?he?fatally?shot?Lisa?as?she?sat?in?her?Volkswagen?with?her?three-?year-old?son?in?the?backseat.?In?any?event,?the?prosecutor’s?brief?comments,?referring?as?they?did?to?factual?matters?of?which?the?jury?was?already?fully?apprised?through?properly?admitted?evidence,?could?not?possibly?have?diverted?the?jurors?from?their?task?of?determining?the?appropriate?penalty.?(See?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?537?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640].)
- Instruction?Pursuant?to?Modified?CALJIC?No.?1.00.
At?the?penalty?phase?the?jury?was?instructed?with?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?1.00,?which?read:?”You?must?not?be?swayed?by?mere?conjecture,?passion,?prejudice,?public?opinion?or?public?feeling.?Both?the?People?and?the?defendant?have?a?right?to?expect?that?you?will?conscientiously?consider?and?weigh?the?evidence?and?apply?the?law?of?the?case,?and?that?you?will?reach?a?just?verdict,?regardless?of?what?the?consequences?of?such?verdict?may?be.”?(Italics?added.)
[18]?Defendant?argues?that?the?instruction?as?given?”seriously?misstates?the?function?of?the?penalty?phase?jury?…?deprives?the?capitally?accused?of?his?right?to?an?individualized?sentencing?determination?whereby?the?jury?decides?whether?the?consequence?of?its?decision?(life?or?death)?is?proper,?and?…?diminishes?the?jury’s?grave?responsibility?’to?determine?which?first?degree?murderers?shall?live?and?which?shall?die.’?(Woodson?v.?North?Carolina?(1976)?428?U.S.?280,?303.)”We?have?addressed?this?identical?argument?in?prior?cases.?”The?instruction?has?been?considered?inappropriate?at?the?penalty?phase?(see?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512,?537,?fn.?7?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135]),?but?it?must?be?deemed?harmless?where,?as?here,?the?record?indicates?that?the?jury?fully?understood?the?grave?consequences?of?its?penalty?decision.?(See?People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?102,?fn.?25?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)?In?addition,?we?observe?that?the?instruction?does?not?ask?the?jurors?to?wholly?ignore?the?consequences?of?their?decision,?but?simply?asks?them?to?reach?a?’just’?verdict?regardless?of?the?consequences?of?such?a?verdict.”?(People?v.?Wade?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?975,?998-999?[244?Cal.Rptr.?905,?750?P.2d?794];?see?also?People?v.?Keenan,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?517-?518;?People?v.?Hamilton?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?123,?152?[249?Cal.Rptr.?320,?756?P.2d?1348].)?[54?Cal.3d?586]
The?significance?and?gravity?of?the?penalty?determination?were?emphasized?to?the?jury?during?closing?arguments.?As?the?prosecutor?argued,?”[I]n?this?most?important?sense,?this?phase?of?the?case?is?dissimilar?to?the?first?phase?of?the?case,?because?you’re?no?longer?really?fact?finders?or?you’re?not?primarily?fact?finders.?You’re?not?attempting?so?much?to?resolve?disputes?in?the?evidence?as?you?are?attempting?to?determine?what?level?of?accountability?you’re?going?to?impose?on?Mr.?Nicolaus?for?what?he’s?already?proven?to?have?done.?[?]?In?this?phase?of?the?case,?you’re?not?fact?finders.?You’re?the?conscience?of?the?community.?The?question?that?you?have?to?address?is:?Are?Mr.?Nicolaus’?crimes?so?grievous?an?affront?to?humanity?that?the?only?adequate?response?is?the?death?penalty.?You’re?going?to?be?making?a?moral?judgment,?Ladies?and?Gentlemen.”
We?conclude?the?jury?could?not?have?been?misled?into?believing?that,?in?reaching?its?penalty?verdict,?it?was?to?disregard?the?consequences?of?that?determination.?(See?People?v.?Babbitt?(1988)45?Cal.3d?660,?718?[248?Cal.Rptr.?69,?755?P.2d?253].)
- Extreme?Mental?or?Emotional?Disturbance?as?a?Mitigating?Factor.
Pursuant?to?CALJIC?No.?8.84.1,?the?jury?was?given?an?”expanded”?factor?(k)?instruction;?it?was?told?to?consider?”[a]ny?other?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.?You?must?disregard?any?jury?instruction?given?to?you?in?the?guilt?or?innocence?phase?of?this?trial?which?conflicts?with?this?principle.”?The?jurors?were?also?instructed?that?they?”may?consider?as?a?mitigating?factor?residual?or?lingering?doubt?as?to?whether?the?defendant?intentionally?killed?the?victim?or?acted?with?premeditation?and?deliberation.”
“In?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250],?we?concluded?that?this?’?”catchall”?[expanded?factor?(k)]?provision?is?sufficient?to?permit?the?penalty?jury?to?take?into?account?a?mental?condition?[54?Cal.3d?587]?of?the?defendant?which,?though?perhaps?not?deemed?”extreme,”?nonetheless?mitigates?the?seriousness?of?the?offense.’?(Id.?at?p.?776;?accord?People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?270?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906];?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?457-458;?People?v.?Babbitt?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?660,?720-721?[248?Cal.Rptr.?69,?755?P.2d?253];?People?v.?Lucky?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?259,?296-297?[247?Cal.Rptr.?1,?753?P.2d?1052].)”?(People?v.?Hunter,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?987-988.)
- Age?as?a?Factor?in?the?Penalty?Determination.
The?jury?was?properly?instructed.?In?People?v.?Lucky?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?259?[247?Cal.Rptr.?1,?753?P.2d?1052],?we?explained?that?mere?chronological?age?is?not?in?and?of?itself?an?aggravating?or?mitigating?factor.?”In?our?view,?the?word?’age’?in?statutory?sentencing?factor?(i)?is?used?as?a?metonym?for?any?age-related?matter?suggested?by?the?evidence?or?by?common?experience?of?morality?that?might?reasonably?inform?the?choice?of?penalty.?Accordingly,?either?counsel?may?argue?such?age-related?inference?in?every?case.”?(Id.?at?p.?302.)
Here,?the?prosecutor?argued?that,?”I?guess?you?can?consider?[defendant’s]?age?at?the?time?he?killed?his?children,?32?years?old.?And?how?old?he?was?at?the?time?he?killed?Lisa,?52.?And?how?old?he?is?now,?54.?The?point?to?be?made?here?(sic)?the?defendant?is?not?a?young?man,?a?man?whose?hormones?are?driving?him?out?of?control?perhaps,?or?a?man?who?just?doesn’t?have?experience,?who?was?still?in?the?midst?of?a?rebellious?youth.”?These?comments?were?plainly?directed?at?an?”age-related?matter”?(defendant’s?maturity)?and?were?not?improper?argument.
[21]?However,?the?prosecutor?also?argued?to?the?jury,?”You?can?consider?Mr.?Nicolaus’?age?also?in?terms?of?the?fact?that?the?death?penalty?for?Mr.?Nicolaus?will?not?deprive?him?of?a?long?or?potentially?productive?life?as?it?would?a?young?man.”?This?was?clearly?improper?argument.?It?did?not?purport?to?refer?to?any?age-related?matter?that?might?have?impacted?defendant’s?character.?Instead,?it?implied?that?the?life?of?an?individual?more?advanced?in?years?might?somehow?be?worth?less?than?that?of?a?younger?individual.?Although?such?a?concept?may?have?valid?application?in?the?determination?of?[54?Cal.3d?588]?certain?compensatory?tort?damages,?it?has?no?proper?place?in?a?death?penalty?case.?”?'[I]n?capital?cases?the?fundamental?respect?for?humanity?underlying?the?Eighth?Amendment?…?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.’?”?(Lockett?v.?Ohio?(1978)?438?U.S.?586,?604?[57?L.Ed.2d?973,?989,?98?S.Ct.?2954],?quoting?Woodson?v.?North?Carolina?(1976)?428?U.S.?280,?304[49?L.Ed.2d?944,?961,?96?S.Ct.?2978].)?The?comment?in?question?bore?no?relation?to?this?defendant’s?individual?character?or?background,?or?to?the?circumstances?of?this?particular?offense.We?have?determined?that?the?improper?argument?was?nonprejudicial.?The?comment?was?very?brief,?and?presented?no?new?factual?matter?for?consideration?by?the?jury,?which?was?already?well?aware?of?defendant’s?age.?The?aggravating?evidence?in?this?case-in?particular,?the?circumstances?of?defendant’s?planned?and?premeditated?murder?of?his?ex-wife?(??190.3,?factor?(a)),?and?his?prior?conviction?of?the?murders?of?his?three?children?(??190.3,?factor?(c))-was,?simply?put,?overwhelming.?The?one-?sentence?comment?could?not?have?affected?the?penalty?verdict.
- Instruction?on?Mercy.
Since?the?high?court’s?decision?in?California?v.?Brown?(1987)?479?U.S.?538?[93?L.Ed.2d?934,?107?S.Ct.?837],?we?have?consistently?rejected?this?contention.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Andrews?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?200,?227-228?[260?Cal.Rptr.?583,?776?P.2d?285];?People?v.?Hamilton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1182?[259?Cal.Rptr.?701,?774?P.2d?730];?People?v.?Caro?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1035,?1067?[251?Cal.Rptr.?757,?761?P.2d?680];?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1322-1323?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Lucky,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?297-299;?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?102.)
We?note?that?in?this?case?the?jurors?were?instructed,?pursuant?to?former?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2,?that?they?were?”free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?you?deem?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors?you?are?permitted?to?consider.”?They?were?also?given?an?”expanded?factor?(k)”?instruction,?which?told?them?they?could?consider?”any?other?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime,?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime,?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character,?or?record,?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?[54?Cal.3d?589]?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.”?Moreover?the?prosecutor,?in?his?closing?argument,?expressly?identified?mercy?as?a?valid?consideration?in?the?penalty?determination.
- Constitutional?Challenges?to?the?1978?Death?Penalty?Statute.
He?contends?the?trial?court?was?under?a?constitutional?obligation?to?instruct?the?jurors,?pursuant?to?his?specially?requested?instructions,?that?they?could?return?a?verdict?of?death?only?if?they?were?persuaded?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?of?the?existence?of?each?aggravating?factor,?that?the?aggravating?factors?outweighed?the?mitigating?factors,?and?that?death?was?the?appropriate?penalty.
We?have?rejected?these?identical?contentions?in?numerous?prior?cases?and?have?no?occasion?to?reconsider?those?holdings?here.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Allison?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?879,?898-899?[258?Cal.Rptr.?208,?771?P.2d?1294]?[existence?of?aggravating?factors];?People?v.?Keenan,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?521?[aggravating?circumstances?outweighing?mitigating?circumstances];?People?v.?Hamilton,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?151?[death?as?the?appropriate?penalty];?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?777-779?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113].)
Defendant?further?contends?the?jurors?should?have?been?instructed?that?they?must?unanimously?find?the?truth?of?any?aggravating?circumstances?upon?which?their?penalty?verdict?rested,?and?that?the?same?prior?convictions?used?to?render?him?death?eligible?(prior-murder?special?circumstance)?could?not?also?be?considered?as?aggravating?circumstances?under?section?190.3,?factor?(a)?or?(b).?Once?again,?we?have?repeatedly?rejected?these?identical?claims.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Allison,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?899?[unanimity?as?to?aggravating?factors];?People?v.?Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?272?[dual?use?of?prior?convictions].)
[24]?Lastly,?defendant?argues?it?was?constitutional?error?to?fail?to?instruct?the?jury?that?a?sentence?of?life?without?parole?means?the?defendant?will?never?be?considered?for?parole.?We?have?rejected?this?claim?as?well.?(See?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?698?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217].)?To?have?so?instructed?the?jury?would?have?been?an?incorrect?statement?of?the?law.?(People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1277-?1278?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251].)?Nor?are?we?persuaded?by?defendant’s?assertion?that?because?the?jury?was?aware?he?had?been?paroled?after?serving?a?prison?sentence?for?the?murders?of?his?children,?they?might?have?believed?he?could?[54?Cal.3d?590]?again?be?paroled?if?a?life?sentence?were?imposed?in?the?instant?case.?The?jury?knew?only?that?his?prior?murder?convictions?were?of?the?second?degree;?they?never?learned?he?had?initially?been?convicted?of?first?degree?murder?and?sentenced?to?death.- Instruction?Pursuant?to?Former?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2.
The?jury?was?instructed?pursuant?to?former?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2?(1986?rev.)?as?follows:
“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?on?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.
“The?weighing?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?does?not?mean?a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?an?imaginary?scale,?or?the?arbitrary?assignment?of?weights?to?any?of?them.?You?are?free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?you?deem?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors?you?are?permitted?to?consider.
“In?weighing?the?various?circumstances,?you?simply?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?and?appropriate?by?considering?the?totality?of?the?aggravating?circumstances?with?the?totality?of?the?mitigating?circumstances.?To?return?a?judgment?of?death,?each?of?you?must?be?persuaded?that?the?aggravating?evidence?and?circumstances?are?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances,?that?it?warrants?death?instead?of?life?without?parole.”
[25]?Defendant?contends?that?the?instruction?suffered?from?multiple?constitutional?defects,?and?that?the?resulting?death?sentence?violates?his?rights?under?the?Eighth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?Each?of?his?claims?lacks?merit.He?argues?that?instructing?the?jury?to?”simply”?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?”trivialized?the?enormity?of?the?sentencing?task?and?undermined?the?jury’s?sense?of?responsibility?and?gravity?about?its?role.”?We?have?recently?rejected?the?identical?claim,?finding?that?the?instruction’s?utilization?of?the?adverb?”simply”?merely?”describe[s]?the?mechanics?of?the?jury’s?normative?process.”?(People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?680?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351];?People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1243?[283?Cal.Rptr.?144,?812?P.2d?163].)?[54?Cal.3d?591]
He?challenges?the?instruction’s?charge?that,?”To?return?a?judgment?of?death,?each?of?you?must?be?persuaded?that?the?aggravating?evidence?and?circumstances?are?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances,?that?it?warrants?death?instead?of?life?without?parole.”?(Italics?added.)?He?asserts?that?”[t]his?critical?sentence?equates?the?concept?of?’so?substantial’?with?permission?to?impose?death.”?Moreover,?he?deems?the?phrase?”so?substantial”?to?be?”vague,?directionless,?and?impossible?to?quantify.”?He?argues?that?”the?use?of?the?words?’warrants?death’?allowed?the?jury?to?impose?death?not?because?death?fit?the?crime,?or?was?the?correct?punishment,?but?because?it?was?’warranted,’?a?broadreaching?term?generally?synonymous?with?’authorized.’?”?(Original?italics.)?And?he?concludes?that?the?instruction?as?a?whole?”created?an?unconstitutional?presumption?of?death.”
We?have?recently?rejected?similar?challenges?to?the?instruction.?In?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1108-?1109?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659],?we?specifically?approved?of?the?”so?substantial”?language.?(See?also?People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1243-1244.)?And?in?People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131],?we?explained,?”We?do?not?think?that?there?is?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?any?of?the?jurors?would?have?concluded?that,?even?if?the?mitigating?factors?outweighed?those?in?aggravation,?the?’so?substantial?in?comparison?with’?language?nevertheless?might?demand?imposition?of?the?higher?punishment.?(See?Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370,?376?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?326,?110?S.Ct.?1190].)”?(Duncan,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?978.)?”[O]ur?statute?and?instruction?give?the?jury?broad?discretion?to?decide?the?appropriate?penalty?by?weighing?all?the?relevant?evidence.?The?jury?may?decide,?even?in?the?absence?of?mitigating?evidence,?that?the?aggravating?evidence?is?not?comparatively?substantial?enough?to?warrant?death.”?(Id.?at?p.?979.)
- Conclusion
The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?Among?those?persons?excused?on?grounds?of?financial?hardship?were?a?dentist,?an?engineering?consultant,?a?security?guard,?a?plant?breeder,?a?student?and?coach,?a?bicycle?shop?manager,?and?an?employee?of?a?Denny’s?restaurant.?The?group?included?both?men?and?women,?some?married?and?some?single,?some?having?children?and?some?without,?as?well?as?persons?of?Asian,?Hispanic,?and?other?surnames.?In?short,?”Nothing?on?the?face?of?the?record?suggests?that?those?excused,?or?those?who?remained?on?the?panel,?could?be?classified?as?a?’cognizable?group’?under?any?set?of?criteria.”?(People?v.?Harris,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1078,?fn.?13.)
FN?3.?The?search?warrant?also?authorized?the?search?of?the?two?vehicles?registered?to?defendant.?A?second?search?warrant?for?the?apartment?was?also?obtained?on?February?25,?1985,?three?days?after?the?murder,?and?additional?evidence?was?seized?thereunder.?We?are?here?concerned?only?with?documents?in?the?manila?folder?seized?from?the?apartment?under?the?first?warrant.
FN?4.?It?is?noteworthy?that?although?defendant?challenges?the?admissibility?of?the?”manila?folder?documents”?on?various?grounds?on?appeal,?urging?that?they?were?highly?prejudicial,?the?very?same?documents?played?a?central?role?in?the?defense.?At?the?close?of?the?People’s?case-in-chief?the?defense?rested?without?presenting?any?evidence.?The?thrust?of?defense?counsel’s?argument?to?the?jury?was?that?defendant?was?a?profoundly?disturbed?individual;?counsel?outlined?the?”themes”?in?the?various?documents,?and?quoted?from?them?at?considerable?length,?in?urging?that?they?reflected?defendant’s?desire?to?harm,?rather?than?kill,?his?ex-wife,?and?that?defendant?was?therefore?guilty,?at?most,?of?second?degree?murder.
FN?5.?CALJIC?No.?2.52?(1979?rev.)?provides:?”The?flight?of?a?person?immediately?after?the?commission?of?a?crime,?or?after?he?is?accused?of?a?crime,?is?not?sufficient?in?itself?to?establish?his?guilt,?but?is?a?fact?which,?if?proved,?may?be?considered?by?you?in?the?light?of?all?other?proved?facts?in?deciding?the?question?of?his?guilt?or?innocence.?The?weight?to?which?such?circumstance?is?entitled?is?a?matter?for?the?jury?to?determine.”
CALJIC?No.?2.03?(1984?rev.)?provided:?”If?you?find?that?before?this?trial?the?defendant?made?wilfully?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.”