People?v.?Price?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?324?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?106;?821?P.2d?610
[No.?S004719.Dec?30,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?CURTIS?FLOYD?PRICE,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Humboldt?County,?No.?CR9898,?John?E.?Buffington,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Mark?E.?Cutler,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Ronald?E.?Niver?and?David?H.?Rose,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?376]
OPINION
KENNARD,?J.
After?a?year-long?trial,?fn.?1?a?jury?convicted?defendant?Curtis?Floyd?Price?of?the?first?degree?murders?of?Elizabeth?Ann?Hickey?and?Richard?Barnes?(Pen.?Code,???187;?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?indicated),?and?it?made?special?circumstance?findings,?as?to?the?Hickey?murder,?of?multiple?murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3))?and?burglary-murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(vii)).?The?jury?also?convicted?defendant?of?one?count?each?of?robbery?(??211)?with?the?use?of?a?firearm?(???1203.06,?12022.5),?burglary?(??459),?receiving?stolen?property?(??496),?and?conspiracy?(??182).?The?jury?further?found?that?defendant?had?twice?previously?been?convicted?of?serious?felonies?(??667,?subd.?(a)),?and?had?completed?two?prior?separate?prison?terms?(??667.5,?subd.?(a)).
The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?for?the?murder?of?Hickey?at?death.?The?trial?court?denied?the?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?verdict?of?death?(??190.4,?subd.?(e)),?and?it?sentenced?defendant?on?the?noncapital?counts?to?imprisonment?for?a?determinate?term?of?10?years,?consecutive?to?an?indeterminate?term?of?25?years?to?life.?Defendant’s?appeal?from?the?judgment?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).)
The?sentence?for?the?offense?of?burglary?shall?be?stayed,?but?the?judgment?shall?otherwise?be?affirmed.
- Facts
- Summary?of?Facts?Relating?to?Guilt
Defendant?was?released?from?prison?in?September?1982.?On?January?23,?1983,?the?gun?collection?of?Richard?Moore?disappeared?from?his?residence,?apparently?having?been?stolen?in?a?burglary.?On?February?13,?1983,?the?body?of?Richard?Barnes?was?found?in?his?residence.?He?had?been?shot?in?the?back?of?the?head?three?times.?On?the?morning?of?February?19,?1983,?Berlie?Petry?found?the?body?of?Elizabeth?Ann?Hickey?in?the?residence?they?shared.?Hickey,?the?stepdaughter?of?burglary?victim?Moore,?had?been?beaten?to?death?with?a?blunt?instrument;?guns?belonging?to?her?and?to?Petry?were?missing?from?their?residence.?That?same?evening,?a?gunman?robbed?employees?of?the?Triplex?Theater.?The?Barnes?killing?occurred?in?Los?Angeles?County.?The?Moore?burglary,?the?Hickey?killing,?and?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery?all?occurred?in?Humboldt?County.?[1?Cal.4th?377]
The?police?arrested?defendant?for?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery.?After?a?lengthy?investigation,?he?was?also?charged?with?the?Barnes?and?Hickey?murders,?receiving?stolen?property?(the?Moore?weapons),?and?robberies?at?three?other?commercial?establishments?in?Humboldt?County?during?January?and?February?of?1983.
At?trial,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?that?defendant?belonged?to?the?Aryan?Brotherhood?(AB),?a?prison?gang,?and?had?committed?the?charged?offenses?in?furtherance?of?a?conspiracy?originating?with?the?gang?leadership.?The?principal?objective?of?the?conspiracy?was?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes,?who?was?the?father?of?an?AB?member?who?had?testified?against?other?gang?members.?Defendant?obtained?the?stolen?Moore?weapons,?possibly?with?the?knowledge?or?assistance?of?Hickey,?to?use?in?the?killing?of?Barnes?or?for?other?AB?assignments.?Hickey?was?killed?to?obtain?the?guns?in?her?residence?and/or?because?she?could?incriminate?defendant?in?the?theft?of?the?Moore?weapons?and/or?the?murder?of?Barnes.?Defendant?committed?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery?to?obtain?funds?with?which?to?carry?out?his?AB?assignments.
The?defense?denied?that?defendant?had?committed?any?of?the?offenses.?It?offered?alibi?evidence?to?show?that?defendant?was?not?in?Humboldt?County?at?the?time?of?the?Hickey?killing?and?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery.?It?attempted?to?cast?doubt?on?the?identification?testimony?of?the?robbery?victims?and?the?veracity?of?the?prosecution’s?AB?witnesses,?and?it?sought?to?cast?suspicion?on?Petry?for?Hickey’s?murder.
The?jury?convicted?defendant?of?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(one?with?special?circumstances)?and?one?count?each?of?robbery,?possession?of?stolen?property,?burglary,?and?conspiracy.?The?jury?acquitted?defendant?of?one?count?of?robbery,?and?it?was?unable?to?reach?verdicts?as?to?the?remaining?robbery?counts.?The?description?of?the?evidence?that?follows?omits?evidence?of?the?charges?that?did?not?result?in?convictions.
- Prosecution?Evidence
- The?Conspiracy?and?Barnes?Murder
Before?this?case?arose,?Steven?Barnes,?an?AB?member,?had?testified?as?a?prosecution?witness?against?other?AB?members?and?against?several?non-AB?members.?During?the?summer?of?1982,?the?AB?leadership,?which?included?Michael?Thompson?and?Clifford?Smith,?decided?to?retaliate.?The?decision?was?made?during?a?series?of?meetings?at?Palm?Hall,?an?area?inside?the?state?prison?at?Chino.?Prison?authorities?had?placed?Steven?Barnes?in?protective?custody,?so?the?AB?leaders?decided?to?kill?members?of?his?immediate?family?instead.?They?selected?defendant?to?do?the?killing.?[1?Cal.4th?378]
Defendant?was?then?serving?a?sentence?in?the?Montana?state?prison,?but?he?was?scheduled?for?release?from?prison?soon?without?parole?supervision.?One?of?the?AB?leaders?brought?defendant?to?Palm?Hall?in?August?1982?by?subpoenaing?him?to?testify?at?the?leader’s?trial.?After?defendant?arrived?at?Palm?Hall,?AB?leaders?offered?him?the?”contract”?to?kill?Richard?Barnes.?Defendant?accepted.?The?AB?leaders?instructed?him?to?procure?weapons?in?Northern?California?before?returning?south?to?kill?Richard?Barnes.
Janet?Myers?visited?Smith?regularly?in?prison.?She?was?an?AB?”runner,”?relaying?messages?to?and?from?other?AB?members.?Smith?instructed?Myers?to?take?care?of?defendant.?Defendant?went?to?Myers’s?house?on?the?day?he?was?released?from?prison.?Joseph?O’Rourke,?an?AB?leader?who?normally?supplied?weapons?to?AB?members?in?Southern?California,?picked?defendant?up?there.?Defendant?spent?about?one?month?working?for?O’Rourke.
After?O’Rourke?was?arrested?in?October?1982,?defendant?went?to?Humboldt?County,?where?he?spent?most?of?the?next?three?months.?Defendant?returned?to?Southern?California?in?late?January?1983.?He?stayed?at?the?Santa?Ana?home?of?Michelle?Scarborough,?another?AB?runner,?for?approximately?a?week.?He?then?stayed?with?Myers?in?Claremont.?Defendant?had?a?blue?airline?bag?in?which?he?kept?a?sawed-off?shotgun?and?a?revolver.?While?staying?with?Myers,?defendant?made?a?weekend?trip?to?Auburn,?near?Folsom?Prison,?where?he?stayed?with?Rebecca?Williams.
One?night?Myers?drove?defendant?to?different?addresses?he?wanted?to?see.?One?of?the?addresses?was?the?Temple?City?residence?of?Richard?Barnes.?On?February?12,?1983,?at?11?p.m.,?defendant?left?Myers’s?house?with?Tammi?Shinn,?another?AB?”runner.”?He?returned?early?the?next?morning,?collected?his?belongings,?and?left.
On?February?13,?1983,?sheriff’s?deputies?discovered?the?body?of?Richard?Barnes?in?the?bedroom?of?his?residence.?The?body?was?on?the?bed.?The?cause?of?death?was?three?contact-range?gunshot?wounds?to?the?back?of?the?head?inflicted?by?a?.22-caliber?handgun.
After?the?murder,?Myers?brought?Smith?a?note?signed?by?defendant.?It?stated:?”That’s?took?care?of.?Everything?went?well.?I?am?going?back?north.?I?will?be?in?touch?with?you?later.”?Myers?destroyed?the?note?after?showing?it?to?Smith.
The?evidence?against?defendant?on?the?conspiracy?and?Barnes?murder?counts?consisted?primarily?of?the?testimony?of?Michael?Thompson,?Clifford?Smith,?and?Janet?Myers.?In?addition,?the?prosecution?introduced?evidence?[1?Cal.4th?379]?that?defendant?had?testified?in?an?earlier,?unrelated?trial?that?he?was?an?AB?member.?Credit?card?receipts?showed?that?defendant?had?purchased?gasoline?in?Pomona?on?February?12?and?in?Anaheim?on?February?13,?1983.?In?the?room?defendant?had?occupied?in?his?mother’s?house?in?Eureka,?police?found?a?slip?of?paper?on?which?Richard?Barnes’s?address?had?been?written,?together?with?the?name?”Nate,”?a?nickname?for?Steven?Barnes,?and?the?words?”send?subpoena?to?him.”?In?defendant’s?wallet,?which?they?obtained?from?defendant’s?mother,?police?found?another?note?with?a?reference?to?an?address?and?telephone?number?for?”Steve?Barnes’?step-father?in?Fountain?Valley.”
- The?Moore?Residence?Burglary?and?the?Hickey?Murder
On?January?23,?1983,?William?Eaton?reported?an?apparent?burglary?at?the?Humboldt?County?residence?of?Richard?and?Dottie?Moore,?Eaton’s?stepfather?and?mother,?who?were?away?from?their?residence?for?the?weekend.?The?only?items?missing?were?the?firearms?in?Richard?Moore’s?collection,?which?included?two?rifles,?three?shotguns,?and?a?.22-caliber?handgun.?The?house?had?not?been?ransacked.
On?February?18,?1983,?Berlie?Petry?had?been?living?with?Elizabeth?Hickey?and?her?two?minor?children?for?three?or?four?years.?Hickey?was?the?daughter?of?Dottie?Moore?and?the?stepdaughter?of?Richard?Moore.?Petry?worked?the?night?shift?as?a?security?guard?at?a?lumber?company.?Both?Petry?and?Hickey?owned?guns,?including?rifles,?shotguns,?and?handguns.?They?kept?the?guns?locked?in?a?bedroom?closet,?except?for?a?revolver?that?Hickey?kept?in?a?trunk.?Petry?left?for?work?as?usual?at?11:30?p.m.?As?was?his?custom,?he?called?the?residence?every?hour?on?the?hour.?He?spoke?to?Hickey?at?1?a.m.?and?at?2?a.m.,?but?he?received?no?answer?at?3?a.m.?The?line?was?busy?at?4?a.m.?and?thereafter.
When?Petry?returned?home?at?8:30?a.m.,?the?telephone?receiver?was?off?the?hook.?In?the?bedroom,?he?found?Hickey’s?nude?and?lifeless?body?on?their?bed.?Both?the?bedroom?closet?and?Hickey’s?trunk?had?been?ripped?open.?The?guns?were?gone.?Also?missing?was?a?combination?radio?and?tape?player?that?Petry?had?recently?given?Hickey.?In?Hickey’s?trunk,?officers?found?a?note?in?Hickey’s?handwriting?that?said?”Call?Curt?at?[telephone?number?of?Rebecca?Williams]?about?money?for?guns.”
Hickey?had?been?killed?by?blows?to?the?head?with?a?bar?like?a?tire?iron?or?crowbar.?There?were?five?or?six?depressed?skull?fractures?that?left?brain?tissue?exposed.?Bruises?on?the?upper?right?chest?and?each?shoulder?indicated?Hickey?had?been?forcibly?held?down.?There?were?defensive?wounds?on?the?[1?Cal.4th?380]?back?of?the?hands.?Two?small?knife?incisions?in?the?chest?near?the?sternum?were?apparently?inflicted?after?death.?fn.?2
A?day?or?two?after?Hickey’s?murder,?defendant?arrived?at?his?stepfather’s?residence?in?Reno,?Nevada.?fn.?3?He?had?two?bundles?wrapped?in?blankets.?Defendant?said?they?were?guns?that?might?have?been?stolen.?Defendant’s?stepfather?gave?him?permission?to?leave?the?guns?at?the?residence.?On?February?28,?1983,?defendant?returned?to?Reno?and?moved?the?bundles?to?a?ministorage?unit.
A?search?of?defendant’s?automobile?yielded?a?product?manual?for?one?of?Petry’s?rifles,?a?knife?that?had?belonged?to?Hickey?and?had?the?name?”Liz”?written?on?it?in?fingernail?polish,?and?a?notebook?in?which?someone?had?written,?”Elizabeth,?weapons,?corner?of?Simpson?and?Pine?[the?location?of?Hickey’s?residence].”?Hickey’s?telephone?number?was?written?on?the?same?page.?Another?note?with?the?name?”Liz”?and?Hickey’s?telephone?number?was?found?in?defendant’s?room?at?his?mother’s?residence?in?Eureka.?A?third?note?with?Hickey’s?name,?address,?and?telephone?number?was?found?in?defendant’s?wallet.?Defendant’s?mother?gave?police?a?combination?radio?and?tape?player?that?had?been?in?defendant’s?room.?It?was?identical?to?the?one?taken?from?the?Hickey?residence.?In?a?suitcase?in?the?garage?of?defendant’s?mother’s?residence,?the?police?found?a?shotgun?like?one?taken?from?the?Moore?residence.?The?barrel?and?stock?had?been?sawed?off.
On?March?31,?1983,?law?enforcement?authorities?searched?the?ministorage?unit?in?Reno,?Nevada.?They?found?all?of?the?guns?taken?from?the?Moore?residence?except?one?shotgun?(apparently?the?one?found?in?defendant’s?mother’s?garage)?and?the?handgun.?They?also?found?all?the?guns?belonging?to?Hickey?and?Petry,?and?over?1,000?rounds?of?various?kinds?of?ammunition.?Most?of?the?guns?were?loaded.?Moore’s?handgun,?which?was?one?of?only?four?makes?that?could?have?fired?the?bullets?that?killed?Richard?Barnes,?was?never?found.
- The?Triplex?Theater?Robbery
A?man?entered?the?Triplex?Theater?on?February?19,?1983,?at?approximately?6:30?p.m.?He?had?long,?thin?blond?hair?and?was?wearing?sunglasses,?a?watch?cap,?and?gloves.?During?the?movie,?he?came?out?into?the?lobby,?pointed?a?[1?Cal.4th?381]?revolver?at?the?manager,?and?directed?him?into?the?office.?At?the?man’s?direction,?the?manager?put?$7,000?in?a?bag?and?gave?it?to?the?man,?who?ran?out?of?the?theater.
A?month?earlier,?on?January?16,?1983,?an?employee?of?the?theater?had?seen?a?man?with?thin?blond?hair,?wearing?sun?glasses,?a?large?coat,?a?watch?cap,?and?gloves,?who?came?out?into?the?lobby?several?times?during?the?movie.?The?man’s?behavior?seemed?so?unusual?that?she?eventually?decided?to?report?it?to?the?police,?but?the?man?had?left?before?the?police?arrived.?This?employee?selected?defendant’s?photograph?from?a?photo?lineup,?but?she?was?unable?to?identify?defendant?at?a?live?lineup.
The?theater?employees?assisted?the?police?in?preparing?a?composite?sketch?of?the?robber.?Five?of?the?employees?selected?defendant’s?photograph?from?a?photo?lineup?as?being?similar?to?the?robber,?although?none?of?them?made?a?positive?identification.
Defendant?bought?an?automobile?for?$1,602?in?cash?on?February?25,?1983.?Later?that?day,?defendant?was?involved?in?an?automobile?accident.?He?paid?the?other?driver?$100?in?settlement,?taking?the?cash?from?a?box?that?contained?stacks?of?currency.?When?he?rented?the?storage?locker?in?Reno,?Nevada,?defendant?paid?$150?for?six?months’?rental?in?advance.?Although?defendant?used?credit?cards?to?purchase?gasoline?in?January?and?February?of?1983,?including?three?purchases?on?February?18,?he?did?not?use?the?credit?cards?after?that?day.
In?a?suitcase?in?defendant’s?mother’s?garage,?the?police?found?a?blond?wig,?black?gloves,?a?watch?cap,?a?handgun,?and?various?items?of?theatrical?makeup?(including?spirit?gum,?liquid?latex,?derma?wax,?and?nose?putty).?In?the?room?defendant?occupied?in?his?mother’s?house,?the?police?found?a?note?that?was?apparently?a?list?of?defendant’s?expenses?and?debts.?On?it?defendant?had?written?”need?mucho?dinero”?and?”$1,000.00?I?owe?Mom?means?it’s?all?about?’movie?time.’?”?In?the?room,?the?police?also?found?$400?in?cash?in?a?plastic?container.
- Investigation?and?Additional?Evidence
Defendant?was?arrested?in?Humboldt?County?for?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery?on?March?3,?1983.?His?mother?visited?him?in?jail?on?March?27,?1983.?Defendant?asked?her?to?move?the?guns?and?ammunition?from?the?storage?locker?in?Reno?and?to?dispose?of?them?so?they?would?never?be?found.?He?referred?to?the?guns?as?”Brand?business.”?”The?Brand”?is?another?name?for?the?AB.?[1?Cal.4th?382]
In?September?1983,?Michael?Thompson?agreed?to?cooperate?with?law?enforcement?on?the?Barnes?killing.?Thompson?persuaded?Janet?Myers?to?cooperate?also.?In?October?1985,?after?testifying?as?a?defense?witness?at?defendant’s?preliminary?hearing,?Clifford?Smith?renounced?the?AB?and?agreed?to?testify?for?the?prosecution.
At?trial,?Tina?Ransbottom,?one?of?Hickey’s?neighbors,?testified?she?had?seen?a?man?with?Hickey?on?two?occasions?shortly?before?Hickey?was?killed.?When?police?showed?her?a?photographic?lineup,?she?selected?a?photograph?of?defendant?as?the?man?she?had?seen?with?Hickey.
- Defense?Evidence
The?defense?called?three?prison?inmates,?Wendall?Norris,?John?Stinson,?and?Robert?Rowland,?who?testified?that?the?AB?existed?only?as?an?outlook,?a?way?of?life,?or?a?loose?social?club?rather?than?an?organized?criminal?gang.?They?also?said?it?was?a?label?that?prison?authorities?used?to?justify?restrictive?confinement.
The?defense?adduced?evidence?to?show?that?Petry?had?the?motive?and?the?opportunity?to?kill?Hickey.?As?part?of?his?job,?Petry?was?required?to?patrol?the?lumberyard?each?hour?with?a?punch?clock?and?put?special?keys?in?it?at?each?of?33?key?stations.?Petry’s?tape?for?the?morning?of?February?19,?1983,?showed?that?no?keys?were?punched?between?5:35?and?6:15?a.m.?Petry?explained,?however,?that?he?missed?some?of?his?key?stations?because?he?had?to?attend?to?a?boiler?breakdown,?and?because?he?had?gate?duty.?Also,?Petry’s?telephone?log?showed?he?had?received?telephone?calls?at?6?a.m.?from?security?guards?at?other?locations.
Petry’s?relationship?with?Hickey?was?troubled.?Hickey?frequently?visited?bars?while?Petry?was?at?work?and?brought?men?home?with?her.?A?neighbor?testified?Hickey?had?brought?over?100?men?to?her?home.?Petry?once?came?home?from?work?and?found?another?man?in?bed?with?Hickey.?Hickey?infected?Petry?with?venereal?disease?at?least?twice.?Petry?testified?that?Hickey?was?the?first?and?only?woman?with?whom?he?had?been?sexually?intimate.?A?cab?driver?testified?that?Petry?began?hitting?Hickey?once?while?they?were?riding?in?his?cab.?Friends?recalled?seeing?Hickey?with?black?eyes?and?bruises?on?her?face?a?couple?of?times.?A?defense?expert,?psychiatrist?Martin?Blinder,?testified?about?domestic?homicides?and?the?kinds?of?relationships?that?are?most?often?associated?with?the?killing?of?a?spouse?or?lover.?He?said?that?mutilation?of?the?victim’s?face?indicated?a?close?personal?relationship?between?the?killer?and?the?victim.
Rebecca?Williams?testified?that?defendant?arrived?at?her?home?in?Auburn?on?February?13?or?14,?1983.?He?stayed?there?until?February?17.?He?borrowed?[1?Cal.4th?383]?her?car?that?day?and?returned?the?next?day,?February?18,?with?long?bundles.?He?left?again?in?her?car?the?same?day.?Defendant’s?stepfather?testified?that?defendant?arrived?in?Reno,?Nevada,?with?two?long?bundles?on?February?18?and?remained?there?until?February?20,?1983.
Defendant’s?brother?testified?that?he?had?purchased?the?radio?and?tape?player?found?in?defendant’s?mother’s?residence,?and?that?he?had?given?it?to?defendant?as?a?present.
- Facts?Relating?to?Penalty
In?1967,?defendant?was?convicted?of?possessing?marijuana?and?of?escape?from?Tehama?County?jail.?He?was?released?on?parole?in?1971.?Defendant?violated?his?parole?by?going?to?Montana,?where?he?attempted?to?rob?a?small?grocery?store?with?a?gun.?Defendant?was?placed?in?a?drug?program,?but?he?escaped?from?custody.?Defendant?robbed?a?store?in?Humboldt?County?in?September?1971.?He?was?later?arrested?in?Florida?and?brought?back?to?Montana?to?complete?his?sentence.
In?December?1971,?while?being?transported?in?Montana,?defendant?grabbed?a?gun?from?one?of?the?two?transporting?officers.?After?forcing?the?officers?to?drive?to?a?remote?location,?defendant?locked?them?both?in?the?trunk?of?their?patrol?car?and?used?the?gun?to?force?his?way?into?the?car?of?a?passing?motorist,?John?Digalis.?Defendant?told?Digalis?to?drive?to?Idaho.?Law?enforcement?officers?stopped?the?car.?Defendant?pointed?the?gun?at?Digalis’s?head?and?threatened?to?kill?him?if?the?officers?approached.?At?defendant’s?order,?Digalis?again?began?to?drive,?but?the?officers?shot?out?a?tire.?Defendant?eventually?surrendered.?He?was?convicted?of?inmate?holding?a?hostage,?a?Montana?felony.
Defendant?was?in?San?Quentin?Prison?in?May?1978.?Defendant?came?to?the?cell?of?fellow?inmate?Ricky?Carpenter.?He?told?Carpenter?he?was?going?to?kill?Leroy?Banks,?an?African-American?inmate,?because?Banks?had?been?disrespectful?to?an?AB?member.?Carpenter?pointed?out?Banks.?Defendant?stabbed?Banks?10?to?15?times?in?the?chest.?Banks?died?of?his?wounds.
Prison?authorities?found?defendant?in?possession?of?stabbing?instruments?in?October?1978?and?May?1980.?While?in?jail?awaiting?trial?in?this?case,?defendant?struck?jail?guards?on?two?occasions,?and?on?another?occasion?he?violently?resisted?being?taken?to?court,?hitting?and?biting?the?guards?who?were?escorting?him.
Testifying?in?his?own?behalf?at?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?said?he?had?not?testified?at?the?guilt?phase?because?the?trial?court?had?ordered?him?[1?Cal.4th?384]?shackled?in?the?courtroom.?Because?he?had?not?yet?been?convicted,?he?had?refused?to?appear?before?the?jury?in?chains.?He?denied?he?was?guilty?of?any?of?the?charged?offenses.?He?admitted?that?he?knew?Hickey.?He?said?Hickey?had?asked?him?to?sell?her?guns?for?her?on?consignment.?The?final?arrangements?were?made?during?a?telephone?call?from?Hickey?to?the?home?of?Rebecca?Williams?in?Auburn.?He?said?he?received?the?guns?on?February?18,?1983,?in?Lakeport?from?a?man?named?Kenny.?He?said?he?had?supported?himself?between?October?1982?and?March?1983?by?selling?marijuana.
Defendant?presented?evidence?of?the?harsh?conditions?of?his?imprisonment?in?Montana.?A?woman?who?had?visited?defendant?during?that?time?testified?that?he?was?a?valuable?friend.?Joseph?O’Rourke?testified?that?defendant?had?been?a?valuable?employee?in?his?handyman?business?during?the?one?month?he?had?worked?for?him;?O’Rourke?refused?to?answer?any?questions?about?the?AB?or?his?relationship?to?it.
The?defense?presented?evidence?about?the?conditions?of?defendant’s?confinement?in?jail?pending?the?trial?in?this?case.?Defendant?was?confined?apart?from?other?prisoners.?Because?he?refused?to?eat?meat,?a?special?diet?was?necessary.?Defendant?found?the?food?unappetizing?and?lost?20?pounds.?A?nutritionist?testified?that?the?food?provided?was?monotonous?and?nutritionally?inadequate.?A?counselor?appointed?to?meet?with?defendant?each?week?testified?that?defendant?found?the?conditions?of?his?confinement?humiliating?and?stressful,?and?that?these?conditions?made?him?seriously?depressed?and?adversely?affected?his?ability?to?communicate.?Fred?Rosenthal,?a?psychiatrist,?testified?that?defendant’s?isolation?in?a?dimly?lit?area?caused?sensory?deprivation,?leading?to?anxiety,?depression,?and?hostility.
Defendant’s?mother,?sister,?and?brother?testified?that?they?loved?defendant?and?did?not?want?him?to?die.
Three?officers?who?worked?at?Humboldt?County?jail?and?one?who?worked?at?San?Quentin?testified?that?defendant?had?been?a?respectful?and?cooperative?inmate.
- Guilt?and?Special?Circumstance?Issues
- Territorial?Jurisdiction?and?Vicinage
Defendant?contends?that?Humboldt?County?Superior?Court?lacked?territorial?jurisdiction?to?try?him?for?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes,?that?trial?of?that?offense?in?Humboldt?County?violated?his?right?under?the?state?and?federal?Constitutions?to?be?tried?by?a?jury?drawn?from?the?locality?where?the?crime?[1?Cal.4th?385]?occurred,?and?that?in?any?event?the?convictions?for?conspiracy?and?for?Richard?Barnes’s?murder?are?invalid?because?the?jury?failed?to?find?the?required?jurisdictional?facts.?We?reject?each?of?these?contentions.
[1]?Defendant?maintains?that?territorial?jurisdiction?to?try?him?for?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes?existed?only?in?Los?Angeles?County,?because?it?was?there?that?Richard?Barnes?was?fatally?wounded?and?died,?and?there?that?his?body?was?discovered.?Defendant?relies?on?section?790,?which?provides?that?a?charge?of?murder?may?be?tried?in?a?county?where?the?fatal?injury?occurred,?the?victim?died,?or?the?victim’s?body?was?found.?Defendant?argues?that?section?790?gives?him?a?state?entitlement?to?be?tried?in?Los?Angeles?County?for?the?Barnes?murder,?and?that?deprivation?of?that?entitlement?denied?him?the?due?process?of?law?guaranteed?by?the?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.Defendant?recognizes?that?many?cases?have?held?that?section?790?is?not?exclusive?and?that?section?781?also?applies?to?a?charge?of?murder.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?493-494?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640].)?Under?section?781,?a?public?offense?may?be?tried?in?a?jurisdiction?in?which?the?defendant?made?preparations?for?the?crime,?even?though?the?preparatory?acts?did?not?constitute?an?essential?element?of?the?crime.?(People?v.?Powell?(1967)?67?Cal.2d?32,?62?[59?Cal.Rptr.?817,?429?P.2d?137].)?Defendant?urges?us?to?overrule?decisions?applying?section?781?to?the?crime?of?murder?because?they?failed?to?consider?the?argument?that?section?790,?as?a?special?statute?providing?for?trial?of?the?offense?of?murder,?should?take?precedence?over?a?statute?of?general?application?like?section?781.
The?rule?of?statutory?construction?cited?by?defendant?applies?only?when?two?statutory?provisions?are?inconsistent.?(See?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1859?[“when?a?general?and?particular?provision?are?inconsistent,?the?latter?is?paramount?to?the?former”];?International?Assn.?of?Fire?Fighters?Union?v.?City?of?Pleasanton?(1976)?56?Cal.App.3d?959,?976?[129?Cal.Rptr.?68].)?Two?statutes?dealing?with?the?same?subject?are?given?concurrent?effect?if?they?can?be?harmonized,?even?though?one?is?specific?and?the?other?general.?(Acco?Contractors,?Inc.?v.?McNamara?&?Peepe?Lumber?Co.?(1976)?63?Cal.App.3d?292,?295?[133?Cal.Rptr.?717];?see?also?People?ex?rel.?Deukmejian?v.?County?of?Mendocino?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?476,?487-488?[204?Cal.Rptr.?897,?683?P.2d?1150].)?Because?sections?781?and?790?are?not?inconsistent?and?can?be?harmonized,?we?decline?to?overrule,?and?instead?reaffirm,?the?decisions?of?this?court?holding?that?both?sections?are?proper?sources?of?territorial?jurisdiction?for?trying?the?crime?of?murder.
Under?section?781,?the?courts?of?Humboldt?County?had?territorial?jurisdiction?to?try?defendant?for?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes.?The?prosecution’s?[1?Cal.4th?386]?evidence?showed?that?defendant?was?instructed?to?go?to?Northern?California?to?procure?a?weapon?or?weapons?with?which?to?kill?Barnes,?that?defendant?went?to?his?former?home?in?Humboldt?County?a?month?after?his?release?from?prison,?and?that?he?returned?three?months?later?with?a?revolver?and?a?sawed-off?shotgun.?He?arrived?in?the?Los?Angeles?area?with?these?weapons?just?days?after?the?Moore?weapons?were?stolen.?Meyers?testified?that?the?shotgun?found?in?defendant’s?mother’s?garage?appeared?to?be?the?same?one?defendant?brought?with?him?to?Los?Angeles.?This?shotgun?was?the?same?model?as?the?one?taken?from?Moore.?The?jury?could?reasonably?infer?that?the?shotgun?was?Moore’s?and?that?the?revolver?defendant?brought?back?to?Los?Angeles?was?the?one?taken?from?Moore?and?never?found.?The?jury?could?reasonably?infer?from?these?facts?that?defendant?committed?acts?in?Humboldt?County?that?were?preparatory?to?the?murder?of?Barnes.
[2]?Defendant?next?argues?that?trial?of?the?Barnes?murder?in?Humboldt?County?deprived?him?of?the?right?to?be?tried?by?a?jury?drawn?from?the?locality?or?”vicinage”?where?the?crime?was?committed,?a?right?he?contends?is?constitutionally?guaranteed?at?both?the?federal?(U.S.?Const.,?Amends.?VI,?XIV)?and?state?(see?People?v.?Powell?(1891)?87?Cal.?348,?355-360?[25?P.?481];?but?see?also?People?v.?Guzman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?915,?938?[248?Cal.Rptr.?467,?755?P.2d?917])?levels.?The?issue?is?not?preserved?for?appellate?review,?however,?because?no?objection?on?this?ground?was?made?in?the?trial?court.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???225,?subd.?(a);?former???1060;?People?v.?Hernandez?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?315,?340?[253?Cal.Rptr.?199,?763?P.2d?1289].) [3]?Defendant?contends?that?his?trial?counsel’s?failure?to?object?in?the?trial?court?on?vicinage?grounds?constituted?ineffective?assistance?in?violation?of?his?right?to?effective?counsel?under?both?the?federal?(U.S.?Const.,?Amends.?VI,?XIV)?and?state?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???15)?Constitutions.?We?disagree.A?defendant?seeking?relief?on?the?basis?of?ineffective?assistance?of?counsel?must?show?both?that?trial?counsel?failed?to?act?in?a?manner?to?be?expected?of?reasonably?competent?attorneys?acting?as?diligent?advocates,?and?that?it?is?reasonably?probable?a?more?favorable?determination?would?have?resulted?in?the?absence?of?counsel’s?failings.?(People?v.?Fosselman?(1983)?33?Cal.3d?572,?584?[189?Cal.Rptr.?855,?659?P.2d?1144];?see?also?Strickland?v.?Washington?(1984)?466?U.S.?668,?687-696?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?693-699,?104?S.Ct.?2052].)?Here,?a?reasonably?competent?attorney?would?have?been?aware?that?a?Court?of?Appeal?had?held?in?1974?that?trial?of?a?murder?charge?in?a?county?in?which?the?defendant?performed?preliminary?acts?did?not?violate?the?defendant’s?vicinage?rights?even?though?the?defendant?completed?the?crime?in?a?different?county.?(People?v.?Powell?(1974)?40?Cal.App.3d?107,?123?[115?Cal.Rptr.?109].)?We?have?no?occasion?here?to?consider?the?soundness?of?that?[1?Cal.4th?387]?holding,?but?we?conclude?that?a?reasonably?competent?attorney?might?well?have?determined?that?an?objection?on?vicinage?grounds?would?have?been?futile?in?light?of?this?precedent.?Counsel?does?not?render?ineffective?assistance?by?failing?to?make?motions?or?objections?that?counsel?reasonably?determines?would?be?futile.
[4]?Defendant?next?argues?that?we?must?set?aside?his?convictions?for?conspiracy?and?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes?because?the?jury?failed?to?make?express?findings?of?the?jurisdictional?facts.?He?asserts?that?the?lack?of?such?findings?renders?the?guilt?verdicts?unreliable,?thereby?violating?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution.A?charge?of?conspiracy?may?be?tried?in?”any?county?in?which?any?overt?act?tending?to?effect?such?conspiracy?shall?be?done.”?(??182,?subd.?(a).)?The?information?charged?defendant?with?conspiring?to?commit?robbery,?grand?theft,?and?murder?”at?and?in?the?County?of?Humboldt.”?The?information?alleged?that?defendant?committed?specified?overt?acts?in?Humboldt?and?Los?Angeles?Counties,?and?in?Washoe?County,?Nevada.?The?jury?found?defendant?guilty?of?the?crime?of?conspiracy?as?charged?in?the?information.?It?made?no?findings?as?to?the?commission?of?particular?overt?acts.
Because?the?information?charged?defendant?with?committing?the?crime?of?conspiracy?in?Humboldt?County,?the?jury’s?general?verdict?convicting?defendant?of?conspiracy?as?charged?necessarily?encompasses?a?finding?that?defendant?committed?the?offense?in?Humboldt?County.?This?in?turn?implies?a?finding?that?defendant?committed?at?least?one?overt?act?in?Humboldt?County?in?furtherance?of?the?conspiracy.?Thus,?the?jury?made?a?sufficient?finding?of?the?required?jurisdictional?fact.
Defendant?disputes?this?conclusion,?arguing?that?the?general?verdict?convicting?defendant?of?conspiracy?did?not?establish?the?required?jurisdictional?fact?because?the?jury?was?not?instructed?on?the?need?to?determine?jurisdictional?facts,?and?so?it?may?not?have?focused?on?whether?the?conspiracy?occurred?in?Humboldt?County.?Defendant?cites?no?authority?for?this?argument,?and?we?are?not?persuaded?that?the?court?was?required,?absent?a?request,?to?instruct?on?the?determination?of?jurisdictional?facts,?or?that?the?lack?of?instructions?provides?a?basis?to?challenge?the?verdict?as?a?finding?of?territorial?jurisdiction.?(See?People?v.?Sering?(1991)?232?Cal.App.3d?677,?687?[283?Cal.Rptr.?507].)
The?information?charged?defendant?with?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes?in?the?County?of?Los?Angeles,?and?the?jury?found?defendant?guilty?as?charged.?This?verdict?by?itself?does?not?establish?territorial?jurisdiction?of?the?murder?[1?Cal.4th?388]?charge?in?Humboldt?County.?As?we?have?seen,?however,?the?jury?also?convicted?defendant?of?conspiracy?to?commit?murder.?The?evidence?showed?that?the?object?of?the?conspiracy?was?the?murder?of?Barnes,?not?the?murder?of?Hickey.?Because?the?jury?found?that?defendant?committed?an?overt?act?in?furtherance?of?the?conspiracy?in?Humboldt?County,?it?necessarily?found?that?defendant?committed?acts?preliminary?to?the?murder?in?that?county,?and?thus?it?found?the?facts?necessary?under?section?781?to?establish?territorial?jurisdiction?in?Humboldt?County?for?the?Barnes?murder.
- The?Motion?to?Sever
When?it?denied?the?motion?to?sever,?the?trial?court?said?it?had?concluded?that?the?evidence?presented?at?the?preliminary?hearing?supported?a?finding?that?defendant?committed?the?Hickey?and?Barnes?murders?to?further?a?single?complex?conspiracy.?Defendant?disputes?this?conclusion.?He?maintains?that?the?evidence?presented?at?the?preliminary?hearing?was?sufficient?to?establish?only?a?simple?conspiracy?to?kill?Barnes,?and?that?the?Hickey?offenses,?because?they?occurred?after?the?killing?of?Barnes,?were?necessarily?unrelated?to?that?conspiracy.
The?preliminary?hearing?evidence?supports?the?trial?court’s?conclusion?that?a?single?conspiracy?linked?all?the?charged?offenses.?Michael?Thompson?[1?Cal.4th?389]?testified?that?after?the?AB?council?decided?to?give?defendant?the?contract?to?kill?Richard?Barnes,?he?and?two?other?council?members?told?defendant?of?the?decision.?They?instructed?defendant?to?”go?to?Northern?California?and?by?means?of?robbery,?burglary?or?association?with?drug?dealers,?procure?the?weapons?necessary?to?carry?out?the?contracts?in?Southern?California.”?Although?the?only?murder?contract?given?to?defendant?at?that?time?was?for?the?killing?of?Barnes,?the?council?intended?that?the?weapons?defendant?was?to?steal?would?be?available?for?other?contracts?as?well.?After?defendant?was?released?from?prison,?but?before?he?killed?Barnes,?the?council?decided?to?give?him?two?other?murder?contracts.?A?courier?informed?defendant?of?these?additional?contracts.
This?evidence?provided?proof?of?an?ongoing?conspiracy?to?kill?perceived?enemies?of?the?AB,?or?their?relatives,?and?to?commit?robbery?and?other?crimes?for?the?purpose?of?obtaining?money?and?weapons?with?which?to?accomplish?these?killings.?This?evidence?would?have?been?admissible?in?the?trial?of?the?Hickey?counts?to?show?motive.?(Evid.?Code,???1101,?subd.?(b).)?The?jury?could?reasonably?have?inferred?that?defendant?killed?Hickey?because?she?knew?how?he?came?into?possession?of?the?Moore?weapons,?which?might?have?been?used?in?the?Barnes?killing,?and?also?to?obtain?additional?firearms?from?her?residence.?Evidence?of?the?Barnes?murder?would?have?been?admissible?in?a?separate?trial?of?the?Hickey?offenses?to?confirm?the?existence?of?the?conspiracy?and?defendant’s?participation?in?it,?and?thereby?to?further?establish?the?motives?for?the?Hickey?offenses.?The?trial?court?could?reasonably?have?concluded?that?the?probative?value?of?the?conspiracy?and?Barnes?murder?was?substantial?enough?to?outweigh?the?prejudice?to?defendant?resulting?from?evidence?of?these?other?crimes.?(Id.,???352.)
Were?we?to?conclude?that?evidence?of?the?conspiracy?and?Barnes?murder?would?not?have?been?admissible?in?a?trial?of?the?Hickey?burglary?and?murder,?it?would?not?follow?that?severance?was?required.?[7]?Cross-?admissibility?of?evidence?in?separate?trials?is?but?one?of?the?factors?the?trial?court?must?consider?in?determining?whether?potential?prejudice?requires?severance.?(Frank?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?632,?641?[257?Cal.Rptr.?550,?770?P.2d?1119].)?To?discharge?his?burden?of?showing?prejudice,?defendant?must?show,?for?example,?that?one?of?the?offenses?was?substantially?more?inflammatory?than?the?other?or?was?supported?by?significantly?stronger?evidence.?(Ibid.)?[5c]?Defendant?has?made?neither?showing?here.?The?evidence?that?defendant?killed?Barnes?was?not?significantly?stronger?than?the?evidence?he?killed?Hickey.?No?eyewitnesses?testified?to?either?killing,?nor?did?defendant?confess?to?either.?The?prosecution’s?case?as?to?each?was?strong?but?not?overwhelming.?Nor?was?the?Barnes?murder?significantly?more?inflammatory?than?the?Hickey?murder.?The?Barnes?murder?was?an?execution-style?slaying?[1?Cal.4th?390]?of?a?person?whose?only?offense?was?fathering?a?son?believed?to?have?betrayed?a?prison?gang;?the?Hickey?murder?was?an?exceptionally?brutal?slaying?of?a?young?mother.?Although?different?in?their?particulars,?the?two?killings?were?equally?abhorrent.
We?conclude?that?defendant?did?not?make?a?sufficiently?compelling?showing?of?prejudice?to?require?severance.?Therefore,?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?denying?the?motion?to?sever?the?conspiracy?and?Barnes?murder?counts?from?the?other?charges?in?the?information.
- The?Motion?for?Change?of?Venue
When?a?defendant?shows?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?trial?cannot?be?had?in?the?county?of?original?venue,?a?motion?for?change?of?venue?must?be?granted.?(??1033;?People?v.?Coleman?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?112,?133?[255?Cal.Rptr.?813,?768?P.2d?32].)?[9]?The?most?significant?factors?to?be?considered?are?the?gravity?and?nature?of?the?crime,?the?size?and?nature?of?the?community,?the?extent?and?nature?of?the?publicity?concerning?the?crime,?the?status?of?the?victim,?the?status?of?the?accused,?and?”any?indication?from?the?voir?dire?of?prospective?and?actual?jurors?that?the?publicity?did?in?fact?have?a?prejudicial?effect.”?(Coleman,?supra,?at?p.?133.)?On?appeal?from?a?conviction?after?denial?of?a?motion?to?change?venue,?a?reviewing?court?makes?an?independent?appraisal?of?these?factors.?(Ibid.)
[8b]?The?charges?against?defendant?included?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder,?one?with?special?circumstance?allegations.?Humboldt?County?is?predominantly?rural?and?is?one?of?the?state’s?smaller?counties,?with?a?1984?estimated?total?population?of?108,024.?Therefore,?the?first?two?factors?favor?a?change?of?venue.?Examination?of?the?other?factors?and?the?voir?dire,?however,?indicate?that?defendant?failed?to?demonstrate?a?reasonable?likelihood?that,?as?a?result?of?pretrial?publicity,?a?fair?trial?was?not?obtainable?in?Humboldt?County.The?record?shows?that?publicity?in?this?case?began?with?accounts?in?April?1983?that?defendant?had?been?charged?with?the?Hickey?murder.?Newspaper?[1?Cal.4th?391]?articles?described?Hickey?as?”a?22-year-old?mother?of?two,”?mentioned?that?her?children?were?sleeping?in?another?room?of?the?house?when?she?was?killed,?and?related?that?she?died?”of?multiple?skull?fractures?from?numerous?blows?to?the?head.”?After?these?initial?articles,?there?was?a?six-month?hiatus?in?publicity?until?the?first?preliminary?hearing?in?October?1983.
Accounts?of?the?preliminary?hearing,?in?addition?to?noting?evidence?implicating?defendant,?related?that?defendant’s?fingerprints?were?not?found?in?the?Hickey?residence;?that?defendant’s?stepfather?placed?him?in?Reno,?Nevada,?on?the?night?of?the?Hickey?murder;?that?Petry,?described?as?Hickey’s?”live-in?boyfriend,”?had?”admitted?his?anger?at?Hickey’s?promiscuous?behavior”;?and?that?the?defense?was?contending?it?was?Petry?who?had?killed?Hickey.?The?accounts?also?mentioned?that?a?cab?driver?said?he?frequently?drove?Hickey?to?two?local?bars,?and?that?a?truck?driver?remembered?seeing?her?in?one?of?these?bars?at?midnight?on?the?night?she?was?killed.
In?January?1984,?the?media?reported?on?hearings?on?a?habeas?corpus?petition?through?which?defendant?sought?changes?in?the?conditions?of?his?confinement.?They?noted?his?successful?request?for?a?special?diet?because?of?a?stomach?condition?and?his?complaints?that?his?frequent?shackling?was?unnecessary?because?he?had?”never?assaulted?any?jail?employee?or?police?officer.”
In?February?1984,?the?media?reported?that?the?prosecution?was?seeking?to?expand?the?charges?against?defendant?to?include?allegations?that?he?killed?Richard?Barnes?”as?part?of?a?conspiracy?he?formed?with?other?members?of?a?prison?gang?called?the?Aryan?Brotherhood.”?They?related?allegations?in?a?prosecution?news?release?that?the?conspiracy?included?plans?to?steal?weapons?and?to?kill?four?people.?In?March?1984,?the?media?reported?that?the?prosecution?had?filed?new?charges?against?defendant,?requiring?a?new?preliminary?hearing.?These?accounts?mentioned?that?defendant’s?prior?preliminary?hearing?”was?reputed?to?be?the?longest?and?most?expensive?in?Eureka?Municipal?Court?history”?and?that?two?supervisors?had?temporarily?blocked?payment?of?court?costs?”in?what?has?become?the?most?expensive?criminal?action?in?Humboldt?County.”?fn.?4
The?media?reported?on?the?second?preliminary?hearing?in?April?and?May?of?1984.?They?related?Michael?Thompson’s?testimony?that?the?AB?was?”one?of?many?prison?gangs?in?which?inmates?of?the?same?race?band?together”?and?[1?Cal.4th?392]?”?’just?short?of?being?a?white?supremist?[sic]?organization,’?”?and?that?defendant?was?chosen?to?carry?out?murder?contracts?because?of?his?”?’calculating?nature,’?his?past?criminal?record?and?’his?mentality?in?general.’?”?They?also?related?the?testimony?of?defense?witnesses?Wendell?Norris?and?Merlin?Forbes?that?defendant?was?not?an?AB?member,?that?the?AB?was?more?like?a?social?club?than?a?gang,?and?that?the?AB?was?never?involved?in?any?conspiracy?to?kill?relatives?of?persons?who?had?acted?against?the?AB.
An?article?appeared?in?a?Eureka?newspaper?in?August?1984,?based?on?an?article?printed?in?a?San?Francisco?newspaper,?alleging?that?the?AB?had?become?”a?national?crime?organization?with?links?to?the?Mafia,”?and?that?it?was?”involved?in?criminal?activities?outside?the?prison?system,?including?loan-?sharking,?wholesale?narcotics?dealing,?extortion,?arson?and?murder.”?The?article?did?not?mention?defendant?or?make?any?reference?to?the?crimes?charged?in?this?case.
Coverage?of?the?case?by?local?radio?and?television?stations,?like?the?newspaper?coverage,?was?intermittent?rather?than?continuous.?A?Eureka?television?station,?KIEM-TV,?carried?stories?about?defendant?on?its?newscasts?on?just?10?days?between?March?3,?1983,?and?January?4,?1985.?The?average?length?of?the?broadcasts?was?less?than?one?minute.?Viewed?as?a?whole,?the?media?coverage?was?restrained?and?balanced,?prominently?featuring?the?defense?evidence?and?arguments,?and?it?abated?almost?entirely?after?the?preliminary?hearings.
The?remaining?factors,?the?community?status?of?the?victim?and?the?defendant,?do?not?demonstrate?a?necessity?to?change?venue.?Defendant?was?not?a?minority?group?member,?nor?was?he?a?friendless?outsider.?Although?the?first?newspaper?articles?described?defendant?as?an?Oregon?resident,?the?media?later?reported?that?defendant’s?mother?lived?in?Humboldt?County?and?that?defendant?had?lived?with?her.?Richard?Barnes?was?not?a?resident?of?Humboldt?County?and?was?apparently?unknown?there.?Elizabeth?Hickey?lived?in?the?community,?but?she?was?not?prominent.?As?a?young?mother?she?was?undoubtedly?a?sympathetic?figure,?but?there?is?nothing?in?the?record?to?indicate?that?her?death?caused?unusual?emotion?in?the?community.?(See?People?v.?Edelbacher?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?983,?1002?[254?Cal.Rptr.?586,?766?P.2d?1].)
The?defense?filed?its?original?motion?for?change?of?venue?in?January?1985.?On?March?12,?1985,?before?jury?selection?had?begun?but?more?than?two?years?after?the?Barnes?and?Hickey?killings,?the?trial?court?denied?the?motion?without?prejudice.?As?the?court?remarked,?there?had?been?at?that?time?”a?nine-month?span?of?near?media?blackout.”
Jury?selection?began?on?June?11,?1985.?The?defense?filed?a?second?motion?for?change?of?venue?on?August?21,?1985,?in?the?midst?of?jury?selection.?[1?Cal.4th?393]?Attached?to?the?motion?as?an?exhibit?was?an?analysis?of?potential?jurors’?responses?to?a?questionnaire?they?were?required?to?complete.?According?to?this?analysis,?76?percent?of?the?potential?jurors?said?they?had?not?heard?of?defendant,?78?percent?had?not?heard?of?Hickey,?94?percent?had?not?heard?of?Richard?Barnes,?and?78?percent?had?not?learned?anything?about?the?case?from?the?media.
Jury?selection?was?completed?on?October?30,?1985.?The?trial?court?heard?and?denied?the?second?venue?motion?the?next?day.?In?denying?the?renewed?motion,?the?court?said?that?more?than?730?prospective?jurors?had?been?examined?on?exposure?to?pretrial?publicity.?Of?these,?484?said?they?had?no?knowledge?of?the?case?and?no?knowledge?of?the?AB.?Another?48?to?50?had?knowledge?of?the?AB?but?no?knowledge?of?the?case?and?could?be?fair.?Thus,?over?530?prospective?jurors,?or?more?than?72?percent,?said?they?had?no?previous?knowledge?of?the?case.?This?is?hardly?the?picture?of?a?community?in?which?knowledge?of?the?case?had?become?so?deeply?imbedded?as?to?preclude?a?fair?trial.
The?record?does?not?support?defendant’s?assertion?that?the?jurors?who?determined?the?verdicts?had?significant?pretrial?familiarity?with?the?case.?Juror?Stovall?was?familiar?with?the?names?of?Price?and?Hickey,?and?recalled?some?discussion?of?the?case?at?Arcata?Redwood,?where?both?she?and?Petry?had?worked,?but?she?said?she?did?not?know?much?about?the?case?and?had?not?formed?an?opinion.?Juror?Olivieri?said?that?a?coworker?told?him?defendant?had?sued?”the?City,”?and?that?it?had?”something?to?do?with?mistreatment?when?he?was?taken?into?custody,”?but?he?was?sure?this?would?not?affect?his?ability?to?be?fair.?Juror?Gustafson?said?he?had?heard?of?defendant,?but?he?apparently?confused?this?case?with?another.?Juror?Kramer’s?husband?was?a?psychologist?and?was?appointed?by?the?court?to?examine?defendant?for?competency,?but?there?is?no?indication?she?discussed?the?case?with?her?husband.?Some?jurors?indicated?acquaintance?with?one?or?more?of?the?witnesses,?but?none?said?this?would?interfere?with?credibility?determinations.?None?of?the?actual?jurors?demonstrated?significant?recall?of?the?charged?offenses.
Defense?counsel?was?able?to?select?a?jury?while?using?only?18?of?his?26?peremptory?challenges,?and?6?of?his?8?peremptory?challenges?to?alternate?jurors.?The?failure?to?exhaust?peremptories?is?a?strong?indication?”that?the?jurors?were?fair,?and?that?the?defense?itself?so?concluded.”?(Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?180.)
Apart?from?the?traditional?factors,?defendant?maintains?that?a?change?of?venue?was?required?in?this?case?because?Juror?Southworth?was?acquainted?[1?Cal.4th?394]?with?the?prosecutor’s?wife?and?was?herself?prosecuted?during?the?trial?by?the?local?district?attorney’s?office,?Juror?Kramer?(as?previously?mentioned)?was?married?to?a?psychologist?appointed?by?the?court?to?examine?defendant?for?competency,?and?the?local?jail?had?inadequate?facilities?to?house?an?inmate?of?defendant’s?reputed?dangerousness?for?an?extended?period?of?time.?None?of?these?facts?was?urged?as?a?ground?for?changing?venue,?and?none?alters?our?conclusion?that?defendant?has?failed?to?demonstrate?error?in?the?denial?of?his?motions?to?change?venue.
- The?Threatened?Sanctions?Against?Defense?Counsel
During?jury?selection,?the?trial?court?issued?a?written?order?denying?without?hearing?a?defense?motion?to?dismiss?the?case?for?violation?of?defendant’s?statutory?speedy?trial?rights?(??1382).?In?this?order,?the?trial?court?criticized?the?two?attorneys?representing?defendant?for?making?repetitive?motions?and?for?including?misleading?and?incomplete?factual?statements?in?their?motion?papers.?The?court?cited?specific?instances?of?such?conduct?and?said?they?were?grounds?for?sanctions?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?128.5.?fn.?5?The?court?said?it?would?hold?a?hearing?after?the?trial?to?determine?whether?to?impose?sanctions?under?this?section?and?would?consider?compliance?with?its?ruling?as?a?factor?at?that?hearing.
Defense?counsel?moved?to?advance?the?date?for?the?hearing?regarding?sanctions.?Counsel?requested?a?prompt?resolution?of?the?sanctions?issue?because,?in?counsel’s?words,?”[t]he?mere?knowledge?that?at?the?end?of?the?trial?the?Court?will?impose?financial?sanctions,?as?well?as?perhaps?other?sanctions,?against?defense?counsel?is?…?so?threatening?and?intimidating?that?it?reduces?defense?counsel’s?ability?to?fully?protect?[defendant’s]?rights,?knowing?that?to?protect?those?rights?or?vigorously?defend?[defendant]?will?only?result?in?stronger?sanctions.”
The?trial?court?denied?the?motion?at?the?next?court?session.?In?doing?so,?the?court?said?its?previous?order?meant?only?that?there?was?a?possibility?of?a?posttrial?hearing?on?sanctions,?and?that?the?court?now?believed?a?hearing?might?not?be?necessary.?The?court?explained?that?it?had?referred?to?sanctions?only?to?remind?counsel?of?their?ethical?duties,?not?to?curb?vigorous?advocacy.?The?court?ordered?counsel?not?to?allow?concern?about?possible?sanctions?to?interfere?with?their?representation?of?defendant.?[1?Cal.4th?395] [10]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?not?promptly?resolving?the?sanctions?issue?because?the?threat?of?possible?sanctions?may?have?inhibited?counsel?in?forcefully?advocating?defendant’s?cause?at?trial.?He?contends?that?the?error?deprived?him?of?these?rights?under?the?federal?Constitution:?his?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?rights?to?effective?assistance?of?counsel,?to?present?a?defense,?and?to?completely?cross-examine?witnesses;?his?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?right?to?a?fair?trial?consistent?with?due?process?of?law;?and?his?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?reliable?guilt?and?penalty?phase?verdicts?in?this?capital?case.
We?agree?it?is?usually?preferable?for?the?trial?court?to?promptly?resolve?any?issue?that?arises?regarding?misconduct?by?counsel,?rather?than?deferring?hearing?on?possible?sanctions?until?after?the?trial.?Here,?however,?the?trial?court?indicated?it?had?not?initiated?sanctions?proceedings?and?had?mentioned?sanctions?only?to?impress?upon?counsel?that?certain?practices,?including?making?motions?that?duplicated?motions?already?denied,?were?unacceptable.?We?do?not?find?such?warnings?improper?(see?People?v.?McKenzie?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?616,?632?[194?Cal.Rptr.?462,?668?P.2d?769]?[attorney?must?respectfully?yield?to?court’s?rulings,?whether?right?or?wrong]),?particularly?where,?as?here,?the?court?also?emphasizes?counsel’s?duty?to?vigorously?represent?their?clients?by?all?legitimate?and?appropriate?means.?Counsel?presumably?knew?that?their?due?process?rights?to?notice?and?hearing?and?their?statutory?rights?to?appellate?review?gave?them?effective?protection?against?the?unwarranted?imposition?of?sanctions.?We?find?no?error?and?no?prejudice.
- Defendant’s?Competence?to?Stand?Trial
During?jury?selection,?the?court?held?a?hearing?in?camera,?in?the?absence?of?both?prosecutors?and?defense?counsel,?to?permit?defendant?to?express?concerns?about?his?legal?representation.?Defendant?explained?that?his?primary?problems?were?the?conditions?of?his?jail?confinement?and?the?court’s?rulings?denying?motions?his?counsel?had?made.?He?said?the?court’s?comments?in?rejecting?defense?positions?suggested?to?him?that?the?court?believed?his?counsel?to?be?incompetent.?In?the?presence?of?the?prosecutors?and?defense?counsel,?the?court?announced?it?would?appoint?another?attorney?to?advise?defendant.?Defendant?protested?that?he?would?not?trust?anyone?the?court?appointed.
After?defendant?had?left?the?courtroom,?a?prosecutor?suggested?the?court?might?wish?to?comment?on?defendant’s?demeanor.?The?court?replied?that?defendant?was?”extremely?upset”?and?”[i]rritated?with?the?whole?process.”?Referring?to?the?section?of?the?Penal?Code?dealing?with?competence?to?stand?trial,?the?court?said?that?it?was?”unclear?at?this?point?whether?we?have?a?1368?[1?Cal.4th?396]?problem?or?not.”?The?court?said?it?might?”appoint?someone?to?attempt?to?interview”?defendant?and?added?that?it?was?”not?at?this?point?expressing?a?1368?doubt.”?The?prosecutor?commented?that?”defendant’s?voice?was?shaking,?as?well?as?his?body,?hands,?legs.”?The?court?agreed?that?defendant?was?”apparently?under?a?great?deal?of?emotional?stress.”?Defense?counsel,?who?represented?that?she?was?a?state-certified?social?worker,?said?she?shared?the?court’s?concern?about?defendant’s?competence.?She?added?that?”there?is?some?question?as?to?whether?or?not?he?is?having?a?psychotic?episode,”?and?that?she?had?the?impression?he?was?suffering?from?delusions.?Later?that?day,?the?court?appointed?Richard?Kramer,?a?clinical?psychologist,?as?a?court’s?expert?to?examine?defendant?on?his?competence?to?stand?trial.
The?next?day,?Dr.?Kramer?met?with?defendant?for?30?minutes,?after?which?he?submitted?a?confidential?report?to?the?court.?In?his?written?report,?Dr.?Kramer?said?he?found?defendant?to?be?depressed?and?anxious,?but?defendant’s?thought?processes?were?normal?and?there?was?no?evidence?of?delusions?or?hallucinations.?He?found?defendant?to?be?”competent?enough?to?comport?himself?in?court,”?but?said?he?had?insufficient?information?to?determine?defendant’s?ability?to?rationally?collaborate?with?his?current?counsel.?The?court?noted?that?Dr.?Kramer’s?report?was?inconclusive.?The?court?did?not?commence?formal?proceedings?under?section?1368?to?determine?defendant’s?competence?to?stand?trial.
[11]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?in?failing?to?commence?formal?competency?proceedings?or,?in?the?alternative,?that?it?erred?in?failing?to?take?further?steps?to?determine?whether?such?proceedings?should?be?commenced.?He?contends?that?the?error?denied?him?his?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution?to?due?process?of?law,?fair?trial,?trial?by?jury,?confrontation?and?cross-examination?of?witnesses,?presentation?of?a?defense,?effective?assistance?of?counsel,?and?reliable?guilt?verdict.?We?find?no?error?and?no?constitutional?violation.If?”a?doubt?arises?in?the?mind?of?the?judge?as?to?the?mental?competence?of?the?defendant,”?the?judge?is?required?to?state?the?doubt?on?the?record.?(??1368,?subd.?(a).)?This?is?the?first?step?in?initiating?formal?proceedings?to?determine?a?defendant’s?competence?to?stand?trial.?Defendant?does?not?contend?that?the?record?here?contains?substantial?evidence?of?defendant’s?incompetence?to?stand?trial,?and?he?concedes?that?the?trial?judge?did?not?say?he?had?a?”doubt”?about?defendant’s?competence.?Indeed,?the?judge?expressly?said?he?was?not?expressing?any?such?doubt.?Defendant?nonetheless?argues?that?when?the?judge?spontaneously?raised?the?question?of?competence,?this?should?be?deemed?the?expression?of?a?doubt.?The?law?is?otherwise.?A?trial?[1?Cal.4th?397]?court’s?expression?of?preliminary?concerns?about?competency?does?not?require?the?commencement?of?competency?proceedings.?(People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?159,?162-163?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169].)
Defendant?next?contends?that?the?trial?court?failed?to?take?appropriate?steps?to?resolve?its?preliminary?concerns.?We?disagree.?The?court?appointed?its?own?expert?to?examine?defendant?and?it?alerted?counsel?to?the?potential?issue.?After?reviewing?the?expert’s?report,?the?court?was?apparently?satisfied?that?there?was?no?present?incompetence?and?no?need?for?further?examination.?The?expert?found?no?impairment?of?defendant’s?ability?to?think?logically,?to?understand?the?case?against?him,?or?to?express?his?views.?He?found?defendant?to?be?anxious?and?depressed,?but?these?findings?are?hardly?surprising?in?a?defendant?on?trial?for?his?life.?At?the?expert’s?suggestion,?the?court?appointed?a?counselor?to?meet?with?defendant?at?the?jail?each?week?to?provide?him?with?emotional?support.?The?court?proceeded?reasonably?and?in?accordance?with?the?law.?We?find?no?abuse?of?the?court’s?discretion.
- The?Motion?to?Prohibit?Reference?to?”Aryan?Brotherhood”
Before?trial,?the?defense?made?two?motions?under?Evidence?Code?section?352?fn.?6?to?preclude?the?prosecution?from?introducing?any?evidence?of?the?name?”Aryan?Brotherhood.”?The?defense?argued?that?the?name?was?inherently?prejudicial?because?the?word?”Aryan”?was?popularly?associated?with?Nazism?and?other?racist?ideologies.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion?each?time,?ruling?that?the?prosecution?could?not?effectively?present?its?case?without?using?the?name?and?that?undue?prejudice?to?defendant?could?be?avoided?by?excusing?for?cause?any?potential?jurors?whose?responses?indicated?they?would?be?unduly?prejudiced?by?the?name.
[12]?We?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?the?ruling?was?an?abuse?of?discretion?and?denied?him?his?state?and?federal?constitutional?rights?to?an?impartial?jury,?to?due?process?of?law,?and?to?reliable?verdicts?in?a?capital?case.?In?ruling?on?the?pretrial?motions,?the?court?was?guided?by?the?preliminary?hearing?evidence.?That?evidence?showed?that?defendant’s?membership?in?the?AB?was?central?to?the?prosecution’s?case,?under?which?all?of?the?charged?offenses?originated?with?a?conspiracy?by?the?AB?leadership?to?murder?the?father?of?a?defecting?member.?(See?People?v.?Frausto?(1982)?135?Cal.App.3d?129,?140-141?[185?Cal.Rptr.?314],?and?cases?there?cited.)?The?defense,?on?the?other?hand,?appeared?to?dispute?the?AB’s?very?existence,?defendant’s?membership,?and?the?AB’s?character?as?a?gang?rather?than?a?mere?social?club.?To?[1?Cal.4th?398]?litigate?the?existence?and?character?of?an?organization?without?naming?it?would?have?been?a?practical?impossibility?and?might?have?caused?the?jury?to?speculate?about?why?the?name?was?being?withheld.?Also,?voir?dire?provided?an?effective?means?to?remove?any?jurors?who?might?be?so?prejudicially?influenced?that?they?could?not?fairly?try?the?case.?G.?The?Sufficiency?of?the?Pleadings?and?the?Evidence?to?Support?the?Conviction?for?ConspiracyCount?12?of?the?information?charged?defendant?with?the?crime?of?conspiracy?”at?and?in?the?County?of?Humboldt,”?and?it?alleged?that?defendant?committed?13?overt?acts?in?support?of?the?conspiracy.?But?the?information?alleged?that?defendant?committed?the?conspiracy?”on?or?about?the?months?of?April?to?September,?1982,”?whereas?the?earliest?date?on?which?it?alleged?defendant?committed?any?overt?act?was?January?15,?1983.?[13]?Defendant?contends?that?the?information?was?fatally?defective?because?it?did?not?allege?that?defendant?committed?any?overt?act?during?the?time?of?the?conspiracy.?Alternatively,?he?argues?that?there?was?no?substantial?evidence?at?trial?that?he?committed?any?conspiracy?in?Humboldt?County?on?the?dates?alleged?in?the?information.?These?contentions?are?unavailing.
Any?uncertainty?caused?by?the?wording?of?the?information?was?dispelled?by?the?verdict?form,?which?recited?that?defendant?was?charged?with?a?conspiracy?”formed?between?April?and?September?1982,?and?ending?in?March?1983.”?The?verdict?of?guilty?entered?on?this?form?is?supported?by?substantial?evidence.?Michael?Thompson?testified?that?the?AB?leadership?decided?during?the?summer?of?1982?to?kill?disloyal?AB?members?or?their?immediate?family,?including?Richard?Barnes;?that?this?assignment?was?given?to?defendant;?that?he?was?instructed?to?prepare?for?the?assignment?by?obtaining?weapons?in?Northern?California;?and?that?defendant?accepted?the?assignment.?The?prosecution?introduced?other?evidence?to?show?that?defendant?committed?various?acts?in?Humboldt?County?in?January?and?February?of?1983?to?achieve?the?objectives?of?the?conspiracy.
By?not?demurring?to?the?information’s?conspiracy?charge,?the?defense?waived?the?claim?that?the?conspiracy?charge?was?ambiguous?or?uncertain.?(People?v.?Thomas?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?837,?843?[226?Cal.Rptr.?107,?718?P.2d?94];?People?v.?Jackson?(1978)?88?Cal.App.3d?490,?500?[151?Cal.Rptr.?688].)?Assuming?the?information?was?ambiguous,?defendant?could?not?have?been?misled.?The?preliminary?hearing?evidence?gave?defendant?ample?notice?of?the?charge?against?which?he?was?required?to?defend.?(People?v.?Paul?(1978)?78?Cal.App.3d?32,?43?[144?Cal.Rptr.?431].)?[1?Cal.4th?399]
- Juror-challenge?Issues
Defendant?disputes?various?trial?court?rulings?that?denied?defense?challenges?for?cause,?granted?prosecution?challenges?for?cause,?and?excused?one?sitting?juror.?He?asserts?that?the?rulings?denied?him?these?rights?under?the?federal?Constitution:?the?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?effective?assistance?of?counsel,?the?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?right?to?due?process?of?law,?and?the?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?reliable?guilt?and?penalty?determinations?in?a?capital?case.?We?find?no?error?in?these?rulings.
- Juror?Number?Three
In?January?1986,?in?the?midst?of?the?guilt?phase?of?the?trial,?the?prosecutor?informed?the?trial?court?he?had?recently?learned?that?Juror?Number?Three?had?been?”far?less?than?candid”?during?voir?dire.?In?December?1963,?Juror?Number?Three?had?begun?serving?a?sentence?in?the?Oregon?State?Correctional?Institution?for?assault?with?a?dangerous?weapon.?In?1967,?he?had?been?paroled?to?California,?where?he?was?supervised?by?Dick?Wild,?a?prosecution?witness?in?the?current?proceeding.?In?October?1972,?the?Governor?of?Oregon?had?granted?Juror?Number?Three?a?full?pardon.?In?December?1976,?Humboldt?County?District?Attorney?John?Buffington?had?charged?Juror?Number?Three?by?complaint?with?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?(??245).?Juror?Number?Three?had?secured?a?dismissal?of?the?Humboldt?County?charge?before?the?preliminary?hearing,?after?which?he?had?filed?an?action,?which?the?court?eventually?dismissed?in?1983?for?failure?to?prosecute,?against?District?Attorney?Buffington?and?others.?Buffington?was?later?appointed?to?the?superior?court;?he?was?the?trial?judge?in?the?current?proceeding.
Juror?Number?Three?had?revealed?none?of?this?information?during?voir?dire,?even?though?all?prospective?jurors?had?been?asked?by?questionnaire?whether?they?had?been?involved?in?a?criminal?proceeding?as?a?defendant?or?witness.?Juror?Number?Three?had?responded?to?this?question?with?the?statement?that?he?had?once?been?a?witness.?When?asked?if?he?knew?any?of?the?prosecution?witnesses,?Juror?Number?Three?said?he?knew?Dick?Wild?through?an?organization?called?Toastmasters?International;?he?never?revealed?that?Wild?had?been?his?parole?officer.
The?trial?court?questioned?Juror?Number?Three?about?the?matter.?The?juror?admitted?he?had?been?guilty?of?the?Oregon?offense,?to?which?he?had?pleaded?guilty,?but?he?said?he?had?relied?on?a?legal?interpretation?he?had?received?from?the?State?of?Oregon?stating?that?a?full?pardon?”totally?obliterates”?a?conviction.?He?said?he?”saw?no?reason”?to?mention,?when?asked?about?his?relationship?with?Wild,?that?Wild?had?been?his?parole?officer?because?it?was?[1?Cal.4th?400]?”over?and?done.”?He?said?he?was?not?guilty?of?the?Humboldt?County?offense,?and?he?had?not?thought?it?necessary?to?disclose?the?charge?because?it?had?been?dismissed.?He?admitted?that?the?Humboldt?County?charge?had?”ruined?a?military?career”?for?him,?but?he?denied?harboring?any?grudges?against?the?system.?He?said?he?could?be?fair?and?impartial?to?both?sides?in?this?case.
The?prosecutor?moved?to?disqualify?Juror?Number?Three?from?the?jury.?Defense?counsel?opposed?the?motion.?fn.?7?The?trial?court?excused?Juror?Number?Three?and?substituted?an?alternate?juror?in?his?place,?explaining?that?by?concealing?material?information?about?the?Oregon?offense?Juror?Number?Three?had?denied?the?prosecution?the?opportunity?to?intelligently?exercise?its?peremptory?challenges.
A?sitting?juror?can?be?removed?only?for?illness?or?other?good?cause.?(??1089.)?[14]?An?appellate?court?reviews?a?trial?court’s?finding?of?good?cause?under?the?deferential?abuse-of-discretion?standard.?(People?v.?Abbott?(1956)?47?Cal.2d?362,?371?[303?P.2d?730];?People?v.?Thomas?(1990)?218?Cal.App.3d?1477,?1484?[267?Cal.Rptr.?865];?People?v.?Goins?(1981)?118?Cal.App.3d?923,?926?[173?Cal.Rptr.?655].)
[15]?When?the?trial?court?discovers?during?trial?that?a?juror?misrepresented?or?concealed?material?information?on?voir?dire?tending?to?show?bias,?the?trial?court?may?discharge?the?juror?if,?after?examination?of?the?juror,?the?record?discloses?reasonable?grounds?for?inferring?bias?as?a?”demonstrable?reality,”?even?though?the?juror?continues?to?deny?bias.?(People?v.?Farris?(1977)?66?Cal.App.3d?376,?386-?387?[136?Cal.Rptr.?45];?see?also?People?v.?Hecker?(1990)?219?Cal.App.3d?1238,?1244-1245?[268?Cal.Rptr.?884].)?Here,?the?information?concealed?fn.?8?by?Juror?Number?Three?was?material.?When?considered?in?light?of?the?juror’s?conduct?in?concealing?it?during?voir?dire,?that?information?established?substantial?grounds?for?inferring?that?Juror?[1?Cal.4th?401]?Number?Three?was?biased?against?the?prosecution,?despite?his?protestations?to?the?contrary.?(See?People?v.?Morris?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?152,?183-184?[279?Cal.Rptr.?720,?807?P.2d?949]?[“Concealment?by?a?potential?juror?constitutes?implied?bias?justifying?disqualification”].)?The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?discharging?Juror?Number?Three?and?seating?an?alternate?in?his?place.- Denial?of?Defense?Challenges?for?Cause
The?defense?used?peremptory?challenges?to?remove?7?of?the?11?jurors?he?now?contends?should?have?been?removed?for?cause.?Of?the?4?remaining?jurors,?2?were?selected?as?regular?jurors?and?2?as?alternates.?When?the?defense?accepted?the?jury,?it?had?8?peremptory?challenges?it?could?have?used?against?the?2?regular?jurors?it?had?challenged?for?cause.?When?it?accepted?the?alternates,?the?defense?had?2?peremptory?challenges?it?could?have?used?against?the?2?alternates?it?had?challenged?for?cause.?Because?the?defense?had?sufficient?peremptory?challenges?remaining?to?remove?each?of?the?jurors?unsuccessfully?challenged?for?cause,?defendant?cannot?have?been?prejudiced?by?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?sustain?the?challenges?for?cause.?(People?v.?Morris,?supra,53?Cal.3d?152,?184;?People?v.?Stankewitz?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?72,?103?[270?Cal.Rptr.?817,?793?P.2d?23];?People?v.?Coleman?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?749,?770?[251?Cal.Rptr.?83,?759?P.2d?1260].)
Defendant?argues?that?his?failure?to?exhaust?peremptory?challenges?is?excused?because?the?trial?court?used?a?jury?selection?system?under?which?counsel?knew?the?order?in?which?prospective?jurors?would?be?called?into?the?box.?We?rejected?the?same?argument?in?People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?152,?reasoning?that,?regardless?of?the?system?used,?”a?party’s?failure?to?exercise?available?peremptory?challenges?indicates?relative?satisfaction?with?the?unchallenged?jurors.”?(At?p.?185.)
As?another?excuse?for?the?failure?to?exhaust?peremptory?challenges,?defendant?points?out?that?the?pool?of?20?prospective?jurors?remaining?after?the?jurors?and?alternates?had?been?accepted?included?6?more?prospective?jurors?the?defense?had?unsuccessfully?challenged?for?cause.?We?reject?this?excuse?for?the?same?reason.?Defendant?has?not?shown?that?exhausting?his?remaining?peremptories?would?necessarily?have?resulted?in?the?seating?of?a?juror?who?ought?to?have?been?removed?for?cause.?In?this?situation,?his?failure?[1?Cal.4th?402]?to?exhaust?peremptories?waived?the?contention?that?defense?challenges?for?cause?were?erroneously?overruled.
- Granting?Prosecution?Challenges?for?Cause
In?a?capital?case,?a?prospective?juror?may?be?excluded?if?the?juror’s?views?on?capital?punishment?would?”prevent?or?substantially?impair”?the?performance?of?the?juror’s?duties.?(Wainwright?v.?Witt?(1985)?469?U.S.?412,?424?[83?L.Ed.2d?841,?851,?105?S.Ct.?844];?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?767?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250].)
During?the?voir?dire,?prospective?juror?Janet?Ohligschlager?answered?”correct”?when?asked?if?her?opinion?concerning?the?death?penalty?was?such?that?she?would?be?unable?to?vote?for?it?even?though?the?evidence?indicated?it?was?a?proper?punishment.?Under?questioning?by?the?defense,?she?said?she?could?try?to?put?aside?her?personal?feelings?about?the?death?penalty?and?consider?the?evidence?presented?by?both?sides.?When?again?questioned?by?the?court,?Ohligschlager?said?she?did?not?think?she?could?conceive?of?any?situation?in?which?she?would?vote?for?the?death?penalty.
Prospective?juror?Sandy?Natt?also?expressed?serious?reservations?about?his?ability?to?return?a?verdict?of?death.?As?he?put?it,?”…?to?take?a?life,?I?don’t?know?if?I?could?handle?that.”?Asked?whether?he?would?be?able?to?vote?for?death,?he?said,?”I?don’t?think?I?could.”?He?also?indicated,?in?response?to?defense?questioning,?that?he?could?consider?the?evidence?presented?by?both?sides.?Asked?by?the?prosecutor?whether?he?could?return?a?verdict?of?death,?Natt?said,?”Might?be-if?he?had?enough?real?bad?stuff?about?him,?maybe?I?could.?But?I?don’t?really?think?I?could.”
We?find?no?error?in?the?rulings?sustaining?the?challenges?for?cause?to?these?prospective?jurors.?Each?juror?gave?answers?showing?substantial?impairment?of?the?juror’s?ability?to?fairly?decide?the?issue?of?penalty.?To?the?extent?the?jurors’?other?answers?were?conflicting?or?ambiguous,?the?trial?court’s?implied?determination?as?to?their?states?of?mind?is?binding?upon?this?court.?(People?v.?Daniels?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?815,?875?[277?Cal.Rptr.?122,?802?P.2d?906].)
- Shackling?of?Defendant
On?November?21,?1985,?shortly?after?the?guilt?phase?of?the?trial?had?begun,?the?trial?court?ordered?that?during?all?further?court?proceedings?[1?Cal.4th?403]?defendant?would?be?secured?to?his?chair?in?the?courtroom?by?a?single?belly?chain?that?would?not?be?visible?to?the?jury.?The?order?followed?a?two-?day?hearing?out?of?the?jury’s?presence.?Based?on?the?evidence?presented?at?that?hearing,?the?court?found?that?defendant?had?struck?correctional?officers?at?the?jail?on?several?occasions,?that?the?frequency?of?the?assaults?had?”increased?dramatically?within?the?last?month?for?some?unknown?reason,”?and?that?this?conduct?had?caused?the?court?to?have?concern?for?the?safety?of?court?attaches,?jurors,?and?witnesses.
[18a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court’s?findings?are?not?supported?by?the?evidence?received?at?the?hearing?and?that?by?making?the?shackling?order?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion.?He?asserts?that?the?ruling?violated?these?rights?under?the?federal?Constitution:?the?Sixth?Amendment?rights?to?present?a?defense?and?to?confront?and?cross-examine?the?witnesses?against?him,?and?the?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?a?reliable?guilt?verdict?in?this?capital?case. [19]?A?criminal?defendant?may?be?shackled?at?trial?only?as?a?last?resort?and?only?upon?a?showing?of?manifest?need.?(People?v.?Duran?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?282,?290-292?[127?Cal.Rptr.?618,?545?P.2d?1322,?90?A.L.R.3d?1].)?A?trial?court’s?decision?to?require?that?a?defendant?be?shackled?is?reviewed?on?appeal?under?the?deferential?abuse-of-?discretion?standard.?(People?v.?Stankewitz,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?72,?95.)?[18b]?Because?the?record?adequately?shows?a?manifest?need?to?have?defendant?shackled?during?courtroom?proceedings,?we?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?this?case.On?October?26,?1985,?about?four?weeks?before?the?shackling?order,?two?correctional?officers?went?to?an?exercise?and?recreation?area?at?the?jail?to?escort?defendant?to?his?cell.?Officer?Silvia?was?standing?near?defendant?as?defendant?was?dressing.?Defendant?brought?his?face?close?to?Silvia’s?face,?blew?cigarette?smoke?in?Silvia’s?face,?and?flicked?cigarette?ash?on?Silvia’s?pants.?Addressing?Silvia?with?a?derogatory?racial?epithet,?defendant?said?Silvia?owed?him?an?apology,?and?he?dared?Silvia?to?report?the?incident.?When?Silvia?said?he?would?report?it,?defendant?struck?Silvia?on?the?left?side?of?the?jaw.
On?Sunday,?November?17,?1985,?at?9:30?a.m.,?Officer?Silvia?told?defendant?it?was?time?for?lock-down.?Defendant?told?Silvia?not?to?speak?to?him?in?an?angry?manner.?Defendant?said?if?Silvia?met?him?in?an?angry?manner,?defendant?would?meet?Silvia?in?an?angry?manner.?If?Silvia?pushed?him,?defendant?would?push?Silvia.?Silvia?told?defendant?he?had?already?had?10?minutes?over?the?allotted?hour?and?said?he?was?asking?defendant?to?lock?down.?Defendant?responded?with?a?sexual?taunt.
On?November?19,?1985,?at?7:45?a.m.,?Officer?St.?Denis?gave?defendant?a?notice?of?disciplinary?violation?relating?to?the?incident?that?occurred?two?[1?Cal.4th?404]?days?earlier.?Shortly?after?8?a.m.,?as?he?was?taking?his?shower?in?an?area?near?his?cell,?defendant?called?to?Officer?Wolf,?asking?him?to?get?Sergeant?Gray?and?Officer?St.?Denis.?Officer?Wolf?entered?the?shower?area?because?he?was?not?able?to?hear?defendant?clearly?from?outside.?Defendant?asked?Wolf?to?remain?outside.?When?Wolf?did?not?immediately?comply,?defendant?rushed?at?Wolf?and?either?struck?him?or?pushed?him?out?of?the?shower?room.?Defendant?then?called?Wolf?derogatory?names.
About?an?hour?later,?correctional?officers?shackled?defendant?in?the?usual?manner?for?transportation?to?the?courtroom.?The?restraints?consisted?of?handcuffs,?belly?chain,?and?leg?irons.?After?walking?about?20?yards,?defendant?turned?his?back?to?the?wall?and?complained?that?one?of?the?leg?iron?cuffs?was?too?tight.?The?officers?escorting?defendant?asked?him?to?turn?so?his?side?was?toward?the?wall.?fn.?9?Defendant?refused?three?times.?The?officers?then?moved?defendant?across?the?hall?so?he?faced?the?opposite?wall.?Defendant?resisted,?striking?at?the?officers?with?his?elbows?and?feet?and?biting?one?officer?on?the?arm.?The?officers?returned?defendant?to?his?cell.?About?an?hour?later,?when?Lieutenant?Doane?asked?him?whether?he?was?willing?to?go?to?court,?defendant?responded?with?profanity?and?insults.
The?evidence?thus?established?that?defendant?had?committed?multiple?acts?and?threats?of?violence?against?officers?at?the?jail?or?while?being?transported?to?court.?The?two?separate?violent?incidents?on?the?morning?of?November?19?were?particularly?disturbing.?The?trial?court?could?reasonably?infer?that?defendant?was?experiencing?increasing?difficulty?in?controlling?his?violent?impulses.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?trial?court?had?grounds?for?concluding?that,?unless?restrained?physically,?defendant?would?resort?to?violence?in?the?courtroom?if?he?became?irritated?or?frustrated?with?the?proceedings.?fn.?10?Correctional?officers?testified?that?defendant?is?very?strong,?and?that?he?is?difficult?to?handle?when?violent.?The?hearing?evidence?thus?established?a?manifest?need?for?the?trial?court’s?order?requiring?that?defendant?be?restrained?in?the?courtroom?by?a?single?concealed?belly?chain.
- Waiver?of?Presence?During?Guilt?Phase?of?Trial
After?the?court?made?its?ruling?that?defendant?would?be?chained?in?the?courtroom?during?further?proceedings,?defendant?said?he?would?rather?be?[1?Cal.4th?405]?absent?from?the?trial?than?appear?before?the?jury?in?chains.?The?trial?court?allowed?defendant?to?leave?the?courtroom?and?return?to?the?jail,?after?informing?defendant?that?his?leaving?would?be?construed?as?a?voluntary?waiver?of?presence.?After?giving?the?matter?further?thought,?the?court?directed?jail?officers?to?bring?defendant?back?to?the?courtroom,?but?defendant?refused?to?dress?in?civilian?clothing?for?the?court?appearance.?The?court?then?concluded?that?defendant?had?effectively?waived?his?presence.?The?remainder?of?the?guilt?phase?proceeded?in?his?absence.
[20]?We?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?the?right?of?presence?during?the?guilt?phase?of?a?capital?trial?is?of?such?fundamental?importance?that,?as?a?matter?of?state?or?federal?constitutional?law,?it?may?not?be?waived.?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?never?held?that?a?defendant?cannot?waive?the?constitutional?right?to?be?present?at?critical?stages?of?even?a?capital?trial,?and?this?court?has?concluded,?as?a?matter?of?both?federal?and?state?constitutional?law,?that?a?capital?defendant?may?validly?waive?presence?at?critical?stages?of?the?trial.?(People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1026?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627];?People?v.?Robertson?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?18,?59-?62?[255?Cal.Rptr.?631,?767?P.2d?1109];?see?also,?People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1238-1240?[283?Cal.Rptr.?144,?812?P.2d?163].)?We?find?no?constitutional?infirmity?in?the?trial?court’s?decisions?in?this?case?to?accept?defendant’s?actions?as?a?voluntary?waiver?and?to?proceed?with?the?guilt?phase?in?defendant’s?absence.Defendant?also?argues?that?the?trial?court,?by?holding?the?trial?in?defendant’s?absence,?violated?section?1043,?subdivision?(a),?which?provides?that?in?a?felony?case?the?defendant?”shall?be?personally?present?at?the?trial.”?Although?section?1043?provides?for?certain?exceptions?to?the?presence?requirement,?defendant?maintains?that?none?applies?in?this?case.?The?provision?that?a?trial?may?proceed?when?a?defendant?is?”voluntarily?absent”?is?inapplicable,?he?argues,?because?this?exception?by?its?terms?applies?only?in?noncapital?cases.?(??1043,?subd.?(b)(2).)?The?provision?that?a?defendant?may?”waive?his?right?to?be?present?in?accordance?with?Section?977″?(??1043,?subd.?(d))?is?inapplicable,?defendant?argues,?because?section?977?by?its?terms?does?not?permit?a?defendant?accused?of?a?felony?to?waive?personal?presence?at?”those?portions?of?the?trial?when?evidence?is?taken?before?the?trier?of?fact.”?Finally,?defendant?recognizes?that?a?trial?may?proceed?in?the?absence?of?a?defendant?who?has?been?removed?for?disruptive?behavior?(??1043,?subd.?(b)(1)),?but?he?maintains?that?this?did?not?occur.
The?trial?court?did?not?violate?section?1043.?In?addition?to?finding?that?defendant?had?voluntarily?waived?his?presence,?the?trial?court?found?that?defendant’s?conduct?”has?disrupted?and?continues?to?disrupt?the?procedure?of?[1?Cal.4th?406]?this?Court.”?The?record?amply?supports?this?finding.?After?announcing?that?he?would?not?appear?before?the?jury?in?chains,?defendant?walked?out?of?the?courtroom?and?declined?to?dress?in?civilian?clothes?to?be?returned?to?the?courtroom.?Because?defendant?had?recently?assaulted?officers?during?transportation?to?the?courtroom,?the?trial?court?could?reasonably?anticipate?that?any?effort?to?bring?defendant?to?the?courtroom?against?his?will?would?endanger?the?safety?of?the?transporting?officers?and?of?persons?in?the?courtroom.?A?trial?court?need?not?wait?until?actual?violence?or?physical?disruption?occurs?within?the?four?walls?of?the?courtroom?in?order?to?find?a?disruption?within?the?meaning?of?section?1043.
- Presence?at?Other?Hearings
Defendant?contends?he?was?denied?his?statutory?and?constitutional?right?to?be?present?at?various?hearings?that?occurred?both?before?and?after?the?events?discussed?in?the?preceding?section.?We?conclude?that?defendant’s?presence?was?either?validly?waived?or?not?required?at?each?of?these?proceedings.
- Voir?Dire
Defendant?maintains?the?waiver?was?involuntary?because?recreation?and?exercise?were?necessary?to?his?physical?and?mental?health?and?he?could?obtain?them?only?by?waiving?his?right?to?be?present?in?court.?We?find?insufficient?support?in?the?record?for?these?factual?assertions.?The?trial?court?had?previously?ordered?that?jail?authorities?provide?defendant?with?five?hours?of?exercise?or?recreation?each?week.?If?jail?authorities?interpreted?or?implemented?this?order?in?a?manner?that?unreasonably?interfered?with?defendant’s?right?to?be?present?during?critical?stages?of?the?trial?proceedings,?defendant’s?remedy?was?to?apply?to?the?trial?court?for?a?further?order.?Having?failed?to?exhaust?this?avenue?of?relief,?defendant?cannot?claim?that?his?decision?to?remain?absent?from?a?small?portion?of?the?jury?selection?proceedings,?a?decision?in?which?his?counsel?concurred,?was?other?than?voluntary.?[1?Cal.4th?407]
- Requests?to?Relieve?Defense?Counsel
On?March?6,?1986,?the?court?recited?certain?events?that?had?occurred?off?the?record.?The?previous?day,?Bernard?DePaoli,?the?other?attorney?representing?defendant,?had?received?a?card?signed?by?defendant?that?read,?”You’re?fired.”?At?the?court’s?request,?DePaoli?attempted?to?discuss?the?matter?with?defendant,?but?defendant?refused.?The?court?then?sent?defendant?a?note?saying?he?would?have?to?give?the?court?reasons?before?the?court?would?discharge?DePaoli.?Defendant?responded?with?a?note?that?read,?in?relevant?part:?”I?have?no?comment.?If?you?…?now?or?anytime?in?the?future?have?need?…,?please?feel?free?to,?as?you?have?in?the?past,?set?up?court?on?my?tier?in?front?of?my?cell.?I?will?never?set?foot?in?your?court,?jury?or?not,?ever?again?of?my?own?free?will.”?Having?recited?these?events,?the?court?concluded?that?because?defendant?had?never?made?a?request?to?the?court?to?substitute?counsel,?and?because?he?had?declined?to?state?reasons?for?his?apparent?dissatisfaction?with?DePaoli,?the?court?would?proceed?with?the?trial.?fn.?11
Throughout?this?entire?period,?the?trial?court?advised?defendant?daily?by?note?that?he?was?welcome?to?come?to?court?and?would?be?brought?to?court?if?he?donned?civilian?clothing?and?agreed?to?be?shackled?in?the?courtroom.?By?his?conduct?and?by?his?written?replies,?including?the?note?quoted?in?the?preceding?paragraph,?defendant?waived?his?presence?in?a?manner?that?substantially?complied?with?section?977.
[23]?Moreover,?a?defendant?does?not?have?a?right?to?be?present?at?every?hearing?held?in?the?course?of?a?trial.?”During?trial,?a?defendant?is?not?entitled?[1?Cal.4th?408]?to?be?personally?present?at?the?court’s?discussions?with?counsel?occurring?outside?the?jury’s?presence?on?questions?of?law?or?other?matters?unless?the?defendant’s?presence?bears?a?reasonable?and?substantial?relation?to?a?full?opportunity?to?defend?against?the?charges.?[Citation.]?A?defendant?claiming?a?violation?of?the?right?to?personal?presence?at?trial?bears?the?burden?of?demonstrating?that?personal?presence?could?have?substantially?benefited?the?defense.?[Citation.]”?(People?v.?Lang,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?991,?1027;?see?also?People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?902-903?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282].) [22b]?At?the?hearings?held?on?February?11?and?21,?the?court?and?counsel?discussed?a?variety?of?legal?issues?posed?by?Attorney?Klay’s?apparent?knowledge?of?prior?inconsistent?statements?by?a?prosecution?witness.?No?evidence?was?taken?and?the?court?made?no?rulings.?Defendant’s?presence?at?these?hearings?could?not?have?assisted?his?defense.?At?the?hearing?on?March?6,?the?court?merely?recited?certain?developments?that?had?occurred?and?concluded?these?developments?did?not?require?any?ruling?or?other?action?by?the?court.?Because?defendant?expressly?refused?to?comment?on?his?reasons?for?wishing?to?discharge?Attorney?DePaoli,?his?presence?could?not?have?assisted?his?defense.- Motion?for?Acquittal?and?Rulings?on?Exhibits
- Probable?Cause?to?Arrest
Defendant?brought?a?motion?to?suppress?evidence?(??1538.5)?in?superior?court.?One?of?the?several?grounds?defendant?urged?for?suppressing?evidence?was?that?it?had?been?seized?as?a?direct?result?of?an?illegal?arrest.?The?parties?stipulated?the?court?could?consider?transcripts?of?testimony?previously?given?in?deciding?this?aspect?of?the?motion.?After?reviewing?the?evidence,?the?court?denied?the?motion?to?suppress?in?its?entirety.?The?court?concluded,?among?other?things,?that?the?officer?who?had?arrested?defendant?had?possessed?[1?Cal.4th?409]?sufficient?cause?to?do?so.?Defendant?challenges?this?ruling?on?statutory?and?constitutional?grounds.
[25]?Determining?whether?an?officer?had?cause?to?arrest?requires?two?analytically?distinct?steps,?each?with?its?own?standard?of?review.?First,?the?court?ascertains?when?the?arrest?occurred?and?what?the?arresting?officer?then?knew;?second,?the?court?decides?whether?the?officer’s?knowledge?at?the?time?of?arrest?constituted?adequate?cause.?On?appeal,?a?reviewing?court?must?accept?the?trial?court’s?express?or?implied?findings?on?disputed?factual?issues?in?the?first?step?of?the?inquiry?if?they?are?supported?by?substantial?evidence,?but?a?reviewing?court?must?use?its?independent?judgment?to?review?the?second?step?of?the?inquiry.?(People?v.?Duncan?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?91,?97?[227?Cal.Rptr.?654,?720?P.2d?2];?People?v.?Leyba?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?591,?596-?597?[174?Cal.Rptr.?867,?629?P.2d?961].)David?Douglas,?a?City?of?Eureka?police?detective,?arrested?defendant?on?March?3,?1983,?for?the?armed?robbery?at?the?Triplex?Theater?on?February?19,?1983?(hereafter?the?Triplex?robbery).?Douglas’s?knowledge?at?the?time?of?the?arrest?determines?its?legality.?Douglas?obtained?most?of?his?information?about?the?Triplex?robbery?from?fellow?Detective?Pat?Freese.
Freese?was?assigned?to?investigate?the?Triplex?robbery?on?February?21,?1983.?On?that?day,?he?reviewed?the?initial?investigation?report,?which?included?composite?drawings?prepared?by?witnesses?and?a?generalized?description?of?the?robber?as?a?White?male?in?his?20’s,?height?6?feet?2?inches,?weight?about?160?pounds,?with?blond?hair.?Freese?also?reviewed?an?officer?safety?bulletin?prepared?by?Richard?Walton,?a?Humboldt?County?deputy?sheriff,?about?an?incident?on?January?23,?1983.
Walton?had?been?driving?a?patrol?car?in?McKinleyville?about?4:30?p.m.?when?he?noticed?a?car?parked?diagonally?in?the?middle?of?a?parking?lot.?When?he?returned?to?the?area?30?minutes?later,?the?car?was?in?the?same?location.?Walton?parked?behind?the?suspect?car.?The?sole?occupant?was?defendant,?who?said?he?had?stopped?there?because?the?wind?was?blowing?too?hard?to?drive.?Walton?was?not?satisfied?with?this?explanation?because?the?wind?was?only?moderate?in?intensity?and?he?had?experienced?no?difficulty?controlling?his?patrol?car.?Walton?observed?a?pair?of?binoculars?between?the?driver’s?seat?and?the?front?passenger?seat.?Defendant’s?car?was?facing?a?gas?station?located?across?the?intersection?and?Walton?suspected?defendant?might?be?planning?to?rob?it.?The?bulletin?prepared?by?Officer?Walton?described?defendant?as?a?White?male,?35?years?old,?height?6?feet,?weight?170?pounds,?with?brown?hair.?Attached?to?the?bulletin?were?a?Department?of?Corrections?photograph?of?defendant?and?a?copy?of?defendant’s?arrest?and?conviction?record.?[1?Cal.4th?410]
After?reviewing?these?materials,?Detective?Freese?concluded?that?defendant?was?a?suspect?in?the?Triplex?robbery.?He?prepared?a?display?card?containing?defendant’s?photograph?along?with?those?of?five?other?men.?He?showed?the?display?to?six?of?the?Triplex?robbery?witnesses.?Although?none?of?them?positively?identified?anyone,?five?of?the?six?made?remarks?to?the?effect?that?defendant’s?face?was?similar?to?the?robber’s?and?more?like?the?robber’s?than?anyone?else?portrayed?in?the?photographs.?fn.?12
Before?he?arrested?defendant,?Detective?Douglas?discussed?the?Triplex?robbery?with?Detective?Freese.?He?looked?at?the?composites?prepared?by?the?Triplex?robbery?witnesses?and?reviewed?the?bulletin?prepared?by?Officer?Walton,?including?defendant’s?arrest?and?conviction?record.?He?knew?defendant?was?an?AB?member,?had?been?charged?with?armed?robbery?in?Humboldt?County?some?years?earlier,?and?had?once?disarmed?and?kidnapped?two?officers?in?their?patrol?vehicle.?He?learned?from?Detective?Freese?that?several?of?the?Triplex?robbery?witnesses?thought?defendant?looked?very?similar?to?the?person?who?committed?that?crime.?When?he?arrested?defendant,?Douglas?personally?felt?that?defendant’s?features?matched?the?composites?prepared?by?the?Triplex?robbery?witnesses.
[26]?Cause?to?arrest?exists?when?the?facts?known?to?the?arresting?officer?would?lead?a?person?of?ordinary?care?and?prudence?to?entertain?an?honest?and?strong?suspicion?that?the?person?arrested?is?guilty?of?a?crime.?(People?v.?Harris?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?384,?389?[124?Cal.Rptr.?536,?540?P.2d?632];?see?also,???836,?subd.?3.)?[27]?We?conclude?that?Detective?Douglas?had?adequate?cause?to?arrest?defendant.Although?none?of?the?witnesses?could?positively?identify?defendant?as?the?robber,?the?robber?had?concealed?much?of?his?face?with?dark?glasses?and?a?knit?watchcap,?and?the?photograph?of?defendant?shown?to?the?witnesses?had?been?taken?almost?six?years?earlier.?Allowing?for?the?difficulty?of?making?any?identification?under?these?conditions,?it?is?significant?that?all?but?one?of?the?witnesses?remarked?that?defendant’s?facial?features?resembled?the?robber’s?and?that?he?was?more?like?the?robber?than?any?of?the?other?men?shown?in?the?photographs.?It?is?also?significant?that?defendant’s?height?and?weight?as?shown?on?his?driver’s?license?were?very?close?to?the?estimates?given?by?the?robbery?witnesses.?Although?the?robber?was?described?as?being?in?his?20’s,?whereas?defendant?was?35,?witness?Marcie?Conn?thought?defendant?looked?[1?Cal.4th?411]?about?25?when?she?saw?him?in?court?in?April?1984.?Accordingly,?it?appears?that?defendant?looked?more?youthful?than?he?was,?a?fact?that?would?have?been?apparent?to?Douglas?at?the?time?of?arrest.
Defendant?had?been?charged?with?robbery?in?the?past,?had?disarmed?and?kidnapped?two?officers,?and?had?served?time?in?prison.?An?experienced?officer?had?formed?the?opinion?that?defendant?was?planning?a?gas?station?robbery?when?observed?about?four?weeks?before?the?Triplex?robbery.?We?conclude?that?the?facts?known?to?Detective?Douglas?were?sufficient?to?cause?a?person?of?ordinary?care?and?prudence?to?entertain?an?honest?and?strong?suspicion?that?defendant?was?guilty?of?the?Triplex?robbery.
- Exclusion?of?Defense?Evidence?Offered?to?Prove?That?Petry?Killed?Hickey
Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?sustaining?prosecution?objections?to?various?items?of?evidence?offered?by?the?defense?to?prove?that?prosecution?witness?Berlie?Petry?killed?Elizabeth?Hickey,?and?that?the?erroneous?rulings?denied?him?various?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.?As?we?explain,?none?of?these?contentions?is?well?founded.
- Petry’s?Writings
Before?Petry?testified,?the?prosecution?made?a?general?objection?to?all?writings?prepared?by?Petry.?The?trial?court?deferred?ruling.?During?cross-?examination,?the?trial?court?permitted?defense?counsel?to?question?Petry?about?the?documents?and?to?read?excerpts?for?the?jury.?Eventually,?the?trial?court?admitted?two?of?the?documents?into?evidence?and?excluded?the?rest.?Defendant?attacks?the?ruling?on?various?grounds.
[28a]?Defendant?argues?that?parts?of?some?excluded?documents?were?admissible?as?prior?inconsistent?statements?(Evid.?Code,???1235).?In?all?but?one?of?the?instances?defendant?cites,?the?trial?court?permitted?defense?counsel?to?question?Petry?fully?about?the?inconsistent?statement?and?to?read?it?for?the?jury.?[29]?(See?fn.?13.),?[28b]?Having?concluded?that?these?portions?of?the?documents?were?admissible?as?prior?inconsistent?statements,?the?trial?court?erred?in?not?admitting?the?relevant?parts?of?the?documents?themselves.?fn.?13?The?error?was?not?prejudicial,?however.?Because?the?inconsistent?statements?were?[1?Cal.4th?412]?read?in?open?court,?the?jury?was?fully?aware?of?them.?It?is?not?reasonably?probable?that?placing?the?statements?before?the?jury?also?in?the?form?of?exhibits?would?have?resulted?in?a?verdict?more?favorable?to?defendant.?(People?v.?Watson?(1956)?46?Cal.2d?818,?836?[299?P.2d?243].)One?inconsistent?statement?cited?by?defendant?was?not?read?to?the?jury.?Petry?said?he?did?not?remember?that?Hickey?ever?accused?him?of?molesting?or?abusing?her?children.?Defense?counsel?was?not?permitted?to?read?a?writing?by?Petry,?apparently?intended?for?Hickey,?in?which?he?said,?”So?mainly?what?I?have?gotten?in-returned?[sic]?for?my?personal?struggled?[sic]?from?day?to?day?for?being?myself?a?man?is?mainly?cussed?at,?ignored,?conned,?scorned,?left?with?the?children?then?accused?of?child?abuse?and?with?the?accusation?[sic]?of?being?a?potential?child?molester.”?The?trial?court?concluded?that?the?statement?should?not?be?admitted?because?there?was?no?evidence?to?establish?when?it?was?written.
As?defendant?correctly?observes,?this?statement?was?inconsistent?with?Petry’s?testimony?no?matter?when?it?was?written?and?satisfied?all?requirements?for?a?prior?inconsistent?statement.?Yet?the?trial?court?has?discretion?to?exclude?impeachment?evidence,?including?a?prior?inconsistent?statement,?if?it?is?collateral,?cumulative,?confusing,?or?misleading.?(People?v.?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?468,?509.)?Defendant?introduced?ample?evidence?that?Petry’s?relationship?with?Hickey?was?strained?and?painful?for?him,?and?that?Petry’s?testimony?was?inaccurate?and?incomplete?in?many?details.?Absent?evidence?that?Petry?made?the?writing?in?question?shortly?before?Hickey?was?killed,?the?trial?court?could?reasonably?conclude?that?its?vague?reference?to?accusations?of?child?abuse?was?collateral?and?cumulative?impeachment?evidence.?Moreover,?even?assuming?that?the?trial?court?should?have?admitted?this?portion?of?the?document,?defendant?was?not?prejudiced.?Nothing?in?the?document?suggests?that?the?accusation?of?child?abuse?and?being?a?”potential?child?molester”?was?particularly?upsetting?to?Petry?in?the?context?of?the?many?other?grievances?he?held?against?Hickey?about?which?the?jury?was?fully?informed.
[30]?Next,?defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?should?have?admitted?Petry’s?writings?as?evidence?of?his?mental?condition.?The?only?writings?offered?on?this?basis?were?two?works?of?fiction,?one?handwritten?and?the?other?typed.?They?were?offered?to?show?that?Petry?was?more?intelligent?than?he?appeared.?Petry?testified?that?the?handwriting?was?his,?but?he?denied?typing?any?of?his?stories.?The?trial?court?admitted?the?handwritten?document?[1?Cal.4th?413]?and?excluded?the?typewritten?one.?Exclusion?of?the?typewritten?document?was?correct?because?the?defense?did?not?authenticate?it?as?a?document?written?by?Petry.?(Evid.?Code,???1401.)?Had?the?defense?authenticated?it,?moreover,?the?trial?court?could?properly?have?excluded?it?as?cumulative.Finally,?defendant?argues?that?all?the?writings?should?have?been?admitted?because?Petry’s?claimed?inability?to?recall?having?written?them?was?so?inherently?incredible?as?to?undermine?his?general?credibility?as?a?witness.?The?argument,?as?we?understand?it,?is?that?the?writings?displayed?such?intense?emotion?and?morbid?preoccupation?that?it?would?be?impossible,?in?the?space?of?a?few?years,?to?forget?having?written?them.?We?are?unpersuaded.?Although?the?human?mind?often?retains?vivid?memories?of?intense?experiences,?it?may?also?block?out?memories?of?experiences?that?are?painful.?For?this?reason,?Petry’s?credibility?in?this?as?in?other?matters?was?for?the?jury?to?determine.?The?trial?court?admitted?enough?of?the?writings?to?permit?the?jury?to?make?this?determination.?For?this?purpose,?the?excluded?writings?were?cumulative.
- The?Interview?Tapes
The?police?interviewed?Petry?on?the?day?he?discovered?Hickey’s?body?and?again?a?few?days?later.?These?interviews?were?recorded?on?tape?and?transcripts?were?prepared.?During?cross-examination?of?Petry?at?the?trial,?the?defense?asked?the?court?to?make?a?finding?that?Petry?was?being?untruthful?when?he?testified?he?did?not?remember?many?details?about?his?relationship?with?Hickey.?A?finding?to?this?effect?would?have?permitted?the?defense?to?use?the?interview?tapes?as?prior?inconsistent?statements?whenever?Petry?claimed?lack?of?memory?of?a?fact?he?had?related?during?the?interviews,?rather?than?only?in?those?instances?when?he?testified?to?facts?inconsistent?with?his?interview?statements.?(See?People?v.?Green?(1971)?3?Cal.3d?981,?988?[92?Cal.Rptr.?494,?479?P.2d?988].)?[31a]?After?reviewing?the?tapes?and?transcripts,?and?comparing?them?to?defendant’s?testimony?at?trial,?the?trial?court?found?that?Petry’s?inability?to?recall?was?not?feigned?but?genuine.?Defendant?challenges?this?finding.
[32]?When?the?admissibility?of?evidence?depends?upon?determinations?of?fact,?the?trial?court’s?findings,?and?in?particular?its?credibility?determinations,?are?reviewed?under?the?substantial?evidence?standard.?(See?People?v.?Leyba,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?591,?596.)?[31b]?Here,?substantial?evidence?supports?the?trial?court’s?determination?that?Petry?was?truthful?when?he?testified?he?could?not?remember?many?facts?about?his?relationship?with?Hickey.?As?the?trial?court?remarked,?Petry’s?lack?of?memory?was?neither?total?nor?suspiciously?selective,?and?his?testimony?in?general?outline?was?consistent?with?the?[1?Cal.4th?414]?interview?tapes?and?with?his?testimony?at?the?two?preliminary?hearings.?Although?his?lack?of?memory?of?so?many?facts?was?unusual,?the?trial?court?attributed?this?to?Petry’s?limited?intellect?and?the?emotional?trauma?he?suffered?as?a?result?of?Hickey’s?brutal?murder.?We?perceive?no?basis?to?disturb?the?trial?court’s?finding.Eventually,?near?the?end?of?the?guilt?phase,?the?trial?court?ruled?that?copies?of?the?interview?tapes,?edited?to?remove?references?to?polygraphs,?would?be?received?in?evidence.?The?tapes?were?not?played?for?the?jury?on?the?record,?although?portions?of?them?were?played?by?counsel?during?argument?to?the?jury.?When?the?jury?requested?the?tapes?during?its?deliberations,?the?court?sent?the?tapes?and?a?tape?player?into?the?jury?room.?[33]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?not?playing?the?entire?tapes?on?the?record?and?in?not?notifying?counsel?of?the?jury’s?request?for?the?tapes.
Under?the?facts?presented?here,?the?court?was?not?required?to?have?the?tapes?played?on?the?record.?During?the?cross-examination?of?Petry,?defense?counsel?requested?that?the?entire?tapes?be?received?in?evidence?and?played?for?the?jury,?but?the?trial?court?properly?denied?this?request?because?the?defense?had?not?then?established?that?the?entire?tapes,?as?opposed?to?particular?inconsistent?statements,?were?admissible.?At?a?later?point,?for?reasons?not?clear?from?the?record,?the?trial?court?placed?edited?copies?of?the?tapes?in?evidence?as?court’s?exhibits.?The?record?does?not?show?that?either?party?requested?the?playing?of?the?tapes?after?they?were?received?in?evidence.?Absent?such?a?request,?we?infer?that?the?procedure?adopted?was?acceptable?to?the?parties.
[34]?When?a?jury?during?deliberations?requests?an?exhibit,?the?trial?court?must?notify?counsel?of?the?request?before?giving?the?exhibit?to?the?jury,?because?the?request?”is?a?critical?stage?of?the?prosecution?during?which?the?right?to?counsel?applies.”?(People?v.?Hogan?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?815,?849?[183?Cal.Rptr.?817,?647?P.2d?93];?see???1138.)?Although?the?record?does?not?show?that?the?trial?court?advised?defense?counsel?before?sending?the?interview?tapes?to?the?jury,?the?record?does?show?that?the?next?day,?in?response?to?a?jury?request?to?hear?testimony?about?where?in?the?Hickey?residence?a?rifle?barrel?had?been?found,?the?court?told?the?jury?in?open?court,?with?counsel?present,?that?this?matter?was?mentioned?in?one?of?the?interview?tapes?”on?the?second?side?near?the?beginning.”?Counsel?was?therefore?made?aware?by?the?next?day?at?the?latest?that?the?jury?had?been?given?the?interview?tapes.?Because?counsel?did?not?object?to?the?court’s?failure?to?provide?earlier?notice?or?to?the?manner?in?which?the?court?responded?to?the?jury’s?request,?we?conclude?that?the?defense?waived?the?trial?court’s?apparent?error?in?failing?to?notify?counsel?before?sending?the?interview?tapes?to?the?jury.?(See?People?v.?Chagolla?(1983)?144?Cal.App.3d?422,?432-433?[193?Cal.Rptr.?711].)?[1?Cal.4th?415]- The?Preliminary?Examination?Transcripts
- Testimony?of?Dr.?Blinder
During?presentation?of?its?case,?the?defense?moved?to?admit?the?expert?testimony?of?Dr.?Martin?Blinder,?a?forensic?psychiatrist,?that?the?killing?of?Hickey?appeared?to?be?a?”classic?crime?of?passion”?committed?by?a?person?with?a?close?emotional?attachment?to?the?victim.?Dr.?Blinder?testified?outside?the?jury’s?presence?as?an?offer?of?proof.?The?court?said?that?although?defendant?was?entitled?to?have?Dr.?Blinder?explain?for?the?jury?the?domestic?homicide?syndrome,?permitting?him?to?relate?the?syndrome?to?the?facts?of?the?case?could?lead?to?the?disclosure?of?otherwise?inadmissible?hearsay?materials?that?Dr.?Blinder?had?considered?in?forming?his?opinions.?The?court?concluded?that?Dr.?Blinder?could?be?questioned?about?any?evidence?that?was?before?the?jury,?but?nothing?else.?The?court?then?asked?defense?counsel?whether?this?material?could?be?presented?to?Dr.?Blinder?in?the?form?of?hypothetical?questions.?Defense?counsel?accepted?this?suggestion.
In?his?testimony?to?the?jury,?Dr.?Blinder?defined?domestic?homicide?as?the?killing?of?one?with?whom?the?killer?has?an?intimate?relationship.?He?had?studied?254?such?killings.?He?found?that?in?these?cases?the?killer?and?victim?”are?locked?into?a?special?kind?of?love?relationship”?characterized?by?passion,?anger,?and?masochistic?dependency.?A?homicide?was?more?likely?to?occur?if?an?angry?person?was?unable?to?feel?or?express?anger?comfortably.?The?victims?of?domestic?homicide?frequently?rebel?at?the?other?person’s?controlling?behavior?and?seek?to?bolster?their?low?self-esteem?by?activities?with?persons?outside?the?relationship.?In?response?to?hypothetical?questions,?Dr.?Blinder?testified?that?the?following?circumstances?would?be?consistent?with?a?domestic?homicide:?before?the?homicide,?the?killer?had?hit?the?victim?but?had?denied?doing?so?and?had?written?passionately?about?his?feelings?for?[1?Cal.4th?416]?the?victim;?during?the?homicide,?the?killer?inflicted?extensive?trauma?on?the?victim’s?face?and?inflicted?puncture?wounds?near?the?victim’s?breasts.?Defense?counsel?requested?permission?to?question?Dr.?Blinder?about?two?of?Petry’s?writings?that?had?been?received?in?evidence,?but?the?court?denied?permission,?stating?”I’ve?tried?to?keep?away?from?the?psychoanalysis?or?psychiatric?diagnosis?of?all?these?people?specifically?in?this?case.”
[36]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?both?in?the?earlier?ruling?precluding?mention?of?hearsay?materials?that?had?not?been?received?in?evidence?and?in?the?later?ruling?precluding?questioning?about?two?of?Petry’s?writings?that?had?been?received?in?evidence,?and?that?the?errors?deprived?him?of?his?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?present?a?defense?and?his?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?due?process?right?to?a?fair?trial.?We?find?no?error.On?direct?examination,?an?expert?may?give?the?reasons?for?an?opinion,?including?the?materials?the?expert?considered?in?forming?the?opinion,?but?an?expert?may?not?under?the?guise?of?stating?reasons?for?an?opinion?bring?before?the?jury?incompetent?hearsay?evidence.?(People?v.?Coleman?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?69,?92?[695?P.2d?189].)?A?trial?court?has?considerable?discretion?to?control?the?form?in?which?the?expert?is?questioned?to?prevent?the?jury?from?learning?of?incompetent?hearsay.?(Ibid.)?Here,?the?restrictions?imposed?on?counsel’s?examination?by?the?trial?court’s?rulings,?which?permitted?the?main?features?of?the?case?to?be?presented?in?the?form?of?hypothetical?questions,?were?reasonable?and?within?the?court’s?discretion.
- State?of?Mind?Evidence
During?direct?examination?of?defense?witness?Zelna?Hunsinger,?the?prosecution?objected?to?a?question?asking?whether?Hickey?had?ever?told?the?witness?she?was?afraid?of?Petry.?The?court?held?a?hearing?outside?the?jury’s?presence,?during?which?it?said?that?the?proposed?testimony?was?hearsay,?and?although?it?would?show?Hickey’s?state?of?mind,?her?state?of?mind?was?not?at?issue.?The?prosecution?argued?that?the?defense?was?being?inconsistent?because?it?had?successfully?objected?to?evidence?that?Hickey?had?said?she?was?afraid?of?a?man?named?”Curt.”?Defense?counsel?then?withdrew?the?question,?noting?it?would?open?the?door?to?the?previously?excluded?prosecution?evidence.?The?court?said?it?had?made?no?ruling?and?was?willing?to?consider?any?authority?the?defense?offered?on?the?issue.
The?matter?was?again?raised?when?the?defense?called?Kenneth?L.?Barney,?a?psychotherapist?who?had?seen?Hickey?on?three?occasions?about?nine?months?before?her?death.?Once?again?the?court?held?a?hearing?outside?the?jury’s?presence,?after?which?the?court?ruled?that?it?would?not?permit?the?[1?Cal.4th?417]?defense?to?introduce?evidence?of?Hickey’s?statements?to?Barney?expressing?fear?of?Petry?to?prove?that?Petry?rather?than?defendant?had?killed?her.?The?court?said?that?the?defense?was?offering?the?evidence?to?prove?Hickey’s?state?of?mind,?but?that?Hickey’s?state?of?mind?was?not?at?issue?in?the?case.?Defendant?now?challenges?this?ruling.
[37]?Defendant?argues?that?evidence?of?Hickey’s?fear?of?Petry?was?admissible?to?prove?or?explain?her?conduct?in?giving?defendant?her?guns?to?sell?on?consignment.?Because?she?was?afraid?of?Petry,?defendant?argues,?Hickey?could?leave?him?only?if?she?could?move?far?away?to?establish?a?new?life.?According?to?defendant,?Hickey’s?urgent?need?for?money?to?relocate?herself?and?her?children?explains?why?she?would?entrust?her?guns?to?defendant,?a?relative?stranger,?for?sale?on?consignment.?fn.?14?Defendant?acknowledges?that?the?defense?never?urged?this?theory?in?the?court?below?(see?Evid.?Code,???354?[verdict?shall?not?be?set?aside?for?erroneous?exclusion?of?evidence?unless?purpose?and?relevance?of?evidence?was?made?known?to?the?court]),?but?he?argues?that?in?a?capital?case?technical?insufficiencies?in?objections?or?offers?of?proof?should?be?disregarded?(see?People?v.?Frank?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?711,?729,?fn.?3?[700?P.2d?415]),?fn.?15?and?that?counsel’s?failure?to?argue?this?theory?deprived?defendant?of?his?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?the?effective?assistance?of?counsel.Assuming?for?argument’s?sake?that?the?issue?has?been?preserved?for?appeal,?the?theory?defendant?now?argues?does?not?provide?a?valid?basis?for?admitting?the?evidence?under?the?state-of-mind?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule?(Evid.?Code,???1250).?To?be?relevant?and?therefore?admissible,?evidence?must?tend?to?prove?or?disprove?a?”disputed?fact?that?is?of?consequence?to?the?determination?of?the?action.”?(Evid.?Code,???210.)?Here,?the?prosecution?did?not?dispute?that?Hickey?made?or?attempted?to?make?some?sort?of?business?arrangement?with?defendant?for?the?sale?of?her?guns.?Indeed,?the?prosecution?introduced?in?evidence?a?note?apparently?written?by?Hickey?stating?”Call?Curt?…?about?money?for?guns.”?The?prosecution?theorized?that?defendant,?despite?what?he?may?have?promised?Hickey,?never?intended?to?pay?for?the?guns?and?killed?Hickey?to?prevent?her?from?protesting?the?lack?of?payment?or?testifying?to?defendant’s?possession?of?the?guns.?Because?Hickey’s?attempted?sale?of?her?guns?to?defendant?was?not?a?disputed?fact,?the?trial?court?could?properly?exclude?as?irrelevant?any?evidence?offered?to?prove?that?Hickey?had?a?reason?to?give?her?guns?to?defendant?for?consignment?sale.?[1?Cal.4th?418]
- Videotape?of?Hickey?Children’s?Bedroom
On?the?morning?that?Hickey’s?body?was?discovered,?the?police?made?a?videotape?showing?the?condition?of?the?Hickey?residence.?The?last?portion?of?the?tape?showed?the?bedroom?occupied?by?Hickey’s?two?young?children.?The?children?were?not?present.?The?bedroom?contained?dilapidated?mattresses?and?bedding.?The?mattresses?were?soaked?with?urine;?fecal?matter?was?smeared?on?the?walls.
The?prosecution?brought?a?motion?in?limine?to?exclude?the?portion?of?the?tape?showing?the?children’s?bedroom.?The?defense?argued?in?response?that?the?motion?was?premature?because?the?prosecution?had?failed?to?show?that?any?portion?of?the?videotape?was?admissible,?but?it?also?argued?that?if?the?court?did?admit?any?of?the?videotape,?it?should?admit?the?portion?showing?the?children’s?bedroom.?The?court?declined?to?rule?on?the?motion,?saying?it?did?not?know?whether?the?tape?would?be?received?in?evidence.?The?court?remarked?that?the?tape?would?probably?be?admissible?insofar?as?it?showed?the?condition?of?the?crime?scene?when?the?body?was?discovered,?but?that?it?did?not?see?any?relevance?in?the?portion?of?the?tape?showing?the?children’s?bedroom.?The?court?advised?the?parties?not?to?mention?the?tape?during?voir?dire.
Some?days?later,?the?prosecutors?indicated?their?intention?to?use?the?videotape,?edited?to?delete?the?children’s?bedroom,?during?opening?statement.?The?defense?argued?that?the?entire?tape?should?come?into?evidence.?The?trial?court?granted?the?prosecution’s?request?to?use?the?edited?tape?during?opening?statement,?but?it?emphasized?that?it?was?not?precluding?the?defense?from?establishing?at?a?later?time?a?basis?for?admission?of?the?excluded?portion?of?the?tape.
[38]?Contrary?to?what?defendant?now?argues,?the?court?did?not?err?in?excluding?the?portion?of?the?tape?showing?the?children’s?bedroom.?The?prosecution?used?the?videotape?to?show?the?place?where?Hickey?was?murdered?and?the?guns?were?stolen.?Because?no?part?of?these?crimes?was?committed?in?the?children’s?bedroom,?the?prosecution?could?reasonably?omit?that?portion?of?the?tape.?Defendant?now?argues?that?the?evidence?was?relevant?”to?dispute?Petry’s?claim?of?a?happy?household?and?a?loving?family?relationship.”?But?Petry?had?not?testified?when?the?court?ruled,?the?ruling?was?expressly?made?without?prejudice,?and?the?defense?never?raised?the?issue?again.?Defendant’s?present?description?of?the?evidence?as?”crucial?to?the?defense”?is?an?exaggeration.?During?the?course?of?the?trial,?the?defense?amply?established,?and?the?prosecution?effectively?conceded,?that?the?relationship?between?Petry?and?Hickey?was?marked?by?deep?conflicts?and?unhappiness?on?[1?Cal.4th?419]?both?sides.?Defense?counsel?could?reasonably?conclude?that?it?had?sufficiently?established?this?point?and?that?further?evidence,?including?the?videotape?showing?the?deplorable?condition?of?the?children’s?bedroom,?was?unnecessary.- Polygraph?Evidence
Three?days?after?the?death?of?Elizabeth?Hickey,?the?police?gave?Berlie?Petry?a?polygraph?examination.?The?officer?who?gave?the?examination?concluded?that?Petry?was?deceptive?in?his?responses?to?several?questions,?including?a?negative?response?to?a?question?asking?if?he?had?killed?Hickey.?An?investigator?for?the?district?attorney?gave?Petry?another?polygraph?examination?a?few?weeks?later,?with?similar?results.
[39]?At?trial,?the?defense?moved?to?admit?the?results?of?these?examinations.?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion,?relying?on?Evidence?Code?sections?351.1?(making?polygraph?test?results?inadmissible?absent?a?stipulation?for?admission)?and?352?(giving?the?trial?court?discretion?to?exclude?evidence?when?its?probative?value?is?outweighed?by?the?risk?of?undue?prejudice).?Because?the?defense?did?not?offer?to?prove?that?the?polygraph?had?been?accepted?in?the?scientific?community?as?a?reliable?technique,?fn.?16?the?ruling?excluding?the?evidence?was?correct.?(People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?152,?193.)Citing?United?States?v.?Hart?(E.D.N.Y.?1971)?344?F.Supp.?522,?defendant?contends?that?proof?of?reliability?is?unnecessary?when?the?defense?seeks?to?use?the?results?of?a?prosecution-administered?polygraph?examination?to?impeach?the?testimony?of?a?prosecution?witness.?The?Hart?court?reasoned?that?because?the?prosecution?has?a?duty?to?disclose?any?evidence?that?may?tend?to?exculpate?a?defendant?(Brady?v.?Maryland?(1963)?373?U.S.?83?[10?L.Ed.2d?215,?83?S.Ct.?1194]),?the?government?should?be?required?to?convince?the?jury?that?the?test?it?used?to?evaluate?the?witness’s?credibility?was?not?significant.?We?agree?with?another?federal?court’s?observation?that?this?reasoning?requires?an?”incorrect?logical?leap.”?(U.S.?v.?MacEntee?(E.D.Pa.?1989)?713?F.Supp.?829,?831.)?Although?the?prosecution?has?a?duty?to?inform?[1?Cal.4th?420]?the?defense?of?polygraph?results?that?cast?doubt?on?the?credibility?of?a?prosecution?witness,?the?existence?of?this?duty?does?not?make?the?results?admissible.
Finally,?we?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?excluding?evidence?of?the?polygraph?test?results?denied?him?his?due?process?right?to?a?fair?trial?under?the?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?United?States?Constitution.?A?party?has?no?due?process?right?to?present?evidence?of?test?results?if?the?tests?used?scientific?techniques?not?generally?accepted?as?reliable?in?the?scientific?community.
- Exclusion?of?Other?Defense?Evidence
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?excluding?various?items?of?defense?evidence,?and?that?these?rulings?excluding?evidence?denied?him?various?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.
- Defense?Expert?on?Prison?Gangs
At?trial,?the?defense?proposed?to?call?Dr.?Richard?Korn,?a?social?psychologist?and?criminologist,?as?an?expert?witness?on?prison?gangs?in?general?and?the?AB?in?particular.?Dr.?Korn?testified?out?of?the?jury’s?presence?as?an?offer?of?proof.?He?said?the?AB?was?the?least?organized?of?the?prison?gangs,?that?its?members?would?not?take?orders?and?were?not?parliamentary,?and?that?it?had?no?acknowledged?leaders.?He?said?that?he?had?reviewed?the?testimony?of?Thompson?and?Smith?about?the?AB’s?structure?and?procedures?and?that?he?agreed?with?some?parts?of?that?testimony?and?disagreed?with?other?parts.?He?agreed?that?in?1982?an?attempt?was?made?to?change?a?relatively?unstructured,?inefficient?organization?into?a?criminal?organization?modeled?on?the?Mafia,?but?he?did?not?believe?that?the?attempt?succeeded?to?the?extent?that?a?vote?by?inmates?in?institutions?far?removed?from?each?other?was?taken?and?tallied?within?a?matter?of?weeks?to?determine?who?would?be?on?the?AB’s?leadership?council.?His?opinion?about?the?AB’s?structure,?or?lack?of?it,?was?based?on?interviews?with?self-identified?AB?members?and?former?members.?He?would?not?reveal?the?names?of?these?persons?without?their?permission,?and?he?had?not?obtained?that?permission.
The?court?declined?to?admit?the?testimony.?It?explained?that?Dr.?Korn’s?opinions?were?not?based?on?matters?perceived?or?personally?known?to?him,?but?that?they?were?based?instead?largely?on?conversations?with?self-identified?AB?members?whose?identities?Dr.?Korn?was?unwilling?to?disclose,?thereby?substantially?impairing?the?prosecution’s?ability?to?effectively?cross-?examine?[1?Cal.4th?421]?him.?The?court?also?questioned?whether?there?was?”any?degree?of?scientific?reliability”?to?the?testimony.
[40]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?in?excluding?this?expert?testimony?and?that?the?error?deprived?him?of?his?Fifth,?Sixth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?rights?to?present?a?defense?and?to?a?fair?trial?in?accordance?with?due?process?of?law.The?ruling?was?not?error.?Courts?have?given?parties?wide?latitude?in?the?cross-examination?of?experts?to?test?their?credibility.?(People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?69,?92.)?If?a?witness?frustrates?cross-examination?by?declining?to?answer?some?or?all?of?the?questions,?the?court?may?strike?all?or?part?of?the?witness’s?testimony.?(People?v.?Daggett?(1990)?225?Cal.App.3d?751,?760?[275?Cal.Rptr.?287].)?From?this?rule?it?follows?logically?that?if,?as?here,?the?court?determines?in?advance?that?the?witness?will?refuse?to?answer?such?questions,?the?court?may?decline?to?admit?the?testimony?in?the?first?instance.?Accordingly,?the?trial?court?did?not?exceed?its?discretion?when?it?concluded?that?Dr.?Korn’s?unwillingness?to?reveal?the?names?of?the?persons?whose?statements?formed?the?basis?of?the?opinions?he?proposed?to?give?on?direct?examination?would?impair?effective?cross-examination?to?such?an?extent?that?the?testimony?should?not?be?admitted.
- Jury?View
Prosecution?witness?Tina?Ransbottom?testified?that?she?had?been?living?across?the?street?from?Hickey’s?residence?when?Hickey?was?killed.?During?the?two?weeks?before?the?killing,?the?witness?saw?a?brown?car?parked?nearby?on?about?five?occasions.?On?one?of?these?occasions,?she?saw?Hickey?get?out?of?the?brown?car?and?enter?her?apartment?with?a?man.?Another?time?she?saw?Hickey?enter?her?apartment?with?the?same?man.?The?witness?made?all?these?observations?between?midnight?and?2?a.m.?She?made?some?of?them?from?the?street?as?she?was?walking?to?her?residence;?others?she?made?from?a?window?of?the?residence.?During?the?trial,?Ransbottom?was?shown?a?photo?lineup;?she?selected?defendant’s?photograph?and?identified?him?as?the?man?she?had?seen?with?Hickey.
The?defense?requested?a?jury?view,?between?the?hours?of?midnight?and?1?a.m.,?of?the?scene?where?Ransbottom?testified?she?had?seen?defendant?with?Hickey.?(See???1119.)?The?trial?court?denied?the?request.?It?stated?that?there?was?insufficient?evidence?of?the?conditions?under?which?Ransbottom?made?the?observations?and?of?any?changes?that?may?have?occurred?since?that?time.?[41a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?denial?of?the?jury?view?request?was?an?abuse?of?discretion?and?that?it?violated?his?Fifth,?Sixth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?rights?to?a?fair?trial,?to?present?a?defense,?and?to?meaningfully?confront?the?witnesses?against?him.?[1?Cal.4th?422] [42]?The?standard?of?review?for?a?trial?court’s?decision?to?grant?or?deny?a?request?for?a?jury?view?is?abuse?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Keltie?(1983)?148?Cal.App.3d?773,?782?[196?Cal.Rptr.?243].)?When?the?purpose?of?the?view?is?to?test?the?veracity?of?a?witness’s?testimony?about?observations?the?witness?made,?the?trial?court?may?properly?consider?whether?the?conditions?for?the?jury?view?will?be?substantially?the?same?as?those?under?which?the?witness?made?the?observations,?whether?there?are?other?means?of?testing?the?veracity?of?the?witness’s?testimony,?and?practical?difficulties?in?conducting?a?jury?view.?(Ibid.;?People?v.?Mooring?(1982)?129?Cal.App.3d?453,?460?[181?Cal.Rptr.?71].)
[41b]?Although?Ransbottom?described?in?general?terms?the?lighting?at?the?scene?and?the?position?of?the?people?she?observed,?her?testimony?was?far?from?exact?on?these?points?and?she?was?not?asked?about?subsequent?changes.?Moreover,?her?testimony?could?have?been?tested?by?other?means,?such?as?by?having?an?impartial?observer?view?the?scene?at?night?and?then?testify?about?the?ease?or?difficulty?of?making?an?identification?under?those?conditions.?Finally,?of?course,?the?court?could?properly?consider?the?substantial?inconvenience?of?conducting?a?jury?view?at?the?hour?requested.?We?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?court’s?denial?of?the?request?for?a?jury?view.- Inducements?to?Prosecution?Witness
The?rulings?were?erroneous.?In?determining?the?credibility?of?a?witness,?the?jury?may?consider,?among?other?things,?”[t]he?existence?or?nonexistence?of?a?bias,?interest,?or?other?motive”?for?giving?the?testimony.?(Evid.?Code,???780,?subd.?(f).)?In?a?criminal?case,?therefore,?the?defense?is?entitled?to?explore?the?nature?of?any?promises?the?prosecution?has?made?or?inducements?it?has?offered?to?its?witnesses.?(People?v.?Duran,?supra,?16?Cal.3d?282,?294.)?Although?trial?courts?retain?wide?latitude?to?impose?reasonable?limits?on?defense?inquiry?into?the?potential?bias?of?a?prosecution?witness?(Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall?(1986)?475?U.S.?673,?679?[89?L.Ed.2d?674,?683,?106?S.Ct.?1431]),?the?trial?court?here?erred?in?precluding?all?inquiry?into?the?nature?and?extent?[1?Cal.4th?423]?of?the?promised?protection,?particularly?when?the?only?objection?made?was?on?grounds?of?relevance.
But?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?erroneous?rulings.?First,?the?jury?was?informed?that?the?promise?of?protection?was?made,?and?Smith?eventually?testified?that?his?mother?had?been?relocated.?Thus,?the?most?essential?facts?were?revealed.?Second,?the?evidence?had?only?slight?value?for?impeachment?because?it?is?unlikely?that?a?witness?would?testify?falsely?to?obtain?protection?for?family?members?when?the?protection?is?needed?only?because?of?the?testimony.?A?promise?is?unlikely?to?be?a?significant?inducement?if?its?primary?effect?is?to?eliminate?a?negative?consequence?of?the?testimony?rather?than?to?provide?a?positive?benefit.?Here,?it?appears?that?the?danger?to?the?witness’s?family,?against?which?the?prosecution?promised?protection,?was?largely?or?even?entirely?a?result?of?the?witness’s?agreement?to?cooperate.?Third,?the?defense?presented?evidence?of?other?and?stronger?inducements.?Smith?testified?that?in?exchange?for?his?testimony?he?was?promised?immunity?from?prosecution?for?any?offense?related?to?the?Barnes?killing.?Smith?said?he?was?then?serving?a?sentence?of?25?years?to?life,?with?his?first?parole?hearing?scheduled?for?2007.?Smith’s?mother?was?seriously?ill?with?emphysema.?She?told?Smith?that?she?had?talked?to?a?law?enforcement?agent?who?said?that?AB?members?faced?future?prosecutions?and?that?cooperating?with?law?enforcement?would?provide?him?with?his?only?chance?to?be?released?before?she?died.?Smith?testified?that?before?he?decided?to?cooperate?with?the?prosecution,?he?had?believed?he?would?die?within?seven?years,?either?as?a?result?of?conviction?and?execution?for?a?capital?crime?or?as?a?result?of?prison?violence.?Because?of?his?decision?to?cooperate,?Smith?believed?he?now?had?”something?to?look?forward?to.”?Given?these?more?substantial?benefits?flowing?from?the?promise?of?immunity,?evidence?of?the?cost?and?the?extent?of?the?protection?provided?to?the?witness’s?family?would?have?had?only?slight?value?for?impeachment.?Accordingly,?we?are?persuaded?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?error?was?harmless.?(Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall,?supra,?475?U.S.?673,?684?[89?L.Ed.2d?674,?686-687].)
- Prior?Testimony?of?Steven?Barnes
Outside?the?jury’s?presence,?the?defense?informed?the?court?that?it?intended?to?present?evidence?that?Steven?Barnes,?the?son?of?murder?victim?Richard?Barnes,?had?testified?in?a?previous?case?that?he?was?not?an?AB?member.?The?prosecution?raised?a?hearsay?objection,?which?the?trial?court?sustained.?[44]?Defendant?contends?that?the?ruling?was?error?because?the?evidence?was?admissible?under?the?hearsay?exception?for?prior?testimony?(Evid.?Code,???1291),?and?that?the?error?denied?him?his?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?a?fair?trial?and?to?present?a?defense.?[1?Cal.4th?424]
The?proponent?of?evidence?offered?under?the?prior?testimony?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule?has?the?burden?of?showing?that?the?declarant?is?unavailable?to?testify?in?the?current?proceeding,?and?this?showing?must?be?made?by?competent?evidence.?(People?v.?Enriquez?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?221,?235?[137?Cal.Rptr.?171,?561?P.2d?261,?3?A.L.R.4th?73].)?Unavailability?may?be?established?by?evidence?that?the?declarant?is?”[a]bsent?from?the?hearing?and?the?proponent?of?his?or?her?statement?has?exercised?reasonable?diligence?but?has?been?unable?to?procure?his?or?her?attendance?by?the?court’s?process.”?(Evid.?Code,???240,?subd.?(a)(5).)?This?court?has?not?decided?the?standard?of?review?for?a?trial?court’s?determination?on?the?issue?of?reasonable?diligence?(see?People?v.?Hovey?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?543,?563?[244?Cal.Rptr.?121,?749?P.2d?776]),?and?the?Courts?of?Appeal?are?divided?on?this?issue?(see?People?v.?Robinson?(1991)?226?Cal.App.3d?1581,?1585?[277?Cal.Rptr.?504],?and?cases?cited).
We?need?not?determine?the?standard?of?review?in?this?case?because?the?defense?did?not?present?any?competent?evidence?of?due?diligence,?nor?did?it?make?an?offer?of?proof.?In?seeking?admission?of?the?prior?testimony,?and?in?responding?to?the?prosecution’s?hearsay?objection,?defendant’s?counsel?did?not?cite?the?hearsay?exception?for?prior?testimony,?nor?did?they?claim?they?had?exercised?due?diligence?to?procure?Barnes’s?attendance?at?the?trial.?One?of?defendant’s?attorneys?said,?”I?don’t?have?the?time?to?get?Mr.?Barnes?here.”?The?other?defense?attorney?added,?”We?don’t?know?where?he?is.?The?prosecution?will?not?reveal?that.”?Defendant?argues?that?the?latter?statement?is?a?sufficient?showing?of?due?diligence?because?it?was?obvious?that?the?declarant?could?be?located?only?with?the?assistance?of?the?prosecution.?We?disagree.?The?record?does?not?show?that?Steven?Barnes?was?then?in?hiding,?that?he?could?not?have?been?located?by?conventional?search?methods,?or?that?the?prosecution?knew?or?should?have?known?where?Steven?Barnes?was?then?living?or?how?he?could?be?contacted.?Defense?counsel’s?unelaborated?statements?do?not?establish?due?diligence.
- Admission?of?Prosecution?Evidence
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?various?rulings?admitting?prosecution?evidence,?and?he?again?makes?boilerplate?assertions?that?the?rulings?deprived?him?of?various?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.
- Defendant’s?October?1982?Detention
Prosecution?witness?Janet?Myers?testified?on?cross-examination?that?defendant,?after?his?release?from?prison,?worked?with?Joseph?O’Rourke?in?a?[1?Cal.4th?425]?building?maintenance?and?janitorial?business?located?in?the?Lakewood?area?of?Southern?California.?Other?prosecution?evidence?identified?Joseph?O’Rourke?as?an?AB?member?who?sat?on?its?governing?council.?Asked?how?long?the?business?association?continued,?Myers?said?defendant?worked?in?the?business?until?O’Rourke?was?arrested,?but?she?was?unable?to?recall?the?date?of?his?arrest.
[45]?Over?defense?objections?on?grounds?of?relevance?and?Evidence?Code?section?352,?Sergeant?Barnett?of?the?Los?Angeles?County?Sheriff’s?Department?later?testified?that?O’Rourke?was?arrested?on?October?12,?1982,?and?that?on?the?evening?of?the?arrest?he?went?to?O’Rourke’s?residence?to?conduct?a?parole?search?and?was?present?when?two?uniformed?deputies?found?defendant?”in?the?back?yard?of?the?residence?up?near?a?wall?amongst?the?bushes.”?Defendant,?who?told?the?officers?he?was?waiting?for?O’Rourke,?was?allowed?to?leave?after?a?brief?detention.?The?court?admonished?the?jury?that?this?testimony?was?admitted?solely?to?determine?the?credibility?of?other?witnesses?and?that?it?was?not?to?consider?the?testimony?as?evidence?of?defendant’s?guilt.Barnett’s?testimony?corroborated?Janet?Myers’s?testimony?that?defendant?was?in?contact?with?O’Rourke?after?defendant’s?release?from?prison?and?before?O’Rourke’s?arrest,?and?Barnett’s?testimony?clarified?Myers’s?testimony?by?fixing?the?date?of?O’Rourke’s?arrest.?Because?the?defense?itself?elicited?essentially?the?same?evidence?from?Myers,?defendant?cannot?complain?that?evidence?of?defendant’s?association?with?O’Rourke?at?the?time?of?O’Rourke’s?arrest?was?irrelevant?or?unduly?prejudicial.?Moreover,?the?jury?was?instructed?that?it?was?not?to?consider?the?testimony?as?independent?evidence?of?defendant’s?guilt,?but?only?to?determine?the?credibility?of?other?witnesses.?Under?the?circumstances,?there?was?neither?error?nor?prejudice.
- Deputy?Walton’s?Questioning?of?Defendant
The?defense?requested?a?protective?order?to?preclude?the?prosecution?from?calling?Richard?Walton,?a?deputy?sheriff?for?Humboldt?County,?to?testify?to?his?encounter?with?defendant?on?January?23,?1983.?The?defense?argued?that?the?evidence?was?irrelevant?and?unduly?prejudicial?(Evid.?Code,???352),?and?that?it?amounted?to?inadmissible?evidence?of?general?criminal?character?or?propensity?(id.,???1101).?After?hearing?Officer?Walton’s?testimony?out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?the?trial?court?ruled?that?Deputy?Walton?could?testify?to?his?observations?and?could?mention?defendant’s?statement?explaining?why?he?had?stopped,?but?that?he?was?not?to?give?his?opinion?that?defendant?was?casing?robbery?targets,?nor?was?he?to?name?the?businesses?in?the?area?or?indicate?the?distance?from?defendant’s?vehicle?to?those?businesses.
Officer?Walton?then?testified?before?the?jury?that?on?January?23,?1983,?he?was?on?patrol?duty?in?McKinleyville?at?4:30?p.m.?when?he?observed?a?brown?[1?Cal.4th?426]?automobile?with?one?occupant?in?the?parking?lot?of?a?vacant?building?at?the?edge?of?a?business?district.?The?car?was?in?the?same?place?30?minutes?later,?so?Officer?Walton?pulled?behind?it?and?contacted?the?occupant,?who?produced?a?driver’s?license?identifying?him?as?defendant,?with?a?Eureka?address.?Defendant?said?he?was?waiting?because?the?wind?was?blowing?too?hard?for?him?to?drive.?Deputy?Walton?had?encountered?no?difficulty?with?wind?resistance.?There?was?a?pair?of?binoculars?on?the?front?seat?of?defendant’s?car.?The?prosecution?introduced?photographs?of?the?area?showing?that?from?the?location?where?the?brown?car?was?parked?defendant?could?conveniently?watch?a?gas?station?and?a?mini-mart.
Later?during?the?trial,?over?defense?objection,?Detective?Pat?Freese?of?the?Eureka?Police?Department?testified?that?he?discussed?this?incident?with?defendant?after?defendant’s?arrest?and?that?defendant?said?he?had?been?watching?the?hillside?with?the?binoculars?when?Deputy?Walton?contacted?him.?Based?on?this?testimony?by?Officer?Walton?and?Detective?Freese,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?in?the?language?of?CALJIC?No.?2.03?(4th?ed.?1979;?all?references?to?CALJIC?instructions?are?to?this?edition?unless?otherwise?stated)?that?it?could?consider?false?statements?by?defendant?as?a?circumstance?tending?to?prove?consciousness?of?guilt,?and?the?prosecutor?argued?to?the?jury?that?it?was?”conceivable”?that?defendant?was?”checking?out?those?two?business?establishments?because?he?was?thinking?about?another?robbery.”
On?appeal,?defendant?does?not?contend?that?the?evidence?of?Officer?Walton’s?encounter?with?defendant?was?completely?lacking?in?relevance.?He?concedes?that?the?prosecution?could?use?the?evidence?at?least?to?establish?defendant’s?presence?in?Humboldt?County?close?to?the?dates?on?which?certain?charged?offenses?were?committed.?[46]?He?does?contend,?however,?that?the?evidence?was?not?admissible?to?show?that?defendant?was?casing?robbery?targets,?that?the?trial?court?should?have?excluded?those?portions?of?the?testimony?having?no?relevance?other?than?to?establish?casing,?that?the?trial?court?should?not?have?permitted?the?prosecutors?to?argue?to?the?jury?that?the?evidence?showed?casing,?and?that?the?jurors?should?not?have?been?permitted?to?infer?that?the?statements?defendant?made?to?Deputy?Walton?and?Detective?Freese?supported?a?finding?of?consciousness?of?guilt.
One?of?the?charges?against?defendant?was?conspiracy.?Prosecution?witnesses?testified?that,?as?part?of?the?conspiracy,?AB?leaders?instructed?defendant?to?go?to?the?northern?part?of?the?state?to?gather?weapons?and?money,?and?that?they?authorized?him?to?commit?robberies?if?necessary?to?accomplish?these?tasks.?Accordingly,?evidence?that?defendant?was?casing?robbery?targets?during?the?time?the?conspiracy?was?alleged?to?have?existed?was?relevant?to?[1?Cal.4th?427]?prove?that?defendant?was?following?the?instructions?the?AB?leaders?had?given?him,?and?thus?to?prove?the?conspiracy?charge.?Evidence?that?defendant?gave?Deputy?Walton?an?implausible?explanation?for?his?presence,?and?that?he?gave?Detective?Freese?a?different?and?arguably?inconsistent?explanation,?was?admissible?to?prove?defendant’s?consciousness?of?guilt-that?is,?that?defendant?was?casing?robbery?targets?as?a?part?of?a?criminal?conspiracy.?Therefore,?we?reject?defendant’s?claims?of?error.
- Defendant’s?Admission?of?AB?Membership
During?the?trial,?the?defense?moved?to?bar?the?prosecution?from?introducing?evidence?of?defendant’s?1981?testimony,?in?another?case,?admitting?he?was?an?AB?member.?The?defense?argued?that?the?evidence?was?unduly?prejudicial?(Evid.?Code,???352),?and?that?it?constituted?inadmissible?evidence?of?bad?character?and?criminal?propensity?(id.,???1101).?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion,?and?the?prosecutor?presented?the?evidence?to?the?jury?by?reading?from?the?transcript?of?defendant’s?prior?testimony.?The?prosecutor?told?the?jury?that?defendant?gave?the?testimony?on?January?21,?1981,?but?he?did?not?describe?the?earlier?proceeding,?except?to?say?that?it?”took?place?in?the?Superior?Court?of?a?sister?county”?and?that?the?questioner?was?”David?Mayer,?a?San?Francisco?attorney.”
[47]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?rejecting?the?defense?challenge?to?the?evidence.?He?argues?that?the?evidence?carried?a?strong?risk?of?undue?prejudice?because?the?jury?would?have?speculated?that?the?prior?proceeding?in?which?he?admitted?AB?membership?must?have?been?a?criminal?prosecution?resulting?from?AB?activities.?He?further?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?preventing?the?defense?from?showing?the?context?in?which?he?made?the?admission,?and?that?the?probative?value?of?the?evidence?was?weak?because?he?made?the?admission?more?than?two?years?before?the?robberies?and?murders?charged?in?this?case?and?there?was?ample?other?evidence?that?defendant?was?an?AB?member.Defendant’s?arguments?are?unpersuasive.?We?do?not?agree?that?the?jury?would?engage?in?improper?speculation?as?to?the?nature?of?the?prior?proceeding.?Nor?do?we?find?any?basis?in?the?record?for?the?assertion?that?the?trial?court?prevented?the?defense?from?showing?the?context?in?which?the?admission?was?made.?To?avoid?unnecessary?prejudice?to?defendant,?the?trial?court?did?not?permit?the?prosecutor?to?read?as?much?of?the?transcript?as?he?wished?to?read,?but?the?trial?court?made?no?ruling?restricting?use?of?the?transcript?by?the?defense,?nor?did?it?make?any?ruling?excluding?any?other?evidence?offered?by?the?defense?to?provide?context?to?defendant’s?prior?admission?of?AB?membership.?Finally,?the?evidence?had?significant?probative?value.?Defendant’s?own?admission?was?stronger?evidence?than?any?of?the?other?forms?of?[1?Cal.4th?428]?evidence?(primarily?the?testimony?of?Smith?and?Thompson)?that?the?prosecution?presented?to?prove?defendant’s?AB?membership.?The?admission?occurred?less?than?two?years?before?the?date?on?which,?according?to?the?prosecution,?defendant?accepted?the?assignment?to?kill?Richard?Barnes?for?the?AB.?This?can?hardly?be?regarded?as?remote?in?time,?particularly?in?light?of?the?testimony?of?Smith?and?Thompson?that?allegiance?to?the?AB?was?not?something?lightly?made?or?lightly?abandoned.
- Clifford?Smith?Polygraph
During?cross-examination,?prosecution?witness?Clifford?Smith?said?he?was?removed?from?prison?and?taken?to?a?substation?in?Los?Angeles?County?immediately?after?he?told?prison?authorities?he?would?provide?information?about?the?AB.?Defense?counsel?then?asked?whether?Smith?had?stayed?there?for?debriefing.?Smith?replied:?”That’s?where?I?done?the?whole?thing.?I?talked?to?Tulleners,?I?talked?to?Barnett,?I?took?lie?detector?tests,?I?talked?to?the?SSU,?talked?to?the?Department?of?Justice.”?Defense?counsel?did?not?move?to?strike?the?nonresponsive?reference?to?polygraphs?and?continued?with?cross-?examination.?After?the?next?recess,?however,?the?defense?moved?for?a?mistrial?on?the?ground?that?Smith’s?reference?to?having?taken?polygraphs?had?seriously?prejudiced?the?defense?case?by?giving?Smith’s?testimony?a?false?aura?of?credibility.?[48]?The?trial?court?denied?the?motion?for?mistrial?but?strongly?admonished?the?jurors?to?disregard?Smith’s?mention?of?polygraphs?because?polygraph?results?are?both?scientifically?unreliable?and?legally?inadmissible?in?evidence.?Defendant?now?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?the?mistrial?motion.
A?trial?court’s?ruling?denying?a?motion?for?mistrial?is?reviewed?under?the?deferential?abuse-of-discretion?standard.?(People?v.?McLain?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?97,?113?[249?Cal.Rptr.?630,?757?P.2d?569].)?Applying?that?standard,?we?find?no?abuse?of?discretion.?The?mention?of?polygraphs?in?Smith’s?testimony?was?brief?and?nonresponsive.?He?did?not?state?what?questions?he?was?asked?or?what?the?examiner?concluded?about?his?truthfulness.?The?admonition?the?court?gave?was?thorough?and?forceful;?it?was?sufficient?to?prevent?any?prejudice?to?defendant.
- Lack?of?Testing?of?Defendant’s?Blood?Type
During?the?redirect?examination?of?prosecution?witness?John?Boyd,?a?criminalist?employed?by?the?California?Department?of?Justice,?the?prosecutor?asked?Boyd?whether?he?had?ever?received?a?sample?of?defendant’s?blood.?Defendant?raised?a?relevance?objection,?which?the?court?considered?out?of?the?jury’s?presence.?Defense?counsel?argued?to?the?court?that?defendant’s?[1?Cal.4th?429]?blood?type?was?irrelevant?because?all?the?blood?found?at?the?Hickey?murder?scene?was?consistent?with?Hickey’s?blood?type.?The?court?observed?that?defense?counsel?in?open?court?had?previously?refused?to?provide?a?sample?of?defendant’s?blood?without?a?warrant,?and?that?the?jury?could?infer?consciousness?of?guilt?from?this?refusal.?The?court’s?only?ruling,?however,?was?that?the?witness?would?be?allowed?to?say?whether?or?not?he?had?received?a?sample?of?defendant’s?blood.?The?prosecutor?then?asked?whether?the?witness?had?ever?received?a?specimen?of?blood?from?defendant,?and?the?witness?said?he?had?not.
[49]?We?agree?with?defendant?that?the?challenged?evidence?lacked?relevance.?Because?analysis?of?evidence?taken?from?the?scene?of?the?Hickey?killing?did?not?reveal?the?presence?of?any?blood?inconsistent?with?the?victim’s?blood?type,?evidence?of?defendant’s?blood?type?could?not?have?tended?to?incriminate?or?exonerate?him.?The?lack?of?such?evidence?was?likewise?meaningless?on?the?ultimate?issue?of?guilt?or?innocence.?We?need?not?determine?whether?evidence?of?defense?counsel’s?refusal?to?voluntarily?provide?a?blood?sample?would?have?been?admissible?to?show?consciousness?of?guilt?by?defendant?because?no?such?evidence?was?ever?presented?to?the?jury,?nor?did?the?prosecutor?urge?such?an?inference?in?argument?to?the?jury.?Although?evidence?that?the?prosecution’s?criminalist?had?not?received?a?sample?of?defendant’s?blood?was?not?relevant,?its?admission?did?not?prejudice?defendant.?Absent?evidence?that?defendant?was?ever?asked?to?provide?a?blood?sample,?the?jury?would?have?no?reason?to?infer?consciousness?of?guilt,?and?blood?type?in?itself?was?simply?not?an?issue?in?this?case.?Had?the?challenged?evidence?been?excluded,?there?is?no?reasonable?probability?that?the?jury?would?have?returned?a?verdict?more?favorable?to?defendant.?(People?v.?Watson,?supra,?46?Cal.2d?818,?836.)- Impeachment?of?Alibi?Witness
Defense?witness?Rebecca?Williams?testified?that?defendant?was?with?her?at?her?residence?in?Auburn,?California,?close?to?the?time?when?the?Hickey?murder?was?committed?in?Humboldt?County.?Apparently?in?anticipation?of?her?testimony,?the?prosecution?introduced?evidence?during?its?case-in-chief?that?on?August?22,?1984,?she?had?declined?to?discuss?the?case?with?Barry?Brown,?an?investigator?for?the?Humboldt?County?District?Attorney.?The?prosecution?also?cross-examined?her?on?her?failure?to?volunteer?her?exculpatory?information?to?the?police?or?to?testify?at?defendant’s?preliminary?hearing.
Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?overruling?defense?objections?to?both?forms?of?impeachment?because?the?prosecution?failed?to?establish?the?[1?Cal.4th?430]?required?foundation?for?such?evidence.?Defendant?relies?on?dictum?in?People?v.?Ratliff?(1987)?189?Cal.App.3d?696,?701?[234?Cal.Rptr.?502],?stating?that?before?impeaching?a?defense?witness?with?evidence?that?the?witness?failed?to?volunteer?exculpatory?information?to?the?police,?the?prosecution?must?establish?that?the?witness?knew?charges?were?pending?and?the?information?was?exculpatory,?had?reason?to?make?the?information?available,?was?familiar?with?the?means?of?reporting?it,?and?was?not?asked?by?the?defendant?or?defense?counsel?to?refrain?from?doing?so.
We?need?not?decide?whether?the?factors?mentioned?by?Ratliff,?supra,?189?Cal.App.3d?696,?are?requirements?for?admissibility?or?simply?matters?affecting?the?weight?to?which?the?impeaching?evidence?is?entitled.?(See?People?v.?Santos?(1990)?222?Cal.App.3d?723,?737?[271?Cal.Rptr.?811].)?[50]?Even?assuming?that?the?Ratliff?factors?are?foundational?requirements,?defendant’s?contention?fails?because?defense?counsel?did?not?object?at?trial?on?the?specific?ground?urged?on?appeal.?(People?v.?Gordon?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1223,?1255?[270?Cal.Rptr.?451,?792?P.2d?251].)
The?only?objection?to?the?testimony?of?prosecution?witness?Barry?Brown?was?a?hearsay?objection?to?evidence?that?Williams?declined?to?speak?to?Brown?after?a?telephone?conversation?with?one?of?the?attorneys?appointed?to?represent?defendant.?The?trial?court?sustained?the?objection,?and?Brown?made?no?mention?of?Williams’s?telephone?conversation?with?defense?counsel.?And,?although?the?defense?raised?various?objections?to?the?cross-examination?of?Williams?on?her?failure?to?volunteer?information?to?the?prosecution,?there?was?no?objection?for?lack?of?foundation.?Defendant?may?not?challenge?on?appeal?the?admission?of?evidence?on?grounds?not?urged?in?the?trial?court.
- Length?of?Defendant’s?Prior?Incarceration
Prosecution?witness?Pat?Freese,?a?detective?for?the?Eureka?Police?Department,?testified?that?he?asked?defendant,?shortly?after?his?arrest,?where?he?had?been?on?the?evening?of?the?Triplex?robbery.?Defendant?answered?that?he?was?not?sure?and?that?”most?of?his?days?had?run?together”?because?he?had?been?”in?prison?for?the?past?eleven?years.”?Defense?counsel?did?not?object?or?move?to?strike?the?answer,?but?counsel?later?moved?for?a?mistrial.?The?trial?court?did?not?grant?a?mistrial,?but?it?did?instruct?the?jury?that?it?was?not?to?consider?evidence?that?defendant?had?been?in?prison?”in?determining?his?guilt?in?this?particular?trial?or?to?determine?that?he’s?a?bad?person.”?[51]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?in?denying?a?mistrial?and?that?the?admonition?was?insufficient?to?cure?the?harm.
As?we?have?already?mentioned,?a?trial?court’s?ruling?denying?a?motion?for?mistrial?is?reviewed?under?the?deferential?abuse-of-discretion?standard.?(People?v.?McLain,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?97,?113.)?We?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?[1?Cal.4th?431]?here.?Because?of?the?nature?of?the?charges,?evidence?was?properly?admitted?to?prove?that?defendant?had?been?in?prison?and?was?an?AB?member.?Although?additional?details?about?defendant’s?prior?prison?term?were?not?directly?relevant?on?the?issue?of?guilt,?the?jury?was?entitled?to?consider?the?plausibility?of?the?explanation?defendant?offered?for?his?claimed?inability?to?remember?where?he?had?been?at?the?time?of?a?charged?offense.?Assuming?the?evidence?should?have?been?excluded?as?being?more?prejudicial?than?probative?(Evid.?Code,???352),?the?prejudice?to?defendant?was?not?incurable?by?admonition?or?instruction.?(See?People?v.?Haskett?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?841,?854?[180?Cal.Rptr.?640,?640?P.2d?776].)
Defendant?complains?that?the?trial?court’s?admonition?was?inadequate?because?it?did?not?specifically?advise?the?jury?to?disregard?the?length?of?his?previous?imprisonment.?The?criticism?is?unwarranted.?The?admonition?not?to?consider?the?prior?imprisonment?at?all?to?prove?defendant’s?guilt?or?to?prove?he?was?a?bad?person?necessarily?included?an?admonition?to?disregard?the?length?of?that?imprisonment.?Defendant?was?not?harmed?by?the?admonition?being?more?inclusive?than?it?needed?to?be.
- Conduct?of?Mary?Markley
Beverly?Lloyd,?defendant’s?mother,?testified?as?a?prosecution?witness.?During?redirect?examination,?the?prosecution?asked?her?about?the?time?when?Barry?Brown,?an?investigator?for?the?Humboldt?County?District?Attorney,?served?her?with?a?subpoena.?Specifically,?the?prosecutor?asked?whether?a?woman?named?Mary?Markley?was?present?and?whether?Brown?was?”ordered?off”?her?property.?The?trial?court?overruled?a?defense?objection,?and?the?witness?answered?that?she?did?not?remember?that?Markley?ordered?Brown?off?the?property.?She?added,?”I?know?she?was?protecting?me?because?I?was?so?dumb?I?didn’t?know?that?I?didn’t?need?to?talk?to?him.”
[52]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?admitting?the?evidence.?He?argues?that?Markley’s?conduct?was?irrelevant?because?she?was?not?a?witness?and?her?actions?had?no?bearing?on?Lloyd’s?credibility.?We?disagree.?The?alleged?incident?occurred?on?Lloyd’s?property?and?in?Lloyd’s?presence.?Markley?could?not?have?ordered?anyone?to?leave?without?Lloyd’s?approval?or?ratification.?Thus,?the?inquiry?was?proper?to?explore?Lloyd’s?bias?against?the?prosecution.?In?any?event,?the?witness?testified?she?did?not?remember?whether?Markley?had?ordered?Brown?to?leave,?and?the?incident?was?not?mentioned?again.?We?find?neither?error?nor?prejudice.?[1?Cal.4th?432]- AB?Activities?Outside?California
Thompson?testified?that?beginning?in?1981?AB?members?held?meetings?at?Palm?Hall,?the?adjustment?center?of?the?Chino?prison,?to?formulate?plans?to?restructure?the?AB.?Without?objection,?he?testified?that?in?1982,?as?a?result?of?these?meetings,?the?AB?held?a?vote?to?elect?a?governing?body.?The?trial?court?overruled?a?defense?objection?on?relevance?grounds?to?a?question?asking?where?the?vote?had?taken?place,?and?the?witness?answered?that?it?was?taken?at?”Palm?Hall,?Folsom,?San?Quentin,?[and]?federal?institutions?through?[sic]?the?nation.”?Over?another?defense?objection?on?relevance?grounds,?the?witness?testified?that?the?AB?was?”nationwide”?and?that?it?existed?in?Arizona,?New?York,?Nevada,?Illinois,?and?Michigan.?The?court?explained?it?was?admitting?the?testimony?only?because?Thompson?had?testified?that?a?vote?was?taken.
The?ruling?was?correct.?Defendant?was?charged?with?a?conspiracy?to?murder?under?orders?of?a?prison?gang’s?leadership.?Evidence?of?the?size?and?nature?of?the?gang?and?the?manner?in?which?the?leadership?derived?its?authority?was?relevant?to?prove?the?charge.?The?trial?court?recognized?that?the?subject?carried?a?risk?of?undue?prejudice?(see?Evid.?Code,???352),?and?when?defense?counsel?made?timely?and?appropriate?objections,?it?confined?the?prosecution?within?reasonable?limits.?For?example,?the?court?sustained?a?defense?objection?to?a?question?concerning?the?AB’s?membership?in?1979?and?instructed?the?prosecutor?to?restrict?his?inquiry?to?the?time?of?the?charged?conspiracy.?The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?when?it?allowed?brief?testimony?on?the?distribution?of?the?AB?membership,?shortly?before?the?formation?of?the?charged?conspiracy,?to?explain?how?the?AB?leaders?had?acquired?their?authority.
Thompson?later?testified,?without?objection,?that?one?of?the?aims?of?the?AB?reorganization?was?to?become?”more?involved?within?the?community?of?organized?crime?as?opposed?to?a?prison?gang?whose?primary?motivations?were?racial?violence?and?drug?abuse.”?He?said?that?the?leadership?group?adopted?policies?to?achieve?this?goal.?Asked?for?examples?of?the?policies,?Thompson?said,?”The?Aryan?Brotherhood?is?associated?with?the?Mexican?Mafia?or?the?Hell’s?Angels?or-for?instance,?in?Federal?penitentiary,?we’re?with?the?Italian?Mafia.”?Defense?counsel?objected?belatedly?and?moved?to?strike,?apparently?on?relevance?grounds.?The?trial?court?responded:?”I?don’t?know?whether?we?need?an?example?of?the?policies.?It?has?nothing?to?do?with?[1?Cal.4th?433]?the?facts?of?this?case.?Let’s?get?to?the?policies?we’re?concerned?about?the?facts?of?the?case?[sic].”
Defendant?complains?that?the?trial?court?should?have?stricken?as?irrelevant?the?testimony?about?the?AB’s?affiliation?with?organized?crime?groups.?We?agree?that?the?evidence?had?little?if?any?relevance?to?the?charges?against?defendant?and?that?it?should?have?been?stricken,?but?defendant?has?not?demonstrated?prejudice.?The?witness?had?already?testified,?without?objection,?that?the?AB?was?a?prison?gang,?that?prisoners?were?required?to?shed?someone’s?blood?to?become?AB?members,?and?that?the?AB?was?seeking?to?expand?its?organized?crime?activities,?including?drug?dealing,?extortion,?and?murder.?The?jury?was?also?well?aware?that?the?charge?in?this?case?involved?a?conspiracy?to?murder.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?jury?was?unlikely?to?be?shocked?or?influenced?by?testimony?that?the?AB?had?affiliated?with?known?organized?crime?groups.?Moreover,?the?trial?court,?although?it?did?not?strike?the?testimony,?advised?the?jury?that?the?testimony?had?”nothing?to?do?with?the?facts?of?this?case.”?Had?the?court?stricken?the?challenged?testimony,?there?is?no?reasonable?probability?that?the?jury?would?have?returned?a?verdict?more?favorable?to?defendant.?(People?v.?Watson,?supra,?46?Cal.2d?818,?836.)
- Physical?Evidence
Defendant?contends?that?several?items?of?physical?evidence?were?admitted?over?defense?objection?even?though?they?had?little?or?no?probative?value?and?were?unduly?prejudicial.?[54]?We?consider?each?such?item?in?turn,?bearing?in?mind?that?physical?evidence?may?be?admitted?to?substantiate?and?illustrate?a?witness’s?testimony?(People?v.?Madison?(1935)?3?Cal.2d?668,?679?[46?P.2d?159];?State?of?Cal.?ex?rel.?Dept.?of?Water?Resources?v.?Natomas?Co.?(1966)?239?Cal.App.2d?547,?561?[49?Cal.Rptr.?64]),?and?that?we?use?the?deferential?abuse-of-discretion?standard?to?review?a?trial?court?ruling?admitting?an?exhibit?over?an?objection?that?it?is?inflammatory?or?unduly?prejudicial?(People?v.?Madison,?supra,?at?p.?679).
(a)?Ammunition?Found?in?the?Reno?Storage?Locker
Sergeant?Duane?Fredrickson?of?the?Eureka?Police?Department?testified?that?he?participated?in?the?search?of?the?ministorage?unit?in?Reno,?Nevada,?during?which?he?recovered?various?weapons?taken?from?the?Moore?and?Hickey?residences.?He?testified?that?the?weapons?were?loaded?when?found.?Over?defense?objection?on?grounds?of?relevance?and?undue?prejudice?(Evid.?Code,???352),?the?prosecution?introduced?in?evidence?the?ammunition?taken?from?the?seized?guns.
[55]?The?testimony?of?Berlie?Petry?and?Richard?Moore?established?that?the?weapons?had?originally?been?unloaded.?The?evidence?that?they?were?[1?Cal.4th?434]?found?loaded?was?more?consistent?with?the?prosecution’s?theory,?that?the?weapons?were?obtained?for?use?by?the?AB?to?commit?robberies?and?murders,?than?with?the?defense?theory,?that?defendant?obtained?the?weapons?for?sale?on?consignment.?fn.?17?The?defense?impliedly?conceded?this?relevance?when?it?interposed?no?objection?to?Sergeant?Fredrickson’s?testimony?that?the?weapons?were?found?loaded.?The?ammunition?taken?from?the?weapons?was?properly?admitted?in?evidence?to?substantiate?and?illustrate?this?unchallenged?testimony.?In?the?context?of?this?case,?the?evidence?was?unlikely?to?inflame?the?jury.?The?ruling?admitting?the?evidence?was?well?within?the?trial?court’s?discretion.(b)?Shotgun?Shell?Bandolier
Sergeant?Fredrickson?also?testified,?without?objection,?that?he?seized?a?bandolier?holding?shotgun?ammunition?from?the?garage?of?defendant’s?mother’s?residence,?along?with?other?items?apparently?belonging?to?defendant.?[56]?Defense?counsel?did?object,?however,?when?the?prosecutor?moved?to?have?the?bandolier?received?in?evidence.?Defendant?now?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?overruling?the?objection.
The?physical?evidence?substantiated?and?illustrated?the?witness’s?unchallenged?testimony.?Although?the?relevance?of?that?testimony?was?comparatively?weak,?defendant’s?possession?of?shotgun?ammunition?at?his?mother’s?residence?did?have?some?tendency?in?reason?to?establish?his?possession?of?the?shotguns?seized?from?the?Reno?storage?locker,?and?to?support?the?prosecution’s?theory?that?the?weapons?were?possessed?for?use?by?the?AB?rather?than?for?sale.?Given?the?other?properly?received?evidence,?the?bandolier?was?not?inflammatory.?The?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?the?evidence.
(c)?Photographs?of?Guns
[57]?Robert?Christansen,?a?firearms?identification?examiner?for?the?Los?Angeles?County?Sheriff’s?Department,?testified?about?the?different?makes?and?models?of?guns?that?could?have?fired?the?bullet?that?killed?Richard?Barnes.?The?witness?used?photographs?of?various?guns?to?illustrate?his?testimony.?Over?defense?objection,?these?photographs?were?received?in?evidence.We?find?no?error.?The?photographs?could?properly?be?used?to?illustrate?the?witness’s?unchallenged?testimony?and?they?were?not?inflammatory.?[1?Cal.4th?435]
(d)?Bloodstained?Glove
John?Boyd,?a?criminalist?for?the?California?Department?of?Justice,?testified?that?he?examined?a?pair?of?gloves?for?bloodstains?and?found?a?small?stain?on?the?index?finger?of?one?glove?that?proved?to?be?human?blood.?He?was?unable?to?determine?the?blood?type,?however,?or?whether?the?stain?had?been?applied?to?the?inside?or?the?outside?of?the?glove.?The?trial?court?overruled?a?defense?objection?on?grounds?of?relevance?and?undue?prejudice.?Sergeant?Fredrickson?later?testified?that?he?seized?these?gloves?from?the?bottom?of?the?closet?in?the?bedroom?defendant?had?occupied?in?his?mother’s?residence.
[58]?Evidence?that?a?defendant?possessed?clothing?stained?with?human?blood?is?relevant?to?prove?the?defendant’s?presence?at?the?scene?of?a?homicide?involving?substantial?bloodshed.?(People?v.?Burgener?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?505,?527?[224?Cal.Rptr.?112,?714?P.2d?1251].)?Here?the?defendant’s?apparent?possession?of?the?bloodstained?glove?was?relevant?to?the?charge?that?he?committed?the?bludgeon?murder?of?Elizabeth?Hickey.?Because?the?blood?type?of?the?stain?could?not?be?determined,?and?because?the?gloves?were?apparently?women’s?gloves,?the?relevance?of?the?evidence?was?comparatively?weak.?The?evidence?was?not?likely?to?inflame?the?jury,?however,?and?defendant’s?argument?that?it?was?unduly?prejudicial?is,?at?bottom,?simply?distrust?of?the?jury’s?ability?to?accurately?gauge?relevance.?The?trial?court’s?ruling?admitting?the?evidence?was?not?an?abuse?of?discretion.(e)?Removal?Order
Prosecution?witness?Clifford?Smith?testified?that?the?AB?leaders?arranged?to?have?defendant?brought?to?Palm?Hall?from?a?prison?in?Montana?to?receive?the?order?to?kill?Richard?Barnes.?The?leaders?selected?defendant?in?part?because?they?knew?he?would?soon?be?released?without?parole.?To?substantiate?this?testimony,?the?prosecution?offered?a?court?order?directing?the?Sheriff?of?San?Bernardino?County?to?take?temporary?custody?of?defendant?from?the?Montana?State?prison,?to?house?him?at?Palm?Hall,?and?to?transport?him?to?court?to?testify?as?a?defense?witness?in?the?joint?trial?of?two?defendants?whom?Smith?had?identified?as?AB?leaders.?The?prosecution?also?offered?a?letter?from?the?warden?of?the?Montana?State?Prison?to?California?prison?authorities?confirming?that?defendant?had?been?removed?from?Montana?on?August?24,?1982,?and?that?he?would?complete?his?Montana?term?on?September?10,?1982,?and?could?be?released?at?that?time.?Over?defense?objections?on?grounds?of?relevance?and?undue?prejudice,?the?trial?court?received?the?documents?in?evidence.
[59]?The?documents?were?properly?received?to?substantiate?the?witness’s?testimony.?Although?defendant?maintains?the?documents?were?prejudicial,?[1?Cal.4th?436]?they?revealed?nothing?not?revealed?by?the?testimony.?They?did?not?show?the?offense?for?which?defendant?was?imprisoned?in?Montana,?the?term?of?imprisonment,?or?his?conduct?as?a?prisoner.?The?trial?court’s?ruling?was?not?an?abuse?of?discretion.- Impeachment?of?Defense?Witness?Stinson
On?direct?examination,?Stinson?testified?that?he?was?an?inmate?of?San?Quentin?Prison?and?had?previously?been?convicted?of?murder,?robbery,?and?burglary.?In?his?opinion,?the?AB?did?not?and?never?had?existed?as?an?organization;?it?was?”just?…?a?tag?that?the?administration?puts?on?people?that?it?wishes?to?segregate?from?the?general?[prison]?population?….”?He?said?this?had?happened?to?him?”several?times.”?He?was?placed?in?the?general?prison?population?in?1984?after?an?administrative?determination?that?there?was?insufficient?evidence?he?was?an?AB?member,?but?at?the?time?of?his?testimony?prison?officials?considered?him?to?be?an?AB?member.
On?cross-examination,?Stinson?testified?he?was?then?segregated?from?the?general?prison?population?in?a?security?housing?unit.?He?said?the?reason?for?this?segregation?was?that?prison?officials?still?linked?him?to?the?AB.?Over?defense?objections?on?relevance?grounds,?the?prosecutor?then?asked?whether?Stinson?had?”swung?at?or?hit”?a?deputy?sheriff?in?September?1980,?whether?he?had?been?present?with?other?reputed?AB?members?when?inmates?were?stabbed?in?separate?incidents?in?November?1980?and?February?1981,?whether?a?six-inch?knife?blade?had?been?found?in?his?shoe?in?July?1981,?and?whether?any?of?these?incidents?was?responsible?for?his?segregated?prison?housing.?fn.?18?The?trial?court?properly?overruled?the?defense?objections.?The?questions?were?proper?cross-?examination?in?view?of?Stinson’s?testimony?on?direct?examination?that?prison?officials?had?used?his?alleged?AB?membership?several?times?to?justify?the?restrictions?they?imposed?on?him,?including?segregation?from?the?general?prison?population.?The?challenge?to?this?testimony?also?undermined?Stinson’s?broader?claim?that?the?AB?did?not?exist?as?an?organization?[1?Cal.4th?437]?but?was?merely?a?label?invented?by?prison?authorities?to?justify?restrictions?imposed?on?certain?prisoners.
- The?Griffen-Stinson?Letter
On?rebuttal,?Clifford?Smith?testified?that?Robert?”Blinkey”?Griffen?had?shown?him?the?letter?in?Palm?Hall?in?July?1983.?He?recognized?the?handwriting?and?signature?on?the?first?part?of?the?letter?as?Griffen’s?and?the?handwriting?and?signature?on?the?second?part?of?the?letter?as?Stinson’s.?The?purpose?of?the?letter?was?to?explain?to?Bobby?Crane,?as?the?ranking?AB?member?at?San?Quentin?Prison,?why?it?had?been?necessary?to?kill?Steven?”Loser”?Clark?and?to?advise?Crane?about?developments?at?Folsom?Prison?affecting?the?AB.?The?AB?leaders?agreed?to?send?the?letter?with?an?inmate?named?Mikey?Masterson,?who?was?being?transferred?from?Palm?Hall?to?San?Quentin.?Smith?had?discussed?the?letter?with?John?Stinson?and?other?AB?leaders?before?it?was?sent.?He?read?and?approved?the?letter?and?gave?it?back?to?Griffen.?Over?defense?objection,?the?court?then?admitted?the?entire?letter.?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?because?no?hearsay?exception?was?ever?established?for?the?”Blinkey”?portion?of?the?letter.?fn.?19
The?letter?was?not?offered?for?the?truth?of?the?matters?asserted?in?it?(why?Clark?was?killed?and?what?had?occurred?at?Folsom?Prison),?but?rather?to?show?that?the?author?and?the?intended?recipient?were?members?of?an?existing?organization.?The?letter?was?therefore?not?within?the?hearsay?rule.?(Rogers?v.?Whitson?(1964)?228?Cal.App.2d?662,?675?[39?Cal.Rptr.?849];?People?v.?Decker?(1957)?155?Cal.App.2d?165,?170?[317?P.2d?135].)
- Impeachment?of?Defense?Witness?Rowland
Defense?witness?Robert?Rowland,?a?state?prison?inmate,?testified?on?direct?examination?that?in?September?of?1983,?while?he?was?incarcerated?in?the?[1?Cal.4th?438]?adjustment?center?at?San?Quentin,?Michael?Thompson?gave?him?a?zipgun?and?a?bullet?and?told?him?to?hold?these?items?until?Thompson?requested?their?return.?He?said?he?agreed?only?because?Thompson?ran?the?prison?yard.?Two?days?later?prison?authorities?searched?his?cell?and?found?the?gun?and?bullet?under?his?pillow.
On?cross-examination,?Rowland?denied?that?he?was?or?had?ever?been?an?AB?member;?he?said?he?was?not?aware?that?the?AB?existed?as?an?organization.?He?denied?he?was?given?the?gun?to?shoot?a?member?of?a?prison?gang?called?the?Black?Guerilla?Family.?Over?defense?objections,?the?prosecutor?questioned?him?about?incidents?in?which?he?had?hidden?a?hacksaw?blade?in?his?lip,?a?knife?in?his?rectum,?and?a?handcuff?key?in?a?cigar.?He?denied?each?incident.?The?defense?also?objected?unsuccessfully?to?questions?asking?Rowland?whether?he?had?participated?in?the?stabbing?of?inmates?Bob?Basey,?”Corky,”?and?”Lucky”?Harris.?Again,?Rowland?denied?each?incident.?He?also?testified?that?the?zip?gun?had?been?disassembled?when?the?officers?found?it?in?his?cell.
On?rebuttal,?Clifford?Smith?testified?that?he?and?Thompson?had?given?the?zipgun?to?Rowland?with?instructions?to?use?it?to?shoot?a?Black?Guerilla?Family?member?who?had?to?pass?Rowland’s?cell?to?reach?the?showers.?Rowland?was?then?a?friend?or?associate?of?the?AB?and?later?was?being?considered?for?AB?membership?when?Smith?defected.?Smith?said?he?had?given?Rowland?assignments?to?”hit”?Basey,?”Corky,”?and?Harris.?The?prosecution?called?four?San?Quentin?correctional?officers?who?testified?that?the?zipgun?had?been?assembled?when?found?in?Rowland’s?cell,?that?an?inch-long?hacksaw?blade?had?been?found?in?Rowland’s?mouth,?that?a?knife?or?stabbing?instrument?was?found?in?Rowland’s?rectum,?and?that?a?handcuff?key?had?been?found?in?a?cigar?in?Rowland’s?cell.
[62]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?permitting?this?impeachment?of?Rowland.?He?argues?that?any?impeachment?was?improper?because?the?prosecution?never?disputed?the?only?material?fact?to?which?Rowland?testified,?which?was?that?Thompson?had?given?him?the?zipgun?two?days?before?officers?found?it?in?his?cell.?In?addition,?he?argues?that?the?prosecutor?violated?the?rule?against?cross-examining?a?witness?on?irrelevant?matters?for?the?purpose?of?eliciting?something?to?be?contradicted.?(People?v.?Lavergne,?supra,?4?Cal.3d?735,?744.)The?defense?called?Rowland?as?a?witness?to?discredit?prosecution?witness?Thompson?by?showing?that?he?had?unscrupulously?”set?up”?Rowland?to?win?favor?with?law?enforcement?authorities?and?ultimately?to?obtain?a?reduction?in?his?prison?term?or?similar?benefits.?Discrediting?Thompson?would,?in?turn,?[1?Cal.4th?439]?cast?doubt?on?his?testimony?regarding?the?existence?of?the?AB?as?a?functioning?organization.?Although?it?was?undisputed?that?Thompson?gave?Rowland?the?zipgun,?the?prosecution?did?dispute?other?portions?of?Rowland’s?testimony?that?were?material?to?the?inferences?the?defense?sought?to?draw.?To?impeach?Rowland,?the?prosecution?elicited?the?rebuttal?testimony?of?Smith?to?show?that?Rowland?was?given?the?zipgun?as?part?of?a?”legitimate”?AB?assignment,?rather?than?as?a?setup,?and?that?Rowland?was?a?loyal?”soldier”?of?the?AB.?The?other?disputed?impeachment?evidence?was?introduced?to?corroborate?Smith.?The?prosecution?argued?that?the?most?reasonable?explanation?for?the?manner?in?which?Rowland?had?concealed?the?zipgun?(under?a?pillow?and?fully?assembled)?was?that?he?was?keeping?it?ready?for?instant?use.?Evidence?of?other?instances?in?which?Rowland?demonstrated?sophistication?in?the?concealment?of?contraband?made?it?unlikely?that?Rowland?would?conceal?a?zipgun?in?an?obvious?place?unless?he?had?a?compelling?reason?to?do?so.?We?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court?rulings?permitting?the?impeachment?of?Rowland.
- Comment?on?Failure?to?Call?Defense?Expert
As?we?have?mentioned,?the?weapon?used?to?kill?Richard?Barnes?was?a?.22-?caliber?handgun.?Police?seized?a?gun,?known?at?trial?as?the?Baca?firearm,?after?receiving?information?that?one?of?Barnes’s?friends?had?sold?it?the?day?after?Barnes?was?killed.?At?the?trial,?Robert?Christansen,?the?prosecution’s?firearms?expert,?testified?that?the?Baca?firearm?could?not?have?fired?the?bullets?that?killed?Richard?Barnes.?During?presentation?of?the?defense?case,?the?defense?recalled?Christansen?to?question?him?further?about?the?basis?of?this?opinion.?During?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?whether?Christansen?would?be?willing?”to?accompany?the?defense?expert?to?the?crime?lab?out?at?the?college?and?go?through?the?checks?of?bullets?and?stuff?….”?On?rebuttal,?the?prosecution?called?its?investigator,?Barry?Brown,?who?testified?that?he?had?met?Christansen,?a?man?named?Chuck?Morton,?and?a?defense?investigator?at?a?Department?of?Justice?Crime?Lab?where?Morton?had?conducted?a?three-hour?examination?of?bullets?test-fired?from?the?Baca?firearm?and?bullet?fragments?from?the?head?of?Richard?Barnes.?During?argument?to?the?jury,?both?prosecutors?commented?on?the?failure?of?the?defense?to?call?as?a?witness?Chuck?Morton,?whom?they?identified?as?a?defense?expert.?They?urged?the?jury?to?infer?that?Morton?must?have?concluded,?like?Christansen,?that?the?Baca?firearm?could?not?have?fired?the?bullets?that?killed?Barnes.
[63]?Defendant?now?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?permitting?the?prosecution?to?introduce?evidence?that?revealed?the?defense’s?employment?of?an?expert?who?was?never?called?to?testify.?He?argues?that?allowing?evidence?[1?Cal.4th?440]?and?prosecutorial?argument?on?a?failure?by?the?defense?to?call?its?own?expert?violates?the?right?to?counsel?guaranteed?by?the?Sixth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution?and?the?parallel?provision?of?the?state?Constitution.?He?also?argues?that?the?comment?violated?Evidence?Code?section?913?(barring?comment?on?the?exercise?of?a?privilege).When?the?prosecution?offered?evidence?of?the?defense?expert’s?examination?of?the?bullets,?defense?counsel?did?not?object?on?the?grounds?now?urged,?but?only?on?the?ground?that?it?was?not?proper?rebuttal.?The?lack?of?a?specific?objection?on?the?ground?now?urged?precludes?consideration?on?appeal?of?the?defendant’s?claim?that?the?evidence?was?improperly?admitted.?(Evid.?Code,???353.)?Also,?because?any?prejudice?from?the?prosecutors’?comments?during?argument?could?have?been?cured?by?a?timely?objection?and?admonition,?defense?counsel’s?failure?to?object?to?the?argument?waives?any?claim?that?the?argument?was?improper.?(See?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1104?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659].)
We?reject?defendant’s?contentions?that?the?failure?to?make?specific?and?timely?objections?constituted?ineffective?assistance?of?counsel.?A?defendant?seeking?relief?on?the?basis?of?ineffective?assistance?of?counsel?must?show?both?that?trial?counsel?failed?to?act?in?a?manner?to?be?expected?of?reasonably?competent?attorneys?acting?as?diligent?advocates,?and?that?it?is?reasonably?probable?a?more?favorable?determination?would?have?resulted?in?the?absence?of?counsel’s?failings.?(People?v.?Fosselman,?supra,?33?Cal.3d?572,?584;?see?also?Strickland?v.?Washington,?supra,?466?U.S.?668,?687-696?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?693-699].)?Because?defendant?has?not?satisfied?the?second?part?of?the?test,?we?need?not?consider?whether?trial?counsel’s?performance?was?deficient.?Christansen’s?qualifications?as?an?expert?are?unchallenged?and?his?expert?opinion?that?the?Baca?firearm?did?not?kill?Richard?Barnes?was?not?effectively?challenged?at?trial.?The?claim?of?ineffective?assistance?fails?because?defendant?has?not?shown?it?is?reasonably?probable?a?more?favorable?determination?would?have?resulted?had?all?reference?to?the?defense?expert?been?excluded.
- Photographs?of?Murder?Victims
The?photographs?were?not?irrelevant.?The?photographs?of?Richard?Barnes?demonstrated?he?was?killed?execution?style,?without?a?struggle,?by?three?contact?wounds?to?the?back?of?the?head.?This?supported?the?prosecution’s?theory?that?the?killing?was?intended?to?be?immediately?identifiable?as?the?work?of?the?AB?to?serve?as?a?warning?to?those?who?had?defected?or?were?considering?defection?from?the?gang.?The?photographs?of?Hickey?demonstrated?that?she?was?beaten?in?brutal?fashion,?that?her?body?was?moved?on?the?bed?before?she?died,?and?that?two?small?incisions?were?made?below?one?breast?after?her?death.?This?supported?the?prosecution’s?theory?that?the?beating?was?done?deliberately,?with?malice?and?intent?to?kill,?that?the?body?was?moved?in?the?process?of?a?thorough?search?of?the?room,?and?that?the?body?was?cut?to?determine?whether?the?victim?was?dead.
We?have?often?rejected?the?argument?that?photographs?of?a?murder?victim?should?be?excluded?as?cumulative?if?the?facts?for?which?the?photographs?are?offered?have?been?established?by?testimony.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Kaurish?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?648,?684?[276?Cal.Rptr.?788,?802?P.2d?278];?People?v.?Kelly?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?931,?963?[275?Cal.Rptr.?160,?800?P.2d?516];?People?v.?Mattson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?826,?871?[268?Cal.Rptr.?802,?789?P.2d?983].)?Because?the?photographic?evidence?could?assist?the?jury?in?understanding?and?evaluating?the?testimony,?we?reject?the?argument?here?as?well.
A?trial?court?has?broad?discretion?in?determining?the?admissibility?of?murder?victim?photographs?against?a?claim?that?the?photographs?will?arouse?in?the?jurors?an?excessively?emotional?response.?(People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367,?434?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Coleman,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?749,?776.)?Here,?the?record?shows?that?the?trial?court?weighed?the?probative?value?of?the?photographs?against?their?potential?prejudicial?effect?before?admitting?them.?No?abuse?of?discretion?has?been?demonstrated,?nor?has?defendant?demonstrated?violation?of?any?right?under?the?federal?Constitution.
- Corroboration?of?Accomplice?Testimony
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?not?to?base?a?determination?of?guilt?on?the?uncorroborated?testimony?of?an?accomplice.?The?court?instructed?the?jury?that?prosecution?witnesses?Thompson?and?Smith?were?accomplices?as?a?matter?of?law,?and?that?it?was?to?determine?from?the?evidence?whether?prosecution?witnesses?Myers?and?Scarborough?were?also?accomplices.?Defendant?contends:?(1)?the?trial?court’s?instructions?erroneously?defined?an?accomplice;?(2)?the?trial?court?erred?in?not?instructing?that?Myers?was?an?accomplice?as?a?matter?of?law;?and?(3)?there?was?insufficient?evidence?to?corroborate?the?accomplice?testimony?if?Myers?was?an?accomplice?either?as?a?matter?of?law?or?under?a?factual?finding?by?the?jury.?[1?Cal.4th?442]
- Instruction?Defining?Accomplice
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?on?the?definition?of?an?accomplice?in?these?words:?”An?accomplice?is?one?who?was?subject?to?the?[sic]?prosecution?for?the?identical?offense?charged?against?the?defendant?on?trial.?[?]?To?be?an?accomplice,?the?person?must?have?aided,?promoted,?encouraged,?or?instigated?by?act?or?advice?the?commission?of?such?offense?with?knowledge?of?the?unlawful?purpose?of?the?person?who?committed?the?offense?and?with?the?intent?or?purpose?of?committing,?encouraging,?or?facilitating?the?commission?of?the?offense.?[?]?…?Merely?assenting?to?or?aiding?or?assisting?in?the?commission?of?a?crime?without?knowledge?of?the?unlawful?purpose?of?the?perpetrator?is?not?criminal,?and?a?person?so?assenting?to?or?aiding?or?assisting?in?the?commission?of?a?crime?without?such?knowledge?is?not?an?accomplice?in?the?commission?of?such?crime.”
[65]?Defendant?contends?that?these?instructions?are?incomplete?because?they?fail?to?explain?the?rule?of?vicarious?criminal?liability,?under?which?a?person?who?conspires?to?commit?or?aids?and?abets?another?in?the?commission?of?an?offense?is?guilty?not?only?of?that?offense?but?also?of?any?reasonably?foreseeable?offense?committed?by?a?coconspirator?or?by?the?person?aided?and?abetted.?fn.?20?(People?v.?Croy?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?1,?12,?fn.?5?[221?Cal.Rptr.?592,?710?P.2d?392];?People?v.?Durham?(1969)?70?Cal.2d?171,?181?[74?Cal.Rptr.?262,?449?P.2d?198];?see?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?761?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113].)?Under?this?principle,?defendant?argues,?Myers?was?an?accomplice?in?the?murder?of?Barnes?if?the?murder?was?a?natural?and?probable?consequence?of?any?illegal?activity?she?intentionally?aided.?He?contends?that?the?failure?to?instruct?on?the?principle?of?vicarious?liability?denied?him?his?rights?to?jury?trial?and?due?process?of?law?guaranteed?by?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.Defendant?did?not?ask?the?trial?court?to?instruct?on?the?vicarious?liability?principle;?he?maintains?the?trial?court?was?required?to?do?so?sua?sponte.?A?trial?court?is?required?to?instruct?sua?sponte?only?on?those?general?principles?of?law?that?are?closely?and?openly?connected?with?the?facts?before?the?court?and?necessary?for?the?jury’s?understanding?of?the?case.?(People?v.?St.?Martin?(1970)?1?Cal.3d?524,?531?[83?Cal.Rptr.?166,?463?P.2d?390].)?The?question,?then,?is?whether?the?evidence?before?the?jury?plainly?would?have?supported?a?finding?that?Myers?intentionally?aided?the?commission?of?an?offense?of?[1?Cal.4th?443]?which?a?crime?such?as?the?Barnes?murder?was?a?natural?and?probable?consequence.
Defendant?relies,?first,?on?evidence?that?Myers?assisted?the?AB?by?smuggling?drugs?and?knives?into?state?prisons?and?by?carrying?messages.?This?evidence?shows,?at?most,?that?Myers?aided?and?abetted?illegal?drug?activity?and?in-prison?violence;?the?killing?of?an?AB?defector’s?relative,?outside?of?prison,?is?not?a?natural?and?probable?consequence?of?such?crimes.?Defendant?also?relies?on?evidence?that?Myers?knew?that?defendant,?a?convicted?felon,?was?in?possession?of?a?revolver?and?sawed-off?shotgun?while?he?stayed?at?her?house.?Assuming?without?deciding?that?Myers?was?guilty?of?aiding?and?abetting?defendant’s?illegal?weapons?possession?(see????12020-12021),?there?was?no?substantial?evidence?that?Myers?knew?or?should?have?known?that?defendant?had?agreed?to?commit?a?murder?or?was?otherwise?likely?to?use?the?illegally?possessed?weapons?to?commit?a?murder?in?the?near?future,?and?therefore?the?murder?of?Barnes?was?not?a?natural?and?probable?consequence?of?permitting?him?to?stay?temporarily?at?her?residence?with?the?weapons.?Because?the?evidence?before?the?jury?did?not?plainly?support?a?finding?that?Myers?was?vicariously?liable?for?Barnes’s?murder,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?failing?to?instruct?on?the?principle?of?vicarious?criminal?liability.
- Accomplice?as?a?Matter?of?Law
- Corroboration?of?Accomplice?Testimony
A?conviction?”cannot?be?had?upon?the?testimony?of?an?accomplice?unless?it?be?corroborated?by?such?other?evidence?as?shall?tend?to?connect?the?[1?Cal.4th?444]?defendant?with?the?commission?of?the?offense?….”?(??1111.)?[68]?Evidence?of?corroboration?is?sufficient?if?it?connects?the?defendant?with?the?crime,?even?though?it?is?slight?and?would?be?entitled?to?little?consideration?when?standing?by?itself.?(People?v.?Garrison?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?746,?773?[254?Cal.Rptr.?257,?765?P.2d?419].)?The?required?corroboration?must?come?from?a?source?other?than?another?accomplice.?(People?v.?Tewksbury?(1976)?15?Cal.3d?953,?958?[127?Cal.Rptr.?135,?544?P.2d?1335].)?The?existence?of?a?conspiracy?may?be?proved?by?uncorroborated?accomplice?testimony;?corroboration?of?accomplice?testimony?is?needed?only?to?connect?the?defendant?to?the?conspiracy.?(People?v.?Cooks?(1983)?141?Cal.App.3d?224,?312?[190?Cal.Rptr.?211].)
[67b]?Here,?the?testimony?of?prosecution?witnesses?Smith?and?Thompson?was?competent?to?establish?the?existence?of?a?conspiracy?to?murder?Richard?Barnes?in?revenge?for?his?son’s?defection?from?the?AB?and?testimony?against?an?AB?member.?To?connect?defendant?to?the?conspiracy,?and?to?the?Barnes?killing,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?that?defendant?had?admitted?being?a?member?of?the?AB,?that?he?was?brought?from?a?Montana?prison?to?Palm?Hall?to?testify?as?a?defense?witness?in?the?trial?of?two?defendants?whom?Smith?identified?as?AB?members,?and?that?he?was?present?in?Palm?Hall?at?the?time?of?the?alleged?conspiracy.?The?prosecution?also?presented?evidence?that?after?his?release?from?prison,?defendant?was?seen?at?the?home?of?AB?member?O’Rourke;?that?he?then?went?to?Humboldt?County;?and?that?he?returned?to?Los?Angeles?County?(where?Richard?Barnes?lived)?shortly?before?the?Barnes?killing?and?left?immediately?afterward.?Richard?Barnes?was?killed?in?his?home?in?a?professional,?execution-style?manner.?Nothing?of?significant?value?was?taken?from?the?home,?suggesting?that?revenge,?and?not?gain,?was?the?motive.?Richard?Barnes’s?home?address?was?found?among?defendant’s?personal?effects.?Defendant?told?his?mother?that?the?weapons?he?possessed?were?”Brand”?business.?”Brand”?was?another?name?for?the?AB.?This?evidence?connected?defendant?to?the?conspiracy?and?Barnes?murder?and?thereby?supplied?the?required?corroboration?for?the?testimony?of?Smith,?Thompson,?and?Myers.- Instruction?and?Evidence?Concerning?Witness?Immunity
Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?permitting?an?order?granting?immunity?to?be?received?in?evidence?and?in?giving?two?instructions?to?the?jury?concerning?witness?immunity.?He?asserts?that?in?so?doing?the?trial?violated?these?rights?granted?him?under?the?federal?Constitution:?the?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?a?reliable?guilt?determination,?the?Fifth?and?Fourteenth?Amendment?right?to?due?process?of?law,?and?the?Sixth?Amendment?rights?to?confrontation?and?jury?trial.?[1?Cal.4th?445]
- The?Immunity?Order
Defendant?recognizes?that?a?claim?of?error?in?the?admission?of?evidence?is?generally?not?cognizable?on?appeal?in?the?absence?of?a?specific?and?timely?objection?in?the?trial?court?on?the?ground?urged?on?appeal.?(Evid.?Code,???353.)?He?contends?that?his?trial?counsel’s?failure?to?object?constituted?ineffective?assistance?of?counsel?and?should?be?reviewed?as?such.
Proof?that?Thompson?was?testifying?under?a?grant?of?immunity?gave?the?defense?a?ground?for?attacking?his?credibility?because?it?showed?he?had?made?a?deal?with?the?prosecution?and?would?suffer?no?adverse?penal?consequences?from?any?self-incriminating?statements?he?made?during?his?testimony.?The?order?was?direct?evidence?that?Thompson?had?been?granted?immunity.?Therefore,?it?is?understandable?that?the?defense?did?not?object?to?the?order?itself.?The?defense?could?have?sought?to?sanitize?the?order?by?removing?the?language?noted?by?defendant,?but?we?are?of?the?view?that?the?failure?to?do?so?did?not?constitute?ineffective?assistance.?A?reasonable?juror?would?be?unlikely?to?view?the?statement?that?immunity?was?”not?contrary?to?the?public?interest”?as?an?endorsement?of?Thompson’s?credibility.?The?prosecutor?did?not?urge?the?jurors?to?view?it?this?way,?and?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?that?the?testimony?of?an?accomplice?”ought?to?be?viewed?with?distrust”?and?that?Thompson?was?an?accomplice?as?a?matter?of?law.?The?court?also?told?the?jury,?”You?are?the?sole?judges?of?the?believability?of?a?witness?and?the?weight?to?be?given?to?the?testimony?of?each?witness.”
- Instruction?to?Disregard?Nonprosecution?of?Other?Perpetrators
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?in?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?2.11.5,?as?follows:?”You?must?not?discuss?or?give?consideration?as?to?why?those?persons?who?have?not?testified?or?who?have?testified?in?the?trial?are?not?being?prosecuted?in?this?trial?or?whether?they?will?be?or?will?not?be?[1?Cal.4th?446]?prosecuted.”?[70a]?Defendant?contends?that?this?instruction?erroneously?told?the?jurors?they?could?not?discuss?or?consider?the?fact?that?prosecution?witnesses?had?been?granted?immunity?from?prosecution?for?any?of?the?charges?against?defendant,?including?conspiracy?and?the?Barnes?murder.
[71]?”In?determining?whether?an?instruction?interferes?with?the?jury’s?consideration?of?evidence?presented?at?trial,?we?must?determine?’what?a?reasonable?juror?could?have?understood?the?charge?as?meaning.’?[Citation.]?While?the?initial?focus?is?on?the?specific?instruction?challenged?[citation],?we?must?also?review?the?instructions?as?a?whole?to?see?if?the?entire?charge?delivered?a?correct?interpretation?of?law.?[Citation.]”?(People?v.?Garrison,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?746,?780.)?[70b]?When?the?challenged?instruction?is?considered?in?light?of?the?entire?charge,?we?are?persuaded?a?reasonable?juror?would?not?have?understood?it?as?precluding?the?jury?from?considering?the?immunity?granted?to?prosecution?witnesses?in?assessing?the?credibility?of?those?witnesses.The?purpose?of?the?challenged?instruction?is?to?discourage?the?jury?from?irrelevant?speculation?about?the?prosecution’s?reasons?for?not?jointly?prosecuting?all?those?shown?by?the?evidence?to?have?participated?in?the?perpetration?of?the?charged?offenses,?and?also?to?discourage?speculation?about?the?eventual?fates?of?unjoined?perpetrators.?(People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?668?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351].)?When?the?instruction?is?given?with?the?full?panoply?of?witness?credibility?and?accomplice?instructions,?as?it?was?in?this?case,?a?reasonable?juror?will?understand?that?although?the?separate?prosecution?or?nonprosecution?of?coparticipants,?and?the?reasons?therefor,?may?not?be?considered?on?the?issue?of?the?charged?defendant’s?guilt,?a?plea?bargain?or?grant?of?immunity?may?be?considered?as?evidence?of?interest?or?bias?in?assessing?the?credibility?of?prosecution?witnesses.?(People?v.?Sully,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?1195,?1219.)?Although?the?instruction?should?have?been?clarified?or?omitted?(see?People?v.?Cox,?supra,?at?p.?667;?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1313?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221]),?we?cannot?agree?that?giving?it?amounted?to?error?in?this?case.
- Instruction?That?Testimony?of?Single?Witness?Sufficient?to?Prove?Any?Fact
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury:?”Testimony?which?you?believe?given?by?one?witness?is?sufficient?for?the?proof?of?any?fact.”?[72]?Defendant?contends?that?this?instruction,?in?the?language?of?CALJIC?No.?2.27,?conflicted?with?the?instruction?requiring?corroboration?of?accomplice?testimony,?and?that?the?jury?may?have?concluded?that?corroboration?of?accomplice?testimony?was?not?required.?He?argues?that?the?risk?that?the?jury?would?reach?[1?Cal.4th?447]?this?erroneous?conclusion?was?great?in?this?case?because?the?court,?after?instructing?in?the?language?of?CALJIC?No.?2.27,?gave?a?number?of?other?instructions?before?it?instructed?on?the?accomplice?corroboration?requirement.
As?we?have?frequently?explained,?when?the?detailed?instructions?on?the?requirement?that?an?accomplice’s?testimony?be?corroborated?have?been?given?along?with?the?”single?witness”?instruction,?a?reasonable?juror?would?understand?that?the?corroboration?requirement?for?accomplice?testimony?is?an?exception?to?the?more?general?”single?witness”?principle.?(People?v.?Andrews?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?200,?217?[260?Cal.Rptr.?583,?776?P.2d?285];?People?v.?Adcox?(1988)47?Cal.3d?207,?241?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906];?People?v.?Chavez?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?823,?830-832?[218?Cal.Rptr.?49,?705?P.2d?372].)?We?are?persuaded?this?is?true?whether?the?instructions?are?given?in?immediate?succession?or?are?separated?by?other,?unrelated?instructions.?Although?it?would?have?been?better?practice?to?modify?CALJIC?No.?2.27?to?expressly?note?the?exception?for?testimony?requiring?corroboration?(People?v.?Chavez,?supra,?at?p.?831),?the?charge?to?the?jury,?considered?as?a?whole,?was?not?erroneous.
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutors?in?this?case?committed?prejudicial?misconduct?during?jury?selection,?during?the?presentation?of?evidence,?and?during?closing?argument?to?the?jury?at?the?guilt?phase.
[73]?In?general,?a?prosecutor?commits?misconduct?by?the?use?of?deceptive?or?reprehensible?methods?to?persuade?either?the?court?or?the?jury.?(People?v.?Strickland?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?946,?955?[114?Cal.Rptr.?632,?523?P.2d?672];?accord?People?v.?Haskett,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?841,?866.)?But?the?defendant?need?not?show?that?the?prosecutor?acted?in?bad?faith?or?with?appreciation?for?the?wrongfulness?of?the?conduct,?nor?is?a?claim?of?prosecutorial?misconduct?defeated?by?a?showing?of?the?prosecutor’s?subjective?good?faith.?(People?v.?Bolton?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?208,?214?[152?Cal.Rptr.?141,?589?P.2d?396].)?[74]?To?preserve?for?appeal?a?claim?of?prosecutorial?misconduct,?the?defense?must?make?a?timely?objection?at?trial?and?request?an?admonition;?otherwise,?the?point?is?reviewable?only?if?an?admonition?would?not?have?cured?the?harm?caused?by?the?misconduct.?(People?v.?Wharton?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?522,?591?[280?Cal.Rptr.?631,?809?P.2d?290].)- Jury?Selection
Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutors?committed?misconduct?during?jury?selection?by?repeatedly?violating?a?trial?court?guideline?against?speaking?[1?Cal.4th?448]?objections,?by?making?baseless?objections,?and?by?making?statements?in?the?presence?of?prospective?jurors?that?imputed?improper?motives?to?defense?counsel.
Before?jury?selection?began,?the?court?gave?all?counsel?written?”guidelines”?for?the?trial.?The?guidelines?advised?counsel,?among?other?things,?to?state?objections?concisely?and?to?refrain?from?argument?after?an?objection?unless?the?court?requested?it.?Defendant?cites?more?than?a?dozen?incidents?in?which?the?prosecutors?violated?this?guideline?during?the?course?of?jury?selection.
[75]?Having?carefully?reviewed?each?of?the?incidents?that?defendant?cites,?we?conclude?that?the?prosecutors’?occasional?use?of?speaking?objections?does?not?constitute?prejudicial?misconduct.?Jury?selection?in?this?case?took?four?and?one-half?months,?and?scores?of?prospective?jurors?were?examined?on?voir?dire.?During?this?lengthy?process,?some?deviation?from?the?court’s?stricture?against?speaking?objections?was?virtually?inevitable.?One?reason?for?this,?apart?from?the?argumentative?propensities?of?attorneys?generally,?is?that?the?rules?governing?voir?dire?are?not?as?specific?or?as?well?established?as?the?rules?governing?the?admissibility?of?evidence;?thus,?they?do?not?as?readily?lend?themselves?to?concise?objections.?As?defendant?notes,?the?trial?court’s?reminders?to?avoid?speaking?objections?were?invariably?effective?for?a?time.?We?think?this?shows?that?the?prosecutors?were?striving?in?good?faith?to?abide?by?the?rule,?and?that?the?lapses?were?inadvertent. [76]?Defendant?next?contends?that?the?prosecutors?committed?misconduct?by?making?objections?that?were?clearly?without?foundation.?The?point?is?not?well?taken.?Prosecutorial?misconduct?implies?a?deceptive?or?reprehensible?method?of?persuading?the?court?or?jury.?(People?v.?Strickland,?supra,?11?Cal.3d?946,?955.)?Absent?conduct?likely?to?persuade,?there?can?be?no?misconduct.?Thus,?the?making?of?meritless?objections?is?not?by?itself?prejudicial?misconduct.A?prosecutor’s?baseless?objection?or?other?statement?made?in?the?presence?of?a?juror?can?amount?to?misconduct?if?it?imputes?improper?motives?to?defense?counsel.?(See?People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?538?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129]?[it?is?misconduct?to?resort?to?personal?attacks?on?the?integrity?of?opposing?counsel].)?Of?course,?it?is?not?misconduct?to?challenge?the?propriety?of?opposing?counsel’s?question?to?a?witness?or?prospective?juror,?for?this?is?the?purpose?of?virtually?all?trial?objections.?Objections?constitute?misconduct?only?if?they?go?beyond?the?charge?of?legal?or?procedural?violation?and?directly?or?by?clear?inference?question?the?motives?or?integrity?of?opposing?counsel.?With?this?distinction?in?mind,?we?[1?Cal.4th?449]?proceed?to?examine?some?of?the?claimed?instances?of?such?misconduct?during?jury?selection.
On?July?10,?1985,?during?the?death-qualification?voir?dire?of?the?first?prospective?juror,?defense?counsel?asked?this?question:?”[D]o?you?understand?that?if?you?were?sitting?on?the?jury?and?…?we?were?in?the?penalty?phase,?that?you?would?have?the?option?of?deciding?for?yourself?whether?or?not?the?punishment?should?be?life?imprisonment?without?parole,?or?death,?that?choice,?the?Court?would?tell?you,?if?you?were?on?the?jury,?is?yours.”?The?prosecutor?objected?that?the?question?was?ambiguous,?adding,?”If?[defense?counsel]?wants?to?ask?questions?about?the?appropriate?legal?standards?or?he?wants?jurors?to?be?instructed?in?the?applicable?law,?then?I?would?ask?that?the?Court?do?the?instruction?and?not?[defense?counsel],?so?we?can?get?perhaps?a?clearer?statement?of?what?it?is.”?Defense?counsel?then?asked?whether?the?prospective?juror?would?”automatically?choose?death”?if?the?evidence?showed?a?planned?and?intentional?killing.?The?prosecutor?objected?that?the?question?asked?the?juror?”to?prejudge?a?certain?set?of?facts.”?Referring?to?People?v.?Williams?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?392?[174?Cal.Rptr.?317,?628?P.2d?869],?the?prosecutor?added:?”That?question?was?improper?before?Williams?and?it’s?improper?after?Williams.”?The?trial?court?did?not?rule?on?the?objection?and?shortly?thereafter?defense?counsel?asked?what?things?the?juror?would?consider?in?deciding?whether?to?impose?the?death?penalty?for?a?planned?and?intentional?killing.?The?prosecutor?again?objected?that?the?question?went?to?matters?not?relevant?to?the?death-qualification?voir?dire.?The?prosecutor?commented:?”The?purpose?of?this?is?not?to?allow?either?side?really?to?pack?the?jury?or?get?them?to?commit?themselves?one?way?or?the?other.”
The?prosecutor’s?objections?were?well?grounded?in?the?law.?Counsel?may?not?use?voir?dire?to?instruct?the?jury?in?matters?of?law,?to?educate?jurors?about?the?facts?of?the?case?or?to?compel?them?to?commit?themselves?to?vote?a?certain?way.?(People?v.?Williams,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?392,?408;?see?also,?People?v.?Clark?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?583,?597?[268?Cal.Rptr.?399,?789?P.2d?127]?[death?qualification?voir?dire?”seeks?to?determine?only?the?views?of?the?prospective?jurors?about?capital?punishment?in?the?abstract”].)?Although?the?prosecutor’s?objections?were?strongly?worded,?it?is?understandable?that?counsel?would?want?to?make?his?points?forcefully?while?the?ground?rules?for?the?voir?dire?were?being?established.?We?are?satisfied?that?a?reasonable?juror?would?not?understand?the?objections?as?questioning?defense?counsel’s?motives?or?integrity.
The?next?incident?occurred?some?days?later,?on?July?17,?1985.?Prospective?jurors?were?asked?to?complete?a?questionnaire,?one?of?the?questions?being:?”Do?you?believe?the?State?should?kill?everyone?who?for?any?reason?intentionally?kills?another?human?being?”?This?prospective?juror?had?answered:?”I?[1?Cal.4th?450]?don’t?understand?if?this?means?every?time.”?After?reciting?the?question?and?the?response,?defense?counsel?asked:?”Now,?do?you?believe?that?the?State?should?kill?everyone?where?it’s?been?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?person?intentionally?killed?another?person??What’s?your?feeling?”?The?prosecutor?objected?that?the?question?was?ambiguous,?explaining?that?defense?counsel?did?not?”indicate?whether?that?should?occur?every?time?or?whether?or?not?it?depends?on?the?evidence?that’s?presented?in?a?particular?case.”?Asked?to?reframe?the?question,?defense?counsel?again?recited?the?question?exactly?as?it?appeared?on?the?questionnaire?and?added:?”How?do?you?feel?about?that??What?is?your?general?feeling??Like?the?judge?said,?there?are?no?right?or?wrong?answers.”?The?prosecutor?renewed?his?objection,?noting?that?the?juror?had?found?the?question?ambiguous.?He?added:?”I?certainly?don’t?think?[defense?counsel]?has?cleared?up?that?area?of?confusion?by?the?question.?All?he’s?doing?is?regurgitating?that.”
Defendant?complains?that?by?these?remarks?the?prosecutor?”openly?accused?defense?counsel?of?trying?to?confuse?the?juror.”?We?disagree.?The?remarks?merely?reveal?the?prosecutor’s?frustration?with?defense?counsel’s?apparent?inability?to?understand?or?to?clear?up?an?ambiguity?that?was?apparent?to?both?the?juror?and?the?prosecutor.?There?was?no?imputation?of?improper?motive.
Two?days?later,?on?July?19,?1985,?defense?counsel?requested?a?protective?order?against?facial?gestures?by?the?prosecutors-including?eye?rolling,?wincing,?and?head?shaking-during?questioning?of?prospective?jurors?by?the?defense.?The?court?stated?it?had?observed?some?such?facial?expressions?by?the?prosecutors?and?ordered?all?counsel?to?refrain?from?such?conduct.?There?were?no?further?complaints?by?defense?counsel,?so?apparently?the?court’s?prompt?action?was?effective.
The?next?incident?occurred?on?July?31.?Defendant?charges?that?on?that?day?the?prosecutor’s?repeated?objections?on?relevance?grounds?imputed?improper?motives?to?defense?counsel.?The?record?does?not?support?the?charge.?The?prosecutor?asserted?that?defense?counsel’s?questions?were?improper,?but?there?was?no?imputation?of?improper?motive.
We?need?not?recite?the?remaining?incidents.?We?have?reviewed?each?of?them?and?find?no?statement?by?the?prosecutor?imputing?an?improper?motive?or?unethical?behavior?to?defense?counsel.?Although?the?tone?of?the?objections?was?sharp,?the?trial?court?imposed?reasonable?limits?and?the?incidents?were?relatively?infrequent?in?the?context?of?the?lengthy?voir?dire?in?this?case.?[1?Cal.4th?451]
- Presentation?of?Guilt?Phase?Evidence
(a)?Disregard?of?Trial?Court?Rulings
[77]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutors?committed?misconduct?during?the?evidentiary?portion?of?the?guilt?phase?by?eliciting?inadmissible?evidence?in?violation?of?clear?trial?court?rulings.?(See?People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?689?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217.)The?first?claimed?instance?occurred?during?the?testimony?of?prosecution?investigator?Barry?Brown.?As?we?have?previously?mentioned,?Brown?had?contacted?defense?witness?Rebecca?Williams?at?her?home?but?she?had?declined?to?be?interviewed.?The?trial?court?excluded?evidence?that?Williams?had?telephoned?defense?counsel?after?Brown?arrived?at?her?residence?and?before?she?declined?to?speak?with?him.?After?the?court?made?this?ruling,?the?prosecutor?asked?Brown,?in?the?jury’s?presence,?whether?Williams?had?made?what?appeared?to?be?a?long?distance?call?before?she?reached?her?final?decision?not?to?be?interviewed.?Defense?counsel’s?objection?on?relevance?grounds?was?sustained?and?the?prosecutor?asked?no?further?questions.?Defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?this?incident.?The?question?did?not?suggest?who?Williams?might?have?called,?and?the?objection?was?immediately?sustained.
The?next?claimed?instance?occurred?during?the?testimony?of?Detective?Freese,?as?Freese?was?describing?events?shortly?after?defendant’s?arrest.?The?prosecutor?inquired?whether?another?detective?had?asked?defendant?for?consent?to?search?his?car.?The?trial?court?sustained?a?defense?objection?on?relevance?grounds.?The?prosecutor?asked?to?be?heard?on?the?matter?and?the?trial?court?said?he?could?be?heard?at?the?break,?adding?”Go?on?and?ask?him?some?more?questions.”?The?prosecutor?then?asked,?”What?was?Mr.?Price’s?response?when?he?was?asked?to?sign?the?consent?”?The?court?again?sustained?a?relevance?objection.?The?prosecutor’s?inquiry?into?a?subject?the?court?had?ruled?irrelevant?was?improper,?but?defendant?suffered?no?prejudice?as?the?questions?did?not?suggest?the?answers?and?the?defense?objections?were?sustained?before?the?witness?could?answer.
Shortly?thereafter,?on?cross-examination,?defense?counsel?asked?Freese?whether?he?had?ever?directed?other?officers?to?detain?defendant.?The?prosecutor?objected?on?relevance?grounds.?The?trial?court?overruled?the?objection?on?the?ground?that?Freese?had?apparently?concluded,?after?reviewing?the?robbery?witnesses’?responses?to?the?composites?and?photographic?lineups,?that?there?was?insufficient?cause?to?arrest,?and?that?this?opinion?was?”relevant?to?the?identification?issue.”?The?witness?then?answered?that?on?the?morning?when?defendant?was?arrested?by?Detective?Douglas,?Freese?did?not?think?he?had?”enough?to?arrest.”?[1?Cal.4th?452]
On?redirect,?the?prosecutor?began?to?ask?Freese?whether?his?opinion?would?be?altered?by?knowledge?of?additional?facts.?Defense?counsel?immediately?objected?and?the?prosecutor?withdrew?the?question.?We?find?no?misconduct?and?no?prejudice.?The?question?was?withdrawn?before?it?was?completed?and,?contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion?on?appeal,?we?do?not?find?any?earlier?statement?by?the?court?that?clearly?precluded?the?prosecutor?from?asking?such?a?question.?We?further?note?that?the?prosecutor’s?original?objection?on?relevance?grounds?was?well?taken:?whether?Detective?Freese?believed?he?had?sufficient?evidence?to?arrest?was?not?relevant?to?any?issue?before?the?jury.
As?we?have?previously?mentioned,?the?police?found?a?suitcase?in?the?garage?of?defendant’s?mother’s?residence.?The?suitcase?contained?a?blond?wig?and?a?Charter?Arms?revolver.?The?prosecutor?asked?defendant’s?mother?whether?she?”would?be?surprised?to?learn”?that?the?revolver?had?been?stolen?in?Flint,?Michigan.?The?trial?court?sustained?the?defense?objection?on?relevance?grounds.?A?week?later,?in?response?to?a?question?by?defense?counsel,?Sergeant?Fredrickson?testified?that?the?gun?found?in?the?suitcase?did?not?match?the?make?and?model?of?any?of?the?guns?taken?from?the?Moore?or?Hickey?residences.?Outside?the?jury’s?presence,?the?court?said?it?was?concerned?about?this?question?and?answer?because?they?raised?a?question?about?why?the?officer?had?seized?the?gun,?which?had?not?been?described?in?the?search?warrant.?The?prosecutor?said?the?officer?had?seized?it?because?it?was?”reported?stolen?out?of?Flint,?Michigan.”?The?court?commented?that?the?officer?”didn’t?know?that?when?he?was?searching”?and?asked?why?the?officer?had?seized?it.?The?prosecutor?answered:?”Because?he?knew?[defendant]?was?a?convicted?felon?and?he?had?information-.”?Before?the?prosecutor?could?finish,?the?court?interrupted,?saying:?”That’s?fine.?That’s?a?proper?answer.?I’ll?allow?that.?[?]?I?think?he’s?entitled?to?explain?why?he?took?it.”?Later,?in?the?jury’s?presence,?the?prosecutor?asked?Sergeant?Fredrickson:?”Where?was?the?Charter?Arms?reported?stolen?out?of?”?The?trial?court?sustained?the?defense?objection?and?instructed?the?jury?to?disregard?the?question.
We?do?not?agree?that?the?prosecutor’s?question?was?clearly?contrary?to?the?court’s?ruling.?The?court?had?ruled?that?the?witness?could?explain?why?he?seized?the?weapon,?and?particularly?that?he?had?seized?it?because?it?was?illegal?for?defendant,?a?convicted?felon,?to?possess?a?firearm.?Although?the?trial?court?evidently?believed?that?the?officer?did?not?know?the?gun?was?stolen?when?he?seized?it,?it?appears?that?the?prosecutor?was?attempting?to?dispute?this?assumption?when?the?court?cut?him?off.?If?the?officer?knew?the?weapon?was?stolen?when?he?seized?it,?it?is?not?clear?that?the?court’s?ruling?was?intended?to?exclude?evidence?of?this?fact.?In?any?event,?defendant?suffered?no?prejudice.?There?is?no?evidence?that?defendant?was?ever?in?Flint,?Michigan,?or?that?he?knew?the?gun?was?stolen,?and?the?jury?was?instructed?to?disregard?the?question.?[1?Cal.4th?453]
When?the?prosecutor?asked?Michael?Thompson?how?long?he?had?known?defendant,?the?defense?objected?on?relevance?grounds?and?the?prosecutor?requested?leave?to?argue?the?point.?Out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?Thompson?testified?he?had?met?defendant?in?1979?at?San?Quentin.?Defense?counsel?said?the?defense?objected?to?evidence?that?showed?how?long?defendant?had?been?imprisoned.?The?trial?court?asked:?”Is?there?any?problem?with?just?simply?saying?he’s?known?him?since?1979?without?going?into?all?the?facts?and?circumstances?about?where?he?met?him?”?The?trial?court?eventually?ruled?that?evidence?would?be?excluded?if?it?showed?that?defendant?”had?been?in?prison?for?a?long?period?of?time.”?In?the?jury’s?presence,?the?prosecutor?asked?Thompson:?”Can?you?tell?me?simply?the?year?that?you?met?the?defendant,?Curtis?Price?”?The?trial?court?overruled?an?objection?to?this?question,?thereby?indicating?that?the?prosecutor?had?correctly?interpreted?its?somewhat?ambiguous?ruling.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertion?on?appeal,?this?incident?does?not?show?disregard?of?a?court?ruling.
The?evidence?against?defendant?included?credit?card?receipts?defendant?had?signed?for?gasoline?purchases.?The?license?plate?number?on?some?of?the?receipts?was?for?a?vehicle?then?registered?to?Michelle?Scarborough.?During?cross-examination?of?Paul?Tulleners,?defense?counsel?asked,?out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?that?the?witness?be?instructed?not?to?refer?to?a?transfer?of?this?vehicle?from?Scarborough?to?Tami?Shinn?in?1985.?Tulleners?readily?agreed.?On?redirect,?the?prosecutor?asked?whether?the?vehicle?had?been?transferred?to?Shinn.?The?trial?court?sustained?an?objection?to?this?question.?On?recross,?defense?counsel?elicited?testimony?that?none?of?the?vehicles?shown?on?the?credit?card?receipts?had?been?registered?to?Tami?Shinn?in?1983.?On?redirect,?the?prosecutor?began?to?ask?a?question?about?selling?or?transferring?vehicles.?The?court?interrupted?the?question?and?excused?the?jury.?The?court?told?the?prosecutors?there?had?been?a?ruling?forbidding?any?mention?of?the?transfer?to?Shinn,?and?that?the?prosecutors?had?twice?attempted?to?violate?the?ruling.?The?court?cautioned?that?”pretty?soon?somebody?is?going?to?be?held?in?contempt?here.”?This?strong?action?by?the?trial?court?succeeded?in?preventing?any?further?reference?to?the?transfer?of?ownership.?The?transfer?had?little?or?no?relevance?to?the?issues?in?the?case?and?we?conclude?that?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?this?incident.
Having?reviewed?each?incident?during?the?lengthy?guilt?phase?that?defendant?has?cited,?we?do?not?find?that?the?prosecutors?frequently?or?systematically?disregarded?trial?court?rulings.?The?charge?of?prejudicial?misconduct?by?violation?of?trial?court?rulings?is?not?supported?by?the?record.
(b)?Impugning?Character?of?Defendant?and?of?Defense?Counsel
While?addressing?the?jury?during?opening?statement,?the?prosecutor?made?this?remark:?”You’re?going?to?be?spending?a?good?deal?of?time?in?Mr.?Price’s?[1?Cal.4th?454]?presence?while?he?plays?his?’Gee?willikers,?golly?shucks,’?role?and?probably?rarely?misses?a?chance?to?hold?[defense?counsel]?Ms.?Klay’s?chair.?But?during?the?evidentiary?portion?of?this?case,?which?we?will?shortly?embark?upon,?you’re?going?to?have?the?opportunity?to?meet?some?other?people?who?have?had?contact?with?Mr.?Price.”?[78]?Defendant?maintains?that?this?was?improper?comment?on?defendant’s?nontestimonial?courtroom?behavior.?We?disagree.
The?prosecutor’s?remark?did?not?urge?the?jury?to?draw?any?adverse?inference?from?defendant’s?courtroom?behavior.?On?the?contrary,?it?advised?the?jury,?in?effect,?to?ignore?defendant’s?courtroom?demeanor?and?to?determine?his?guilt?or?innocence?on?the?basis?of?the?evidence.?The?comment?was?not?improper.
[79]?The?defense?objected?when?the?prosecutor?asked?Janet?Myers,?on?direct?examination,?whether?she?had?ever?seen?defendant?”mad?enough?to?kill.”?The?trial?court?sustained?the?objection.?The?prosecutor?then?asked?if?the?witness?had?seen?defendant?”violently?mad”?during?the?time?he?had?been?staying?at?her?house.?The?court?again?sustained?a?defense?objection.?Out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?the?prosecutor?explained?that?the?purpose?of?the?questions?was?to?support?the?witness’s?credibility?by?showing?that?she?was?testifying?against?defendant?despite?a?justifiable?fear?of?him.?The?trial?court?remarked?that?the?evidence?might?become?relevant?on?redirect.?The?trial?court?then?instructed?the?jury?to?disregard?the?questions.?We?find?no?misconduct?and?no?prejudice. [80]?The?prosecutor?asked?Clifford?Smith?if?he?was?”personally?aware?of?whether?or?not?the?Aryan?Brotherhood?membership?is?doing?anything?right?now?to?assist?the?defendant?Curtis?Price?in?his?defense?of?this?case.”?The?trial?court?sustained?the?defense?objection?before?the?witness?answered.?The?question?implied,?at?most,?that?defendant?was?an?AB?member.?Given?the?jury’s?awareness?of?defendant’s?admission,?by?prior?testimony?in?another?case,?that?he?was?an?AB?member,?this?implication?was?hardly?prejudicial. [81]?During?cross-examination?of?Sergeant?Fredrickson,?defense?counsel?asked?about?a?wood?chip?the?police?had?found?in?the?search?of?defendant’s?car.?Fredrickson?testified?that?the?police?had?found?the?chip?in?a?manual?for?an?AR-7?rifle,?and?that?the?Department?of?Justice?laboratory?had?later?reported?that?the?chip?did?not?match?wood?in?the?Hickey?apartment.?Defense?counsel?then?asked:?”Has?there?been?any?sort?of?investigation?of?the?department?to?see?if?an?officer?placed?it?there?in?the?pamphlet?”?The?prosecutor?did?not?object?and?the?witness?answered?in?the?negative.?On?redirect,?the?prosecutor?prefaced?his?first?question?with?this?remark:?”[P]erhaps?we?can?eliminate?[defense?counsel’s]?sleazy?…?information?right?up?front.”?The?[1?Cal.4th?455]?trial?court?sustained?the?objection?and?admonished?the?jury?to?disregard?the?implication?that?there?had?been?anything?”sleazy.”The?prosecutor’s?remark?was?plainly?improper,?but?this?was?an?isolated?incident?in?a?very?long?trial?and?we?are?persuaded?that?the?trial?court’s?prompt?and?vigorous?admonition?was?effective?to?cure?any?prejudice.
[82]?Jim?Robison,?a?police?officer?for?the?City?of?Arcata,?testified?that?he?was?dispatched?to?the?Triplex?Theater?to?investigate?a?report?of?a?suspicious?person.?When?the?prosecutor?began?to?question?the?officer?about?the?description?of?this?person?that?appeared?on?a?dispatch?card,?defense?counsel?stated?in?the?jury’s?presence?that?he?had?never?received?a?copy?of?the?card?and?asked?to?approach?the?bench.?At?the?bench,?defense?counsel?represented?that?he?had?asked?for?the?card?during?discovery?and?had?been?told?it?was?lost?or?destroyed.?The?prosecutor?responded:?”Tell?them?you?got?it?…?don’t?lie?to?him?anymore.?If?he?says?he?hasn’t?had?it,?that’s?a?fucking?lie.”The?trial?court?immediately?excused?the?jury?and?informed?counsel?that?any?further?outbursts?of?the?sort?would?result?in?contempt?citations.?The?prosecutor?apologized?to?both?the?court?and?defense?counsel,?admitting?that?his?conduct?had?been?”inexcusable.”?The?court?admonished?the?jurors?that?if?any?of?them?had?overheard?the?remark?counsel?had?made?at?the?bench,?they?were?to?disregard?it.?The?court?said?it?had?explained?to?counsel?that?such?comments?were?not?acceptable?and?noted?that?it?might?have?been?attributable?to?the?cumulative?stresses?of?the?trial?which,?including?jury?selection,?had?then?continued?for?”seven?and?three-quarters?months.”?The?prosecutor?later?explained?that?his?records?showed?that?the?defense?had?received?discovery?of?the?dispatch?card.?Out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?prosecution?investigator?Barry?Brown?testified?that?he?had?given?a?copy?of?the?dispatch?card?to?defense?counsel.?The?court?apparently?found?this?testimony?credible,?but?it?nonetheless?excluded?as?cumulative?all?evidence?relating?to?the?dispatch?card.
As?the?prosecutor?conceded,?his?remarks?at?the?bench?were?inexcusable?misconduct.?We?are?unable?to?conclude,?however,?that?defendant?suffered?prejudice.?Assuming?that?the?jury?was?able?to?overhear?the?prosecutor’s?remark,?the?trial?court’s?prompt?and?forceful?response?was?sufficient?to?prevent?any?reasonable?juror?from?being?influenced?by?the?remark?in?a?manner?adverse?to?defendant?or?his?trial?counsel.?The?evidence?that?prompted?the?dispute?was?excluded,?and?there?were?no?further?incidents?of?this?kind.
[83]?While?questioning?defendant’s?mother?on?redirect,?the?prosecutor?asked?whether?defendant?had?returned?to?live?with?her?because?defendant’s?brother?and?his?wife,?with?whom?defendant?had?been?living,?”threw?him?out?[1?Cal.4th?456]?of?their?house.”?The?trial?court?sustained?a?defense?objection?on?the?ground?that?the?question?exceeded?the?scope?of?cross-?examination.?Defendant?contends?that?the?question?constituted?misconduct?because?it?had?no?legitimate?purpose?and?tended?to?impugn?his?character.?We?disagree.Defendant’s?brother?testified?that?defendant?had?been?living?with?him?but?had?left?following?a?disagreement.?The?brother?said?he?later?gave?defendant,?as?a?peace?offering,?a?radio?he?had?purchased.?The?prosecution?disputed?this?testimony,?arguing?that?the?radio?found?among?defendant’s?possessions?had?not?been?purchased?by?defendant’s?brother,?but?instead?had?been?taken?from?the?Hickey?apartment.?In?support?of?this?position,?the?prosecution?argued?that?it?was?improbable?that?defendant’s?brother?would?have?given?defendant?an?expensive?present?soon?after?a?serious?disagreement.?Therefore,?defendant’s?relationship?with?his?brother?was?a?legitimate?subject?of?inquiry.
[84]?Witnesses?to?the?Triplex?robbery?used?a?device?called?an?”Identi-Kit”?to?prepare?composites?of?the?robber’s?facial?features.?The?original?composites?were?disassembled?after?being?photocopied,?but?the?copies?were?apparently?unsatisfactory.?The?prosecution?called?Ronald?Waters,?a?police?officer?for?the?City?of?Eureka,?to?testify?to?the?manner?in?which?he?had?recreated?the?composites.?The?defense?objected?on?relevance?grounds,?noting?that?Waters?had?not?prepared?the?original?composites.?The?prosecutor?explained?that?the?witness?”redid?the?composites,”?and?he?added?that?defense?counsel?had?”already?introduced?two?of?those?in?evidence.”?After?a?hearing?out?of?the?jury’s?presence,?the?court?ruled?the?evidence?admissible.?In?the?jury’s?presence,?the?prosecutor?asked?the?witness?if?he?was?”aware?that?the?only?composites?that?[defense?counsel]?didn’t?want?the?jury?to?see?were?those?by?[names?of?three?of?the?Triplex?robbery?witnesses].”?Defense?counsel?did?not?object?or?request?an?admonition.?Defendant?contends?on?appeal?that?the?question?was?improper?because?it?implied?that?defense?counsel?was?attempting?to?conceal?evidence?from?the?jury.We?conclude?that?the?point?is?not?preserved?for?review.?Had?defense?counsel?objected?and?requested?an?admonition,?the?court?could?have?averted?any?possible?prejudice?by?instructing?the?jury?that?defense?counsel?had?raised?a?routine?trial?objection?addressed?to?the?reliability?of?the?evidence,?and?that?it?was?not?to?draw?any?adverse?inference?from?the?making?of?such?objections.
(c)?Attacks?on?Defense?Expert?Witnesses
[85]?Defendant?has?several?complaints?about?the?prosecution’s?treatment?of?Dr.?Martin?Blinder,?the?defense?expert?who?testified?about?the?domestic?homicide?syndrome.?[1?Cal.4th?457]We?reject?defendant’s?claim?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?by?questioning?Dr.?Blinder?about?the?fee?he?was?receiving?for?his?testimony.?”The?compensation?and?expenses?paid?or?to?be?paid?to?an?expert?witness?by?the?party?calling?him?[or?her]?is?a?proper?subject?of?inquiry?by?any?adverse?party?as?relevant?to?the?credibility?of?the?witness?and?the?weight?of?his?[or?her]?testimony.”?(Evid.?Code,???722,?subd.?(b);?see?People?v.?Rich?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1036,?1100-?1101?[248?Cal.Rptr.?510,?755?P.2d?960].)
We?also?reject?the?contention?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?when?he?asked?Dr.?Blinder?whether?he?was?retained?by?and?testified?for?the?defense?”in?the?Dan?White?case,”?and?again?when?he?commented?on?the?expert’s?connection?with?the?Dan?White?case?in?argument?to?the?jury.?Because?the?defense?did?not?object?or?request?an?admonition?in?either?instance,?the?point?is?not?preserved?for?appeal.?Moreover,?an?expert’s?testimony?in?prior?cases?involving?similar?issues?is?a?legitimate?subject?of?cross-examination.?Here,?the?witness?testified?that?he?had?discussed?the?Dan?White?case?in?his?book?on?the?domestic?homicide?syndrome.
Defendant?raises?similar?issues?regarding?the?testimony?of?Robert?Shomer,?a?defense?expert?on?eyewitness?identifications.?Defendant?contends?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?by?asking?about?the?fee?the?defense?was?paying?Shomer?for?his?testimony,?and?by?asking?about?Shomer’s?testimony?in?other?cases.?The?defense?did?not?object?or?request?an?admonition?when?most?of?these?questions?were?posed,?and?to?this?extent?our?review?is?procedurally?barred.?Those?claims?not?procedurally?barred?we?reject?on?the?merits:?it?is?not?misconduct?to?question?an?opponent’s?expert?witness?about?payment?for?services?or?about?the?expert’s?testimony?in?prior?cases?involving?similar?issues.
(d)?Revealing?Inadmissible?Evidence
[86]?During?cross-examination?of?prosecution?witness?Clifford?Smith,?defense?counsel?asked?whether?Smith’s?decision?to?defect?from?the?AB?and?testify?against?defendant?had?been?motivated?by?a?promise?that?in?return?his?mother?would?not?be?prosecuted?for?smuggling?drugs?to?him?in?prison.?Smith?denied?that?any?such?promise?had?been?made?and?that?his?mother?had?ever?smuggled?drugs?to?him.?On?redirect,?Smith?again?denied?that?his?mother?had?ever?smuggled?drugs?to?him.?The?prosecutor?then?asked:?”Where?would?this?come-where?did?this?come?from.?Do?you?have?any?idea?at?all?”?Smith?answered:?”Um,?come?from?Curtis?Price.?Well-I’m?assuming.”?The?defense?objected?and?the?court?struck?the?testimony?and?instructed?the?jury?to?disregard?it.?Defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?this?incident.?The?point?was?peripheral?at?best,?the?witness?admitted?he?was?speculating,?and?the?court?instructed?the?jury?not?to?use?the?testimony?in?any?way?in?deciding?the?case.?[1?Cal.4th?458]Shortly?thereafter,?the?prosecutor?asked?Smith?about?the?risks?he?was?taking?in?testifying?against?defendant.?Smith?testified?that?the?AB?leaders?had?”pretty?long?memories”?and?that?there?were?”a?whole?lot”?of?people?on?the?AB?”hit?list.”?When?the?prosecutor?asked?Smith?if?he?could?name?some?of?the?people?the?AB?leaders?intended?to?kill,?the?court?sustained?the?defense’s?relevancy?objection.?The?prosecutor?then?asked:?”Do?you?know?whether?or?not?[Department?of?Justice?investigator]?Paul?Tulleners?is?on?the?Aryan?Brotherhood?hit?list?”?The?trial?court?again?sustained?a?defense?relevancy?objection.?Defendant?contends?that?the?incident?demonstrates?misconduct?because?the?prosecutor?knew?from?the?sustaining?of?the?first?objection?that?the?topic?was?impermissible,?because?Smith?could?not?have?had?current?knowledge?about?AB?decisions,?and?because?the?questions?had?no?legitimate?purpose.?We?disagree.
The?danger?the?AB?posed?to?witnesses?testifying?against?an?AB?member?had?a?significant?bearing?on?the?credibility?and?motives?of?those?witnesses.?For?this?reason,?the?defense?raised?no?objection?to?questions?about?Smith’s?fears?for?his?own?safety.?The?prosecutor?could?reasonably?conclude?that?the?trial?court?sustained?the?first?defense?objection?because?the?names?of?persons?unconnected?with?this?case?would?have?no?relevancy.?Because?Tulleners?had?testified,?the?prosecutor?could?have?believed?that?inquiry?about?his?status?as?an?AB?target?would?be?permitted?as?bearing?on?his?credibility.?Although?Smith?had?defected?from?the?AB,?he?had?done?so?only?after?the?preliminary?hearing?in?this?case,?and?thus?he?possessed?reasonably?current?information?on?the?decisions?of?the?AB?leadership.?No?misconduct?is?shown.
[87]?During?the?redirect?examination?of?Michael?Thompson,?the?prosecutor?asked?about?prior?statements?Thompson?had?made?about?the?various?crimes?charged?against?defendant.?The?prosecutor?then?asked?how?Thompson?had?obtained?information?about?the?Moore?burglary?and?the?Hickey?murder.?Thompson?said?he?had?obtained?it?from?Stinson.?The?prosecutor?then?asked?Thompson?if?he?knew?how?Stinson?had?obtained?the?information.?Thompson?answered,?”Yes,?Curtis?Price.”?The?trial?court?sustained?a?defense?hearsay?objection?and?instructed?the?jury?to?disregard?the?testimony.?Defendant?cites?the?incident?as?misconduct.?He?asserts?that?the?question?clearly?called?for?inadmissible?hearsay?and?that?the?defense?was?severely?prejudiced?because?the?answer?implied?that?defendant?had?confessed?to?the?Hickey?murder.?We?find?no?prejudicial?misconduct.The?assertion?of?severe?prejudice?is?unfounded.?No?reasonable?juror?would?interpret?the?statement?as?an?implied?confession?to?the?Hickey?murder.?There?was?no?suggestion?that,?for?example,?the?information?Stinson?provided?to?Thompson?included?facts?about?the?murder?that?had?not?been?made?public.?[1?Cal.4th?459]?Indeed,?defendant?asserts?elsewhere?in?his?appellate?brief?that?”Thompson?was?thoroughly?inaccurate?in?every?detail?he?supplied?about?the?Hickey?killing.”?(Original?italics.)?The?stricken?testimony?showed?at?most?that?defendant?was?aware?of?the?crime,?had?some?knowledge?of?the?circumstances,?and?realized?that?the?police?had?or?might?connect?it?to?the?AB.?It?was?undisputed?that?defendant?was?acquainted?with?Hickey,?that?he?had?obtained?weapons?from?her?in?some?manner,?and?that?the?police?had?seized?these?weapons?after?arresting?defendant.?Even?if?defendant?had?been?entirely?innocent?of?the?Hickey?murder,?he?certainly?knew?at?the?time?in?question,?after?his?arrest,?that?Hickey?had?been?killed,?that?he?was?at?least?a?suspect,?and?that?the?AB?would?be?implicated.?Thus,?the?stricken?testimony?told?the?jury?nothing?it?did?not?already?know?or?could?not?reasonably?have?inferred.
[88]?Defense?witness?Rebecca?Williams?testified,?on?cross-?examination,?that?she?had?inherited?a?.22-caliber?Jennings?semiautomatic?pistol?from?her?grandfather?before?1975,?that?she?had?shown?the?pistol?to?defendant,?that?defendant?had?suggested?she?take?it?to?a?gunsmith?to?have?it?cleaned,?that?she?had?done?so,?and?that?the?gunsmith?had?refused?to?work?on?it?because?the?gun?had?no?serial?number.?On?rebuttal,?a?police?officer?for?the?City?of?Auburn?testified?that?under?his?questioning?Williams?said?that?defendant?had?asked?her?to?have?the?pistol?cleaned?for?him?and?had?told?her?he?would?pick?it?up?later.?Also?on?rebuttal,?the?owner?of?the?corporation?that?manufactured?the?pistol?testified?it?was?made?in?1981?or?1982.?The?defense?lodged?a?relevance?objection?and?requested?an?offer?of?proof?when?the?prosecutor?asked?this?witness?to?disassemble?the?pistol.?The?prosecutor?responded:?”I?think?he?will?be?able?to?testify?that?somebody?apparently?modified?this?weapon?in?the?mistaken?belief?they?could?turn?it?into?an?automatic?weapon.”?The?court?ruled?that?the?witness?could?testify?that?the?weapon?was?inoperable?to?explain?why?it?was?taken?to?be?repaired,?without?speculating?as?to?the?intended?purpose?of?the?modification?that?made?it?inoperable.?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecution?committed?misconduct?by?stating?in?open?court?that?someone?had?attempted?to?convert?the?pistol?into?an?automatic?weapon.We?find?no?misconduct.?Evidence?that?someone?had?tampered?with?the?gun’s?mechanism?was?admissible?to?impeach?the?testimony?of?Williams,?who?claimed?to?have?no?understanding?of?guns?and?to?have?never?fired?this?weapon.?Although?the?apparent?purpose?of?the?modification?may?have?been?irrelevant,?the?court’s?action?in?sustaining?the?objection?was?sufficient?to?avert?any?possible?prejudice?on?this?minor?point.
(e)?Other?Allegedly?Improper?Conduct
[89]?Defendant?invites?our?attention?to?two?final?incidents?that?he?maintains?constitute?misconduct.?[1?Cal.4th?460]In?one?incident,?the?defense?objected?on?relevance?grounds?to?a?question?the?prosecutor?posed?to?a?witness.?The?prosecutor?admitted?he?could?not?identify?any?theory?of?relevancy,?remarking?that?he?was?”simply?curious.”?The?trial?court?sustained?the?objection?and?the?prosecutor?abandoned?the?topic.?Asking?questions?about?irrelevant?matters?is?improper.?Defendant?concedes,?however,?that?the?incident?resulted?in?no?significant?prejudice.
On?a?Friday?during?the?trial,?the?defense?asked?for?a?list?of?the?witnesses?the?prosecution?intended?to?call?the?next?week.?One?of?the?prosecutors?said?they?had?not?yet?determined?which?witnesses?to?use?and?offered?to?provide?the?information?on?the?following?Monday.?The?trial?court?indicated?that?the?testimony?would?begin?on?Tuesday?with?the?completion?of?one?witness’s?testimony?and?instructed?the?prosecutors?to?name?the?witness?who?would?follow.?The?prosecutors?then?named?three?witnesses.
We?reject?the?contention?that?this?incident?shows?misconduct.?Defendant?claims?the?prosecutors’?ability?to?name?three?witnesses?shows?that?the?prosecutor?lied?when?he?said?he?could?not?provide?a?list?of?the?witnesses?to?be?called.?We?see?no?inconsistency.?The?prosecutors?apparently?knew?the?witnesses?they?intended?to?call?first,?but?not?the?witnesses?for?the?full?week.?In?any?event,?no?prejudice?resulted.
- Argument?to?the?Jury
The?prosecutor?argued?that?flight?from?the?scene?of?a?crime?was?evidence?of?consciousness?of?guilt.?Defendant?maintains?that?the?argument?was?improper?because?the?prosecutor?had?apparently?withdrawn?his?request?for?a?flight?instruction?after?defendant?objected.?Assuming?the?argument?was?improper,?an?admonition?that?the?principle?had?no?application?in?this?case?would?have?eliminated?any?prejudice.
In?discussing?the?testimony?of?defense?witness?Wendell?Norris,?the?prosecutor?noted?that?a?court?had?reduced?his?murder?conviction?from?first?degree?to?second?degree?and?his?kidnapping-for-ransom?conviction?to?a?conviction?for?escape.?Any?conceivable?prejudice?from?these?remarks?could?have?been?prevented?by?an?admonition?that?in?judging?Norris’s?credibility?the?jury?should?disregard?his?invalidated?convictions.?[1?Cal.4th?461]
In?discussing?the?robbery?identification?evidence,?the?prosecutor?three?times?mentioned?that?defendant?was?not?present?in?the?courtroom?when?these?witnesses?testified.?Defendant?contends?it?was?misconduct?to?suggest?in?this?manner?that?defendant?remained?away?from?the?trial?to?avoid?identification,?when?in?fact?he?did?so?to?avoid?being?shackled?in?the?courtroom.?The?contention?assumes,?erroneously?we?believe,?that?the?prosecutor?was?required?to?accept?at?face?value?defendant’s?stated?reason?for?boycotting?the?trial.?In?any?event,?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?were?mild?and?an?admonition?to?draw?no?inference?from?defendant’s?absence?would?have?cured?any?prejudice.
In?the?course?of?a?long?discussion?on?the?credibility?of?defense?witness?Rebecca?Williams,?the?prosecutor?remarked?in?passing?that?she?had?been?subpoenaed?by?the?prosecution?to?testify?at?the?trial?and?thereafter?she?”all?of?a?sudden,?comes?up?sick?or?something.”?Having?testified?that?her?grandfather?had?given?her?before?1975?a?gun?that?the?manufacturer?testified?was?made?only?in?1981?or?1982,?Williams?was?a?witness?whose?credibility?was?clearly?suspect.?An?admonition?to?disregard?the?prosecutor’s?brief?and?mild?reference?to?her?apparent?illness?would?have?averted?any?prejudice.
The?prosecutor?remarked?that?in?criminal?cases?discovery?was?”a?one?way?street”?because?”[w]e?don’t?get?advance?discovery?of?the?defense.”?The?prosecutor?did?not?elaborate?and?did?not?suggest?that?the?prosecution’s?ability?to?prove?its?case?had?been?hampered?by?lack?of?discovery.?An?admonition?would?have?cured?any?conceivable?prejudice?from?this?fleeting?reference?to?discovery?rules.
The?prosecutor?had?presented?testimony?that?defendant’s?mother?had?agreed?to?meet?with?a?prosecution?investigator?to?search?her?residence?for?a?calendar?on?which?she?had?made?notations?in?1981?and?1982,?and?that?the?investigator?later?had?been?unsuccessful?in?making?arrangements?with?defendant’s?mother?to?conduct?the?search.?Referring?to?this?incident,?the?prosecutor?said:?”And?this,?of?course,?is?just?minor.?There?probably?was?a?real?calendar.?She?probably?does?keep?one,?but?we?didn’t?get?to?see?it?nor?did?we?get?to?see?the?other?one.?I?remember?that?she?was?going?to?bring?that?in?and?then?refuses?to?give?it?to?us?out?in?the?hallway.”?To?the?extent?this?remark?reflected?facts?not?in?evidence,?an?admonition?would?have?averted?any?prejudice?to?defendant.
Referring?to?the?testimony?of?Clifford?Smith,?the?prosecutor?said:?”God?what?a?great?witness.?That’s?my?opinion.?If?you?don’t?feel?that?way,?you?think?that?Clifford?Smith?was?a?lying?whatever,?that’s?fine?because?you?are?now?the?judges.”?Defendant?contends?it?was?improper?for?the?prosecutor?to?vouch?for?the?credibility?of?a?prosecution?witness.?The?remark?appears?to?have?been?[1?Cal.4th?462]?properly?based?on?facts?and?inferences?in?the?record?(see?People?v.?Anderson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?453,?479?[276?Cal.Rptr.?356,?801?P.2d?1107]),?but,?assuming?it?was?improper,?an?admonition?that?the?prosecutor’s?opinion?was?irrelevant?would?have?avoided?any?possible?prejudice.?(See?People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?538.)
- Conclusion
Whether?considered?separately?or?cumulatively,?the?incidents?defendant?cites?do?not?establish?prejudicial?misconduct?by?the?prosecutors?at?the?guilt?phase.
- Sufficiency?of?Evidence?of?Hickey?Residence?Burglary
The?prosecution?presented?evidence?that?AB?leaders?had?instructed?defendant?to?gather?firearms?to?be?used?by?the?AB?to?commit?crimes.?Defendant?[1?Cal.4th?463]?told?his?mother?that?the?weapons?later?found?in?the?Nevada?storage?locker,?including?weapons?taken?from?the?Hickey?residence,?were?”Brand?business”?(that?is,?intended?for?the?AB).?[91b]?The?jury?could?reasonably?infer?that?defendant?went?to?Hickey’s?apartment?to?obtain?the?weapons?and?that?he?intended?to?obtain?them?by?theft,?rather?than?by?purchase,?because?he?could?not?afford?to?leave?a?witness?who?could?connect?him?to?the?weapons?and?who?had?no?loyalty?to?the?AB.?Accordingly,?the?evidence?presented?at?trial,?although?circumstantial,?was?sufficient?to?support?the?conviction?for?burglary?of?the?Hickey?residence.
Defendant?contends?that?if?the?evidence?of?burglary?is?insufficient,?then?the?verdict?for?the?first?degree?murder?of?Hickey?and?both?of?the?special?circumstance?findings?must?fall.?Because?we?have?concluded?that?sufficient?evidence?supports?the?burglary?conviction,?we?need?not?consider?these?related?contentions.
- Claims?Relating?to?Charge?of?Receiving?Stolen?Property
Defendant?attacks?on?multiple?grounds?his?conviction?for?receiving?stolen?property.?This?conviction?related?to?defendant’s?possession?of?guns?taken?from?the?Moore?residence.?Defendant?contends:?(1)?the?evidence?does?not?show?that?defendant?possessed?the?guns?on?the?date?and?at?the?place?specified?in?the?information;?(2)?the?evidence?does?not?show?that?someone?other?than?defendant?stole?the?guns;?and?(3)?the?jury?was?not?instructed?on?the?principle?that?one?who?steals?property?may?not?be?convicted?of?receiving?the?same?property.
In?the?information,?the?prosecution?alleged?that?”on?or?about”?February?28,?1983,?in?Humboldt?County,?defendant?did?”receive,?conceal,?…?[and]?withhold”?the?firearms?stolen?from?Richard?Moore.?Defendant?observes?that?most?of?these?firearms?were?recovered?from?the?Nevada?storage?locker?and?that?the?evidence?shows?defendant?took?them?to?Nevada?no?later?than?February?19,?1983.?[94]?From?these?facts,?defendant?concludes?that?there?was?no?evidence?that?defendant?possessed?the?weapons?in?Humboldt?County?on?or?about?the?date?charged.
We?need?not?decide?whether?the?conviction?could?properly?be?based?on?defendant’s?possession?of?the?weapons?found?in?the?storage?locker.?Moore?testified?that?the?weapons?taken?from?him?included?three?shotguns,?two?of?which?were?found?in?the?locker.?The?third?was?a?featherweight?shotgun?of?the?same?make?and?model?as?one?found?in?defendant’s?mother’s?garage?in?Humboldt?County.?Moore?could?not?be?certain?that?this?shotgun?was?his?because?part?of?the?barrel?and?stock?had?been?sawed?off,?but?the?jury?could?[1?Cal.4th?464]?reasonably?infer,?from?defendant’s?possession?of?Moore’s?other?firearms,?that?this?was?indeed?Moore’s?missing?featherweight?shotgun,?and?that?defendant?had?possessed?it?in?Humboldt?County?on?or?about?the?date?alleged?in?the?information.
[95]?Defendant?next?contends?that?he?could?not?be?convicted?of?receiving?stolen?property?because?the?prosecution’s?evidence?did?not?exclude?the?possibility?that?defendant?himself?had?stolen?the?Moore?weapons.?The?contention?is?based?on?a?misunderstanding?of?the?law.With?certain?limited?exceptions,?a?defendant?may?not?be?convicted?of?stealing?and?receiving?the?same?property.?(People?v.?Jaramillo?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?752,?757?[129?Cal.Rptr.?306,?548?P.2d?706].)?This?does?not?mean,?however,?that?when?the?prosecution?has?charged?only?receiving,?it?must?establish?by?affirmative?proof?that?someone?other?than?the?defendant?stole?the?property.?(People?v.?Taylor?(1969)?2?Cal.App.3d?979,?984?[83?Cal.Rptr.?119];?People?v.?Williams?(1967)?253?Cal.App.2d?952,?958?[61?Cal.Rptr.?238].)?A?conviction?for?receiving?stolen?property?may?be?based?on?evidence?”that?the?property?in?question?was?stolen,?that?the?defendant?was?in?possession?of?it,?and?that?the?defendant?knew?the?property?to?be?stolen”?(People?v.?Anderson?(1989)?210?Cal.App.3d?414,?420?[258?Cal.Rptr.?482]),?even?though?the?evidence?also?strongly?suggests?that?it?was?the?defendant?who?stole?the?property.?(People?v.?Briggs?(1971)?19?Cal.App.3d?1034,?1036?[97?Cal.Rptr.?372].)?Under?these?authorities,?the?evidence?in?the?present?case?amply?supported?defendant’s?conviction?for?receiving?stolen?property.
[96]?The?trial?court?was?not?required?to?instruct?sua?sponte?on?the?principle?that?a?person?may?not?be?convicted?of?both?stealing?and?receiving?the?same?property.?Such?an?instruction?is?required?only?when?the?defendant?is?charged?with?two?mutually?exclusive?offenses.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Lawrence?(1980)?111?Cal.App.3d?630,?639?[169?Cal.Rptr.?245].)- Failure?to?Instruct?on?Manslaughter
- Cumulative?Impact?of?Guilt?Phase?Errors
III.?Penalty?Issues
- Jury?Coercion
The?jury?began?its?penalty?deliberations?at?10:41?a.m.?on?Tuesday,?July?1,?1986.?It?deliberated?until?4:55?p.m.?that?day?and?from?9?a.m.?until?4:38?p.m.?on?the?following?day.?On?Thursday,?July?3,?the?jury?again?began?deliberating?at?9?a.m.?At?1:55?p.m.,?the?foreperson?sent?the?court?a?note?that?stated:?”We?seem?to?have?reached?an?impasse?in?making?a?unanimous?decision.?Any?suggestions?”?In?the?courtroom,?at?2:33?p.m.,?the?court?asked?whether?there?was?a?reasonable?probability?that?further?deliberations?would?produce?a?verdict.?The?foreperson?replied:?”When?I?wrote?the?note,?I?was?not?sure.?Since?sending?the?note,?we?have?taken?another?vote?and?the?numbers?have?changed.?So?we?may?not?be?at?an?impasse.”?The?jury?returned?to?the?jury?room?and?deliberations?continued.
Less?than?an?hour?later,?the?foreperson?sent?the?court?a?note?stating?that?the?jury?was?deadlocked.?The?jury?returned?to?the?courtroom?at?4:03?p.m.?In?response?to?the?court’s?inquiries,?the?foreperson?said?that?the?vote?was?seven?to?five,?that?it?had?not?changed?during?the?last?four?ballots,?and?that?she?did?not?think?the?votes?were?likely?to?change.?Asked?whether?they?shared?the?view?that?further?deliberations?would?probably?not?result?in?a?verdict,?10?of?the?11?remaining?jurors?responded?in?the?affirmative.?The?11th?juror?was?unsure.?The?court?then?consulted?briefly?with?counsel?at?the?bench.?The?prosecution?favored?further?deliberations;?defense?counsel?said?they?were?satisfied?there?was?a?deadlock.
The?court?addressed?the?jury:?”Ladies?and?gentlemen,?at?a?time?like?this,?the?law?is?in?an?odd?position?in?a?way.?The?law’s?clear?that?there?can?be?no?force?or?coercion?applied?to?a?jury?to?reach?a?verdict.?You’re?asked?to?give?your?individual?opinion?and,?apparently,?you?certainly?have.?And,?of?course,?on?the?other?side?of?that?coin,?there’s?a?desire?of?everyone,?I’m?sure?yourselves,?to?conclude?this?once?and?for?all.?[1?Cal.4th?466]
“So,?my?comments?at?this?point?are?not?to?be?in?any?way?an?attempt?to?change?anyone.?All?I’m?saying,?at?this?point?in?time,?everyone?here-I?think?everyone?who?hasn’t?been?in?the?jury?room?can’t?imagine?what?you’ve?struggled?with.?We?know?you’ve?been?here?for?the?last?year?struggling?with?everyone?else?to?get?through?the?case.
“And?on?the?other?hand,?everyone?here?would?like?to?see?it?over?with.?I?think?they?would?also?like?to?see-well,?without?going?any?more,?we?would?all?like?to?see?it?end?today,?of?course.?I?think?what?I’d?like?to?do,?although?I?have?reservations,?I?see?things?both?ways.
“I?think?what?I’ll?do?is?recess?until?Monday?and?let?you?meet?again?Monday?morning?and?discuss?it.?And?if?you?feel?the?same?way?you?feel?now,?then?we’ll?reassemble?just?like?we?are?now.?So?at?this?point?I’m?going?to?give?you?the?admonition.?[Court?gives?usual?admonition?not?to?discuss?the?case.]
“If?you?can,?please?have?a?pleasant?Fourth?of?July?weekend.?Try?to?forget?about?the?problem?that?faces?you.?And?please?do?not?take?my?continuing?this?to?Monday?as?any?attempt?to?coerce?you?in?any?way.?I?just?want?to?give?you?time?to?get?away?from?it?for?a?while,?come?back?and?approach?it?fresh.?If?you?still?have?the?same?mind,?there’s?no?one?here?going?to?force?you?to?do?anything?you?don’t?want?to?abide?by.”
A?juror?then?inquired,?”I?presume?I?can’t?ask?a?question?”?The?court?replied,?”Please,?not?now.”
The?jury?resumed?deliberations?at?9:30?a.m.?on?July?7.?At?10?a.m.,?the?foreperson?sent?the?court?a?note?requesting?seven?items?of?evidence.?During?the?remainder?of?that?day?and?the?next,?the?jurors?requested?several?additional?items?of?evidence,?which?were?provided?to?them.?At?3:40?p.m.?on?July?8,?the?jury?announced?it?had?reached?a?verdict.?On?being?polled,?each?juror?affirmed?unequivocally?that?the?verdict?imposing?the?death?penalty?was?the?individual?verdict?of?that?juror.
[99a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?failing?to?accept?the?jurors’?opinion?that?they?had?reached?an?impasse,?in?inquiring?as?to?the?jury’s?numerical?division,?in?implying?that?a?verdict?would?have?to?be?reached?at?some?point,?and?in?declining?to?permit?a?juror?to?ask?a?question.?Defendant?contends?that?the?combined?effect?of?these?alleged?errors?was?to?improperly?coerce?the?jury?to?reach?a?verdict,?in?violation?of?defendant’s?rights?under?the?federal?Constitution?to?trial?by?an?impartial?jury,?due?process?of?law,?and?a?reliable?determination?of?penalty?in?a?capital?case.?We?find?no?error?and?no?coercion.?[1?Cal.4th?467]A?jury?that?has?deliberated?may?be?discharged?without?reaching?a?verdict?when,?”at?the?expiration?of?such?time?as?the?court?may?deem?proper,?it?satisfactorily?appears?that?there?is?no?reasonable?probability?that?the?jury?can?agree.”?(??1140.)?Whether?the?jury?has?had?sufficient?time?to?deliberate,?and?whether?there?is?no?reasonable?probability?of?a?verdict,?are?determinations?committed?to?the?sound?discretion?of?the?trial?court.?(People?v.?Haskett?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?210,?241?[276?Cal.Rptr.?80,?801?P.2d?323];?People?v.?Sheldon?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?935,?959?[258?Cal.Rptr.?242,?771?P.2d?1330].)?Here,?because?the?penalty?trial?had?lasted?over?three?weeks?and?the?entire?trial?(excluding?jury?selection)?over?seven?months,?the?trial?court?could?reasonably?determine?that?the?jury?had?not?deliberated?sufficiently?on?the?voluminous?evidence?presented?to?it,?and?that?a?finding?of?deadlock?would?be?premature.?We?find?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?this?determination.
[100]?When?a?jury?indicates?it?has?reached?an?impasse,?a?trial?court?that?directs?further?deliberations?must?exercise?great?care?to?avoid?the?impression?that?jurors?should?abandon?their?independent?judgment?”in?favor?of?considerations?of?compromise?and?expediency.”?(People?v.?Carter?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?810,?817?[69?Cal.Rptr.?297,?442?P.2d?353];?accord?People?v.?Miller?(1990)50?Cal.3d?954,?994?[269?Cal.Rptr.?492,?790?P.2d?1289].)?[99b]?Here,?the?trial?court?in?its?remarks?to?the?jury?properly?stressed?that?it?was?not?attempting?to?coerce?the?jury?in?any?way?and?that?if?the?weekend?respite?did?not?provide?a?fresh?perspective,?the?jury?should?feel?free?to?again?report?an?impasse.?The?jurors?correctly?understood?that?the?court’s?intent?was?to?provide?an?opportunity?for?them?to?enhance?their?understanding?of?the?case?rather?than?to?coerce?them?to?abandon?the?exercise?of?individual?judgment.?This?understanding?is?shown?by?the?jury’s?immediate?requests,?after?the?weekend?break,?to?review?various?items?of?evidence.?(See?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?775-776.)?The?jury?remained?focused?on?the?evidence?during?its?deliberations,?and?its?penalty?verdict?was?not?the?result?of?trial?court?coercion.We?decline?defendant’s?request?that?we?overrule?past?decisions?permitting?a?trial?court?to?inquire?about?the?numerical?division?of?a?jury.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Morris,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?152,?227;?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?776,?fn.?14.)?Defendant?gives?us?no?persuasive?reason?to?reconsider?these?decisions.
We?conclude,?finally,?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?declining?to?entertain?a?juror’s?question?on?Thursday,?July?3,?after?it?had?already?announced?its?intention?to?recess?for?the?weekend?and?had?given?the?admonition?that?normally?marked?the?end?of?the?jury’s?daily?routine.?Both?the?form?of?the?question?(“I?presume?I?can’t?ask?a?question?”)?and?the?content?of?the?[1?Cal.4th?468]?answer?(“Please,?not?now.”)?demonstrate?that?the?problem?was?with?the?timing.?A?reasonable?juror?would?not?interpret?the?reply?as?precluding?timely?inquiries.
- Jury?Inquiry?During?Deliberations
During?the?penalty?deliberations,?the?jury?foreperson?sent?the?court?a?note?requesting,?among?other?items,?”Writings?&/or?testimony?re.?’Take?her?to?the?country’?or?’Took?girl?to?the?country.’?”?After?discussing?the?matter?with?counsel,?the?court?had?the?court?reporter?read?to?the?jury?portions?of?the?guilt?phase?testimony?of?Clifford?Smith?and?Michael?Thompson?and?part?of?defendant’s?penalty?phase?testimony.
In?the?portion?of?his?testimony?read?to?the?jury,?Smith?had?said?that?to?”take?someone?to?the?country”?meant?to?kill?that?person.?He?explained?that?the?phrase?had?originally?referred?to?a?particular?killing?of?a?woman?by?a?former?AB?member?but?had?since?become?AB?slang?for?any?killing.?Michael?Thompson,?in?the?testimony?read?to?the?jury,?said?he?understood?”sent?a?girl?to?the?country”?to?mean?that?”the?girl?in?question?has?been?killed?and?dumped.”?Asked?whether?he?had?ever?seen?that?phrase?written,?he?said?that?he?had.?He?then?testified?that?he?had?received?letters?or?cards?from?defendant?after?defendant?was?released?from?prison?but?before?his?arrest,?and?that?he?had?seen?letters?or?notes?that?defendant?had?written?during?the?same?time?period?to?other?AB?members,?including?Bob?Curl,?John?Stinson,?Clifford?Smith,?Robert?Griffen,?and?Bobby?Schmidt.?He?was?not?asked,?however,?whether?the?phrase?”sent?a?girl?to?the?country”?appeared?in?any?of?the?letters?or?cards?written?by?defendant?that?he?had?seen.
In?the?testimony?of?defendant?that?was?read?to?the?jury,?defendant?was?asked?what?the?phrase?”took?her?to?the?country”?meant?to?him?and?whether?he?had?ever?used?that?phrase?in?reference?to?Elizabeth?Hickey?in?a?letter?or?card?written?to?a?state?prison?inmate.?Defendant?appeared?to?have?difficulty?understanding?the?question,?asking?repeatedly?for?clarification.?Finally,?he?testified?that?the?only?time?he?ever?wrote?about?Hickey?was?in?a?letter?to?Michael?Thompson?in?which?he?discussed?the?case?solely?in?terms?of?what?the?prosecution?was?alleging.?He?did?not?say?whether?he?had?used?the?phrase?”took?her?to?the?country”?in?this?letter.
Later?the?same?day,?after?the?court?reporter?had?read?this?testimony?to?the?jury,?the?foreperson?sent?two?more?notes.?The?first?requested?”any/all?postcards?in?evidence.”?The?second?stated?that?the?jury?wanted?to?see?”the?writing,?postcard?or?whatever?evidence?it?was?that?led?to?the?prosecution’s?questions?about?the?phrase?’took?a?girl?to?the?country.’?”?Out?of?the?jury’s?[1?Cal.4th?469]?presence,?the?court?said:?”It’s?my?recollection?that?that?postcard?was?not?retained?by?Mr.?Thompson?or?anyone?that?either?side?is?aware?of;?is?that?correct?”?Defense?counsel?replied:?”According?to?the?discovery?provided?in?the?logs?of?Agent?Tulleners?…?Frank?Wirshup?told?Agent?Tulleners?he?put?it?in?a?baby?lotion?bottle?that?was?in?his?cell?at?the?time?his?cell?was?fire?bombed?and?destroyed?….”
The?court?then?gave?this?answer?to?the?jury:?”[T]o?advise?you?about?your?last?note?which?speaks?of?a?postcard?which?gave?rise?to?the?prosecution’s?questions?about?the?phrase?’Take?a?girl?to?the?country,’?everyone?here?agrees?that?postcard?was?never?physically?present?nor?marked?in?this?case.?We?could?all?speculate,?I?think,?individually?and?perhaps?collectively?as?to?what?may?have?happened?to?it,?but?no?one?here?really?knows.?It’s?never?been?before?the?Court?as?far?as?I?know?and?certainly?is?not?marked?and?is?not?in?evidence.”?At?the?bench,?defense?counsel?expressed?concern?that?this?admonition?suggested?that?there?was?a?postcard?in?existence,?although?it?had?not?been?produced.
The?court?addressed?the?jury?again:?”Ladies?and?gentlemen,?I?don’t?recall?the?exact?wording?that?I?gave?you?about?the?postcard.?Whatever?I?said?is?not?meant?to?infer?that?necessarily?there?was?ever?such?a?postcard?in?existence.?All?I’m?trying?to?convey?to?you?clearly?is?that?there?is?certainly?not?one?marked.?There?is?not?one?in?evidence,?and?it?may?be?or?it?may?not?be,?and?no?one?here?really?knows?because?we-we?haven’t?seen?it,?and?I?don’t?want?you?to?be?inferring?that?there?was?necessarily?one?in?existence?at?any?given?time.?That’s?something?that?you?should?treat?along?with?the?other?evidence?and?make?your?determination?on?if?there?is?enough?evidence?for?to?make?a?determination?on?that?issue,?if?it’s?important?to?you.?[?]?We?do?not?have?one?marked.?We?do?not?have?one?in?evidence.?And?anything?I?am?saying?here?is?not?to?infer?or?cause?you?to?believe?that?I?have?some?inside?information?that?one?did?indeed?exist?at?any?given?time.?I?don’t?know?that.”
[101]?Defendant?contends?that?the?jury’s?notes?indicate?a?mistaken?belief?that?evidence?had?been?presented?at?the?guilt?phase?that?defendant?had?used?the?phrase?”take?a?girl?to?the?country”?in?connection?with?the?Hickey?killing,?and?had?thereby?confessed?to?the?killing.?He?maintains?that?this?evidence?of?mistaken?understanding?requires?reversal?of?all?the?guilt?verdicts.?He?further?contends?that?the?trial?court’s?response?to?the?jury’s?notes?exacerbated?the?problem?by?suggesting?there?was?evidence?from?which?the?jury?might?infer?that?defendant?had?made?such?a?damning?admission.?Requesting?reversal?of?the?penalty?verdict?as?well,?defendant?invokes?his?rights?under?the?federal?Constitution?to?a?fair?jury?trial,?due?process?of?law,?and?a?reliable?penalty?determination.?[1?Cal.4th?470]Defendant?cites?no?authority?for?the?proposition?that?a?jury’s?inquiries?at?the?penalty?phase?may?be?used?to?attack?the?verdict?it?rendered?at?the?guilt?phase.?Assuming?for?argument’s?sake?that?such?an?attack?could?be?successful?in?a?proper?case,?we?conclude?that?it?cannot?succeed?here.?The?jury’s?penalty?phase?inquiries?do?not?show?that?evidence?concerning?the?phrase?”take?a?girl?to?the?country”?had?played?any?role?in?the?guilt?verdicts.?On?the?contrary,?the?inquiries?reflect?interest?in?a?topic?that?had?assumed?significance?only?at?the?penalty?phase.?Moreover,?the?inquiries?do?not?reveal?a?mistaken?understanding?of?the?guilt?phase?evidence.?The?jury?asked?for?”the?writing,?postcard?or?whatever?evidence?it?was?that?led?to?the?prosecution’s?questions”;?it?did?not?ask?for?or?refer?to?any?writing?mentioned?in?the?testimony?of?Smith?or?Thompson.
Nor?do?we?find?any?error?in?the?admonition?the?court?gave.?The?court?properly?stressed?that?there?was?no?exhibit?in?evidence?corresponding?to?the?jury’s?inquiry?and?that?such?a?writing?might?never?have?existed.?The?court?did?not?err?in?suggesting?that?the?jury?might?infer?the?existence?of?a?writing?that?prompted?the?prosecutor’s?questions.?Thompson?testified?that?he?received?letters?from?defendant?and?that?he?had?seen?the?phrase?”sent?a?girl?to?the?country”?in?a?letter,?but?he?did?not?testify?that?he?seen?the?phrase?in?a?letter?from?defendant.?When?asked?about?this,?defendant?replied?evasively,?admitting?finally?that?he?had?written?to?Thompson?about?the?Hickey?killing,?although?in?the?context?of?the?prosecution’s?allegations.?He?did?not?affirm?or?deny?that?he?used?the?phrase?”took?a?girl?to?the?country”?in?reference?to?the?charges?against?him.?From?all?this?testimony,?the?jury?could?properly?infer,?at?the?least,?that?some?writing?had?once?existed?that?had?prompted?the?prosecutor’s?questions.
- Improper?Aggravating?Evidence
Defendant?contends?that?several?forms?of?improper?aggravating?evidence?were?erroneously?admitted?or?argued.?He?asserts?that?the?errors?denied?him?his?rights?to?due?process?of?law?and?a?reliable?penalty?determination?under?the?Fifth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.
- Prior?Conviction?for?Marijuana?Possession
Over?defense?objection,?the?prosecution?introduced?evidence?of?defendant’s?1967?felony?conviction?in?this?state?for?possession?of?marijuana.?[102]?Defendant?contends?that?this?prior?conviction?could?not?be?used?in?aggravation?under?section?190.3,?factor?(c)?(“The?presence?or?absence?of?any?prior?felony?conviction”),?because?at?the?time?of?trial?the?offense?of?marijuana?possession?was?no?longer?punishable?as?a?felony?and?because?any?[1?Cal.4th?471]?record?of?a?marijuana?possession?conviction?cannot?be?considered?”accurate,?relevant,?timely,?or?complete?for?any?purposes”?if?the?record?is?more?than?two?years?old?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11361.7,?subd.?(a)).?The?latter?provision?makes?any?record?falling?within?its?terms?”?’useless?and?for?all?intents?and?purposes?nonexistent.’?”?(People?v.?Boyd?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?285,?293?[155?Cal.Rptr.?367,?594?P.2d?484]?[record?of?prior?felony?conviction?for?marijuana?possession?will?not?support?a?charge?of?possession?of?a?firearm?by?an?ex-?felon].)
Defendant?is?correct?that?the?evidence?was?inadmissible,?but?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?the?error?affected?the?penalty?verdict.?(People?v.?Brown?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?432,?448?[250?Cal.Rptr.?604,?758?P.2d?1135].)?In?his?penalty?phase?testimony,?defendant?admitted?both?possession?and?sale?of?marijuana,?and?the?offense?of?marijuana?possession?is?insignificant?in?light?of?”the?evidence?of?far?more?serious?violent?offenses?committed?by?defendant”?(People?v.?Heishman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?147,?191?[246?Cal.Rptr.?673,?753?P.2d?629]).?Because?the?erroneously?admitted?evidence?was?inconsequential?in?the?context?of?the?evidence?properly?received,?the?error?did?not?deprive?defendant?of?any?right?under?the?federal?Constitution.
- Prior?Conviction?for?LSD?Possession
- Lack?of?Remorse
During?argument?to?the?jury,?the?prosecution?commented?on?the?defense?efforts?to?portray?defendant?in?a?sympathetic?light,?contrasting?these?efforts?with?the?prosecution’s?evidence?of?defendant’s?out-of-court?behavior?that?showed?him?in?a?less?favorable?light.?During?this?argument,?the?prosecutor?said,?”You?know,?the?least?you?can?do?is?look?remorseful.?Ask?you?people?to?spare?his?life.”?The?defense?did?not?object?to?this?remark?or?request?an?admonition.?[104]?Defendant?contends?that?the?remark?was?improper?because?it?is?unfair?to?expect?an?expression?of?remorse?from?one?who?denies?[1?Cal.4th?472]?guilt,?and?also?because?lack?of?remorse?is?not?one?of?the?statutory?aggravating?factors.
In?words?applicable?to?this?case,?we?recently?said:?”While?an?argument?asking?the?jury?to?return?a?death?verdict?because?the?defendant?had?failed?to?confess?or?had?maintained?his?[or?her]?silence?would?be?improper?[citations],?the?argument?here?did?not?ask?this.?The?prosecutor?is?entitled?to?counter?the?argument?that?the?jury?should?spare?defendant’s?life?out?of?pity?for?him?[or?her],?and?we?have?said?that?the?jury?may?consider?lack?of?remorse?in?fixing?penalty.?[Citations.]?When?comments?on?lack?of?remorse?do?no?more?than?suggest?the?inapplicability?of?a?potentially?mitigating?factor,?they?are?appropriate.”?(People?v.?Pensinger?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?1210,?1270-1271?[278?Cal.Rptr.?640,?805?P.2d?899].)
- Double?Counting?of?Montana?Incident
Under?section?190.3,?factor?(b)?(prior?criminal?activity?involving?violence),?the?prosecution?introduced?evidence?of?the?December?1971?incident?in?Montana?in?which?defendant?escaped?from?custody?and?used?motorist?John?Digalis?as?a?hostage.?Under?section?190.3,?factor?(c)?(prior?felony?conviction),?the?prosecution?introduced?evidence?of?defendant’s?1972?Montana?conviction?resulting?from?the?same?incident.?[105]?Defendant?contends?that?the?manner?in?which?these?two?items?were?presented?to?the?jury?caused?an?unacceptable?risk?that?the?jury?would?”double?count”?these?separate?but?related?circumstances.
As?defendant?acknowledges,?we?have?held?that?when?a?capital?defendant’s?prior?violent?criminal?conduct?has?resulted?in?a?felony?conviction,?the?prosecution?is?not?required?to?choose?between?factors?(b)?and?(c)?of?section?190.3?but?may?present?evidence?and?argument?to?establish?both?factors,?and?the?jury?may?properly?consider?both?factors?in?making?its?penalty?determination.?(People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?764?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741].)?Defendant?argues?that?this?holding?does?not?control?here?because?it?presupposes?the?jury’s?understanding?that?the?prior?felony?conviction?is?based?on?the?criminal?conduct?described?in?the?testimony.?The?error?here,?he?asserts,?is?that?the?prosecution?presented?and?argued?the?evidence?in?a?manner?that?improperly?suggested?there?were?two?separate?incidents.
Having?reviewed?the?record,?we?find?no?significant?risk?of?juror?confusion?on?this?issue.?The?prior?conviction?was?proved?by?documentary?evidence.?Among?the?documents?was?the?Montana?information,?which?charged?that?the?incident?occurred?on?December?29,?1971,?and?that?John?Digalis?was?the?victim.?No?reasonable?juror?could?have?concluded?that?John?Digalis’s?testimony,?which?described?his?encounter?with?defendant?on?December?29,?1971,?related?to?some?other?incident.?[1?Cal.4th?473]
- The?Prosecution’s?Cross-examination?and?Rebuttal
- Cross-examination?of?Defendant’s?Sister
Sheila?Yates,?defendant’s?sister,?testified?as?a?defense?witness.?On?direct?examination,?she?said?she?did?not?want?defendant?to?be?given?the?death?penalty?because?she?believed?his?life?was?worth?saving.?Asked?to?explain,?she?said,?among?other?things,?that?she?loved?him,?that?she?did?not?believe?he?was?guilty,?and?that?he?could?provide?valuable?counselling?for?younger?prison?inmates.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecution?began?to?ask?about?a?statement?the?witness?had?made?to?Sergeant?Fredrickson?in?March?1983?after?defendant’s?arrest.?The?defense?objected?and?the?court?held?a?hearing?outside?the?jury’s?presence.
At?the?hearing,?the?witness?testified?that?after?defendant?was?arrested?she?became?concerned,?as?a?result?of?conversations?with?her?sister-in-law,?that?her?mother?might?get?into?trouble?for?attempting?to?conceal?or?move?certain?evidence?at?defendant’s?direction.?She?contacted?the?police?and?was?referred?to?Sergeant?Fredrickson,?who?came?to?her?house.?Fredrickson?told?her?that?defendant?had?killed?Hickey?and?had?been?involved?in?a?number?of?other?illegal?activities.?The?witness?believed?these?statements?and?was?badly?frightened?by?them.?A?few?days?later?she?gave?a?statement?that?was?taken?by?a?court?reporter.?In?this?statement,?she?said,?among?other?things,?that?she?believed?defendant?was?”up?to?no?good,”?that?she?did?not?trust?him,?and?that?she?had?heard?he?had?bragged?to?her?sister-in-law?about?killing?six?people.?The?witness?said?she?had?since?formed?the?opinion?that?much?of?what?Sergeant?Fredrickson?told?her?about?her?brother?was?untrue.?The?trial?court?ruled?that?the?prosecution?could?ask?questions?designed?to?show?that?in?March?1983?the?witness’s?opinion?of?defendant?was?different?from?the?one?she?had?given?on?direct?examination.?The?trial?court?did?not?rule?on?specific?questions?but?said?it?would?proceed?question?by?question?and?rule?on?objections?as?they?were?raised.
In?the?jury’s?presence,?the?witness?testified?that?she?had?contacted?the?police?and?had?discussed?with?Sergeant?Fredrickson?her?concern?that?defendant?was?attempting?to?involve?family?members?in?the?destruction?or?concealment?of?evidence.?She?admitted?she?then?had?been?of?the?opinion?that?her?brother?was?”up?to?no?good”?and?that?before?she?contacted?the?police?she?had?received?some?information?about?defendant?that?had?caused?her?concern.
[106]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?in?ruling?that?Yates?could?be?asked?about?her?opinion?of?defendant?in?1983?as?reflected?in?her?statement?to?Sergeant?Fredrickson.?He?argues?that?the?ruling?was?error?because?the?[1?Cal.4th?474]?prosecution?could?have?attacked?Yates’s?credibility?by?other?means.?He?also?argues?that?the?record?does?not?sufficiently?establish?that?the?trial?court?weighed?the?probative?value?of?the?evidence?against?the?risk?of?undue?prejudice?to?defendant.?These?arguments?are?unpersuasive.The?credibility?of?a?witness?may?be?challenged?with?evidence?of?prior?statements?by?the?witness?that?are?inconsistent?with?the?witness’s?testimony?at?the?trial.?(Evid.?Code,???780,?subd.?(h).)?Here,?Yates’s?testimony?on?direct?examination?implied?an?opinion?of?defendant?that?was?inconsistent?with?the?opinion?she?had?expressed?to?Sergeant?Fredrickson?in?1983.?Evidence?of?the?1983?statement?was?therefore?admissible?for?impeachment.?This?was?all?that?the?trial?court?ruled.?The?court?deferred?other?issues,?including?objections?on?hearsay?grounds?and?on?the?ground?of?undue?prejudice?(Evid.?Code,???352),?for?resolution?question?by?question.?After?this?ruling,?the?defense?made?a?number?of?objections,?particularly?on?hearsay?grounds,?and?the?trial?court?sustained?many?of?these?objections.?The?defense?did?not?object?on?the?ground?of?undue?prejudice,?however,?so?the?question?whether?the?trial?court?conducted?the?required?weighing?process?is?not?presented.?(Evid.?Code,???353.)
- Cross-examination?of?Joseph?O’Rourke
Another?defense?witness?was?Joseph?O’Rourke.?On?direct?examination,?he?testified?that?he?met?defendant?and?formed?a?favorable?opinion?of?him?in?1978?when?they?were?both?inmates?at?San?Quentin.?Defendant?contacted?him?in?September?1982?when?defendant?was?released?from?the?prison?in?Chino.?Defendant?had?no?transportation?and?no?money.?O’Rourke?arranged?for?defendant?to?stay?with?a?friend?and?gave?defendant?a?job?in?O’Rourke’s?handyman?business.?Defendant?worked?for?O’Rourke?until?O’Rourke’s?arrest?on?October?12,?1982.
On?cross-examination,?the?prosecution?inquired?about?the?events?that?led?to?O’Rourke’s?arrest.?The?defense?objected?that?the?question?was?beyond?the?scope?of?direct?examination.?[107]?After?a?conference?at?the?bench,?the?court?ruled?that?the?prosecution?could?inquire?about?the?circumstances?leading?to?the?arrest,?but?not?about?O’Rourke’s?subsequent?conviction.?Defendant?assigns?error?to?this?ruling.?The?ruling?was?correct.
A?witness?”may?be?cross-examined?upon?any?matter?within?the?scope?of?the?direct?examination.”?(Evid.?Code,???773.)?Here,?O’Rourke’s?involvement?in?illegal?activities?was?relevant?to?probe?the?value?of?the?opinions?he?had?expressed.?His?testimony?on?direct?examination?gave?the?impression?that?defendant,?after?his?release?from?prison,?had?made?efforts?to?reform?by?engaging?in?lawful?employment.?He?had?also?testified?that?defendant?was?a?[1?Cal.4th?475]?person?who?would?discourage?other?inmates?from?acts?of?violence.?The?incident?which?led?to?O’Rourke’s?arrest,?in?which?he?agreed?and?attempted?to?furnish?an?illegal?firearm?(a?sawed-off?shotgun),?was?legitimate?impeachment?of?O’Rourke’s?testimony.?The?evidence?was?not?offered?to?prove?defendant’s?involvement?in?this?criminal?activity,?but?rather?to?cast?doubt?on?O’Rourke’s?ability?to?fairly?judge?defendant’s?rehabilitation?and?propensity?for?violence.
- Testimony?of?Ricky?Carpenter?and?Evidence?of?1971?Robbery
In?January?1985,?before?the?guilt?trial?commenced,?the?prosecution?notified?the?defense?of?its?intent,?if?there?was?a?penalty?phase,?to?present?evidence?that?defendant?had?fatally?stabbed?inmate?Leroy?Banks?at?San?Quentin?in?1978.?The?prosecution?provided?the?names?of?correctional?officers?it?intended?to?call?for?this?purpose,?and?provided?a?copy?of?defendant’s?prison?file,?or?C-file,?which?contained?reports?about?the?incident.
Ricky?Carpenter?was?an?inmate?who?was?present?when?defendant?stabbed?Banks.?At?the?time,?he?had?declined?to?discuss?the?matter?with?law?enforcement?authorities.?After?the?jury?returned?its?guilt?verdicts?in?this?case?on?May?9,?1986,?Paul?Tulleners,?a?Department?of?Justice?investigator?who?worked?with?the?prosecution?in?this?case,?contacted?Carpenter,?who?was?then?on?parole.?On?May?27,?1986,?Carpenter?met?with?Tulleners?and?gave?a?statement?explaining?how?and?why?defendant?had?killed?Banks.?On?May?29,?1986,?the?prosecution?informed?the?defense?for?the?first?time?that?it?would?call?Carpenter?as?a?penalty?witness.?The?defense?sought?a?protective?order?to?preclude?him?from?testifying,?claiming?it?had?received?inadequate?notice.?The?court?ruled?that?Carpenter?could?not?testify?during?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief,?but?that?he?could?testify?in?rebuttal?if?the?defense?questioned,?challenged,?or?refuted?the?testimony?of?the?correctional?officer?about?defendant’s?involvement?in?the?Banks?killing.
The?penalty?trial?began?on?June?9,?1986.?During?the?prosecution’s?case-?in-chief,?Rodney?Perryman?testified?that?he?was?working?as?a?correctional?officer?in?San?Quentin?on?May?29,?1978,?when?he?saw?defendant?with?his?arms?around?Banks?making?jabbing?motions?and?then?saw?a?knife?drop?from?defendant’s?hand.?When?he?arrived?at?the?scene?defendant?was?drenched?with?blood.?Perryman?was?impeached?with?evidence?that?in?his?report?describing?the?incident?he?had?not?mentioned?seeing?defendant?make?jabbing?motions?or?drop?a?knife.?[1?Cal.4th?476]
During?the?defense?case,?defendant?testified?on?direct?examination?that?he?was?never?prosecuted?for?stabbing?Banks,?although?the?correctional?authorities?did?place?him?in?the?adjustment?center?for?three?years?as?a?result?of?the?incident.?Defendant?also?testified?that?he?did?not?kill?Hickey.?He?explained:?”I-I’m?not?personally?capable?of?doing?what-whoever?did?that?to?Elizabeth.?I?couldn’t?have?done?that.”
Thereafter,?the?trial?court?ruled?that,?in?light?of?the?cross-examination?of?Perryman?about?omissions?in?his?report?and?defendant’s?testimony?that?he?was?not?charged?with?stabbing?Banks,?and?in?light?also?of?defendant’s?denial?that?he?was?capable?of?a?brutal?murder,?the?prosecution?could?use?Carpenter?in?rebuttal.?Carpenter?then?testified,?on?June?25,?1986,?that?defendant?told?him?he?would?kill?Banks?for?”disrespecting”?another?AB?member,?and?that?he?then?saw?defendant?stab?Banks?10?to?15?times.
The?trial?court?did?not?err?in?admitting?Carpenter’s?testimony?on?rebuttal.?Section?190.3,?fourth?paragraph,?generally?bars?the?prosecution?from?presenting?evidence?in?aggravation?at?the?penalty?phase?if?it?did?not?give?the?defendant?notice?of?the?evidence?within?a?reasonable?time?before?trial.?But?nothing?in?the?language?of?the?provision?requires?exclusion?of?evidence?that?the?prosecution?became?aware?of?only?after?the?trial?began.?As?we?have?explained:?”Such?a?construction?would?be?inconsistent?with?the?purpose?of?section?190.3?that?the?jury?be?made?aware?of?all?of?the?factors?bearing?on?the?penalty?decision.”?(People?v.?Jennings?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963,?987?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475].)
Because?defendant?had?been?notified?before?the?guilt?trial?that?the?Banks?killing?would?be?used?in?aggravation?at?the?penalty?phase,?because?the?prosecution?gave?the?defense?prompt?notice?when?it?first?became?aware?that?Carpenter?would?be?a?witness,?and?because?the?defense?had?sufficient?additional?time?to?prepare?to?meet?Carpenter’s?testimony,?defendant?was?not?denied?any?rights?under?the?notice?provision?of?section?190.3,?and?the?trial?court?should?have?permitted?the?prosecution?to?use?Carpenter’s?testimony?during?its?case-in-chief.?This?error?by?the?trial?court?did?not?prejudice?the?defense.?The?ruling?put?the?defense?on?notice?that?Carpenter?was?a?likely?witness?in?rebuttal,?and?it?gave?the?defense?additional?time?to?prepare?to?meet?that?evidence.
[109]?On?cross-examination?of?defendant,?the?prosecution?inquired?about?a?robbery?defendant?had?committed?in?Humboldt?County?in?1971.?Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?erred?when?it?overruled?an?objection?to?this?question?as?being?beyond?the?scope?of?direct?examination.?We?find?no?error.?Having?placed?his?capacity?for?violence?in?issue?by?his?testimony?on?direct?[1?Cal.4th?477]?examination?that?he?was?incapable?of?the?murder?of?Hickey,?defendant?may?not?complain?about?cross-examination?on?specific?instances?of?violent?behavior.?Although?a?robbery?is?admittedly?violence?of?a?different?order?than?a?brutal?murder,?this?consideration?goes?to?weight?rather?than?admissibility.?We?find?no?abuse?of?the?broad?discretion?vested?in?the?trial?court?to?control?the?scope?of?relevant?cross-examination.?(People?v.?Wissenfeld?(1951)?36?Cal.2d?758,?765?[227?P.2d?833].)- Cross-examination?About?Stolen?Gun
As?we?have?noted,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?at?the?guilt?phase?that?Rebecca?Williams?attempted?to?have?a?gunsmith?repair?a?pistol?that?lacked?a?serial?number,?and?that?she?later?told?a?police?officer?she?had?been?acting?for?defendant.?The?owner?of?the?company?that?manufactured?the?gun?testified?that?it?must?have?been?stolen?from?the?factory?before?it?was?imprinted?with?a?serial?number.?During?the?penalty?phase?cross-examination?of?defendant,?the?prosecutor?asked?defendant?where?he?had?obtained?this?stolen?gun.?The?trial?court?overruled?a?defense?objection?that?the?question?exceeded?the?scope?of?direct?examination,?and?defendant?answered?that?he?had?obtained?it?from?Janet?Myers?in?Los?Angeles?in?December?1982.
[110]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?erred?in?overruling?the?defense?objection?because?defendant?did?not?mention?the?gun?on?direct?examination?and?because?his?possession?of?an?apparently?stolen?firearm?was?not?relevant?to?any?aggravating?factor.?The?trial?court?did?not?err?in?its?ruling.?On?direct?examination,?defendant?made?general?claims?of?innocence?and?rehabilitation.?For?example,?he?testified?that?when?he?was?released?from?prison?in?1982,?his?plan?had?been?to?reintegrate?himself?into?society.?Referring?to?his?emotions?as?he?listened?to?the?testimony?of?the?witnesses?about?the?Montana?incident,?he?said:?”It?made?me?feel?like?I?had?been?insensitive?and?less?than?I’d?like?to?be.”?Defendant?flatly?denied?he?was?guilty?of?the?crimes?he?had?been?convicted?of.?This?claim?of?innocence?encompassed?a?claim?that?he?was?not?guilty?of?a?conspiracy?with?AB?leaders?to?assassinate?Richard?Barnes?and?to?accumulate?guns?for?the?AB.?To?challenge?these?claims?of?rehabilitation?and?innocence,?the?prosecution?could?properly?cross-examine?defendant?about?his?illegal?possession?(see???12021?[a?convicted?felon’s?possession?of?a?firearm?is?a?felony])?of?an?apparently?stolen?firearm?shortly?after?his?release?from?prison?in?September?1982.?(Evid.?Code,???773.)- Highway?Sign?Evidence
Defendant?testified?that?a?man?named?Kenny?gave?him?the?guns?from?the?Hickey?residence?on?February?18,?1983,?in?Lakeport.?He?said?he?drove?from?[1?Cal.4th?478]?Rebecca?Williams’s?residence?in?Auburn?to?Redding?on?February?17?to?meet?Kenny,?but?Kenny?was?not?there.?He?said?he?then?called?Hickey,?who?told?him?Kenny?had?been?delayed?by?road?and?weather?conditions?and?would?meet?him?the?following?morning?in?Lakeport,?which?he?did.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?defendant?about?a?Texaco?credit?card?receipt?showing?he?had?purchased?gasoline?in?Upper?Lake?on?February?18,?1983.?Defendant?testified?that?he?drove?from?Redding?past?the?Lakeport?turnoff?to?the?gas?station,?then?doubled?back?and?proceeded?to?Lakeport.
[111]?On?rebuttal,?investigator?Paul?Tulleners?testified?that?he?had?reviewed?Department?of?Transportation?records?containing?photographs?of?the?signs?at?the?Lakeport?turnoff.?After?the?trial?court?overruled?a?defense?objection?on?hearsay?and?best-evidence-rule?grounds,?Tulleners?testified?about?the?size?and?appearance?of?the?signs?as?shown?in?the?records.?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?this?ruling.?The?point?is?trivial.?Assuming?error,?defendant?could?not?have?been?prejudiced.The?size?and?condition?of?the?signs?at?the?Lakeport?turnoff?was?never?an?issue.?Defendant?admitted?that?he?went?out?of?his?way?to?purchase?gasoline,?but?he?never?claimed?he?did?so?because?inadequate?signs?caused?him?to?miss?the?turnoff.?Rather,?his?testimony?plainly?implied?that?he?intentionally?detoured?from?the?most?direct?route?to?patronize?a?gas?station?that?would?accept?his?Texaco?credit?card.?Finally,?defense?counsel?later?testified?to?his?own?personal?observations?of?the?signs,?which?were?apparently?consistent?with?the?testimony?of?Tulleners.
- Prosecutorial?Misconduct
- Opinions?of?Montana?Crime?Victims
Gerald?O’Bresley,?a?sheriff’s?officer?from?Montana,?testified?as?a?prosecution?witness?to?the?December?1971?incident?in?which?defendant,?while?being?transported?in?Montana?with?other?prisoners,?disarmed?O’Bresley?and?William?Farago,?another?officer,?and?forced?them?into?the?trunk?of?their?patrol?car.?On?redirect,?the?prosecutor?asked:?”Now,?sometime?after?that,?did?you?have?occasion?to?draft?a?letter?to?the?parole?authorities?in?Montana?recommending?that?they?not?release?this?particular?man?”?Defense?counsel?objected?that?the?question?exceeded?the?scope?of?cross-examination,?and?the?trial?court?sustained?the?objection.?The?prosecutor?did?not?pursue?the?matter?with?O’Bresley.
The?next?witness?was?William?Farago.?On?redirect?examination,?the?prosecutor?asked:?”[I]n?1974,?did?you?have?occasion?to?express?an?opinion?to?[1?Cal.4th?479]?the?Board?of?Pardons?concerning?whether?or?not?the?man?who?had?done?this?to?you?should?be?paroled?from?the?Montana?State?prison?”?Defense?counsel?objected?that?the?question?was?beyond?the?scope?of?cross-?examination.?The?trial?court?sustained?the?objection,?and?the?prosecutor?did?not?pursue?the?matter.
[112]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor?should?have?known?that?the?questions?were?improper?as?calling?for?an?opinion?on?future?dangerousness?or?an?emotional?reaction?from?a?crime?victim.?Defendant?contends?further?that?the?sustaining?of?the?objection?to?the?question?asked?of?O’Bresley?placed?the?prosecutor?on?notice?that?it?would?be?improper?to?ask?essentially?the?same?question?of?Farago.At?the?penalty?phase,?the?prosecution?may?introduce?evidence?of?the?emotional?effect?of?defendant’s?prior?violent?criminal?acts?on?the?victims?of?those?acts.?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330];?People?v.?Clark,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?583,?629;?People?v.?Karis?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?612,?641?[250?Cal.Rptr.?659,?758?P.2d?1189].)?To?the?extent?the?prosecutor?sought?an?”emotional?reaction”?from?O’Bresley?and?Farago,?the?questions?were?not?so?plainly?improper?as?to?constitute?misconduct.?Nor?did?the?questions?plainly?call?for?a?prediction?of?future?dangerousness;?they?could?be?understood?as?merely?an?assessment?of?the?seriousness?of?defendant’s?criminal?conduct.?Finally,?the?sustaining?of?the?first?objection,?on?the?ground?that?the?question?exceeded?the?scope?of?cross-examination,?did?not?put?the?prosecutor?on?notice?that?he?could?not?ask?the?same?question?of?a?different?witness?subjected?to?different?cross-examination.
- Characterizing?Banks?Killing?as?Murder
During?cross-examination?of?Rodney?Perryman,?the?correctional?officer?who?testified?to?his?observation?of?the?fatal?prison?stabbing?of?African-American?inmate?Leroy?Banks,?defense?counsel?asked?about?racial?tensions?in?the?prison?that?day.?”Well,?there?was?tension?just?because?a?murder?in?that?housing?unit,”?Perryman?answered.?Defense?counsel?asked?the?court?to?strike?the?word?”murder.”?One?of?the?prosecutors?interjected,?”I?don’t?know?what?else?it?could?be?characterized?as.”?Defense?counsel?suggested?it?might?be?self-?defense.?The?trial?court?struck?the?word?”murder,”?admonished?the?jurors?that?they?were?to?determine?what?had?happened,?and?suggested?that?the?incident?be?referred?to?as?an?assault.?Later,?on?redirect,?the?prosecutor?in?a?question?referred?to?”this?assault?as?the?judge?called?it.”
[113]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutors?should?have?known?it?was?improper?for?them?to?characterize?a?homicide?as?”murder”?and?that?the?[1?Cal.4th?480]?reference?to?”this?assault?as?the?judge?called?it”?was?an?improper?use?of?sarcasm?to?remind?the?jury?of?their?personal?belief?that?the?Banks?killing?was?in?fact?murder.?Although?it?would?be?improper?for?a?prosecutor?to?use?the?term?”murder”?in?questioning?a?witness?about?an?unadjudicated?killing,?a?prosecutor?is?of?course?free?to?argue?to?the?jury,?after?all?the?evidence?had?been?presented,?that?it?should?find?that?a?killing?was?murder.?Here,?the?prosecutors?never?used?the?term?”murder”?in?questioning?Perryman?about?the?Banks?homicide.?Although?the?prosecutor’s?suggestion?that?the?killing?could?only?be?murder?was?premature,?and?should?have?been?reserved?for?argument,?defendant?was?not?prejudiced.?The?testimony?of?Perryman?and?Carpenter?plainly?supported?a?finding?of?murder,?and?the?defense,?while?attacking?the?credibility?of?the?prosecution’s?witnesses,?did?not?present?any?affirmative?evidence?to?support?a?finding?that?the?killing?was?self-defense?or?manslaughter.- Reference?to?1971?Montana?Attempted?Robbery
Before?the?guilt?trial?began,?the?trial?court?had?ruled?that?defendant’s?1971?Montana?attempted?robbery?conviction?was?constitutionally?infirm.?The?infirmity?of?the?conviction?did?not?preclude?the?prosecution?from?introducing?evidence?of?the?offense?itself?at?the?penalty?phase?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation?(??190.3,?factor?(b)),?but?the?defense?later?moved?to?preclude?such?use?on?the?ground?it?had?not?received?sufficient?notice?(??190.3,?4th?par.).?In?a?written?ruling,?the?trial?court?said?it?seemed?very?unlikely?that?the?defense?had?been?prejudiced?by?the?lack?of?notice,?but?that?”[t]o?assure?avoidance?of?error?this?shall?be?saved?for?rebuttal.”
The?first?reference?to?the?Montana?attempted?robbery?occurred?during?the?prosecution’s?cross-examination?of?defense?witness?Rogers?Larry,?a?San?Quentin?correctional?officer?who?testified?that?defendant?had?been?a?respectful?and?well-behaved?prisoner.?He?testified?that?he?knew?defendant?at?San?Quentin?for?”about?three?years”?at?some?time?between?1971?and?1975.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?a?series?of?questions?challenging?the?testimony?that?defendant?was?at?San?Quentin?during?this?time.?He?asked?whether?the?witness?would?be?surprised?to?learn?that?defendant?was?released?on?parole?in?March?1971?and?did?not?return?to?San?Quentin?until?1975.?The?witness?continued?to?maintain?that?defendant?had?been?at?San?Quentin?for?three?years?between?1971?and?1975.
The?prosecutor?then?asked?the?witness?if?he?could?explain?how?defendant?could?have?been?arrested?in?Montana?in?April?1971?”with?a?gun,?high-speed?chase?and?everything.”?The?witness?answered?”no,”?and?defense?counsel?requested?permission?to?approach?the?bench.?[1?Cal.4th?481]
At?the?bench,?the?court?offered?to?admonish?the?jury?to?disregard?the?reference?to?defendant’s?arrest?after?a?high-speed?chase.?Defense?counsel?moved?for?mistrial,?and?the?court?denied?the?motion.?The?prosecutor?argued?that?the?question?was?proper?because?evidence?of?the?incident?would?be?presented?on?rebuttal,?in?accordance?with?the?court’s?earlier?ruling.?The?trial?court?indicated?that?although?evidence?of?the?arrest?might?well?be?admissible?in?rebuttal,?it?should?not?be?mentioned?before?that?time.?Defense?counsel?said?he?would?consider?the?court’s?offer?to?admonish?the?jury,?but?he?never?accepted?the?offer.
Later,?during?cross-examination?of?defendant,?the?court?ruled?that?the?prosecutor?could?ask?defendant?about?the?1971?Montana?attempted?robbery.?Defendant?then?admitted?that?he?had?used?a?pistol?during?an?attempt?to?rob?a?man?at?a?grocery?store,?and?that?he?had?been?arrested?after?a?four-?or?five-?mile?pursuit?by?officers?of?the?Montana?Highway?Patrol.
[114]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecutor’s?reference?to?the?Montana?arrest?in?the?question?to?Officer?Larry?was?misconduct?because?the?relevance?of?the?matter?was?clearly?outweighed?by?the?risk?of?prejudice?and?because?the?reference?clearly?violated?the?court’s?earlier?ruling.?The?question?was?not?a?violation?of?the?court’s?ruling,?which?only?affected?admissibility?of?evidence?of?the?criminal?conduct?during?the?prosecution’s?penalty?phase?case-in-chief.?The?ruling?did?not?bar?reference?to?the?incident?during?otherwise?proper?cross-examination?of?defense?witnesses,?as?shown?by?the?court’s?later?ruling?during?cross-examination?of?defendant.?In?any?event,?defendant?could?not?have?been?prejudiced?by?the?reference?in?the?question?to?Officer?Larry?because?defendant?later?testified?fully?to?the?events?in?question.- Failure?to?Prove?Facts?Implied?by?Questions
The?remaining?instance?occurred?during?cross-examination?of?defendant.?The?prosecutor?asked,?”Why?did?you?tell?Rebecca?Williams?to?lie?about?the?Jennings?.22?caliber?semiautomatic?pistol?”?Defense?counsel?objected?that?the?question?was?argumentative?and?assumed?facts?not?in?evidence.?Impliedly?sustaining?the?objection,?the?trial?court?directed?the?prosecutor?to?ask?defendant?if?he?had?told?Williams?to?lie.?Defendant?denied?that?he?had?done?so,?but?his?answers?effectively?admitted?that?he?had?invented?the?false?story?that?the?gun?was?a?gift?from?a?grandfather?and?that?he?had?urged?Williams?to?use?the?story?when?she?retrieved?the?gun?from?the?gunsmith.?The?prosecutor?asked?a?few?more?questions?along?this?line,?but?defense?counsel?made?no?further?objections.
We?find?no?evidence?of?prosecutorial?misconduct?in?this?incident.?The?trial?court?sustained?the?only?objection?raised?by?defense?counsel,?and?defendant?effectively?admitted?that?he?had?indeed?urged?Williams?to?lie?about?the?gun.
- Improper?Offer?of?Proof
Patricia?Sewell?testified?as?a?defense?witness?about?her?acquaintance?with?defendant?while?he?was?an?inmate?at?the?prison?in?Montana.?Later,?defense?witness?Fred?Perry,?who?had?been?one?of?defendant’s?fellow?inmates?in?prisons?in?Montana?and?Idaho,?testified?about?the?poor?living?conditions?and?mistreatment?of?inmates?at?those?prisons.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?asked?if?he?knew?Sewell.?The?defense?objected?on?relevance?grounds?and?the?court?asked?for?an?offer?of?proof.?The?prosecutor?said,?”I’m?going?to?ask?him?if?he?finds?it?strange?that?she?didn’t?mention?that?these?people?….”?Defense?counsel?interrupted?and?requested?that?the?prosecutor?make?the?offer?of?proof?out?of?the?jury’s?presence.?At?the?bench,?the?prosecutor?said?that?Sewell’s?testimony?had?not?indicated?that?she?had?seen?any?injuries?to?defendant,?that?he?had?complained?to?her?about?beatings?or?living?conditions,?or?that?she?had?taken?any?steps?to?publicize?the?deplorable?prison?environment?that?Perry?had?described.?The?court?noted?that?this?might?be?a?proper?subject?for?argument,?but?that?it?would?be?improper?to?ask?Perry?to?explain?omissions?in?Sewell’s?testimony.
[117]?Defendant?argues?that?the?prosecutor?committed?misconduct?because?the?proposed?questions?were?clearly?improper?for?two?reasons.?First,?as?[1?Cal.4th?483]?the?trial?court?noted,?Perry?could?not?be?expected?to?explain?omissions?in?Sewell’s?testimony.?Second,?any?attempt?by?the?defense?to?show?that?defendant?had?complained?to?Sewell?about?prison?conditions?would?have?been?barred?by?the?hearsay?rule.?We?agree?that?the?proposed?examination?of?Perry?was?improper,?although?we?note?that?Sewell?herself?could?have?been?asked?whether?she?personally?observed?any?injuries?to?inmates?or?other?signs?of?mistreatment.?We?also?conclude,?however,?that?the?trial?court’s?ruling?sustaining?the?defense?objection?avoided?any?conceivable?prejudice.?The?improper?questions?were?never?asked.Defendant?also?argues?that?the?prosecutor?acted?improperly?by?attempting?to?make?his?offer?of?proof?in?front?of?the?jury.?The?prosecutor’s?conduct?was?neither?improper?nor?prejudicial.?The?trial?court?requested?an?immediate?offer?of?proof?and?did?not?ask?counsel?to?approach?the?bench.?In?any?event,?the?prosecutor’s?offer?in?the?jury’s?hearing?was?interrupted?and?completed?at?the?bench.?The?portion?of?the?offer?that?the?jury?heard,?consisting?of?a?single?incomplete?sentence,?contained?nothing?prejudicial?to?the?defense.
- Cross-examination?of?Defendant?About?Banks?Killing
On?direct?examination,?defendant?testified?that?he?was?not?prosecuted?for?the?killing?of?inmate?Leroy?Banks,?although?he?received?administrative?punishment,?and?that?his?counsel?had?advised?him?not?to?discuss?the?matter?during?his?testimony?in?this?trial.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecution?asked?whether?defendant’s?motive?for?stabbing?Banks?was?that?Banks?had?made?disparaging?remarks?about?another?inmate.?Defense?counsel?objected?and?a?hearing?was?held?outside?the?jury’s?presence.?At?the?conclusion?of?the?hearing,?the?court?said?it?needed?additional?time?to?think?about?the?matter?and?directed?the?prosecutor?to?proceed?with?cross-examination?”with?the?exception?of?that?area.”
After?a?five-day?break?in?the?proceedings,?the?prosecutor?resumed?cross-?examination?of?defendant,?during?which?he?asked:?”Let’s?talk?about?the?Banks?incident.?May?29th,?1978,?in?San?Quentin?Prison.?Why?did?you?stab?inmate?Banks?twenty,?thirty?times?to?death?”?At?defense?counsel’s?request,?a?hearing?was?held?at?the?bench.?The?court?decided?to?defer?a?ruling?on?the?matter?and?instructed?the?prosecution?to?proceed?on?other?topics.
[118]?Defendant?contends?that?the?prosecution’s?second?inquiry?into?the?Banks?matter?was?a?deliberate?violation?of?a?court?ruling?and?therefore?misconduct.?The?record?provides?little?support?for?this?view.?The?prosecutor?explained?during?the?bench?hearing?that?he?had?understood?that?questioning?on?the?Banks?matter?had?been?deferred?only?to?give?defense?counsel?additional?time?to?discuss?with?defendant?whether?he?should?answer?the?questions?[1?Cal.4th?484]?or?assert?his?privilege?against?self-incrimination?and?thereby?risk?having?his?entire?testimony?stricken.?The?trial?court?apparently?accepted?this?as?a?plausible?interpretation?of?its?ruling.?In?any?event,?there?is?no?reasonable?possibility?of?prejudice.?Defendant?explained?on?direct?examination?that?he?was?not?discussing?the?Banks?incident?on?advice?of?counsel.?The?allegedly?improper?questions?did?no?more?than?illustrate?this?fact.- Argumentative?Questions?Addressed?to?Defendant
- Argument?to?the?Jury
During?the?arguments?to?the?jury,?after?referring?to?the?killings?of?Hickey,?Barnes,?and?Banks,?the?prosecutor?said,?”The?defendant?should?die?for?any?one?of?those?murders.”?The?defense?objected?that?this?misstated?the?law.?The?court?responded,?”The?jury?is?instructed?on?the?law.?They’ll?follow?the?law.?They?know?what?the?facts?are.”
[120]?Defendant?contends?that?the?argument?constituted?misconduct?because?it?invited?the?jurors?to?impose?the?death?penalty?if?they?believed?it?was?warranted?for?the?Banks?murder,?even?though?they?might?not?believe?it?was?warranted?for?the?Hickey?or?Barnes?murder.?We?do?not?believe?a?reasonable?juror?would?understand?the?argument?as?an?invitation?to?focus?on?one?of?the?crimes?to?the?exclusion?of?the?others.?Rather,?the?prosecutor?was?commenting?on?the?heinous?character?of?each?of?the?homicides?defendant?had?committed.?The?jury?was?entitled?to?consider?the?seriousness?of?each?of?those?crimes?in?determining?penalty.Fred?Filyau,?a?correctional?officer?at?the?Humboldt?County?jail?where?defendant?was?incarcerated?before?and?during?the?trial?in?this?case,?was?a?prosecution?witness?at?the?penalty?phase.?He?testified?that?defendant?had?threatened?to?”visit”?Filyau?after?he?got?out.?The?prosecutor?mentioned?this?[1?Cal.4th?485]?incident?during?argument?to?the?jury,?and?then?added:?”Well,?you?know,?in?this?business?…?we?get?threatened?all?the?time.?And?every?time?I’ve?been?threatened-“?The?defense?objected?that?the?statement?assumed?facts?not?in?evidence,?and?the?trial?court?sustained?the?objection.?[121]?Defendant?contends?the?remark?was?improper?because?it?suggested?that?the?prosecutor?might?have?been?threatened?in?this?case.
Although?defense?counsel?objected,?he?did?not?request?an?admonition.?Because?an?admonition?would?have?cured?any?harm,?the?point?is?not?preserved?for?review.?(People?v.?Miller,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?954,?1001.)
[122]?At?one?point?during?the?argument,?the?prosecutor?said:?”Give?me?something,?Mr.?Price,?to?show?this?jury?why?they?should?not?render?a?verdict?of?death.”?fn.?22?Defendant?contends?the?remark?was?improper?because?he?was?not?permitted?to?speak?during?the?prosecutor’s?argument,?and?so?could?not?have?responded?to?the?question.?We?are?confident?the?jury?understood?the?statement?for?what?it?was,?a?rhetorical?device.?In?any?event,?the?point?was?waived?by?failure?to?object?or?request?an?admonition.- Exclusion?of?Defendant’s?Writings?and?Testimony?About?Carpenter’s?Parole?Status
Defendant?asserts?error?in?two?unrelated?rulings?by?the?trial?court?excluding?evidence?offered?by?the?defense.?He?contends?these?rulings?violated?his?rights?to?present?a?defense?and?to?receive?a?reliable?penalty?verdict?under?the?Sixth?and?Eighth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.
- Exclusion?of?Defendant’s?Writings
The?defense?offered?a?number?of?defendant’s?writings?as?evidence?in?mitigation?to?show?his?sensitivity,?compassion,?and?writing?ability.?These?writings?were:?(1)?a?two-page?short?story?entitled?”Shortly?and?the?Apple?Orchard”?about?a?child’s?experience?with?a?horse;?(2)?a?seventeen-page?description?of?life?in?prison,?entitled?”Chapter?Two:?San?Quentin?State?Prison?1970-1971″;?(3)?a?three-page?essay?entitled?”A?Boxcar?Realization”?discussing?how?prison?inmates?repress?their?emotions?to?avoid?appearing?vulnerable?and?how?this?causes?them?to?dismiss?or?ignore?the?emotional?trauma?suffered?by?crime?victims;?(4)?a?two-page?letter?of?apology,?apparently?addressed?to?the?defense?[1?Cal.4th?486]?investigator;?(5)?a?seven-page?letter?of?advice?to?a?friend?facing?imprisonment?for?the?first?time;?(6)?a?five-page?autobiographical?sketch,?entitled?”Incorrigible,”?about?defendant’s?experiences?with?the?juvenile?justice?system?in?Oregon;?(7)?a?five-page?essay?entitled?”The?Kind?of?Juror?I?Would?Like”;?and?(8)?twenty-three?pages?of?notes?and?letters?addressed?to?the?trial?judge?protesting?the?shackling?order?and?jail?conditions?during?the?trial.?The?trial?court?admitted?all?of?these?exhibits?except?the?last,?which?the?court?excluded?as?hearsay?containing?an?incomplete?and?misleading?account?of?the?justification?for?the?shackling?order.
[123]?Defendant?maintains?that?the?ruling?is?erroneous?because?the?letters?and?notes?to?the?trial?judge?were?not?offered?for?the?truth?of?the?matters?stated?but?merely?to?demonstrate?defendant’s?capacity?for?self-?expression.?We?find?no?error?in?the?court’s?ruling.?Given?the?large?volume?of?defendant’s?writings?that?were?received?in?evidence,?the?writings?in?question?were?properly?excluded?as?cumulative?on?the?issue?of?defendant’s?ability?to?express?himself?in?writing.?(See?People?v.?Redmond?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?904,?912?[176?Cal.Rptr.?780,?633?P.2d?976].)- Impeachment?of?Ricky?Carpenter
The?defense?sought?to?impeach?the?testimony?of?Ricky?Carpenter,?the?former?inmate?who?described?how?he?assisted?defendant?in?the?stabbing?of?Leroy?Banks.?Carpenter?admitted?on?direct?examination?that?he?was?on?parole,?that?he?had?been?granted?immunity?for?the?Banks?killing,?and?that?he?had?received?some?$800?to?relocate?his?family.?On?cross-examination,?Carpenter?admitted?using?heroin?in?January?1986,?but?he?said?he?had?not?used?it?since.?He?denied?that?tests?in?April?and?June?of?1986?had?detected?illegal?drugs?in?his?system.?He?said?six?or?seven?months?remained?on?his?parole?period,?and?that?the?prosecution?had?not?offered?to?reduce?this?period.
Testifying?as?a?defense?witness?on?rebuttal,?Carpenter’s?parole?officer?said?that?Carpenter?had?tested?positive?for?morphine?in?drug?tests?he?took?in?May?and?June?of?1986,?and?that?he?had?admitted?heroin?use.?She?testified?further?that?Carpenter’s?use?of?heroin?was?a?parole?violation?but?that?revocation?proceedings?had?not?yet?been?instituted.?[124]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?excluding?evidence?that?Carpenter’s?parole?officer?had?been?unable?to?verify?Carpenter’s?employment.?We?find?no?error?in?the?ruling.
Evidence?about?the?status?of?a?prosecution?witness’s?parole?is?admissible?to?show?the?witness’s?potential?bias?resulting?from?concern?about?possible?revocation.?(See?Davis?v.?Alaska?(1974)?415?U.S.?308,?318?[39?L.Ed.2d?347,?354-355,?94?S.Ct.?1105].)?For?this?reason,?the?trial?court?properly?admitted?[1?Cal.4th?487]?the?evidence?that?Carpenter?was?on?parole?and?that?he?could?face?revocation?as?a?result?of?his?use?of?illegal?drugs.?But?evidence?about?the?parole?officer’s?inability?to?verify?his?employment?had?no?comparable?relevance.?When?the?parole?officer?was?asked?about?this?matter,?outside?the?jury’s?presence,?she?testified?that?maintaining?gainful?employment?was?not?a?condition?of?Carpenter’s?parole.?Although?she?said?she?had?not?yet?verified?Carpenter’s?employment,?she?did?not?say?this?would?affect?in?any?way?the?likelihood?of?parole?revocation.?Thus,?the?proposed?testimony?had?no?value?for?impeachment.
- Excluded?Testimony?of?Defendant’s?Dietician?and?Counselor
Defendant?asserts?error?in?three?trial?court?rulings?restricting?the?testimony?of?the?dietician?and?the?counselor?whom?the?court?had?appointed?to?assist?defendant.?He?contends?that?these?rulings?violated?his?right?to?a?reliable?penalty?determination?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?federal?Constitution.
[125]?The?defense?asked?Helen?Vatcher,?the?state-licensed?counselor?who?counseled?defendant?during?the?trial,?whether?she?had?ever?seen?defendant?cry.?The?prosecution?objected?on?relevance?grounds?and?the?trial?court?sustained?the?objection.?Defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?ruling,?however,?because?the?witness?answered?”yes”?to?the?question?and?the?trial?court?did?not?strike?the?answer.?When?defense?counsel?asked?the?witness,?a?short?time?later,?whether?she?had?ever?seen?defendant?”express?extreme?emotional?pain,”?the?witness?answered:?”Yes.?He?cried?with?me.”Patricia?Manuel,?a?dietician,?testified?as?a?defense?witness?about?defendant’s?diet?in?jail?during?the?trial?and?the?effect?of?poor?nutrition?on?defendant’s?physical?and?emotional?health.?Before?she?testified,?the?prosecution?requested?an?offer?of?proof.?Defense?counsel?said,?among?other?things,?that?the?witness’s?testimony?would?help?to?explain?why?defendant?”felt?he?could?not?come?to?court.”?The?trial?court?remarked?that?”[w]hether?[defendant]?came?to?court?is?irrelevant.”?Yet?the?trial?court?ruled?that?the?proposed?testimony?was?admissible?to?counter?the?prosecution’s?evidence?about?defendant’s?violent?encounters?with?officers?at?the?jail.
[126]?Defendant?contends?the?court?erred?in?precluding?testimony?about?the?effect?of?nutrition?on?his?decision?not?to?be?present?in?the?courtroom?during?the?guilt?trial.?We?disagree.?Defendant?testified?fully?about?his?decision?not?to?attend?the?guilt?trial.?The?court’s?ruling?permitted?the?dietician?to?describe?defendant’s?diet?during?the?trial?and?to?explain?its?probable?effect?on?defendant’s?emotional?and?physical?health.?How?the?diet?[1?Cal.4th?488]?affected?any?particular?decision?defendant?made?was?beyond?the?scope?of?the?witness’s?expertise?and?would?necessarily?involve?some?degree?of?reliance?on?hearsay.?It?was?a?proper?subject?for?argument,?but?not?for?testimony?by?this?witness.Defendant?also?complains?of?the?trial?court’s?ruling?sustaining?an?objection?to?a?question?asking?the?dietician?why?defendant?was?a?vegetarian.?The?witness?testified?without?objection?that?defendant?was?a?vegetarian?but?the?trial?court?correctly?observed?that?his?reasons?for?being?a?vegetarian?were?not?relevant?to?the?opinions?the?witness?expressed?about?the?adequacy?of?his?diet?and?its?effects?on?his?health.?[127]?Defendant?argues?that?his?reasons?for?being?a?vegetarian?were?relevant?to?show?”his?sensitivity?and?the?uniqueness?of?his?character.”?The?issue?is?not?preserved?for?review?because?defendant?made?no?offer?of?proof.?(Evid.?Code,???354.)?Moreover,?as?the?trial?court’s?ruling?implied,?the?proper?way?to?present?such?evidence?was?by?defendant’s?own?testimony.?In?fact,?defendant?did?explain?briefly,?and?without?objection,?that?as?a?result?of?the?stresses?he?experienced?during?the?trial?he?”got?to?where?[he]?couldn’t?eat?meat?…?couldn’t?eat?oily?things,?greasy?things.”
- Failure?to?Instruct?on?Residual?Doubt
After?the?jury?returned?its?guilt?verdicts,?one?of?the?jurors?was?replaced?by?an?alternate.?Defendant?contends?that?this?development?required?the?court?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?in?making?the?penalty?determination?the?substituted?juror?could?consider?doubts?about?defendant’s?guilt,?that?the?substituted?juror?could?explain?the?basis?for?those?doubts?to?the?other?jurors,?[1?Cal.4th?489]?and?that?the?other?jurors?could?consider?residual?doubts?raised?after?discussing?the?guilt?evidence?with?the?substituted?juror.?The?trial?court?was?not?required?to?so?instruct.
The?trial?court?instructed?the?jurors?that?they?were?”entitled?to?review?all?the?evidence?admitted?during?the?guilt?phase”?and?that?they?might?”discuss?that?evidence?and?questions?[the?substituted?juror]?may?have?to?it?during?your?deliberations?on?penalty.”?Moreover,?as?we?have?already?concluded,?the?instructions?given?adequately?conveyed?the?message?that?the?jury?could?consider?lingering?doubts?about?guilt.?Nothing?more?was?required.?(See?People?v.?Kaurish,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?648,?708;?People?v.?Gonzalez?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1234-1236?[275?Cal.Rptr.?729,?800?P.2d?1159].)
- Instructions?Relating?to?Banks?Homicide
When?the?prosecution?has?introduced?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?of?other?violent?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?(??190.3,?factor?(b)),?a?trial?court?is?not?required,?absent?a?request,?to?instruct?on?the?elements?of?specific?crimes?that?this?evidence?tends?to?prove.?(People?v.?Clark,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?583,?627.)?”This?rule?recognizes?that?a?defendant?for?tactical?considerations?may?not?want?the?penalty?phase?instructions?overloaded?with?a?series?of?lengthy?instructions?on?the?elements?of?alleged?other?crimes,?perhaps?because?he?[or?she]?fears?that?such?instructions?could?result?in?the?jury?placing?undue?significance?on?such?other?crimes?rather?than?on?the?central?question?of?whether?he?[or?she]?should?live?or?die.”?(People?v.?Phillips?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?29,?73,?fn.?25?[222?Cal.Rptr.?127,?711?P.2d?423].)?Because?defendant?did?not?request?instructions?on?second?degree?murder?or?manslaughter,?the?trial?court?was?under?no?duty?to?instruct?on?those?offenses.
In?instructing?the?jury,?the?trial?court?stated?that?the?crime?of?murder?included?an?unlawful?killing?during?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?an?inherently?dangerous?felony.?As?defendant?correctly?observes,?this?part?of?the?instruction?was?not?applicable?to?the?Banks?homicide,?because?the?evidence?did?not?show?defendant?killed?Banks?in?the?course?of?committing?an?inherently?dangerous?felony.?We?conclude,?however,?that?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?inapplicable?instruction.?The?only?homicide?offense?fully?defined?for?the?jury?was?first?degree?murder?by?premeditation?and?[1?Cal.4th?490]?deliberation.?If?the?jurors?believed?Carpenter’s?testimony,?defendant?was?necessarily?guilty?of?this?offense,?and?the?finding?of?premeditation?and?deliberation?would?necessarily?include?a?finding?of?intent?to?kill.?If?the?jurors?rejected?Carpenter’s?testimony?and?did?not?find?premeditation?and?deliberation,?then?the?instructions?became?irrelevant?because?they?did?not?define?second?degree?murder?or?manslaughter.?In?that?event,?the?jury?would?make?its?own?evaluation?of?the?aggravating?force?of?defendant’s?conduct?without?regard?to?its?legal?label.?J.?Challenges?to?Death?Penalty?Law?and?Denial?of?Modification?Motion
To?preserve?issues?for?collateral?review?in?federal?courts,?defendant?challenges?our?death?penalty?law?on?various?grounds?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?and?Fourteenth?Amendments?to?the?federal?Constitution.?He?concedes?this?court?has?previously?rejected?each?of?these?challenges.?Thus,?we?have?held?that?the?jury?may?consider,?as?a?circumstance?in?aggravation?at?the?penalty?phase,?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?prior?unadjudicated?criminal?activity.?(People?v.?Medina,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?870,?906-907,?and?cases?cited.)?The?prosecution?may?rely?on?evidence?of?prior?unadjudicated?criminal?activity?even?though?prosecution?for?those?acts?would?be?barred?by?the?statute?of?limitations.?(People?v.?Robertson,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?18,?42-44.)?The?jury?need?not?employ?the?beyond-a-reasonable-doubt?standard?in?determining?whether?or?not?aggravating?circumstances?other?than?violent?criminal?conduct?(see?People?v.?Caro?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1035,?1057?[251?Cal.Rptr.?757,?761?P.2d?680])?are?present?or?whether?death?is?the?appropriate?penalty.?(People?v.?Bell,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?502,?553;?People?v.?Williams,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1322.)?The?jury?is?not?required?to?make?written?findings?or?to?agree?unanimously?on?the?presence?of?individual?aggravating?circumstances.?(People?v.?Duncan?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?955,?979?[281?Cal.Rptr.?273,?810?P.2d?131].)?The?trial?court?need?not?clarify?the?standard?jury?instruction?(CALJIC?No.?8.84.1)?to?explain?that?the?circumstances?of?the?crime?in?the?present?proceeding?(??190.3,?factor?(a))?and?criminal?activity?involving?violence?(??190.3,?factor?(b))?are?mutually?exclusive?factors.?(People?v.?Duncan,?supra,?at?p.?979.)?The?jury?may?use?defendant’s?commission?of?a?felony?to?elevate?a?killing?to?first?degree?murder,?to?find?a?special?circumstance,?and?as?a?factor?in?aggravation.?(Id.?at?p.?980.)?He?provides?no?persuasive?reason?to?reconsider?these?holdings.
[130]?Defendant?also?urges?us?to?set?aside?the?trial?court’s?ruling?denying?defendant’s?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?penalty?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e))?because?the?court?considered?various?documents?revealed?at?hearings?during?the?trial,?a?presentence?report,?and?a?statement?by?the?mother?of?murder?victim?Elizabeth?Hickey.?We?disagree.?[1?Cal.4th?491]The?record?shows?that?the?victim’s?mother?made?her?statement?after?the?court?had?denied?the?modification?motion;?that?statement?could?not?have?influenced?the?trial?court’s?ruling.?Although?the?court?was?exposed?during?the?course?of?trial?to?documents?and?testimony?that?were?ultimately?not?received?in?evidence,?the?record?does?not?rebut?the?presumption?that?the?court?understood?and?fulfilled?its?obligation?to?decide?the?modification?motion?solely?on?the?basis?of?the?evidence?presented?to?the?jury.?The?court?mentioned,?before?it?denied?the?modification?motion,?that?it?had?considered?the?presentence?report,?but?it?did?not?allude?to?the?report?or?its?contents,?or?to?anything?not?presented?to?the?jury,?during?the?detailed?explanation?it?gave?for?denying?the?modification?motion.?Under?these?circumstances,?we?presume?that?the?court?considered?the?presentence?report?only?for?the?purpose?of?sentencing?on?the?noncapital?offenses,?and?that?it?did?not?influence?the?court’s?decision?to?deny?the?modification?motion.?(People?v.?Lang,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?991,?1044.)
- Cumulative?Effect?of?Guilt?and?Penalty?Phase?Errors
- Sentencing?on?the?Noncapital?Offenses
The?trial?court?sentenced?defendant?to?the?upper?term?of?five?years?for?the?Triplex?robbery?(??213),?with?a?two-year?enhancement?for?gun?use?(??12022.5).?The?court?imposed?consecutive?terms?of?eight?and?sixteen?months?for?possession?of?the?stolen?Moore?weapons?(??496)?and?burglary?of?the?Hickey?residence?(??461).?The?court?added?a?one-year?enhancement?for?a?prior?prison?term?(??667.5,?subd.?(a)),?for?a?total?determinate?term?of?ten?years.?The?court?made?this?determinate?term?consecutive?to?an?indeterminate?sentence?of?25?years?to?life?for?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes?(??190).
[132]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?relied?on?improper?reasons?for?imposing?the?upper?term?for?the?Triplex?robbery.?The?trial?court?gave?seven?reasons?for?this?sentence?choice.?Defendant?contends?that?three?of?these?reasons?are?invalid?and?that?two?others?overlap.?Respondent?concedes?that?one?of?the?court’s?reasons?is?invalid?and?declines?to?dispute?defendant’s?argument?regarding?a?second?reason,?but?he?argues?that?the?remaining?five?reasons?adequately?support?the?court’s?sentencing?choice.?[1?Cal.4th?492]When?a?trial?court?has?given?both?proper?and?improper?reasons?for?a?sentence?choice,?a?reviewing?court?will?set?aside?the?sentence?only?if?it?is?reasonably?probable?that?the?trial?court?would?have?chosen?a?lesser?sentence?had?it?known?that?some?of?its?reasons?were?improper.?(People?v.?Avalos?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?216,?233?[207?Cal.Rptr.?549,?689?P.2d?121].)?Here,?the?trial?court?stated?three?very?powerful?reasons?for?selecting?the?upper?term?for?the?Triplex?robbery:?the?planning?and?sophistication?of?the?crime?(including?defendant’s?use?of?a?wig?and?makeup,?and?his?actions?in?casing?the?theater?before?the?crime)?showed?premeditation?(Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?421(a)(8));?the?amount?of?money?defendant?stole?($7,000)?was?substantial?(id.,?rule?421(a)(10));?and?defendant?had?engaged?in?a?pattern?of?violent?conduct?which?indicates?a?serious?danger?to?society?(id.,?rule?421(b)(1)).?Given?these?reasons,?which?defendant?concedes?are?valid,?and?the?absence?of?circumstances?in?mitigation,?it?is?not?reasonably?probable?the?court?would?have?chosen?a?lesser?sentence?had?it?known?that?some?or?all?of?the?reasons?for?selecting?the?upper?term?were?improper.
Respondent?concedes?that?the?trial?court?erred?under?section?654?in?imposing?punishment?for?both?the?murder?of?Elizabeth?Hickey?and?the?burglary?of?her?residence,?both?offenses?being?part?of?a?single?indivisible?transaction.?We?agree.?(See?People?v.?Milan?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?185,?197?[107?Cal.Rptr.?68,?507?P.2d?956].)?We?will?stay?execution?of?sentence?on?the?burglary?count.
[133]?We?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?section?654?precludes?punishment?for?both?the?Barnes?murder?and?the?Hickey?murder?because?the?Barnes?murder?was?used?as?a?special?circumstance?for?the?Hickey?murder.?Section?654?does?not?preclude?separate?punishment?for?crimes?of?violence?committed?against?separate?victims.?(People?v.?Beamon?(1973)?8?Cal.3d?625,?638,?fn.?10?[105?Cal.Rptr.?681,?504?P.2d?905].)?Moreover,?defendant?will?be?required?to?serve?the?sentence?for?the?Barnes?murder?only?in?the?event?the?death?sentence?for?the?Hickey?murder?is?set?aside.- Issues?Concerning?Appellate?Record
During?the?trial,?the?defense?sought?discovery?of?all?statements?made?to?law?enforcement?authorities?by?Michael?Thompson,?Clifford?Smith,?and?Janet?Myers,?and?all?Department?of?Corrections?records?concerning?the?AB.?The?prosecution?asserted?that?much?of?the?requested?material?was?either?irrelevant?or?protected?by?the?statutory?privileges?for?official?information?(Evid.?Code,???1040)?and?the?identity?of?confidential?informants?(id.,???1041).?The?trial?court?held?a?series?of?closed?hearings,?from?which?the?defense?was?excluded?(see?id.,???915,?subd.?(b)),?to?rule?on?the?prosecution’s?[1?Cal.4th?493]?objections?to?disclosure.?Transcripts?of?these?hearings,?and?documents?that?the?trial?court?ruled?not?subject?to?discovery,?are?part?of?the?appellate?record?and?have?been?provided?to?this?court?under?seal.
On?September?19,?1989,?defendant’s?appellate?counsel?submitted?a?motion?asking?this?court?to?review?the?sealed?materials?and?determine?whether?any?portions?could?be?released?to?the?defense.?In?response?to?the?motion,?this?court?released?some?400?pages?of?reporter’s?transcripts?of?the?hearings,?after?deletion?of?confidential?material?disclosed?during?the?course?of?the?hearings.?Thereafter,?on?June?27,?1990,?appellant?sent?us?a?letter?requesting?clarification?of?our?ruling.?We?deemed?the?letter?a?motion?for?reconsideration?and?denied?it?on?August?15,?1990.
Defendant?maintains,?first,?that?he?cannot?determine?whether?in?camera?hearings?have?been?held?for?which?transcripts?do?not?exist?or?for?which?transcripts?exist?but?have?not?been?released?by?this?court.?This?court?has?released?to?appellate?counsel?redacted?copies?of?all?reporter’s?transcripts?in?the?appellate?record?that?have?not?previously?been?provided?to?the?defense.?After?lengthy?proceedings?in?the?trial?court,?in?which?appellate?counsel?participated,?the?superior?court?clerk?certified?the?record?as?complete.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rules?35(c),?39.5.)?We?find?no?reason?to?question?that?certification.
Second,?defendant?maintains?that?this?court?must?release?the?documents?that?the?trial?court?found?to?be?not?subject?to?discovery?on?grounds?of?relevance?or?privilege?so?that?appellate?counsel?can?decide?whether?those?rulings?were?properly?made.?We?may?not?do?so.?Evidence?that?the?trial?court?has?found?to?be?privileged?may?not?be?released?without?the?consent?of?the?holder?of?the?privilege.?(Evid.?Code,???915,?subd.?(b).)?Nor?do?we?find?any?authority?requiring?the?disclosure?of?information?held?nondiscoverable?on?relevance?grounds.?In?many?instances?the?court?did?not?reach?the?prosecution’s?claims?of?privilege?because?the?material?had?no?conceivable?relevance.?To?disclose?such?material?now?could?reveal?privileged?information.
Parties?who?challenge?on?appeal?trial?court?orders?withholding?information?as?privileged?or?otherwise?nondiscoverable?”must?do?the?best?they?can?with?the?information?they?have,?and?the?appellate?court?will?fill?the?gap?by?objectively?reviewing?the?whole?record.”?(People?v.?Collins?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?378,?395,?fn.?22?[228?Cal.Rptr.?899,?722?P.2d?173].)?[134]?Based?on?the?transcripts?we?have?released,?defendant?argues?that?certain?of?the?trial?court’s?rulings?were?prejudicially?erroneous,?but?defendant?is?mistaken?in?each?instance.
The?trial?court?ruled?that?the?polygraph?operators’?opinions?about?the?veracity?of?Michael?Thompson?were?not?discoverable?because?they?were?not?[1?Cal.4th?494]?admissible?evidence?(Evid.?Code,???351.1).?Although?the?prosecution?has?a?duty?to?inform?the?defense?of?polygraph?results?that?cast?doubt?on?the?credibility?of?a?prosecution?witness?(U.S.?v.?MacEntee,?supra,?713?F.Supp.?829,?831),?defendant?could?not?have?been?prejudiced?because?polygraph?results?are?inadmissible?and?the?defense?was?well?aware?of?many?other?grounds?to?question?Thompson’s?credibility.?A?memorandum?written?by?Department?of?Justice?Investigator?Paul?Tulleners,?noting?disagreements?with?coworkers?and?supervisors?about?which?materials?should?be?disclosed?to?the?defense?and?expressing?his?personal?feelings?about?these?disputes,?contains?nothing?of?legitimate?use?to?the?defense;?all?such?disputes?were?resolved?ultimately?by?the?court’s?rulings.?The?trial?court’s?remark?on?February?26,?1985,?that?it?had?not?reviewed?Michael?Thompson’s?entire?”C-file,”?does?not?mean?the?court?never?did?so.?On?the?same?page?of?the?transcript?the?court?said?that?it?would?”look?at?it?and?see?what’s?in?there.”?The?trial?court?properly?ruled?on?February?28,?1985,?that?material?would?not?be?disclosed?because?it?was?not?severable?from?privileged?material.?When?the?prosecutor?on?March?4,?1985,?said?one?entry?was?”being?hidden,”?he?was?referring?to?the?name?and?address?of?a?person?who?was?a?relative?of?a?potential?witness?and?who?could?be?endangered?by?disclosure,?and?not?to?any?material?relevant?to?this?case.?Having?carefully?reviewed?the?whole?record,?we?find?no?prejudicial?error?in?the?trial?court’s?rulings?denying?discovery.?We?reject?defendant’s?claims?that?the?trial?court’s?rulings,?or?the?methods?employed?by?this?court?to?review?those?rulings,?denied?defendant?any?of?his?federal?constitutional?rights?under?the?Fifth,?Sixth,?Eighth,?or?Fourteenth?Amendments.
- Conclusion
Execution?of?sentence?for?the?crime?of?burglary?is?stayed.?In?all?other?respects,?the?judgment?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?Jury?selection?began?in?June?1985.?The?jury?returned?guilt?verdicts?in?May?1986?and?a?penalty?verdict?in?July?1986.?The?lengthy?proceedings?yielded?an?appellate?record?of?over?44,000?pages?of?transcript,?apparently?the?largest?appellate?record?this?court?has?received?in?a?death?penalty?case.?The?briefing?has?been?similarly?gargantuan.?The?appellant’s?opening?brief?alone?is?900?pages,?with?690?footnotes.
FN?2.?The?prosecution?theorized?that?defendant?had?made?the?incisions?to?verify,?by?the?absence?of?bleeding,?that?he?had?succeeded?in?killing?Hickey.
FN?3.?Defendant’s?stepfather?testified?that?defendant?arrived?on?February?18,?the?day?before?the?Hickey?killing,?but?the?prosecution?presented?a?variety?of?evidence?from?which?the?jury?could?conclude?that?this?testimony?was?inaccurate?and?that?defendant?must?have?arrived?on?February?19?or,?even?more?likely,?on?February?20.
FN?4.?Defendant?maintains?he?was?severely?prejudiced?by?publicity?about?the?extraordinary?length?and?cost?of?the?proceedings?against?him,?yet?he?fails?to?explain?how?such?publicity?would?jeopardize?his?chances?of?receiving?a?fair?trial.?We?doubt?that?jurors?would?be?more?likely?to?convict?defendant?because?the?trial?was?costly.
FN?5.?”Every?trial?court?may?order?a?party,?the?party’s?attorney,?or?both?to?pay?any?reasonable?expenses,?including?attorney’s?fees,?incurred?by?another?party?as?a?result?of?bad-faith?actions?or?tactics?that?are?frivolous?or?solely?intended?to?cause?unnecessary?delay.?…”?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???128.5,?subd.?(a).)
We?have?no?occasion?here?to?determine?whether?sanctions?under?this?provision?may?be?imposed?in?a?criminal?proceeding.?(See?People?v.?Cook?(1989)?209?Cal.App.3d?404?[257?Cal.Rptr.?226]?[holding?the?provision?inapplicable?to?criminal?cases].)
FN?6.?”The?court?in?its?discretion?may?exclude?evidence?if?its?probative?value?is?substantially?outweighed?by?the?probability?that?its?admission?will?(a)?necessitate?undue?consumption?of?time?or?(b)?create?substantial?danger?of?undue?prejudice,?of?confusing?the?issues,?or?of?misleading?the?jury.”?(Evid.?Code,???352.)
FN?7.?Defense?counsel?produced?a?card?he?had?received?from?the?prosecution?during?the?jury?selection?process.?The?card?was?indexed?in?the?name?of?Juror?Number?Three,?with?a?post?office?box?address.?It?said?”This?guy?tried?to?sue?the?D.A.’s?office.”?Defense?counsel?argued?that?the?prosecution?could?not?claim?it?was?harmed?by?Juror?Number?Three’s?lack?of?candor?because?the?prosecution?was?alerted?to?the?situation?and?could?easily?have?discovered?Juror?Number?Three’s?background.?The?prosecutor?responded?that?Juror?Number?Three’s?questionnaire?had?indicated?an?address?different?from?that?shown?on?the?card,?and?that?Juror?Number?Three’s?answers?had?led?him?to?conclude?that?the?information?on?the?card?referred?to?another?person?with?the?same?name.
FN?8.?We?reject?defendant’s?contention?that?Juror?Number?Three’s?Oregon?pardon?gave?him?a?right?to?withhold?all?information?that?would?tend?to?disclose?the?existence?of?the?conviction.?Although?the?pardon?extinguished?the?conviction,?so?that?Juror?Number?Three?could?truthfully?answer?he?had?not?been?convicted?of?the?offense,?he?could?not?truthfully?claim?he?had?not?been?a?defendant?in?the?Oregon?criminal?proceeding,?that?he?had?never?been?incarcerated?in?Oregon,?or?that?he?had?never?served?a?term?of?parole.
FN?9.?As?a?result?of?the?October?26?incident,?Officer?St.?Denis?had?established?a?policy,?effective?November?12,?that?officers?having?contact?with?defendant?should?never?place?themselves?in?a?compromising?position.?In?particular,?he?directed?officers?to?stand?behind?defendant?when?placing,?removing,?or?adjusting?defendant’s?leg?irons.
FN?10.?The?trial?court?noted?that?on?November?20,?1985,?during?the?hearing?on?the?need?for?shackling,?defendant?asked?the?prosecutor?whether?he?was?a?”nasty?person.”?Because?defendant?had?engaged?in?the?same?kind?of?verbal?provocation?before?his?October?26?attack?on?Officer?Silvia,?and?after?his?November?19?attack?on?Officer?Wolf,?this?incident?provided?additional?support?for?the?trial?court’s?assessment?that?unless?physically?restrained?defendant?would?likely?resort?to?violence?in?the?courtroom.
FN?11.?The?next?day,?the?trial?court?had?defendant?brought?to?the?courtroom?and?asked?him?to?state?his?reasons?for?wishing?to?discharge?Attorney?DePaoli.?Defendant?said?he?had?come?to?court?against?his?will?because?the?jail?officers?threatened?to?beat?him?physically?if?he?resisted;?he?declined?to?give?reasons?for?wanting?to?discharge?DePaoli.?When?the?court?directed?that?defendant?be?returned?to?the?jail,?defendant?said,?”The?next?time?you?see?me,?they?are?going?to?have?to?use?the?force?they?threatened?today?if?you?ever?do?this?to?me?again.”
FN?12.?The?sixth?person?did?not?remark?on?any?of?the?photographs.?The?lineup?was?also?shown?to?another?theater?employee?who?had?not?witnessed?the?robbery?but?who?had?seen?a?man?whose?appearance?and?actions?resembled?those?of?the?robber.?This?man?had?been?in?the?theater?one?month?before?the?robbery.?He?had?so?alarmed?the?employee?that?she?had?summoned?the?police,?but?the?man?had?gone?when?they?arrived.?This?employee?remarked?that?defendant’s?facial?features?were?similar?to?those?of?the?man?she?had?seen.
FN?13.?During?a?hearing?on?exhibits?at?the?end?of?the?guilt?phase,?the?prosecutor?remarked?that?those?portions?of?the?documents?that?the?trial?court?had?ruled?to?be?prior?inconsistent?statements?were?already?part?of?the?record,?and?that?the?documents?themselves?were?therefore?cumulative.?The?prosecutor?may?have?confused?prior?inconsistent?statements?with?past?recollection?recorded.?When?a?written?statement?is?admissible?as?past?recollection?recorded,?”The?writing?may?be?read?into?evidence,?but?the?writing?itself?may?not?be?received?in?evidence?unless?offered?by?an?adverse?party.”?(Evid.?Code,???1237,?subd.?(b).)?There?is?no?similar?limitation?on?admission?of?documents?containing?inconsistent?statements.
FN?14.?Defendant?fails?to?explain?why?Hickey?could?not?more?easily?have?obtained?cash?for?the?guns?by?taking?them?to?a?pawn?shop?or?gun?dealer.
FN?15.?We?question?whether?a?complete?failure?to?articulate?a?theory?of?admissibility?can?be?excused?as?a?”technical?insufficiency.”?(See?People?v.?Carrera?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?291,?324-325?[777?P.2d?121].)
FN?16.?During?argument?in?the?trial?court,?defense?counsel?said,?”There?should?be?a?hearing?to?decide?the?reliability?of?it,?the?reliability?of?the?people?who?were?giving?it,?the?circumstances?under?which?it?was?conducted?and?the?purposes?for?which?it?was?to?be?considered?to?be?used.”?Defendant?construes?this?statement?as?a?request?for?a?hearing?to?determine?the?reliability?of?the?polygraph?technique?used?in?Petry’s?examination.?In?context,?however,?the?statement?apparently?referred?to?the?state?of?the?law?when?Evidence?Code?section?351.1?was?enacted,?not?what?counsel?intended?to?prove?in?this?case.?Were?it?to?be?construed?as?an?offer?of?proof,?moreover,?the?statement?would?be?inadequate?because?it?failed?to?indicate?that?reliability?would?be?shown?according?to?the?required?standard?of?acceptance?in?the?scientific?community.
FN?17.?Defendant?argues?that?loading?the?weapons?was?consistent?with?possession?for?sale?because?a?potential?buyer?would?probably?want?to?test-fire?a?weapon.?The?argument?is?unpersuasive,?however,?because?a?potential?buyer?who?wanted?to?test-fire?a?weapon?would?also?want?to?load?it,?or?at?least?to?observe?it?being?loaded.
FN?18.?Defendant?also?challenges?the?prosecutor’s?reference?to?a?1980?incident?in?which?Stinson?received?a?hacksaw?blade,?but?Stinson?had?already?testified?to?this?incident?without?objection.
FN?19.?Defendant’s?trial?counsel?cited?the?hearsay?rule?twice?in?objecting?to?the?letter.?We?therefore?reject?the?argument?of?the?Attorney?General?that?the?objection?based?on?the?hearsay?rule?has?not?been?preserved?for?appeal.
FN?20.?Although?the?trial?court?did?not?instruct?the?jury?on?the?vicarious?liability?of?aiders?and?abettors,?it?did?instruct?the?jury?on?vicarious?liability?as?applied?to?conspiracy,?in?these?words:?”Every?person?who?joins?a?criminal?conspiracy?and?its?formation?and?to?adopt?its?purposes?and?objects?is?liable?for?and?bound?by?the?acts?and?declarations?of?other?members?of?a?conspiracy?done?and?made?during?the?time?that?he?is?a?member?and?in?pursuance?and?furtherance?of?the?conspiracy.”
FN?21.?The?trial?court?gave?the?familiar?jury?instruction?that?a?defendant?may?not?be?convicted?on?circumstantial?evidence?unless?the?facts?and?circumstances?are?not?only?consistent?with?guilt,?but?also?inconsistent?with?any?other?reasonable?conclusion.?Defendant?urges?us?to?apply?this?standard?on?appeal?and?to?overrule?our?earlier?decisions?holding?that?it?is?primarily?for?the?guidance?of?the?trier?of?fact.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Bean?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?919,?932-933?[251?Cal.Rptr.?467,?760?P.2d?996];?People?v.?Towler?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?105,?118?[181?Cal.Rptr.?391,?641?P.2d?1253].)?We?decline?the?invitation.
FN?22.?The?transcript?indicates?a?pause?after?this?statement.?Defendant?interprets?this?to?mean?that?the?prosecutor?waited?dramatically?for?defendant?to?answer?the?question.?On?the?preceding?page?of?the?transcript,?however,?the?reporter?has?indicated?two?other?pauses.?After?one,?the?prosecutor?said,?”See,?I’m?jumping?around?and?now?I?come?across?the?notes?….”?Thus,?it?may?be?that?the?prosecutor?stopped?momentarily?not?to?permit?defendant?to?answer,?or?as?if?expecting?an?answer,?but?merely?to?consult?his?notes?and?compose?his?thoughts.