People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?144;?812?P.2d?163
[No.?S004721.Jul?11,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ANTHONY?JOHN?SULLY,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-14026,?Gerald?E.?Ragan,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Broussard,?Panelli,?Kennard,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment.)
COUNSEL
- Courtney?Shevelson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Renee?L.?Berenson?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,?Morris?Beatus?and?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
LUCAS,?C.?J.
Defendant?appeals?from?his?capital?sentence?following?conviction?of?six?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187;?all?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?stated)?with?a?special?circumstance?of?multiple?murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3)).?Finding?no?reversible?error,?we?affirm?the?conviction?and?sentence.
Facts?and?Proceedings
Summary
Defendant?killed?five?women?and?one?man?in?bizarre?episodes?involving?prostitution?and?cocaine?use.?Although?he?denied?committing?any?of?the?murders,?extensive?circumstantial?and?physical?evidence,?as?well?as?accomplice?testimony,?supported?his?conviction?on?each?count.?At?the?penalty?phase,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?defendant’s?threats?to?kill?his?estranged?wife?and?her?daughter.?Rejecting?defendant’s?testimony?(which?denied?all?charges),?the?jury?convicted?him?on?all?counts,?made?the?requested?multiple-murder?special-circumstance?finding,?and?fixed?the?penalty?at?death.
The?Guilt?Phase
Defendant?served?for?nearly?eight?years?as?a?police?officer?for?the?City?of?Millbrae,?where?he?was?trained?in?fingerprint?detection?and?other?law?enforcement?techniques.?On?leaving?police?service,?he?established?a?successful?electrical?contracting?business,?eventually?located?in?a?warehouse?in?Burlingame.?He?converted?the?front?of?the?warehouse?to?his?personal?residence.?Before?the?crimes?at?issue?here,?defendant?invested?several?thousand?dollars?as?a?coventurer?in?an?”escort?service”?and?regularly?used?prostitutes’?[53?Cal.3d?1211]?services.?He?freebased?cocaine?and?had?sex?with?prostitutes?at?the?warehouse,?subjecting?the?prostitutes?to?rape,?beatings,?and?other?forms?of?violence.
- Gloria?Fravel
Defendant?met?Tina?Livingston?in?1982?when?she?was?a?partner?in?an?escort?service.?Gloria?Fravel?worked?as?a?prostitute?for?Tina?Livingston.?She?also?owed?Livingston?$500,?having?incurred?charges?in?that?amount?on?Livingston’s?credit?card.?Fravel?was?picked?up?by?Livingston?and?Angel?Burns,?another?prostitute,?in?San?Francisco?on?a?Friday?afternoon?and?transported?to?defendant’s?warehouse,?ostensibly?to?obtain?some?camping?equipment?from?defendant.?When?the?three?arrived?at?the?warehouse,?defendant?asked?Fravel?for?a?date.?When?she?declined,?he?slapped?her?across?the?face?and?directed?her?to?go?to?the?back?of?the?warehouse.
Defendant?kept?Fravel?in?the?back?of?the?warehouse?during?the?weekend,?while?Burns?and?Livingston?remained?out?front.?He?gagged?and?handcuffed?her?and?suspended?her?from?the?ceiling.?He?assured?Livingston?that?Fravel?would?repay?the?amount?she?owed.?After?having?sex?with?Fravel,?defendant?allowed?her?to?dress,?telling?her?she?would?be?permitted?to?go?home.?He?later?revoked?the?permission?and?gagged?and?bound?Fravel,?placing?her?on?the?bed.
Defendant?sat?on?a?chair?next?to?the?bed?and?fashioned?a?hangman’s?noose?from?a?piece?of?rope.?He?freebased?cocaine,?then?brutally?sodomized?Fravel.?At?some?point,?Fravel’s?gag?fell?off?and?she?began?screaming.?Livingston?and?Burns?attempted?unsuccessfully?to?replace?the?gag?and?to?silence?Fravel?by?tightening?the?hangman’s?noose?around?her?neck.?Defendant?intervened.?While?Burns?held?a?pillow?over?Fravel’s?head,?defendant?put?his?foot?against?the?back?of?her?neck,?and?jerked?hard?on?the?hangman’s?noose.?After?several?tugs,?Fravel’s?body?went?limp?and?her?bodily?fluids?spilled?out.
With?the?assistance?of?Burns?and?Livingston,?defendant?encased?Fravel’s?body?in?plastic?and?moved?it?into?a?car.?Burns?and?defendant?drove?away?to?dispose?of?the?body;?Livingston?cleaned?up?the?warehouse.?When?Burns?and?defendant?returned?several?hours?later,?Burns?was?covered?with?blood.?Burns?reported?to?Livingston?that?she?had?continued?to?choke?Fravel,?who?was?not?yet?dead?when?her?body?was?removed?from?the?warehouse.?Defendant?added?that?he?had?pulled?the?van?to?the?side?of?the?road?and?hit?Fravel?with?a?hatchet.?He?said?that?she?”bled?all?over?everything.”?According?to?defendant,?he?and?Burns?then?dumped?Fravel’s?body?on?Skyline?Drive,?where?it?was?later?discovered.?[53?Cal.3d?1212]
Post?mortem?examination?revealed?ligature?marks?on?Fravel’s?ankles?and?neck.?Her?mouth?was?open,?but?her?teeth?were?tightly?clenched.?She?also?suffered?numerous?irregularly?shaped?and?sized?penetrating?injuries,?including?one?below?the?right?ear?which?transsected?the?jugular?vein.?Fravel?died?of?severe?head?and?neck?injuries?due?to?combined?cuts?and?blunt?trauma.
Defendant?later?read?to?Livingston?a?newspaper?clipping?about?the?discovery?of?Fravel’s?body.?The?story?related?that?a?butcher?had?found?the?body,?a?fact?defendant?found?humorously?appropriate.
- The?Golden?Gate?Park?Barrel?Murders:?Brenda?Oakden,?Michael?Thomas,?and?Phyllis?Melendrez
Shortly?after?the?murder?of?Gloria?Fravel,?defendant?told?Livingston?he?wanted?to?take?a?completely?new?girl?(i.e.,?one?that?had?not?previously?had?professional?sex)?and?kill?her?before?anyone?else?”had”?her.?Livingston?later?called?defendant?and?told?him?about?Brenda?Oakden,?age?19,?a?roommate?of?a?receptionist?at?Livingston’s?escort?service.?Oakden?had?worked?for?the?service?on?one?occasion.?At?defendant’s?request,?Burns?escorted?a?nervous?Oakden?to?the?warehouse.?Defendant?later?told?Livingston?that?he?had?killed?Oakden?and?directed?Livingston?to?tell?Oakden’s?roommate?that?Oakden?had?left?to?”catch?a?bus.”?He?later?told?her?”[t]hat?the?only?difference?between?killing?someone?now?and?killing?someone?as?a?policeman”?was?that?the?police?had?permission?to?do?it.
Defendant?confided?to?Michael?Shing,?another?escort?service?owner,?that?he?had?murdered?a?pimp?and?his?prostitute?and?stuffed?their?bodies?into?barrels.?He?told?Shing?that?if?anyone?ripped?him?off,?he?killed?them.?He?described?how?he?had?forced?his?victims?to?kneel?before?he?shot?them?and?how?profusely?they?bled.?He?sought?Shing’s?advice?as?to?how?to?dispose?of?the?bodies.?Shing?suggested?Searsville?Lake.?Defendant?later?told?Livingston?that?he?had?to?dispose?of?the?barrels?because?they?were?stinking?up?his?warehouse.
The?bodies?of?Brenda?Oakden,?Michael?Thomas?and?Phyllis?Melendrez?were?found?in?barrels?in?Golden?Gate?Park.?All?three?died?of?gunshot?wounds?to?the?back?of?the?head.?Melendrez?had?been?struck?in?the?lip?before?she?was?killed?and?had?a?defensive?wound?on?her?hand.
In?addition?to?his?admissions,?defendant?was?linked?to?the?three?murders?by?a?variety?of?physical?and?other?evidence.?The?barrels?in?which?the?bodies?were?found?had?been?stolen?from?a?storage?yard?located?three?structures?away?from?defendant’s?warehouse.?Defendant’s?fingerprints?were?found?in?two?places?on?the?barrels.?In?one?place,?the?prints?were?left?in?wet?concrete?[53?Cal.3d?1213]?apparently?mixed?and?poured?to?seal?the?barrel.?Angel?Burns’s?palm?print?was?also?found?on?one?barrel.?Defendant?gave?inconsistent?statements?about?the?barrels,?stating?when?arrested?that?he?had?never?touched?the?barrels,?but?later?testifying?that?he?had?seen?them?on?his?property?and?had?touched?the?wet?concrete?out?of?curiosity.
Plastic?bags?resembling?those?around?Michael?Thomas’s?corpse?were?recovered?from?defendant’s?van;?the?recovered?bags?displayed?a?design?defect?identical?to?the?defect?in?the?bag?around?the?corpse.?Napkins?similar?in?color?and?red?wire?were?also?found?in?the?warehouse?and?vicinity?as?well?as?on?the?corpse.?Various?handguns?and?ballistics?textbooks?were?also?found?at?the?warehouse.?Defendant’s?removal?of?the?barrel?of?one?of?the?guns,?a?Smith?&?Wesson?revolver,?made?it?impossible?to?identify?it?as?a?murder?weapon.?Defendant’s?explanation?for?removing?the?barrel-that?he?wanted?to?install?a?longer?one?for?target?shooting-was?contradicted?by?of?one?of?his?employees,?who?testified?that?defendant?had?declined?an?invitation?to?go?target?shooting?because,?according?to?defendant,?it?did?not?interest?him.
- Barbara?Searcy
Barbara?Searcy?went?to?defendant’s?warehouse?with?Raleigh?Hall,?her?landlord,?to?collect?money?defendant?owed?her.?Searcy?later?told?a?friend?that?she?was?waiting?to?hear?back?from?a?man?she?had?seen?several?times?and?was?planning?to?see?in?Burlingame.?At?about?the?same?time,?defendant?left?a?message?on?Searcy’s?answering?machine?stating?he?had?”fifty”?for?her?and?wanted?a?”date.”?Defendant?testified?that?he?had?sex?with?Searcy?on?several?occasions?and?used?cocaine?with?her.?Although?he?did?not?consider?these?to?be?”dates”?in?the?”professional”?sense,?he?admitted?giving?her?money?when?she?needed?it.
Defendant?later?gave?Livingston?a?satchel?containing?Searcy’s?clothing?and?personal?items?and?told?her?that?he?badly?wanted?to?recover?a?recording?on?Searcy’s?answering?machine.?He?later?indicated?that?Livingston?would?be?able?to?go?to?Searcy’s?apartment,?recover?the?recording,?and?steal?the?rest?of?her?property.?Livingston?attempted?the?theft?in?the?company?of?another?man?but?was?frightened?away.?She?returned?to?the?warehouse?empty-handed.
When?Livingston?returned?to?the?warehouse,?defendant?showed?her?Searcy’s?body,?wrapped?in?opaque?plastic?sheeting,?in?a?green?hamper?outside?the?warehouse.?He?explained?that?he?had?killed?Searcy?for?”personal?reasons.”?They?loaded?her?body?into?defendant’s?pickup?truck.?Defendant?said?he?was?going?to?drag?the?body?so?it?would?be?beyond?recognition.?While?[53?Cal.3d?1214]?attempting?to?drag?the?body?behind?the?truck,?defendant?and?Livingston?unexpectedly?encountered?a?witness?and?sped?away,?leaving?the?body.
Searcy’s?body?was?discovered?the?next?day.?Defendant’s?right?footprint?was?found?on?a?green?trash?bag?stained?with?Searcy’s?blood?and?located?at?the?discovery?point.?Searcy?died?of?a?gunshot?wound?to?the?back?of?the?head.?Deep?scraping,?consistent?with?her?body?being?dragged,?was?inflicted?after?death.?Searcy?had?been?bound.?White?cotton?rope?was?found?along?the?road?near?the?body?and?around?Searcy’s?wrist.?Similar?rope?was?recovered?from?defendant’s?van.?Yellow?ski?rope?was?around?Searcy’s?ankles.?During?a?search?of?the?warehouse,?police?seized?yellow?ski?rope?containing?a?microscopic?defect?identical?to?a?defect?in?the?rope?binding?Searcy.
Following?his?arrest?for?Searcy’s?murder,?defendant?telephoned?Livingston?and?asked?her?to?contact?Michael?Francis,?a?juvenile,?to?see?if?he?would?”take?the?fall”?for?the?crime?in?exchange?for?$10,000.?He?later?offered?an?additional?$10,000?if?Francis?would?do?the?same?for?the?Kathryn?Barrett?murder?(see?discussion,?post),?and?predicted?Francis?would?serve?only?a?year?or?two?in?jail.?Defendant?was?overheard?by?police?asking?Francis?what?he?thought?of?the?”deal”?and?telling?Francis?he?would?have?an?excellent?chance?for?diminished?capacity.
- Kathryn?Barrett
Kathryn?Barrett,?a?drug?dealer,?offered?to?sell?defendant?six?ounces?of?cocaine.?Defendant’s?friend,?Michael?Francis,?suggested?that?they?steal?the?cocaine.?Defendant?agreed.?At?defendant’s?request,?Livingston?drove?Barrett?to?defendant’s?warehouse?and?went?to?a?local?bar?to?wait.?Defendant?called?Livingston?two?hours?later?and?told?her?she?need?not?pick?up?Barrett.
When?Livingston?returned?to?the?warehouse,?she?observed?Francis?stabbing?Barrett?in?the?chest.?When?Livingston?started?to?leave,?defendant?followed?and?intercepted?her,?telling?her?Barrett?would?not?be?recognized?even?if?someone?found?her.
Still?alive,?Barrett?continued?to?moan.?Disgusted?with?Francis’s?inability?to?kill?Barrett,?defendant?returned?to?their?location?in?the?warehouse.?Francis?later?emerged?alone,?looking?ill.?He?told?Livingston?that?defendant?had?hit?Barrett?in?the?mouth?with?a?sledgehammer,?stating?he?could?still?hear?her?bones?cracking.
Barrett’s?body?was?found?nude,?wrapped?in?plastic?sheeting,?on?a?street?in?South?San?Francisco.?On?post?mortem?examination,?her?death?was?attributed?to?swelling?around?the?brain,?loss?of?blood?resulting?from?knife?wounds,?[53?Cal.3d?1215]?and?trauma?inflicted?with?considerable?force?using?a?blunt?instrument.?Defendant’s?footprint?was?found?on?the?plastic?sheeting?surrounding?her?body.?A?Benson?and?Hedges?cigarette?butt?found?on?Barrett’s?forearm?bore?a?batch?number?identical?to?cigarettes?in?a?pack?found?in?the?warehouse.?Other?physical?evidence-metal?shavings?and?the?plastic?bag-also?linked?Barrett’s?murder?to?the?warehouse.
Defendant?testified?on?his?own?behalf?at?the?guilt?phase,?denying?that?he?committed?any?of?the?murders?and?attempting?to?place?the?blame?on?his?companions.
The?Penalty?Phase
Defendant?was?married?to?his?second?wife?for?a?little?more?than?a?year.?She?had?a?daughter?by?a?previous?marriage.?When?they?decided?to?divorce,?the?wife?and?daughter?moved?out?of?defendant’s?house.?The?morning?they?left,?defendant?was?up?early.?The?child?and?her?grandmother?went?to?the?backyard?where?the?child’s?pet?ducks?were?kept.?At?the?time,?several?ducklings?had?just?hatched.?The?child?and?grandmother?were?horrified?to?discover?the?baby?ducklings?torn?apart,?their?heads?ripped?off.
During?one?of?a?series?of?harassing?phone?calls?to?his?estranged?wife?after?the?incident?(the?call?was?monitored?by?an?acquaintance?of?the?wife?who?testified?to?defendant’s?statements),?defendant?said?he?was?going?to?cut?her?daughter’s?heart?out?as?he?had?done?with?the?ducks.?He?then?described?how?he?had?twisted?the?necks?off?the?ducks?and?took?their?hearts?out.?He?also?made?other?threats?of?violence,?including?death,?directed?toward?his?wife,?her?daughter,?and?her?parents.
Defendant?was?portrayed?by?various?defense?witnesses?as?a?good?electrician?and?employer?who?had?much?concern?for?children?and?animals.?One?witness?speculated?that?the?ducks?had?been?killed?by?raccoons.?The?defense?also?called?an?assistant?district?attorney?to?testify?that?the?prosecution?was?seeking?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?in?the?case?of?Angel?Burns,?defendant’s?accomplice.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?explained?that?the?penalty?decision?in?Burns’s?case?had?been?based?on?three?factors:?(1)?Burns?was?directly?involved?only?in?the?Fravel?murder;?(2)?she?was?only?21;?and?(3)?she?was?dominated?and?controlled?by?defendant,?who?was?the?main?actor?in?each?case.
Guilt?Phase?Issues
- The?Plea?Bargain?Agreement?With?Tina?Livingston
The?basic?condition?of?the?plea,?repeated?several?times?in?the?written?plea?agreement,?was?that?Livingston?provide?”truthful?and?complete”?statements?and?testify?”truthfully?and?completely?in?all?criminal?proceedings.”?She?was?also?required?to?submit?to?a?polygraph?examination?and?to?answer?truthfully?the?questions?put?to?her?during?the?examination.?Finally,?in?a?separate?condition?that?defendant?now?assails,?she?was?required?to?pass?a?polygraph?examination?stating?”that?she?had?no?physical?involvement?in?or?encouragement?of?the?deaths?of?Gloria?Jean?Fravel,?Phyllis?Melendrez?aka?Chris?Thomas,?Michael?K.?Thomas,?Brenda?Oakden?aka?Brenda?Rule,?and?Barbara?Lee?Searcy.”
Defendant?argues?that?the?plea?condition?requiring?Livingston?to?pass?a?polygraph?examination?with?respect?to?her?noninvolvement?in?the?murders?effectively?compelled?her?to?deny?in?her?testimony?that?she?was?the?perpetrator?or?an?accomplice?in?any?of?the?murders?in?violation?of?Medina.?We?reject?the?argument?for?two?independent?reasons.
[2]?First,?having?failed?to?advance?the?argument?below?by?way?of?pretrial?motion,?objection?to?Livingston’s?testimony,?or?other?appropriate?means,?defendant?has?waived?the?claim.?(See?Evid.?Code,???353;?People?v.?Hamilton?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?123,?141-?142?[249?Cal.Rptr.?320,?756?P.2d?1348];?People?v.?Poggi?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?306,?331?[246?Cal.Rptr.?886,?753?P.2d?1082];?People?v.?Burns?(1987)?196?Cal.App.3d?1440,?1453?[242?Cal.Rptr.?573].) [1b]?Second,?even?assuming?defendant?had?presented?the?argument?below,?he?fails?to?show?that?the?plea?condition?was?impermissibly?coercive.?[3]?As?we?observed?in?People?v.?Allen?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?1222,?1251-1252?[232?Cal.Rptr.?849,?729?P.2d?115]:?”?'[A]?defendant?is?denied?a?fair?trial?if?the?prosecution’s?case?depends?substantially?on?accomplice?testimony?and?the?accomplice?witness?is?placed,?either?by?the?prosecution?or?by?the?court,?under?a?strong?compulsion?to?testify?in?a?particular?fashion.’?…?Thus,?when?the?accomplice?is?granted?immunity?subject?to?the?condition?that?his?testimony?substantially?conform?to?an?earlier?statement?given?to?police?…?or?that?his?testimony?result?in?defendant’s?conviction?…?the?accomplice’s?testimony?is?’tainted?beyond?redemption’?and?its?admission?denies?defendant?a?fair?trial.?On?the?other?hand,?although?there?is?a?certain?degree?of?compulsion?inherent?in?any?plea?agreement?or?grant?of?immunity,?it?is?clear?[53?Cal.3d?1217]?that?an?agreement?requiring?only?that?the?witness?testify?fully?and?truthfully?is?valid.”?(Italics?added.) [1c]?The?polygraph?condition?did?not?dictate?Livingston’s?testimony.?On?its?face,?it?merely?required?her?to?show?in?a?polygraph?examination?that?she?was?not?involved?in?the?murders.?She?was?not?committed?to?a?script.?She?remained?free?to?testify?as?she?desired,?without?having?to?subscribe?to?any?particular?version?of?events.?For?example,?she?remained?free?to?testify,?without?violating?the?condition,?that?defendant?did?not?commit?the?murders?or?that?someone?else,?including?herself,?was?responsible.?As?such,?the?condition?itself?did?not?compel?Livingston?to?testify?in?any?particular?manner,?any?more?than,?for?example,?the?fact?that?she?had?given?previous?statements?to?the?effect?that?defendant,?and?not?she,?had?killed?the?victims. [4]?As?we?explained?in?People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?361?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680]:?”We?recognize?that?a?witness?…?is?under?some?compulsion?to?testify?in?accord?with?statements?given?to?the?police?or?the?prosecution.?The?district?attorney?in?the?present?case?obviously?believed?that?[the?witness’s]?last?statement?was?a?truthful?account,?and?if?she?deviated?materially?from?it?he?might?take?the?position?that?she?had?breached?the?bargain,?and?could?be?prosecuted?as?a?principal?to?murder.?But?despite?this?element?of?compulsion,?it?is?clear,?and?the?cases?so?hold?…?that?an?agreement?which?requires?only?that?the?witness?testify?fully?and?truthfully?is?valid,?and?indeed?such?a?requirement?would?seem?necessary?to?prevent?the?witness?from?sabotaging?the?bargain.?We?believe?the?requirements?of?due?process,?as?explained?in?Medina,?are?met?if?the?agreement?thus?permits?the?witness?to?testify?freely?at?trial?and?to?respond?to?any?claim?that?he?breached?the?agreement?by?showing?that?the?testimony?he?gave?was?a?full?and?truthful?account.”?(Citation?omitted.) [1d]?Under?the?plea?condition?at?issue?here,?although?Livingston?was?under?some?pressure?to?adhere?to?her?statements?that?she?had?not?killed?any?of?the?victims,?she?was?nonetheless?required?to?give?a?complete?and?truthful?account?at?trial?in?order?to?avoid?breaching?the?plea?agreement.?No?more?is?required?to?satisfy?Medina,?supra,?41?Cal.App.3d?438.?(See?also?People?v.?Garrison?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?746,?768-?771?[254?Cal.Rptr.?257,?765?P.2d?419];?People?v.?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1251-1255;?People?v.?Meza?(1981)?116?Cal.App.3d?988,?994?[172?Cal.Rptr.?531].)Not?only?was?Livingston?not?improperly?coerced?to?testify?”in?a?particular?fashion,”?moreover,?the?circumstances?corroborating?her?testimony?were?manifold.?(People?v.?Sepeda?(1977)?66?Cal.App.3d?700,?709?[136?Cal.Rptr.?119].)?With?respect?to?each?of?the?six?counts,?Livingston’s?testimony?was?corroborated?by?physical?evidence,?the?testimony?of?other?witnesses,?or?[53?Cal.3d?1218]?both.?The?defense?had?a?full?and?fair?opportunity,?with?full?knowledge?of?the?terms?of?the?plea?agreement,?to?impeach?Livingston’s?testimony?and?to?argue?her?credibility?to?the?jury.?Under?these?circumstances,?defendant?was?not?denied?a?fair?trial.?(People?v.?Morris?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?152,?192-193?[279?Cal.Rptr.?720,?807?P.2d?949];?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1094?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659];?People?v.?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?1255,?fn.?10;?People?v.?Harpool?(1984)?155?Cal.App.3d?877,?885?[202?Cal.Rptr.?467].)
- CALJIC?No.?2.11.5-Unjoined?Perpetrators?of?the?Same?Crime
The?court?instructed?the?jury?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?2.11.5?as?follows:?”There?has?been?evidence?in?this?case?indicating?that?a?person?other?than?defendant?was?or?may?have?been?involved?in?the?crime?or?crimes?for?which?the?defendant?is?on?trial.?You?must?not?discuss?or?give?any?consideration?as?to?why?the?other?person?is?not?being?prosecuted?in?this?trial.?Or?whether?he?or?she?has?been?or?will?be?prosecuted.”
[5a]?Defendant?argues?he?was?prejudiced?by?this?instruction?because?the?jury?could?conceivably?have?applied?it?to?prosecution?witness?Tina?Livingston,?thus?disregarding?his?attempted?impeachment?of?her?testimony.?We?reject?his?argument?on?several?grounds.Initially,?as?defendant?concedes,?his?claim?of?error?amounts?to?an?assertion?that?the?instruction,?although?properly?given?based?on?the?evidence,?was?too?general?to?the?extent?it?could?be?viewed?as?applying?to?Livingston,?a?prosecution?witness.?As?defendant’s?opening?brief?states:?”In?the?present?matter,?CALJIC?2.11.5?would?have?properly?been?given?if?it?had?been?expressly?limited?to?Angel?Burns?and?Michael?Francis,?neither?of?whom?testified.?As?given,?however,?the?instruction?applied?equally?to?Livingston.”?Defendant,?however,?requested?no?limiting?instruction.?[6]?He?has,?therefore,?waived?any?assignment?of?error.?(People?v.?Lang?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?991,?1024?[264?Cal.Rptr.?386,?782?P.2d?627]?[“A?party?may?not?complain?on?appeal?that?an?instruction?correct?in?law?and?responsive?to?the?evidence?was?too?general?or?incomplete?unless?the?party?has?requested?appropriate?clarifying?or?amplifying?language.”];?People?v.?Andrews?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?200,?218?[260?Cal.Rptr.?583,?776?P.2d?285].)
[5b]?We?reject?defendant’s?claim?on?the?merits?as?well.?Although?the?challenged?instruction?should?be?clarified?when?an?accomplice?testifies,?any?failure?to?do?so?in?this?case?did?not?prejudice?defendant.?The?instruction?was?not?given?in?isolation.?The?jury?was?instructed?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?Nos.?2.20?(credibility?of?witness)?and?2.23?(credibility?of?witness-conviction?of?felony).?The?jury?was?also?told?to?consider?the?instructions?as?a?[53?Cal.3d?1219]?whole?in?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?1.01.?As?to?the?Fravel?murder,?the?jury?was?given?a?full?set?of?accomplice?instructions?consisting?of?CALJIC?Nos.?3.10,?3.11,?3.12,?3.14,?3.18,?and?3.19.?No?other?accomplice?instructions?were?required?based?on?the?evidence?(see,?post,?pt.?VIII).?The?defense?conducted?a?thorough?cross-examination?of?Livingston?as?to?her?plea?bargain,?her?prior?criminal?background,?and?her?involvement?in?defendant’s?activities.?Her?credibility?was?vigorously?challenged?before?the?jury.In?People?v.?Belmontes?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?744,?782-?783?[248?Cal.Rptr.?126,?755?P.2d?310],?we?held?that?a?defendant’s?claim?that?the?jury?might?have?misunderstood?CALJIC?No.?2.11.5?as?applying?to?a?prosecution?witness?was?implausible?when?evaluated?in?light?of?the?accomplice?and?credibility?instructions?that?were?also?given.?This?case?is?indistinguishable?from?Belmontes.?(See?also?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1312-1313?[248?Cal.Rptr.?834,?756?P.2d?221].)?As?these?cases?indicate,?a?reasonable?jury?given?these?instructions?would?most?likely?conclude?that,?although?it?could?not?consider?the?simple?fact?of?nonprosecution?in?evaluating?the?witness’s?credibility,?it?could?consider?the?plea?bargain,?prior?felony?convictions,?and?bias?or?motive?to?falsify?based?on?all?other?pertinent?factors.?In?addition,?we?have?also?held?on?several?occasions,?largely?for?the?same?reasons,?that?the?giving?of?CALJIC?No.?2.11.5?was?not?prejudicial.?(People?v.?Carrera?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?291,?312-313?[261?Cal.Rptr.?348,?777?P.2d?121];?People?v.?Garrison,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?746,?779-780;?People?v.?Malone?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?1,?50-51?[252?Cal.Rptr.?525,?762?P.2d?1249].)?Again,?there?is?no?substantial?difference?between?our?prior?cases?and?this?one.
III.?Defense?Cross-examination?of?Tina?Livingston
[7a]?Defendant?argues?his?right?to?cross-examine?Livingston?was?improperly?abridged?on?two?occasions,?thereby?denying?his?right?to?confrontation.?(Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall?(1986)?475?U.S.?673?[89?L.Ed.2d?674,?106?S.Ct.?1431];?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???28,?subd.?(d).)?To?the?contrary,?the?trial?court?acted?properly?on?both?occasions;?no?error?occurred?and?no?prejudice?to?defendant?resulted. [8]?Neither?Van?Arsdall?nor?our?state’s?”Right?to?Truth-?in-Evidence”?provision?requires?unlimited?cross-examination?of?witnesses.?As?the?high?court?said?in?Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall:?”[T]rial?judges?retain?wide?latitude?insofar?as?the?Confrontation?Clause?is?concerned?to?impose?reasonable?limits?on?such?cross-examination?based?on?concerns?about,?among?other?things,?harassment,?prejudice,?confusion?of?the?issues,?the?witness’?safety,?or?interrogation?that?is?repetitive?or?only?marginally?relevant.”?(475?U.S.?at?p.?679?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?683].)?The?”Right?to?Truth-in-Evidence”?provision?expressly?provides,?”[n]othing?in?this?section?shall?affect?any?existing?[53?Cal.3d?1220]?statutory?rule?of?evidence?relating?to?privilege?or?hearsay,?or?Evidence?Code,?Sections?352,?782?or?1103.”?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???28,?subd.?(d).)Evidence?Code?section?352?empowers?the?trial?court?in?its?discretion?to?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.”?(See?also?People?v.?Harris?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1047,?1080-1081?[255?Cal.Rptr.?352,?767?P.2d?619]?[trial?court?retains?authority?to?exclude?evidence?or?limit?cross-examination?when?relevance?is?insignificant?as?compared?with?potential?for?prejudice?and?confusion].)
Even?if?a?trial?court’s?discretion?to?refuse?admission?or?cross-?examination?on?the?above?mentioned?grounds?is?abused,?the?error?is?subject?to?harmless?error?analysis?based?on?factors?such?as:?”the?importance?of?the?witness’?testimony?in?the?prosecution’s?case,?whether?the?testimony?was?cumulative,?the?presence?or?absence?of?evidence?corroborating?or?contradicting?the?testimony?of?the?witness?on?material?points,?the?extent?of?cross-examination?otherwise?permitted,?and,?of?course,?the?overall?strength?of?the?prosecution’s?case.”?(Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall,?supra,?475?U.S.?at?p.?684?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?686-687];?see?also?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?751-?752?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113];?United?States?v.?Soriano?(9th?Cir.?1989)?880?F.2d?192,?197.)
[7b]?Livingston?was?cross-examined?at?length?about?her?Illinois?manslaughter?conviction?for?killing?one?Darlene?Moore.?At?one?point?in?her?testimony,?Livingston?volunteered?that?she?had?not?killed?anyone?before?she?killed?Moore.?Defense?counsel?attempted?to?impeach?her?testimony?by?questioning?her?about?an?incident?after?Moore’s?death?in?which?Livingston?had?painted?herself?purple?and?participated?in?a?witchcraft?ritual?including?the?burial?of?a?jar?containing?the?names?of?police?investigators?in?the?Moore?case.?He?offered?to?prove?that?when?police?had?searched?the?yard?and?found?the?buried?jar,?they?also?found?a?decomposed?fetus.?The?police?investigation?reached?no?conclusion?as?to?whether?the?fetus?had?been?alive.Counsel?argued?that?the?evidence?showed?Livingston?was?part?of?a?group?that?had?practiced?sacrifice?of?babies?as?part?of?their?ritual.?After?a?hearing?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury,?the?trial?court?precluded?the?attempted?impeachment.
As?defense?counsel?himself?correctly?conceded,?the?impeachment?value?of?the?witchcraft?evidence?was?marginal;?there?was?no?evidence?that?a?murder?had?actually?occurred?or?that?Livingston?had?participated?in?it.?There?was?[53?Cal.3d?1221]?potential?for?prejudice:?Livingston’s?mere?association?with?witchcraft,?without?more,?was?peripheral?to?the?issue?in?the?case,?including?her?credibility.?Under?the?circumstances,?the?court?was?within?its?discretion?in?prohibiting?the?attempted?cross-examination?on?the?issue?of?witchcraft.
On?another?occasion,?defense?counsel?asked?Livingston?whether?she?had?made?any?false?accusations?against?police?officers?in?connection?with?the?Moore?investigation.?Livingston?had?previously?admitted?making?false?statements?about?her?involvement?in?Moore’s?death.?The?prosecutor?objected;?again?the?matter?was?discussed?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury.?Defense?counsel?maintained?he?had?information?Livingston?had?falsely?accused?an?Illinois?police?officer?of?drug?trafficking.?He?argued?Livingston?had?made?a?habit?of?making?false?accusations?against?others?to?cover?up?her?own?misconduct?and?she?had?done?so?in?this?case.?The?court?disallowed?the?attempted?impeachment,?observing?that?the?incident?was?a?collateral?matter?and?not?legally?relevant?to?Livingston’s?credibility.
Defendant?does?not?demonstrate?any?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?ruling.?Initially,?the?record?reveals?no?evidence?that?Livingston’s?accusations?about?the?Illinois?officer?were?false.?That?officer?had?refused?to?participate?in?an?internal?affairs?investigation?of?the?accusation.?In?view?of?the?remoteness?of?the?incident?in?time,?place,?and?substance?from?the?issues?in?this?case?and?the?question?of?Livingston’s?credibility,?the?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?precluding?any?further?reference?to?it.?Moreover,?even?if?we?were?to?assume?the?relevance?of?the?incident?for?impeachment?purposes,?there?was?no?conceivable?prejudice?to?defendant,?who?was?permitted?to?explore?and?argue?to?the?jury?Livingston’s?conviction?of?the?Moore?killing?and?her?false?statements?concerning?that?incident.?In?short,?defendant?had?ample?opportunity?to?challenge?Livingston’s?credibility?and?did?so.
- Joinder?and?Severance?of?Multiple?Counts
The?People?initially?filed?one?complaint?alleging?the?Fravel?murder?and?a?second?complaint?alleging?the?remaining?five?homicide?counts.?Defendant?moved?to?sever?the?counts,?which?would?have?resulted?in?five?separate?trials?for?the?different?victims:?(1)?Melendrez?and?Thomas,?(2)?Oakden,?(3)?Searcy,?(4)?Barrett,?and?(5)?Fravel.?The?People?moved?for?consolidation?of?all?charges?into?a?single?proceeding.?The?court?denied?defendant’s?motion?to?sever?and?granted?the?People’s?motion?for?consolidation.
In?Proposition?115,?the?”Crime?Victims?Justice?Reform?Act,”?adopted?June?5,?1990,?the?voters?made?basic?changes?in?California?law?governing?joinder?and?severance?of?criminal?cases.?Among?those?changes,?section?30,?subdivision?(a),?was?added?to?article?I?of?the?California?Constitution,?[53?Cal.3d?1222]?declaring?that?the?Constitution?will?not?be?construed?to?bar?joinder?of?criminal?cases?as?may?be?provided?by?law.?In?addition,?section?954.1?was?added?to?the?Penal?Code?stating?that?jointly?charged?offenses?need?not?be?cross-admissible?to?be?joined?for?trial.?(See?Raven?v.?Deukmejian?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?336,?343?[276?Cal.Rptr.?326,?801?P.2d?1077].)?In?this?case,?however,?defendant?was?tried?before?the?adoption?of?Proposition?115;?we?therefore?apply?pre-Proposition?115?law?in?our?review?of?the?issues?of?joinder?and?severance.?(Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282,?289,?299-300?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434].)
[9a]?Defendant?asserts?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?in?its?rulings?on?joinder?and?severance,?although?he?concedes?the?Oakden?count?was?properly?joined?with?Melendrez?and?Thomas?(the?three?”Golden?Gate?Park?barrel?murders”)?and?now?maintains?four?separate?trials?were?required.?Although?admitting?all?six?murder?counts?were?”offenses?within?the?same?class”?under?section?954,?defendant?submits?severance?was?required?”in?the?interests?of?justice”?under?that?statute?and?to?protect?defendant’s?right?to?due?process.?We?discern?no?merit?in?either?the?statutory?or?the?due?process?argument. [10]?We?have?held,?”A?ruling?on?a?motion?to?sever?is?based?on?a?weighing?of?the?probative?value?of?any?cross-admissible?evidence?against?the?prejudicial?effect?of?evidence?the?jury?would?not?otherwise?hear,?but?in?the?weighing?process?the?beneficial?results?of?joinder?are?added?to?the?probative?value?side.?Therefore?a?defendant?seeking?severance?must?make?an?even?stronger?showing?of?prejudicial?effect?than?would?be?required?in?determining?whether?to?admit?other-crimes?evidence?in?a?severed?trial.”?(People?v.?Bean?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?919,?936?[251?Cal.Rptr.?467,?760?P.2d?996];?see?also?People?v.?Miller?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?954,?987?[269?Cal.Rptr.?492,?790?P.2d?1289].)If?the?evidence?in?each?case?is?shown?to?be?cross-admissible?in?the?others,?ordinarily?any?inference?of?prejudice?from?joinder?of?charges?is?dispelled.?(50?Cal.3d?at?p.?987;?People?v.?Walker?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?605,?622?[253?Cal.Rptr.?863,?765?P.2d?70].)?In?addition?to?cross-admissibility?of?evidence?among?the?various?counts,?other?factors?to?be?considered?in?a?severance?analysis?include:?(1)?whether?certain?of?the?charges?are?particularly?inflammatory;?(2)?whether?one,?but?not?all,?of?the?charges?involves?the?death?penalty;?and?(3)?whether?a?weak?case?has?been?joined?with?a?strong?one?so?as?to?produce?a?spillover?effect?that?unfairly?strengthens?the?weak?case.?(Frank?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?632,?639-641?[257?Cal.Rptr.?550,?770?P.2d?1119].)
[9b]?The?Attorney?General?maintains?that?evidence?of?the?various?offenses?was?cross-admissible?on?the?issue?of?identity?because?the?offenses?[53?Cal.3d?1223]?shared?a?number?of?common?marks?having?a?substantial?degree?of?distinctiveness.?(Miller,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?987.)?The?record?supports?the?Attorney?General’s?contention.?There?were?several?common?marks?among?the?offenses,?including:?(1)?evidence?discovered?during?searches?of?defendant’s?warehouse?suggested?each?of?the?victims?was?killed?there?(see?People?v.?Brock?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?645,?655?[58?Cal.Rptr.?321,?426?P.2d?889]);?(2)?each?of?the?bodies?was?removed?from?the?warehouse,?encased?in?plastic,?barrels,?etc.,?and?then?disposed?of?in?such?a?way?as?to?attract?media?attention?(see?People?v.?Grant?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?829,?865?[248?Cal.Rptr.?444,?755?P.2d?894]);?(3)?each?victim?was?lured?to?the?warehouse?on?a?pretext?related?to?defendant’s?penchant?for?prostitutes?and?cocaine,?and?then?killed?(Melendrez,?Oakden,?Searcy?and?Fravel?were?brought?there?to?provide?sexual?favors?for?defendant;?Thomas?accompanied?Melendrez;?and?Barrett?came?there?thinking?defendant?would?purchase?drugs?from?her);?(4)?all?victims?except?Barrett?were?prostitutes?or?pimps,?and?she?was?a?drug?dealer?(People?v.?Ruiz?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?589,?605?[244?Cal.Rptr.?200,?749?P.2d?854]);?and?(5)?all?killings?occurred?within?a?six-month?time?frame.Although?defendant?seeks?to?diminish?the?effect?of?certain?of?these?factors,?his?argument?does?not?reduce?their?combined?weight.?For?example,?defendant?maintains?others?had?access?to?the?warehouse?and?could?have?committed?the?murders.?But?defendant?not?only?owned?the?warehouse,?he?also?lived?and?worked?there.?By?his?own?admission,?he?controlled?”what?came?in?and?out.”?An?eight-year?employee?of?defendant?testified?that?the?back?of?the?warehouse,?where?most?of?defendant’s?criminal?activity?took?place,?was?defendant’s?private?domain;?the?employee?had?been?allowed?there?only?a?few?times.?Similarly,?although?defendant?correctly?observes?that?not?all?his?victims?were?prostitutes,?four?of?the?six?victims?were?prostitutes,?one?was?a?pimp,?and?one?was?a?drug?dealer.?Again,?by?defendant’s?own?admission?to?police,?he?combined?sex?with?prostitutes?and?cocaine?use?at?the?warehouse?on?a?regular?basis.?As?defendant?put?it,?he?liked?to?”chase?women”?and?”do?dope.”?Considered?together,?these?common?features?are?highly?suggestive?of?a?single,?common?perpetrator.?(Miller,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pp.?988-989.)?They?support?the?court’s?decision?not?to?sever?the?various?counts?for?separate?trials.
Nor?do?any?of?the?other?relevant?factors?to?be?considered?favor?a?holding?of?abuse?of?discretion?or?prejudice?in?declining?to?order?severance?in?this?case.?All?of?the?charges?involved?the?death?penalty,?all?were?bizarre?and?potentially?inflammatory,?and?none?was?particularly?weak?in?evidentiary?support?when?compared?with?the?others.?There?was?neither?error?nor?prejudice?in?the?joint?trial?of?the?six?charges?against?defendant.?[53?Cal.3d?1224]
- Other-crimes?Evidence:?The?Tafoya?and?Armstrong?Incidents
Three?incidents?of?other-crimes?evidence?were?admitted?over?defense?objection.?Two?are?the?subject?of?the?present?argument;?the?remaining?incident?is?dealt?with?in?part?VI,?post.
When?defendant?was?arrested?for?the?Searcy?murder?in?August?1983,?he?was?asked?by?police?about?sado-masochistic?acts?he?may?have?performed?on?women?at?the?warehouse.?Police?questioning?in?this?regard?emanated?from?evidence?of?binding?and?physical?abuse?on?the?bodies?of?the?female?murder?victims?discovered?before?that?time.?Defendant?responded?he?was?not?interested?in?bondage?and?had?performed?it?only?once,?in?Los?Angeles.
The?prosecution?moved?to?admit?evidence?of?the?imprisonment?and?rape?of?Monica?Tafoya?by?defendant?on?May?14,?1983.?According?to?Tafoya,?defendant?caused?her?to?be?handcuffed,?gagged?her,?raped?her?twice,?and?orally?sodomized?her?several?times?during?a?more-than-eight-hour?ordeal?at?the?warehouse.?Defendant?freebased?cocaine?during?the?incident.
The?prosecution?also?sought?to?present?evidence?of?a?bondage?episode?during?which?defendant?allegedly?strung?Diane?Armstrong?by?her?wrists?from?the?ceiling?of?the?warehouse?against?her?will?and?choked?and?punched?her?when?she?resisted.?Defendant?also?freebased?cocaine?during?the?Armstrong?incident.
[11a]?In?admitting?the?evidence,?the?trial?judge?accepted?prosecution?arguments?of?its?relevance?to?the?Fravel?murder?and?remarked?that?it?was?pertinent?to?other?charges?as?well.?Conceding?the?relevance?of?the?evidence?to?the?Fravel?count,?defendant?argues?it?was?irrelevant?to?the?other?counts?and?that?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?by?admitting?it.?He?also?maintains?the?record?does?not?reflect?an?adequate?weighing?by?the?court?of?the?prejudicial?and?probative?effects?of?the?evidence?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.?Neither?argument?has?merit. [12]?The?admissibility?of?other-crimes?evidence?depends?on?three?principal?factors:?(1)?the?materiality?of?the?fact?sought?to?be?proved?or?disproved;?(2)?the?tendency?of?the?uncharged?crime?to?prove?or?disprove?the?material?fact;?and?(3)?the?existence?of?any?rule?or?policy?requiring?the?exclusion?of?relevant?evidence,?e.g.,?Evidence?Code?section?352.?(People?v.?Robbins?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?867,?879?[248?Cal.Rptr.?172,?755?P.2d?355],?citing?People?v.?Thompson?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?303,?315?[165?Cal.Rptr.?289,?611?P.2d?883].) [11b]?The?record?reveals?the?incidents’?relevance?to?the?issues?of?identity?and?intent?of?the?perpetrator.?The?comparison?with?the?Fravel?murder?is?[53?Cal.3d?1225]?readily?apparent:?in?all?three?instances?defendant?bound?or?caused?the?bondage?of?prostitutes?against?their?will?in?his?warehouse?while?using?cocaine.?The?warehouse,?and?particularly?the?rear?section,?was?the?site?of?all?of?the?murders.?The?female?murder?victims?were?left?nude,?suggesting?sexual?motivations.?Several?of?them?were?bound?or?physically?abused;?e.g.,?Armstrong,?Melendrez,?and?Barrett?were?struck?in?the?face.?Thus,?illicit?sex?and?cocaine?and?the?abuse?of?prostitutes?were?common?to?defendant’s?crimes.?The?patterns?are?sufficient?to?support?the?admission?of?the?other-crimes?evidence.?(See?Robbins,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?880;?People?v.?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1270-1271.)Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?the?record?shows?the?court?engaged?in?the?process?of?weighing?probative?value?against?prejudicial?effect.?The?prosecution?and?the?defense?briefed?and?argued?to?the?court?the?issue?of?prejudice.?Although?most?of?the?court’s?remarks?referred?to?the?relevance?and?probative?value?of?the?evidence?to?show?identity,?it?acknowledged?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?trial?and?shifting?trends?in?appellate?litigation?of?the?issue.?These?remarks?imply?a?consideration?of?prejudicial?effect.?No?more?is?required?under?our?case?law.?(People?v.?Malone,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?1,?21-22;?People?v.?Griffin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1011,?1028?[251?Cal.Rptr.?643,?761?P.2d?103].)?Moreover,?in?view?of?the?prosecutor’s?showing?that?the?other-crimes?evidence?was?highly?relevant?and?properly?received,?any?inadvertent?failure?to?recite?the?operative?facts?or?the?appropriate?legal?factors?was?harmless.?(People?v.?Frank?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?711,?732?[214?Cal.Rptr.?801,?700?P.2d?415];?Malone,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?22.)
- Other-crimes?Evidence:?The?Garcia?Incident
The?prosecution?also?offered?evidence?that?Angel?Burns?lured?Louisa?Garcia?to?the?warehouse?to?have?sex?with?defendant.?When?Garcia?realized?the?purpose?of?the?visit?and?refused,?defendant,?who?was?freebasing?cocaine,?threatened?to?”torch?her?face”?with?a?flame?if?she?did?not?orally?copulate?him.?She?acquiesced,?then?attempted?to?escape.?Defendant,?assisted?by?Angel?Burns,?caught?Garcia?and?hit?and?kicked?her?until?her?face?looked?”like?two.”
After?initially?rejecting?the?prosecution’s?attempt?to?introduce?the?Garcia?incident?in?its?case-in-chief?on?the?issue?of?identity,?the?court?permitted?its?introduction?in?rebuttal?in?response?to?testimony?by?defendant’s?former?girlfriend,?Lynn?Brand,?that?although?defendant?got?angry,?he?had?never?been?violent.?The?colloquy?on?the?record?shows?that?the?court?considered?the?evidence?both?as?rebuttal?evidence?and?as?evidence?relating?to?defendant’s?motive?to?kill?Melendrez?and?Thomas.?[53?Cal.3d?1226] [13]?Defendant?maintains?evidence?of?the?Garcia?incident?was?inadmissible?on?either?ground?argued?by?the?prosecution.?He?initially?argues?the?prosecution?cannot?show?a?defendant’s?character?by?a?specific?instance?of?conduct.?(Evid.?Code,???1101,?subd.?(a).)?As?the?parties?note,?our?decision?in?People?v.?Harris,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?1047,?1080-1083,?leaves?open?the?question?whether?the?”Right?to?Truth-in-Evidence”?provision?of?Proposition?8?in?effect?repeals?Evidence?Code?section?1101?and?our?prior?decision?in?People?v.?Wagner?(1975)?13?Cal.3d?612,?618-619?[119?Cal.Rptr.?457,?532?P.2d?105].?(See?also?People?v.?Lankford?(1989)?210?Cal.App.3d?227,?235?[258?Cal.Rptr.?322].)?We?need?not?resolve?that?question?here,?however,?because?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?the?Garcia?incident?as?evidence?of?defendant’s?motive.
Livingston?testified?defendant?admitted?to?her?he?had?”taken?care?of”?a?Tenderloin?couple?for?Burns?in?order?to?compensate?for?defendant’s?disappointing?Burns?by?not?killing?Garcia.?Although?it?is?true,?as?defendant?observes,?that?there?was?contrary?testimony?from?Michael?Shing?that?defendant?had?admitted?killing?a?pimp?and?a?prostitute?because?they?had?”ripped?him?off,”?Livingston’s?testimony?does?not?thereby?become?irrelevant?or?more?prejudicial?than?probative.?Based?on?all?the?circumstances,?the?jury?was?entitled?to?credit?Livingston’s?testimony?and?to?consider?the?Garcia?incident?as?the?motive?for?the?killings?of?Melendrez?and?Thomas.?Moreover,?the?Garcia?incident?also?reflects?defendant’s?pattern?of?luring?prostitutes?to?his?warehouse?and?physically?abusing?them.?It?shows?both?intent?and?modus?operandi.?The?principal?difference?between?the?Garcia?incident?and?the?Fravel?and?Searcy?incidents?was?the?outcome:?Garcia?was?not?killed.?For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim?of?error.
VII.?The?Lopez?Incident
[14]?Christina?Lopez?was?a?prostitute?who?provided?sexual?services?to?defendant?about?10?times,?all?in?late?1982.?On?one?of?these?occasions,?Lopez?observed?defendant?retrieve?some?new?white?rope?from?his?truck?and?hide?it?behind?a?couch?in?the?warehouse.?Evidence?of?the?incident?was?admitted?over?defense?objection?based?on?relevance.?As?the?Attorney?General?points?out,?the?proffered?evidence?shows?that?defendant?had?access?to?white?cotton?rope?at?the?warehouse.?Similar?rope?was?found?in?the?vicinity?of?Barbara?Searcy’s?body?and?around?her?wrist.?More?rope?was?recovered?from?defendant’s?van.?The?evidence?was?relevant?and?admissible.?No?error?was?committed?in?allowing?the?jury?to?consider?it.?(See?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?576,?589?[253?Cal.Rptr.?710,?764?P.2d?1087];?People?v.?Huber?(1986)?181?Cal.App.3d?601,?622-623?[227?Cal.Rptr.?113].)?[53?Cal.3d?1227]?VIII.?Accomplice?Instructions?Regarding?Livingston’s?Role?in?the?Barrett?Murder [15a]?Defendant?contends?that?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?instruct?the?jury?to?decide?whether?Livingston?was?an?accomplice?in?the?murder?of?Kathryn?Barrett?(CALJIC?No.?3.19)?and?further,?if?it?so?found,?that?it?was?required?to?view?her?testimony?with?distrust?(CALJIC?No.?3.18)?and?to?require?corroboration?by?independent?evidence?(CALJIC?No.?3.12).?The?court?so?instructed?the?jury?in?connection?with?Livingston’s?role?in?the?Fravel?murder,?but?not?the?Barrett?murder.?On?review?of?the?record,?we?find?neither?error?nor?prejudice.?Livingston?was?not?an?accomplice?in?the?Barrett?murder.?Even?if?she?could?be?so?viewed,?her?testimony?was?sufficiently?corroborated.At?defendant’s?request,?Livingston?brought?Barrett?to?the?warehouse.?Defendant?told?Livingston?that?he?wanted?to?buy?some?cocaine?from?Barrett,?and?that?he?would?test?it?and?then?pay?for?it.?Livingston?dropped?Barrett?off?at?the?warehouse?and?then?went?to?a?bar?where?she?remained?for?two?hours.?Defendant?called?her?at?the?bar?and?told?her?she?need?not?return?to?retrieve?Barrett?because?”it?was?all?taken?care?of.”?When?Livingston?returned?to?the?warehouse?to?pick?up?her?car,?she?saw?Michael?Francis?standing?over?Barrett’s?nude?body,?knife?in?hand.?As?she?watched,?Francis?stabbed?Barrett.?Livingston?sought?out?defendant?and?expressed?concern?that?the?incident?would?be?traced?to?her?and?ultimately?to?defendant.?Defendant?became?angry?and?proceeded?to?the?back?room?where?Francis?and?Barrett?were?located.?Francis?later?emerged?alone,?exclaiming?that?defendant?had?hit?Barrett?in?the?face?with?a?sledgehammer.?Livingston?then?left?the?scene.
[16]?An?accomplice?is?a?person?”who?is?liable?to?prosecution?for?the?identical?offense?charged?against?the?defendant?on?trial?in?the?cause?in?which?the?testimony?of?the?accomplice?is?given.”?(??1111;?People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?99?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)?In?order?to?be?an?accomplice,?the?witness?must?be?chargeable?with?the?crime?as?a?principal?(??31)?and?not?merely?as?an?accessory?after?the?fact?(???32,?33).?(People?v.?Balderas?(1985)?41?Cal.3d?144,?193-194,?fn.?22?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480].)?An?aider?and?abettor?is?chargeable?as?a?principal,?but?his?liability?as?such?depends?on?whether?he?promotes,?encourages,?or?assists?the?perpetrator?and?shares?the?perpetrator’s?criminal?purpose.?(Id.?at?p.?194.)?It?is?not?sufficient?that?he?merely?gives?assistance?with?knowledge?of?the?perpetrator’s?criminal?purpose.?(Ibid.;?People?v.?Beeman?(1984)?35?Cal.3d?547,?556-561?[199?Cal.Rptr.?60,?674?P.2d?1318].)Accomplice?status?is?a?question?of?fact?for?the?jury?unless?the?evidence?permits?only?a?single?inference.?(Garrison,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?772;?[53?Cal.3d?1228]?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?758-759.)?Defendant?must?establish?the?accomplice?status?of?a?prosecution?witness?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence.?(People?v.?Anderson?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1104,?1138?[240?Cal.Rptr.?585,?742?P.2d?1306].)
[15b]?The?evidence?does?not?support?an?inference?of?accomplice?liability?on?Livingston’s?part.?The?facts?that?she?was?at?the?scene?(Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?761)?or?drove?the?victim?there?(Balderas,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?pp.?193-194)?do?not?make?her?an?accomplice.?Defendant’s?theory,?that?Livingston?knew?Barrett?was?to?be?robbed?and?that?her?death?(at?defendant’s?hands)?was?clearly?foreseeable,?is?at?best?highly?speculative.?Sua?sponte?accomplice?instructions?were?not?required.?(Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?761.)Even?assuming?accomplice?instructions?were?required,?defendant?suffered?no?harm.?[17]?Accomplice?testimony?must?be?corroborated.?(??1111.)?Corroborating?evidence?”must?tend?to?implicate?the?defendant?and?therefore?must?relate?to?some?act?or?fact?which?is?an?element?of?the?crime?but?it?is?not?necessary?that?the?corroborative?evidence?be?sufficient?in?itself?to?establish?every?element?of?the?offense?charged.”?(People?v.?Bunyard?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1189,?1206?[249?Cal.Rptr.?71,?756?P.2d?795],?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.)?If?there?is?ample?evidence?corroborating?the?accomplice’s?testimony,?an?error?in?failing?to?give?accomplice?instructions?is?harmless.?(People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?100.)
[15c]?There?was?more?than?ample?corroborating?evidence.?Defendant’s?footprint?was?found?on?the?plastic?sheeting?used?to?wrap?Barrett’s?body,?contradicting?his?story?that?he?was?totally?uninvolved.?A?cigarette?butt?on?the?body?bore?the?same?batch?number?as?a?pack?of?cigarettes?found?in?the?warehouse.?Other?physical?evidence-metal?shavings?and?the?plastic?bag-linked?Barrett’s?murder?to?the?warehouse.?Autopsy?findings?supported?Livingston’s?version?of?the?murder,?including?the?sledgehammer?blow?struck?by?defendant.Finally,?the?jury?heard?evidence?of?Livingston’s?plea?bargain,?her?felony?record,?and?her?involvement?in?the?crimes?charged?as?well?as?accomplice?instructions?regarding?the?Fravel?murder.?With?these?matters?before?it,?the?jury?was?undoubtedly?skeptical?of?Livingston’s?testimony.?Little?would?have?been?gained?by?merely?referring?to?the?Barrett?murder?in?the?accomplice?instructions.?There?was?no?prejudicial?error?in?failing?to?do?so.?(Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?101.)?[53?Cal.3d?1229]?IX.?Michael?Francis’s?Spontaneous?Statement?That?Defendant?Struck?Kathryn?Barrett?in?the?Face?With?a?Sledgehammer
Defendant?next?challenges?as?a?violation?of?the?confrontation?provisions?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions?(U.S.?Const.,?6th?and?14th?Amends.;?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???15)?the?admission?of?Livingston’s?testimony?that?Michael?Francis?emerged?from?the?back?room?of?the?warehouse?and?exclaimed?that?defendant?had?smashed?Barrett’s?face?with?a?sledgehammer.?Defendant’s?challenge?must?be?rejected?for?two?independent?reasons.
First,?by?failing?to?object?to?the?admission?of?the?statement?at?trial,?defendant?waived?any?claim?of?error.?(Evid.?Code,???353;?People?v.?Bonin?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?808,?845?[254?Cal.Rptr.?298,?765?P.2d?460].)
[18]?Second,?there?was?no?violation?of?the?confrontation?provisions.?To?avoid?such?a?violation,?the?prosecution?must:?(1)?”produce?or?demonstrate?the?unavailability?of,?the?declarant”;?and?(2)?show?that?the?spontaneous?statement?bears?”sufficient?’indicia?of?reliability.’?”?(People?v.?Farmer?(1989)47?Cal.3d?888,?905?[254?Cal.Rptr.?508,?765?P.2d?940].)?Having?relied?on?his?Fifth?Amendment?right?not?to?give?testimony?against?himself,?Francis,?the?declarant,?was?not?available?as?a?witness.?Moreover,?as?defendant?concedes,?Francis’s?statement?was?admissible?under?Evidence?Code?section?1240?as?an?excited?utterance.?Although?this?concession?is?not?dispositive?of?the?confrontation?question,?we?have?held?that?spontaneous?and?excited?utterances?have?sufficient?indicia?of?reliability?to?be?admitted?in?evidence?without?violating?a?defendant’s?right?to?confront?the?witnesses?against?him.?(People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?175-176?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169];?People?v.?Farmer,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?905;?see?also?California?v.?Green?(1970)399?U.S.?149,?155-156?[26?L.Ed.2d?489,?495-496,?90?S.Ct.?1930];?People?v.?Jones?(1984)?155?Cal.App.3d?653,?663?[202?Cal.Rptr.?289].)Moreover,?contrary?to?defendant’s?suggestion?that?Francis’s?utterance?must?be?regarded?as?self-serving?and?unreliable?because?he,?too,?was?involved?in?the?crime,?the?underlying?facts?show:?a?shocking?event?(defendant’s?smashing?of?Barrett’s?face?with?a?sledgehammer),?genuine?emotional?distress?and?actual?physical?illness?on?Francis’s?part?as?shown?by?his?vomiting?into?a?wastebasket,?a?simple?observation?by?him,?and?no?apparent?opportunity?to?reflect?or?falsify.?These?factors?supply?a?sound?basis?to?regard?Francis’s?utterance?as?reliable?evidence.?(See?McLaughlin?v.?Vinzant?(1st?Cir.?1975)?522?F.2d?448,?450-451,?cited?in?Farmer,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?pp.?905-906.)?[53?Cal.3d?1230]?X.?Michael?Francis’s?Hearsay?Statement?to?Livingston?as?the?Testimony?of?an?Accomplice
[19]?Assuming?the?admissibility?of?the?Francis?excited?utterance?(see?pt.?IX,?ante),?defendant?argues?that?the?court?should?have?instructed?sua?sponte?that?Francis’s?out-of-court?statement?was?in?effect?the?testimony?of?an?accomplice,?and?thus?required?corroboration.Francis?was?unquestionably?an?accomplice;?he?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murder?of?Barrett.?Defendant?asserts?that?the?use?of?Francis’s?out-?of-court?statement?as?an?excited?utterance?required?corroboration?despite?the?fact?that?Francis?did?not?testify?at?defendant’s?trial.?(See?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?214;?People?v.?Belton?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?516,?524-527?[153?Cal.Rptr.?195,?591?P.2d?485].)
We?reject?defendant’s?argument?for?two?reasons.?First,?Francis’s?extrajudicial?statement?was?not?”testimony”?within?the?meaning?of?section?1111?and?therefore?did?not?require?corroboration.?The?usual?problem?with?accomplice?testimony-that?it?is?consciously?self-interested?and?calculated-is?not?present?in?an?out-of-court?statement?that?is?itself?sufficiently?reliable?to?be?allowed?in?evidence.?(People?v.?Pic’l?(1981)?114?Cal.App.3d?824,?873-874?[171?Cal.Rptr.?106],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?People?v.?Kimble?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?480,?498?[244?Cal.Rptr.?148,?749?P.2d?803];?see?also?People?v.?Harris?(1985)?175?Cal.App.3d?944,?954?[221?Cal.Rptr.?321].)
Second,?Francis’s?statement?was?corroborated?by?the?autopsy?report?showing?Barrett’s?injuries?as?well?as?other?evidence?(see?pt.?VIII,?ante).?There?was?no?reversible?error.
- Angel?Burns’s?Statements?to?Tina?Livingston?Regarding?Brenda?Oakden’s?Return?From?the?Warehouse
By?the?time?Burns?made?these?statements?she?had?already?assisted?defendant?in?the?murder?of?Gloria?Fravel?by?bringing?Fravel?to?the?warehouse?[53?Cal.3d?1231]?and?aiding?in?the?disposal?of?her?body.?Livingston?was?also?present?at?the?scene?of?that?crime.?The?court?admitted?Burns’s?statements?as?declarations?against?penal?interest?(Evid.?Code,???1230)?and?as?coconspirator?statements?(id.,???1223).?Because?the?evidence?was?properly?admitted?on?the?latter?ground,?we?do?not?consider?the?former.
Burns’s?statements?were?admissible?as?made?in?furtherance?of?the?objective?of?a?conspiracy?to?which?Burns?was?a?part.?(Evid.?Code,???1223.)?They?could?reasonably?be?viewed?as?an?attempt?to?commit?a?potential?witness?to?silence,?thereby?concealing?the?murder?of?yet?another?prostitute?by?defendant?and?Burns.?(People?v.?Saling?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?844,?849,?852-853?[103?Cal.Rptr.?698,?500?P.2d?610].)?Burns’s?involvement?in?procuring?and?transporting?Fravel?and?Oakden?to?the?warehouse?and?her?active?participation?in?Fravel’s?murder?and?the?disposal?of?Fravel’s?body?(see,?ante,?pp.?1211-1212)?show?the?nature?and?object?of?the?conspiracy?and?her?role?in?it.?These?facts?are?sufficient?to?show?prima?facie?evidence?of?a?conspiracy,?thereby?justifying?the?admission?of?the?evidence?under?the?statute.?(People?v.?Belmontes,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?744,?788;?People?v.?Jourdain?(1980)?111?Cal.App.3d?396,?405?[168?Cal.Rptr.?702].)?These?facts?are?also?sufficient?indicia?of?reliability?under?confrontation?provisions?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions.?(Bourjaily?v.?United?States?(1987)?483?U.S.?171,?183-184?[97?L.Ed.2d?144,?157-158,?107?S.Ct.?2775].)
[21]?Given?the?admissibility?of?the?statements?pursuant?to?Evidence?Code?section?1223,?defendant?argues?further?that?the?trial?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?instruct?the?jury?on?the?definition?of?an?uncharged?conspiracy?(CALJIC?No.?6.10.5)?and?the?requirements?for?admissibility?of?a?coconspirator’s?statements?made?pursuant?thereto?(CALJIC?No.?6.24).?(See?People?v.?Brawley?(1969)?1?Cal.3d?277,?291-292?[82?Cal.Rptr.?161,?461?P.2d?361];?People?v.?Earnest?(1975)?53?Cal.App.3d?734,?744-745?[126?Cal.Rptr.?107].)?The?record?suggests?the?trial?court?may?have?anticipated?that?the?prosecutor?would?tender?such?instructions.?Defense?counsel?never?requested?them,?perhaps?feeling?they?would?be?inconsistent?with?the?thrust?of?the?defense,?that?each?murder?was?an?isolated?incident?for?which?defendant’s?companions?were?to?blame.?Conspiracy?instructions?would?not?have?served?this?defense?theme?well.Assuming?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?so?instruct?the?jury?under?these?circumstances,?any?such?error?was?clearly?harmless.?(People?v.?Brawley,?supra,?1?Cal.3d?at?pp.?291-292;?People?v.?Earnest,?supra,?53?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?745.)?As?noted,?the?facts?overwhelmingly?established?a?conspiracy?to?lure?prostitutes?and?other?women?to?defendant’s?warehouse?to?be?killed,?and?their?bodies?disposed?of,?and?further?established?Burns’s?complicity?in?the?operation.?It?is?not?reasonably?probable?that?the?jury?would?have?reached?a?[53?Cal.3d?1232]?different?verdict?on?the?Oakden?murder?had?they?been?instructed?in?the?language?of?CALJIC?Nos.?6.10.5?and?6.24.?XII.?Admission?of?Burns’s?Statements?to?Livingston?About?the?Murder?of?Gloria?Fravel
[22]?Burns?and?defendant?returned?to?the?warehouse?after?killing?Gloria?Fravel?and?disposing?of?her?body;?there?they?recounted?to?Livingston?what?they?had?done?to?Fravel.?According?to?Burns,?defendant?”couldn’t?get?[Fravel]?to?die”?and?Burns?was?required?to?choke?her?with?a?hatchet.?Defendant?added?that?Burns?had?gotten?blood?”all?over?the?…?place”?and?maintained?he?had?to?take?care?of?everything?himself.?Although?not?disputing?Burns’s?statements?were?adoptive?admissions?of?defendant?and?thus?admissible?under?an?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule?(Evid.?Code,???1221),?defendant?asserts?their?admission?nonetheless?violated?his?right?to?confrontation.Relying?on?United?States?v.?Monks?(9th?Cir.?1985)?774?F.2d?945,?952,?defendant?argues?the?prosecution?was?obligated?to?establish?independent?indicia?of?reliability?for?Burns’s?statements?and?failed?to?do?so.?His?argument?is?without?merit.
First,?by?failing?to?object?to?the?admission?of?Burns’s?statements,?defendant?waived?any?error.?(Evid.?Code,???353.)
Second,?after?United?States?v.?Monks?was?decided,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?held?in?Bourjaily?v.?United?States,?supra,?483?U.S.?171,?that?”firmly?rooted”?hearsay?exceptions?create?a?presumption?of?reliability?under?the?confrontation?clause.?(483?U.S.?at?pp.?183-184?[97?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?158].)?Monks?itself?acknowledges?that?the?adoptive?admission?exception?is?so?rooted?(774?F.2d?at?p.?952).?(See?also?People?v.?Silva?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?604,?624?[247?Cal.Rptr.?573,?754?P.2d?1070]?[“[B]y?reason?of?the?adoptive?admissions?rule,?once?the?defendant?has?expressly?or?impliedly?adopted?the?statements?of?another,?the?statements?become?his?own?admissions,?and?are?admissible?on?that?basis?as?a?well-recognized?exception?to?the?hearsay?rule.”].)?Thus,?the?prosecution?was?not?required?to?establish?independent?indicia?of?reliability?for?Burns’s?statements.
Finally,?assuming?independent?indicia?were?required,?they?were?present?in?this?case.?Burns’s?statements?were?definite?assertions?of?past?facts?made?within?hours?after?the?described?events?by?a?person?with?personal?knowledge.?Further,?they?were?made?under?circumstances?suggesting?reliability?rather?than?misrepresentation;?defendant?himself?was?present?and?even?corrected?Burns’s?rendition?of?events?when?he?deemed?it?appropriate-a?fact?[53?Cal.3d?1233]?that?supports?the?reliability?of?Burns’s?statements?as?defendant’s?admissions?as?well?as?her?own.?If?defendant?had?believed?that?Burns’s?other?statements?were?incorrect,?he?would?most?likely?have?offered?his?contrary?version.?Thus,?there?were?sufficient?independent?indicia?of?reliability?to?satisfy?even?the?Monks?confrontation?clause?analysis.?(United?States?v.?Monks,?supra,?774?F.2d?at?pp.?951-952.)
XIII.?Defendant’s?Statement?to?Detective?Morse
[23]?Following?his?arrest,?defendant?gave?a?tape-recorded?statement?to?Detective?Sergeant?Robert?Morse.?Before?questioning?defendant,?Morse?admonished?him?of?his?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974].?Asked?if?he?understood?his?rights,?defendant,?a?former?police?officer,?responded,?”Yes,?I?do.”?Finding?a?waiver?of?Miranda?rights,?the?court?admitted?defendant’s?statement?in?evidence.Defendant?challenges?the?finding?of?waiver.?As?he?acknowledges,?we?have?upheld?such?a?finding?under?similar?circumstances?in?People?v.?Johnson?(1969)?70?Cal.2d?541,?556-558?[75?Cal.Rptr.?401,?450?P.2d?865]?(disapproved?on?another?point?in?People?v.?DeVaughn?(1977)?18?Cal.3d?889,?899,?fn.?8?[135?Cal.Rptr.?786,?558?P.2d?872]).?Johnson?remains?good?law?on?this?point;?the?court’s?finding?of?waiver?was?justified?by?the?undisputed?facts,?i.e.,?that?defendant,?a?former?police?officer,?was?informed?of?his?Miranda?rights,?expressly?affirmed?his?understanding?of?those?rights,?and?then?proceeded?to?answer?questions?and?to?make?statements?he?knew?were?being?tape-recorded.?(See?North?Carolina?v.?Butler?(1979)?441?U.S.?369,?375-376,?fn.?6?[60?L.Ed.2d?286,?293-294,?99?S.Ct.?1755];?People?v.?Davis?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?814,?824-?825?[176?Cal.Rptr.?521,?633?P.2d?186].)?Defendant’s?challenge?is?rejected.
XIV.?Defendant’s?Statement?to?Inspectors?Schneider?and?Mullane
[24]?After?defendant?was?arraigned?on?the?Searcy?murder?charge?and?counsel?was?appointed?to?represent?him,?Inspectors?Schneider?and?Mullane?of?the?San?Francisco?Police?Department?interviewed?defendant?in?connection?with?the?Golden?Gate?Park?barrel?murders.?The?record?reveals?the?inspectors?knew?defendant?was?in?custody?on?the?Searcy?charge,?but?did?not?know?whether?he?had?been?arraigned?or?had?requested?or?obtained?counsel?as?to?that?charge.?After?receiving?a?full?Miranda?admonition,?defendant?waived?his?rights?and?gave?a?tape-recorded?statement.?Following?a?hearing?at?trial,?the?court?admitted?the?statement.Defendant?challenges?the?trial?court’s?ruling,?asserting?a?violation?of?his?Sixth?Amendment?rights?under?Massiah?v.?United?States?(1964)?377?U.S.?[53?Cal.3d?1234]?201?[12?L.Ed.2d?246,?84?S.Ct.?1199].?The?rule?of?Massiah,?however,?applies?to?attempts?to?procure?incriminating?statements?regarding?the?formal?charges?made?against?a?defendant;?a?defendant?has?a?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?counsel?only?as?to?those?charges.?(People?v.?Hovey?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?543,?561?[244?Cal.Rptr.?121,?749?P.2d?776].)?”Incriminating?statements?pertaining?to?other?crimes,?as?to?which?the?Sixth?Amendment?right?has?not?yet?attached?are,?of?course,?admissible?at?a?trial?of?those?offenses.”?(Maine?v.?Moulton?(1988)?474?U.S.?159,?180,?fn.?16?[88?L.Ed.2d?481,?499,?106?S.Ct.?477].)?Thus,?defendant’s?argument?is?effectively?limited?to?an?assertion?that?his?uncounseled?statement?with?respect?to?the?barrel?murders?materially?interfered?with?his?right?to?representation?on?the?Searcy?murder?charge.?(In?re?Michael?B.?(1981)?125?Cal.App.3d?790,?796-797?[178?Cal.Rptr.?291].)?On?the?record?before?us,?the?assertion?cannot?be?supported.
Initially,?we?observe?that?full?Miranda?warnings?were?given?and?defendant’s?statement?was?voluntarily?made?after?a?waiver?of?his?Miranda?rights.?Although?these?factors?are?not?dispositive?in?a?Sixth?Amendment?context,?they?are?important?considerations?that?cut?against?defendant’s?argument.?(In?re?Michael?B.,?supra,?125?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?795;?see?also?Patterson?v.?Illinois?(1989)487?U.S.?285?[101?L.Ed.2d?261,?108?S.Ct.?2389].)?Moreover,?the?facts?of?the?Searcy?murder?are?not?”so?inextricably?enmeshed?that?factually?and?conceptually?it?was?virtually?impossible?to?distinguish?the?events.”?(In?re?Michael?B.,?supra,?125?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?797.)?Although?there?was?unquestionably?a?pattern?to?defendant’s?crimes,?they?involved?distinct?events,?different?victims,?and?different?times.?There?were?differences?among?the?offenses?in?material?witnesses?and?physical?evidence.?Defendant?does?not?show?how,?if?at?all,?police?interrogation?and?his?statement?about?the?barrel?murders?interfered?with?his?right?to?counsel?as?to?the?Searcy?crime.?In?the?absence?of?such?a?showing,?we?reject?his?assignment?of?Sixth?Amendment?error.
Moreover,?although?defendant?does?not?explicitly?rely?on?Fifth?Amendment?grounds,?we?perceive?no?support?for?a?Fifth?Amendment?argument?here.?As?we?have?observed,?defendant?freely?and?voluntarily?waived?any?Fifth?Amendment?right?he?may?have?had;?moreover,?defendant’s?appearance?and?acceptance?of?appointed?counsel?on?one?charge?does?not?amount?to?an?invocation?of?such?rights?with?respect?to?another,?uncharged?offense.?(Connecticut?v.?Barrett?(1987)?479?U.S.?523?[93?L.Ed.2d?920,?107?S.Ct.?828].)
Finally,?any?alleged?error?in?admitting?the?statement?was?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?In?his?statement,?defendant?denied?all?knowledge?of?the?barrel?murders.?Although?he?did?make?some?remarks?later?used?by?the?prosecutor?to?impeach?his?testimony?at?trial,?this?limited?impeachment?[53?Cal.3d?1235]?did?not?play?a?substantial?role?in?defendant’s?conviction.?The?testimony?of?other?witnesses,?as?well?as?physical?evidence,?constituted?overwhelming?proof?of?defendant’s?guilt.
- Alleged?Prosecutorial?Misconduct?at?the?Guilt?Phase
Defendant?faults?the?prosecutor?for?arguing?facts?outside?the?record?in?several?instances,?including?the?following:?”vaginal?tears”?are?unusual?for?a?prostitute;?Michael?Shing?”came?forward”?as?a?witness?when?in?fact?he?had?been?arrested?before?deciding?to?make?a?statement;?police?tested?the?fingerprints?of?over?200?people?before?Shing’s?statement;?Shing?testified?one?murder?had?taken?place?in?the?warehouse?(he?actually?stated?it?happened?in?the?living?quarters?in?the?warehouse?building);?government?payments?were?made?to?Shing?because?his?life?was?in?jeopardy?(Shing?testified?to?fearing?for?his?life?and?had?told?police?of?his?fears);?Livingston?had?testified?in?four?preliminary?hearings?(the?correct?number?was?two);?defendant?told?police?he?had?last?seen?Barbara?Searcy?at?the?Sheraton?Hotel?(the?only?evidence?suggested?he?saw?her?at?the?warehouse);?and?defendant?said?he?never?saw?Searcy?drive?a?Peugeot?(he?acknowledged?seeing?her?drive?a?blue?sports?car,?which?happened?to?be?a?Peugeot).?Finally,?defendant?claims?the?prosecutor?falsely?accused?him?of?possessing?a?silencer,?when?in?fact?he?testified?he?was?merely?”making”?one.?Each?of?the?remarks?cited?represents?either?fair?characterizations?of?the?evidence?permissible?in?final?argument?or?minor?misstatements?of?marginally?relevant?matters?that?could?easily?have?been?corrected?by?an?objection?and?admonition.?Whether?considered?individually?or?in?the?aggregate,?they?had?no?conceivable?impact?on?the?verdict?and?were,?at?most,?harmless?prosecutorial?hyperbole.
The?same?can?be?said?of?defendant’s?further?citations?of?misconduct,?i.e.,?that?the?prosecutor?vouched?for?the?credibility?of?certain?witnesses.?Considered?in?context,?almost?all?of?the?examples?cited?amounted?to?argument?from?facts?in?the?record?directed?to?the?credibility?of?witnesses,?not?the?personal?statement?of?the?prosecutor?vouching?for?their?credibility.?Such?argument?is?proper;?no?misconduct?occurred.?(People?v.?Gates?(1987)?43?[53?Cal.3d?1236]?Cal.3d?1168,?1187-1188?[240?Cal.Rptr.?666,?743?P.2d?301].)?The?one?personalized?reference-a?remark?that?the?prosecutor?had?not?deceived?the?jury?and?would?not?lie?to?it-was?brief,?innocuous,?and?followed?immediately?by?references?to?evidence?bearing?on?witness?credibility.?There?was?no?conceivable?prejudice?to?defendant?in?the?remark.
Finally,?defendant?argues?the?prosecutor?appealed?to?the?passions?and?prejudices?of?the?jury?by?suggesting,?based?on?his?analysis?of?the?evidence?and?the?defense?argument,?that?defendant?must?think?the?jurors?were?”fools”?and?”buffoons.”?These?comments?came?as?part?of?the?prosecutor’s?critical?review?of?the?defense?evidence.
[26]?We?have?upheld?the?use?of?”appropriate?epithets?warranted?by?the?evidence.”?(People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?237?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906]?[reference?to?the?defendant?as?”cold-blooded?murderer”?held?proper].)?Final?argument?can?be?”vigorous?and?may?include?opprobrious?epithets?reasonably?warranted?by?the?evidence.”?(People?v.?Edelbacher?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?983,?1030?[254?Cal.Rptr.?586,?766?P.2d?1]?[upholding?references?to?the?defendant?as?”snake?in?the?jungle,”?”pathological?liar,”?and?”slick”];?see?also?People?v.?Terry?(1962)?57?Cal.2d?538,?561-562?[21?Cal.Rptr.?185,?370?P.2d?985]?[references?to?the?defendant?as?an?”animal”?and?as?”vicious”?held?permissible?argument].)?We?have?also?held?that?the?prosecutor?may?characterize?a?defendant’s?testimony?as?lies,?so?long?as?the?inference?is?based?on?the?evidence?rather?than?the?prosecutor’s?personal?knowledge?or?experience.?(People?v.?Edelbacher,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1030.) [25b]?Judged?against?our?cases,?the?prosecutor’s?characterizations?of?defendant?and?his?conduct?were?a?permissible?comment?on?the?evidence.?But,?even?if?they?were?improper,?any?conceivable?harm?could?have?been?corrected?by?timely?objection.?In?any?event,?they?were?not?sufficiently?serious?to?constitute?prejudicial?misconduct.?(People?v.?Bloom?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1194,?1213?[259?Cal.Rptr.?669,?774?P.2d?698];?People?v.?Edelbacher,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1030;?People?v.?Harris,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1079.)XVI.?Defendant’s?Motion?for?Change?of?Venue
Defendant?assigns?error?in?the?trial?court’s?denial?of?his?motion?for?change?of?venue.?[27]?In?reviewing?the?trial?court’s?decision,?we?independently?examine?the?record?to?determine?whether?in?light?of?the?failure?to?change?venue,?it?is?reasonably?likely?that?defendant?in?fact?received?a?fair?trial.?(People?v.?Gallego,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?167;?People?v.?Williams?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1125?[259?Cal.Rptr.?473,?774?P.2d?146].)?The?de?novo?standard?of?review?applies?to?our?consideration?of?the?five?relevant?[53?Cal.3d?1237]?factors:?(1)?nature?and?gravity?of?the?offense;?(2)?nature?and?extent?of?the?media?coverage;?(3)?size?of?the?community;?(4)?community?status?of?the?defendant;?and?(5)?prominence?of?the?victim.?(People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?495?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640];?Williams,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?1125.)?On?review?of?the?record,?we?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court’s?ruling.
[28]?Although?the?seriousness?of?the?offenses?favors?a?venue?change,?the?remaining?factors?are?either?neutral?or?weigh?against?a?change.?The?victims?were?unknown?prostitutes,?a?pimp,?and?a?drug?dealer?from?outside?the?county.?(Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?pp.?233-234.)?Defendant?was?a?resident,?successful?businessman,?and?former?police?officer.?He?was?not?an?outsider.?(Williams,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1129-1131.)?There?was?no?apparent?racial?motivation?or?factor?in?the?crimes.?(Id.?at?p.?1129.)?Although?the?media?attention?was?substantial?(193?articles?from?4?newspapers,?300?pages?of?television?scripts,?and?8?videotapes),?coverage?had?dissipated?several?months?before?the?venue?motion.?”Through?the?passage?of?time,?any?potential?prejudice?was?thereby?significantly?reduced.”?(Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?232;?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?496.)?In?addition,?San?Mateo?County?is?a?large?community,?11th?most?populous?in?this?state,?with?a?geographically?dispersed?and?economically?diverse?population.?This?factor?weighs?against?the?need?for?a?change?of?venue.?(People?v.?Anderson,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1131?[“The?smaller?the?community,?the?greater?the?likelihood?the?accused?will?not?get?a?fair?trial”].)The?news?coverage?of?the?crimes,?although?extensive,?was?not?particularly?inflammatory.?Media?terms?like?”sexual?assault,”?”rape,”?and?”bullet-ridden”?were?fairly?descriptive.?References?to?defendant?as?having?a?”fondness”?for?cocaine?and?prostitutes?were?similarly?restrained,?as?demonstrated?by?his?own?admissions?and?trial?testimony.?Further?references?to?defendant?as?a?”ringmaster”?or?”kingpin”?were?somewhat?more?exaggerated,?but?not?so?pervasive?as?to?suggest?the?likelihood?of?prejudice?in?the?jury?panel.
A?sociologist’s?survey?of?San?Mateo?and?Sacramento?County?residents?was?introduced?in?evidence.?The?results?provide?little?support?for?defendant’s?argument.?As?the?expert?who?conducted?the?survey?acknowledged,?it?was?contaminated?by?the?fact?that?some?of?the?persons?surveyed?in?the?Sacramento?community?used?for?comparison?had?actually?seen?jury?service?and?received?instructions?on?their?proper?roles?in?evaluating?evidence.?Moreover,?the?survey?showed?that?63?percent?of?the?San?Mateo?sample?of?200?persons?had?heard?of?the?case,?but?only?18.2?percent?felt?defendant?was?probably?or?definitely?guilty.?Of?those,?a?total?of?7.1?percent?of?the?entire?sample?indicated?they?did?not?know?or?were?not?sure?whether?[53?Cal.3d?1238]?they?could?follow?judicial?instructions.?The?number?rose?only?slightly-to?7.6?percent-when?more?facts?about?the?case?were?disclosed.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?we?discern?no?substantial?inference?of?community?prejudice?from?these?facts.
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court’s?denial?of?defendant’s?motion?to?change?venue.?Moreover,?even?if?the?court?erred?in?this?regard,?a?new?trial?would?not?be?required.?After?independent?review,?including?an?examination?of?voir?dire?and?the?instructions?and?admonitions?given?to?the?jury,?we?conclude?there?is?no?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?jury?was?not?impaneled.?When?examined?on?voir?dire,?each?juror?who?had?read?something?about?defendant’s?case?stated?that?he?or?she?was?able?to?ignore?the?extraneous?information?in?evaluating?the?evidence.?(People?v.?Bean,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?919,?942-943.)?No?suggestion?to?the?contrary?appears?in?the?record.?Defendant?was?not?denied?a?fair?trial?because?the?trial?court?refused?a?change?of?venue.
Penalty?Phase?Issues
XVII.?Defendant’s?Voluntary?Absence?From?the?Penalty?Phase
As?the?first?guilty?verdict?was?read?by?the?clerk,?defendant?exploded?in?anger,?castigating?the?clerk?and?jury?members?with?obscenities.?In?the?middle?of?his?outburst,?he?stated:?”You?take?me?out?of?here?and?do?this?without?me.?You?got?it,?buddy??You?got?it?”?He?walked?out?of?the?courtroom;?his?lawyer?stipulated?that?his?departure?was?voluntary.
When?the?penalty?phase?began?two?days?later,?defense?counsel?advised?the?court?in?defendant’s?presence?that?defendant?would?”continue?to?disrupt?the?proceedings?and?desires?to?absent?himself?from?the?remainder?of?these?proceedings.”?Defendant?affirmed?on?the?record?that?he?would?continue?to?disrupt?the?proceedings?if?he?remained.?The?court?honored?defendant’s?desire?to?be?absent,?but?invited?him?to?return?to?the?courtroom?at?any?time.?Both?defense?counsel?and?defendant?stated?a?video?hookup?with?the?courtroom?was?not?desired?by?defendant.?Before?defendant?left?the?courtroom,?defense?counsel?promised?to?keep?defendant?advised?of?penalty?phase?proceedings?so?defendant?could?make?an?informed?choice?as?to?whether?to?return.
The?penalty?phase?was?conducted?without?defendant.?The?court?advised?the?jury?that?defendant?had?chosen?not?to?be?present?and?that?defendant?reaffirmed?his?desire?not?to?be?present?three?additional?times:?during?discussion?of?jury?instructions,?before?final?argument,?and?when?the?verdict?was?[53?Cal.3d?1239]?returned.?He?did?appear?to?make?a?statement?at?the?penalty?modification?hearing.
[29]?Defendant?argues?the?court?violated?both?his?right?to?due?process?under?the?federal?Constitution?and?his?rights?under?the?provisions?of?section?1043?by?allowing?him?to?absent?himself?from?the?penalty?phase.?We?discern?no?merit?in?defendant’s?argument?based?on?either?ground.Challenging?our?decision?in?People?v.?Robertson?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?18,?59-62?[255?Cal.Rptr.?631,?767?P.2d?1109],?which?allowed?a?capital?defendant?to?voluntarily?absent?himself?from?both?the?sentence?modification?hearing?and?the?imposition-of-sentence?hearing,?defendant?maintains?that?a?person?accused?of?a?capital?crime?may?not?waive?his?presence?at?the?trial.?He?urges?us?to?adopt?a?blanket?no-waiver?rule?that?would?require?a?defendant?to?be?present?at?all?times?in?capital?cases?regardless?of?the?defendant’s?conduct?or?expressed?desires.?We?decline?to?reconsider?Robertson?or?to?formulate?in?this?case?any?such?general?rule?regarding?a?defendant’s?absence?during?penalty?phase?proceedings.
Here,?there?was?no?casual?waiver?of?defendant’s?right?to?be?present,?uncritically?accepted?by?the?court.?Defendant?actually?disrupted?the?end?of?the?guilt?phase?trial,?hurling?obscenities?at?the?court?and?jurors?and?demanding?to?be?taken?from?the?courtroom.?A?disruptive?defendant?waives?his?right?to?be?present?at?trial.?(Illinois?v.?Allen?(1970)?397?U.S.?337?[25?L.Ed.2d?353,?90?S.Ct.?1057].)?After?causing?the?disruption?and?having?more?than?ample?time?to?”cool?off,”?defendant?solemnly?expressed?his?intention?to?create?further?disturbances?unless?permitted?to?remain?outside.?He?then?declined?several?invitations?to?return.?Under?these?circumstances,?defendant?expressly?waived?his?constitutional?right?to?remain?in?the?courtroom?by?his?own?actions,?taken?with?full?knowledge?and?appreciation?of?the?consequences.?The?court?was?justified?in?permitting?defendant?to?remain?outside,?allowing?him?to?return?at?any?time.?Defendant?cites?no?applicable?authority,?here?or?elsewhere,?requiring?a?contrary?result.?His?due?process?rights?were?not?infringed.
Defendant?also?claims?a?violation?of?section?1043,?which?provides?a?defendant?shall?be?personally?present?during?a?felony?trial?(id.,?subd.?(a)),?provided?the?trial?may?continue?in?his?absence?in?”any?case?in?which?the?defendant,?after?he?has?been?warned?by?the?judge?that?he?will?be?removed?if?he?continues?his?disruptive?behavior,?nevertheless?insists?on?conducting?himself?in?a?manner?so?disorderly,?disruptive,?and?disrespectful?of?the?court?that?the?trial?cannot?be?carried?on?with?him?in?the?courtroom.”?(Id.,?subd.?(b)(1).)?It?also?allows?defendants?in?noncapital?cases?to?be?”voluntarily?absent.”?(Id.,?subd.?(b)(2).)?However,?it?specifically?provides?for?written?[53?Cal.3d?1240]?waivers?of?a?defendant’s?right?to?be?present?given?pursuant?to?section?977.?(Id.,?subd.?(d).)?Finally,?it?provides?that?a?disruptive?defendant?may?reclaim?his?right?to?be?present?”as?soon?as?he?is?willing?to?conduct?himself?consistently?with?the?decorum?and?respect?inherent?in?the?concept?of?courts?and?judicial?proceedings.”?(Id.,?subd.?(c).)
Defendant?argues?the?statute?was?violated?because?he?was?given?no?warning?by?the?court?as?provided?in?subdivision?(b)?of?section?1043?and?he?merely?threatened?to?disrupt?further?proceedings.?We?reject?his?hypertechnical?interpretation?of?the?statutory?language.?Before?the?penalty?phase?began,?defendant?was?present?in?court?outside?the?presence?of?the?jury?with?his?attorney.?Defense?counsel?stated:?”The?record,?I?think,?fairly?clearly?reflects?the?last?time?we?were?in?session?Mr.?Sully?absented?himself?from?the?courtroom?after?a?disruption.?I?think?under?the-those?circumstances,?the?terms?of?section?1043(b)?are?applicable.?I?have?discussed?this?situation?with?Mr.?Sully?and?I?have?discussed?the?essential?content?of?the?proceedings?we?are?about?to?have.?He?indicates?to?me?that?he?will?continue?to?disrupt?the?proceedings?and?desires?to?absent?himself?from?the?remainder?of?these?proceedings.”
After?defendant?personally?affirmed?his?desire?to?be?absent,?the?court?inquired?of?him?as?follows:?”And?you?feel?that?if?you?were?sitting?here,?you?would?continue?to?disrupt?the?proceedings?as?you?did?the?last?time?”?Defendant?responded?in?the?affirmative.?The?court?then?stated?it?would?honor?defendant’s?wishes?to?be?absent,?but?further?emphasized:?”I?want?you?to?understand-clearly?understand?that?any?time?you?want?to?come?back?into?the?courtroom,?you?are?certainly?welcome?to?do?so.?All?you?have?to?do?is?let?your?attorney?know?or?any?of?the?jailers,?let?them?know,?and?we?will?start?proceedings?and?bring?you?back?in?at?any?time.?So?you?will?have?the?right?any?time?you?want?to?come?in.”
The?manifest?purpose?of?the?warning?requirement?in?the?statute?is?to?inform?a?defendant?of?the?consequences?of?further?disruptions?so?as?to?allow?him?a?final?opportunity?to?correct?his?behavior.?That?purpose?was?satisfied?here;?the?essential?elements?of?the?required?warning?were?implicit?in?defendant’s?exchange?with?the?court.?Defendant?was?made?aware?that?he?was?entitled?to?be?present?in?court?at?any?and?all?times,?provided?he?did?not?disrupt?the?proceedings.?A?further,?express?warning?was?unnecessary?in?view?of?defendant’s?actual?disruption?of?the?trial?and?his?expressed?intention?to?do?so?again.?Defendant?was?given?the?opportunity?mandated?by?the?statute?to?correct?his?errant?behavior;?he?declined?it.?No?more?was?required?to?justify?his?voluntary?absence.?Section?1043,?like?other?provisions?of?law,?does?not?require?idle?acts.?[53?Cal.3d?1241]
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?defendant’s?absence?from?the?penalty?phase?did?not?offend?any?of?his?constitutional?or?statutory?rights.?We?reject?his?claim?of?error?on?this?ground.
XVIII.?Instruction?Regarding?Defendant’s?Absence
[30]?The?court?informed?the?jury?defendant?was?voluntarily?absent?from?the?penalty?phase?trial.?It?did?not?refer?to?his?prior?disruption?or?suggest?his?absence?affected?the?proceedings?in?any?way.?Defendant?claims?the?court?should?have?gone?further?and?instructed?sua?sponte?that?his?absence?had?to?be?disregarded?in?the?penalty?determination;?defendant?did?not?request?any?such?instruction.An?instruction?to?disregard?defendant’s?absence?would?have?been?proper?on?defendant’s?timely?request.?But?it?does?not?follow?that?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?so?instruct.?Observing?that?the?appearance?of?a?shackled?defendant?before?the?jury?suggests?a?disposition?to?commit?violent?crimes,?we?have?held?that?the?court?must?instruct?sua?sponte?that?visible?restraints?have?no?bearing?on?defendant’s?guilt.?(People?v.?Duran?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?282,?290-292?[127?Cal.Rptr.?618,?545?P.2d?1322,?90?A.L.R.3d?1].)?This?case?is?different.?No?similar?inference?of?prejudice?arises?when?a?defendant?voluntarily?absents?himself?and?the?jury?is?so?informed.?In?this?situation,?nothing?suggests?that?the?defendant?is?incorrigibly?violent?or?is?being?punished?for?misconduct?by?the?court.?Because?the?same?inevitable?prospect?of?prejudice?does?not?exist?in?the?case?of?mere?absence,?we?decline?to?impose?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?charge?the?jury?on?the?subject?of?absence.?(See?also?People?v.?Lewis?(1983)?144?Cal.App.3d?267,?280-281?[192?Cal.Rptr.?257].)
Finally,?there?was?no?prejudice?to?defendant?from?the?lack?of?an?instruction?in?this?case.?The?jury?was?told?defendant?had?voluntarily?elected?to?be?absent?during?the?penalty?phase.?Defendant?points?to?nothing?in?the?record,?whether?in?the?prosecutor’s?penalty?phase?argument?or?elsewhere,?suggesting?that?jurors?were?invited?to?draw?any?adverse?inferences?from?defendant’s?absence.?In?the?penalty?phase?instructions,?the?jury?was?told?to?decide?defendant’s?case?based?on?the?evidence?presented,?the?relevant?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors,?and?other?pertinent?provisions?of?law.?There?is?no?reason?to?believe?they?did?otherwise.
XIX.?Photographic?Evidence?of?Victims’?Bodies
[31]?Defendant?challenges?the?admission?of?six?photographs?depicting?the?injuries?suffered?by?victims?Fravel,?Barrett,?and?Searcy.?Contrary?to?his?argument,?the?photographs?did?have?probative?value?at?the?penalty?phase?to?show?the?circumstances?of?the?crimes.?(People?v.?Thompson?(1990)?50?[53?Cal.3d?1242]?Cal.3d?134,?182?[266?Cal.Rptr.?309,?785?P.2d?857];?People?v.?Milner?(1988)45?Cal.3d?227,?247?[246?Cal.Rptr.?713,?753?P.2d?669].)?Their?probative?value?was?not?diminished?by?the?fact?that?others?also?participated?in?inflicting?the?injuries?on?the?victims.?The?jury?heard?evidence?of?defendant’s?leading?role?in?the?killings.?Any?conflict?in?that?evidence,?including?defendant’s?protestations?of?innocence,?goes?to?weight,?not?admissibility,?and?was?for?the?jury?to?resolve.The?trial?court’s?determination?that?the?probative?value?of?the?photographs?outweighed?any?prejudice?resulting?from?their?admission?(Evid.?Code,???352)?may?not?be?reversed?except?for?abuse?of?discretion.?(People?v.?Dyer?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?26,?73?[246?Cal.Rptr.?209,?753?P.2d?1].)?No?such?abuse?is?evident?here.?Moreover,?even?if?the?trial?court?erred?in?admitting?the?evidence,?any?error?was?harmless.?The?photographic?evidence?represented?but?a?small?portion?of?the?information?received?by?the?jury?regarding?the?offenses;?the?prosecutor?made?no?attempt?to?exploit?its?presence?in?the?record?during?final?argument?or?otherwise.?Defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?its?consideration.?(People?v.?Turner?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?668,?706-707?[268?Cal.Rptr.?706,?789?P.2d?887].)
- Failure?to?Instruct?Regarding?Exclusiveness?of?Aggravating?Factors
In?People?v.?Williams,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?1268,?1324,?the?trial?court?refused?a?defense?request?for?an?instruction?that?only?the?statutory?factors?could?be?considered?in?aggravation.?Although?acknowledging?the?potential?merit?of?the?defendant’s?challenge?to?the?refusal?to?instruct,?we?found?no?conceivable?prejudice?because?no?extraneous,?nonstatutory?factors?were?presented?to?the?jury.?(Ibid.)?Similarly,?in?People?v.?Howard?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?375,?439-442?[243?Cal.Rptr.?842,?749?P.2d?279],?we?found?no?Boyd?error?(supra,?38?Cal.3d?762)?when?the?remaining?instructions?and?the?prosecutor’s?argument?[53?Cal.3d?1243]?served?to?focus?the?jury’s?attention?on?the?statutory?factors,?and?the?evidence?in?the?record?was?received?without?defense?objection?and?was?not?”aggravating.”
The?same?considerations?apply?here.?The?jury?was?told?its?penalty?determination?must?be?based?on?the?evidence?in?the?record?considered?in?light?of?the?statutory?factors.?As?the?court?stated?in?its?penalty?phase?charge:?”In?weighing?the?various?circumstances,?you?simply?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?and?appropriate?by?considering?the?totality?of?the?aggravating?circumstances?with?the?totality?of?the?mitigating?circumstances.?To?return?a?judgment?of?death,?each?of?you?must?be?persuaded?that?the?aggravating?evidence?is?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances?that?it?warrants?death?instead?of?life?without?parole.”?The?prosecutor?carefully?limited?his?final?argument?to?an?analysis?of?the?evidence?as?it?pertained?to?the?listed?factors.?There?is?no?basis?for?an?inference?that?the?jury?considered?anything?else?in?its?penalty?decision.?(See?People?v.?Howard,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?440-441.)
[33]?Defendant?asserts?the?jury?may?have?improperly?considered?as?aggravating?circumstances?his?outburst?at?the?end?of?the?guilt?phase,?his?absence?from?the?courtroom?in?the?penalty?phase,?and?his?killing?of?the?baby?ducks.?As?to?the?outburst,?the?prosecutor?did?refer?obliquely?in?final?argument?to?defendant’s?”explosive?disposition”?and?further?stated,?”[t]hat?disposition?is?well?evidenced?by?his?conduct?in?this?courtroom.”?But?the?prosecutor’s?statement?came?in?the?middle?of?a?discussion?concerning?the?circumstances?of?the?crimes,?the?testimony?of?defendant’s?brother,?defendant’s?attempts?to?get?someone?else?to?”take?the?rap”?for?him,?and?the?credibility?of?defendant’s?trial?testimony.?In?light?of?the?entire?record,?this?brief?reference?did?not?prejudice?defendant.As?to?defendant’s?absence,?the?court?simply?informed?the?jury?he?was?voluntarily?absent.?Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertions,?the?instruction?did?not?create?any?substantial?probability?that?jurors?drew?any?impermissible?adverse?inference?from?defendant’s?absence?so?as?to?require?reversal?of?the?penalty?phase?verdict.?As?to?the?outburst,?defendant?himself?bears?any?responsibility?for?whatever?impact?it?may?have?had?on?the?jury.
As?to?the?killing?of?the?baby?ducks,?evidence?of?this?incident?served?to?explain?the?meaning?of?defendant’s?threat?to?do?the?same?thing?to?his?estranged?wife?and?her?daughter.?The?evidence?was?properly?considered?for?that?purpose.?(Howard,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?441.)?[53?Cal.3d?1244]
XXI.?Instructions?on?the?Deliberative?Process
[34]?Defendant?points?to?certain?words?and?phrases?in?the?penalty?phase?instructions?and?argues?they?effectively?diminished?the?significance?of?the?penalty?determination?in?the?minds?of?the?jurors.In?its?deliberation?instructions,?the?court?gave?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?8.84.2?(1986?rev.)?(4th?ed.?pocket?pt.)?as?follows:?”It?is?now?your?duty?to?determine?which?of?the?two?penalties,?death?or?confinement?in?the?state?prison?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole,?shall?be?imposed?on?defendant.?After?having?heard?all?the?evidence?and?after?having?heard?and?considered?the?arguments?of?counsel,?you?shall?consider,?take?into?account?and?be?guided?by?the?applicable?factors?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?upon?which?you?have?been?instructed.?The?weighing?of?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances?does?not?mean?a?mere?mechanical?counting?of?factors?on?each?side?of?an?imaginary?scale,?or?the?arbitrary?assignment?of?weights?to?any?of?them.?You?are?free?to?assign?whatever?moral?or?sympathetic?value?you?deem?appropriate?to?each?and?all?of?the?various?factors?you?are?permitted?to?consider.?In?weighing?the?various?factors?you?simply?determine?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?is?justified?and?appropriate?by?considering?the?totality?of?the?mitigating?circumstances.?To?return?a?judgment?of?death,?each?of?you?must?be?persuaded?that?the?aggravating?evidence?is?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?mitigating?circumstances?that?it?warrants?death?instead?of?life?in?prison?without?parole.”?(Italics?added.)
Defendant?finds?fault?with?the?italicized?words?in?the?instruction.?Initially,?he?argues?that?use?of?the?word?”simply”?serves?to?trivialize?the?jury’s?important?task?at?the?penalty?phase.?We?recently?rejected?an?identical?argument?in?People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?679-680?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351].?Read?in?context,?the?word?does?not?convey?the?impression?that?a?penalty?deliberation?be?a?trivial?or?effortless?task.?The?jury?was?told?that?the?weighing?process?was?not?a?mechanical?or?arbitrary?one?and?that?it?was?required?to?assign?moral?and?sympathetic?value?to?”all?of?the?various?factors.”?Thus?the?use?of?the?word?”simply”?was?innocuous?surplusage;?it?was?not?misleading.?(See?People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512,?541?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440].)
Defendant?next?argues?that?the?word?”substantial”?is?so?vague?that?it?failed?to?inform?jurors?what?they?were?required?to?find?in?order?to?impose?the?death?penalty,?and?that?the?word?”warrants”?implies?too?low?a?standard?for?imposition?of?the?ultimate?penalty.?We?disagree.?As?we?explained?in?Brown,?supra:?”[T]he?balance?is?not?between?good?and?bad?but?between?life?and?death.?Therefore,?to?return?a?death?judgment,?the?jury?must?be?[53?Cal.3d?1245]?persuaded?that?the?’bad’?evidence?is?so?substantial?in?comparison?with?the?’good’?that?it?warrants?death?[rather?than]?life?without?parole.”?(Brown,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?541-542,?fn.?13,?italics?omitted.)?The?charge?to?the?jury,?considered?as?a?whole,?adequately?conveyed?to?the?jury?the?seriousness?of?its?task?and?the?legally?appropriate?manner?of?performing?it.?We?reject?defendant’s?claim?of?error.
Even?if?different?words?could?have?been?chosen?to?describe?the?jury’s?function,?the?jury?was?not?misled?about?its?sentencing?responsibilities?in?this?case.?The?prosecutor?nowhere?suggested?that?the?jury’s?task?was?unimportant.?The?closing?arguments?of?the?prosecution?and?the?defense?conveyed?the?magnitude?of?the?jury’s?decision.?As?defense?counsel?stated?in?part?in?final?argument:?”The?death?penalty,?too,?is?an?intellectual?abstraction.?Gas?chamber?is?not.?If?you?decide?for?the?death?penalty,?you?should?have?very?clearly?in?your?minds?the?fact?that?a?person?is?taken?into?a?hermetically-sealed?room,?strapped?into?a?chair?where?he?is?forced?to?breath[e]?poisonous?gas?until?he?chokes?to?death.?I?say?those?things?because?the?decision?before?you,?whichever?alternative?you?choose,?cannot?conceivably?be?an?easy?decision.?If?this?is?an?easy?decision?for?you,?then?if?there?be?pity?in?this?case,?then?I?have?pity?for?you.?It?should?be?the?most?difficult?decision?any?of?you?has?had?to?face?in?your?life.”
Contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?we?perceive?nothing?in?the?record?that?would?suggest?the?jury?did?not?fully?appreciate?the?seriousness?and?difficulty?of?its?task.
XXII.?Instruction?on?Evaluation?of?Mitigating?Factors
[35]?Defendant?claims?the?court?erred?in?failing?to?explain?the?broad?range?of?mitigating?factors?the?jurors?could?consider?in?reaching?a?penalty?determination.?He?specifies?four?alleged?inadequacies.In?the?course?of?the?penalty?phase?instructions,?the?court?gave?a?so-?called?”catch?all”?mitigation?instruction?based?in?part?on?section?190.3,?factor?(k),?which?informed?the?jury?to?consider?in?its?sentencing?the?following:?”Any?other?circumstances?which?extenuate?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.?You?must?disregard?any?jury?instruction?given?to?you?in?the?guilt?or?innocence?phase?of?this?trial?which?conflicts?with?this?principle.”?This?instruction?was?sufficient?to?advise?the?jury?of?the?full?range?of?mitigating?evidence.?(See?People?v.?Easley?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?858,?878,?fn.?10?[196?[53?Cal.3d?1246]?Cal.Rptr.?309,?671?P.2d?813];?Blystone?v.?Pennsylvania?(1990)?494?U.S.?299,?305-306,?&?fn.?2?[108?L.Ed.2d?255,?263-264,?110?S.Ct.?1078,?1082-1083].)
Defendant?argues?the?court?should?have?instructed?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?it?could?consider?any?”lingering?doubts”?about?defendant’s?guilt?in?determining?penalty.?Defendant?had?no?constitutional?right?to?such?an?instruction?(People?v.?Cox,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?676;?Franklin?v.?Lynaugh?(1988)?487?U.S.?164,?172-174?[101?L.Ed.2d?155,?164-166,?108?S.Ct.?2320]).?In?addition,?defense?counsel?was?permitted?to?argue?”lingering?doubt”?to?the?jury.?The?jury,?in?turn,?was?instructed?to?consider?additional?factors?(such?as?lingering?doubt)?under?the?broad?factor?(k)?instruction.?Finally,?for?the?reasons?stated?in?part?XXVII,?post,?this?is?not?a?case?where?”lingering?doubt”?could?have?played?any?substantial?role?in?the?penalty?verdict.?In?sum,?there?was?neither?error?nor?prejudice?in?the?court’s?failure?to?instruct?the?jury?on?”lingering?doubt.”
Defendant?next?claims?the?reference?to?”extreme”?mental?or?emotional?disturbance?in?the?court’s?instruction?based?on?section?190.3,?factor?(d),?was?improper.?We?have?previously?rejected?this?argument.?(People?v.?Hunter?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?957,?987-988?[264?Cal.Rptr.?367,?782?P.2d?608];?People?v.?Lucky?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?259,?296-297?[247?Cal.Rptr.?1,?753?P.2d?1052];?see?also?Blystone?v.?Pennsylvania,?supra,?494?U.S.?at?p.?308?[108?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?265,?110?S.Ct?at?p.?1084.)
As?defendant?acknowledges,?we?have?also?rejected?his?arguments?that:?(1)?the?jury?should?have?been?instructed?on?alleged?disparity?in?treatment?of?other?defendants?(e.g.,?People?v.?Hamilton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1183,?fn.?26?[259?Cal.Rptr.?701,?774?P.2d?730];?People?v.?Malone,?supra,47?Cal.3d?1,?53-?54;?People?v.?Dyer,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?69-71);?and?(2)?the?jury?should?have?been?told?of?its?power?to?exercise?mercy?(People?v.?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?200).?We?perceive?no?reason?to?reconsider?our?decisions?in?these?areas.?The?charge?to?the?jury?regarding?sentencing?factors?was?correct,?and,?together?with?the?evidence?and?arguments,?allowed?the?jurors?to?consider?fully?any?and?all?mitigating?factors.
XXIII.?Evidence?of?Other?Crimes
Acknowledging?our?prior?decisions?rejecting?his?arguments,?defendant?complains?of?the?admission?of?unadjudicated?other-crimes?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase?(People?v.?McDowell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?551,?569?[250?Cal.Rptr.?530,?758?P.2d?1060];?People?v.?Howard,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?425-426)?and?specifically?complains?that?the?statute?of?limitations?had?run?with?respect?to?one?such?crime:?making?threatening?phone?calls?to?defendant’s?estranged?spouse?(People?v.?Robertson,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?43;?People?v.?Jennings?[53?Cal.3d?1247]?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?963,?981-982?[251?Cal.Rptr.?278,?760?P.2d?475]).?For?the?reasons?stated?in?those?decisions,?we?reject?defendant’s?arguments.
XXIV.?Instructions?on?the?Consideration?of?Other-crimes?Evidence
[37]?Defendant?contends?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?obligation:?(1)?to?instruct?the?jury?that?Michael?Shing?was?an?accomplice?in?the?rape?of?Monica?Tafoya?at?the?warehouse?(an?incident?the?prosecutor?asserted?to?be?another?crime?committed?by?defendant);?and?(2)?to?qualify?CALJIC?No.?2.27,?which?instructs?that?the?testimony?of?one?witness?is?sufficient?to?prove?any?fact,?to?require?corroboration?of?Shing’s?testimony.?Shing?did?not?testify?at?the?penalty?phase,?but?he?did?testify?at?the?guilt?phase?about?the?Tafoya?rape,?as?did?Tafoya?herself.The?court?gave?a?general?set?of?accomplice?instructions?at?the?guilt?phase.?At?the?penalty?phase,?the?jury?was?twice?informed?to?consider?the?instructions?as?a?whole.?Under?these?circumstances,?there?was?no?error?in?failing?to?repeat?verbatim?the?accomplice?instructions.
Moreover,?there?was?no?conceivable?prejudice?to?defendant?in?any?failure?to?give?accomplice?instructions?with?respect?to?Shing.?Shing’s?testimony?was?fully?corroborated?by?Tafoya’s?testimony?as?well?as?by?physical?evidence?found?at?the?warehouse.?Although?defendant?denied?raping?Tafoya,?the?evidence?left?virtually?no?doubt?that?he?did?so.?His?cause?would?not?have?been?aided?by?repetition?of?accomplice?instructions?at?the?penalty?phase.
The?court?edited?CALJIC?No.?2.20?to?delete?its?reference?to?felony?convictions?as?a?factor?to?be?considered?in?assessing?credibility?because?none?of?the?penalty?phase?witnesses?had?been?convicted?of?a?felony.?Defendant?assigns?error,?claiming?that?Shing?and?Livingston,?both?of?whom?testified?to?other?crimes?committed?by?defendant?at?the?guilt?phase,?had?prior?felony?convictions.?The?jury?was?told?to?consider?the?instructions?as?a?whole;?we?assume?the?jurors?continued?to?follow?the?version?of?the?instruction?given?at?the?guilt?phase?as?to?the?testimony?of?witnesses?who?testified?there.?(People?v.?Williams,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1321;?People?v.?Gates,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1209.)?Even?if?they?did?not,?defendant?waived?any?error?by?failing?to?resist?the?modification?of?the?instruction.?(People?v.?McLain?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?97,?113?[249?Cal.Rptr.?630,?757?P.2d?569];?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?99.)
Finally,?defendant?faults?the?court?for?failing?to?instruct?the?jury?sua?sponte?that?jurors?were?required?to?agree?unanimously?that?defendant?committed?the?other?crimes?alleged?by?the?prosecution.?As?defendant?concedes,?[53?Cal.3d?1248]?no?such?sua?sponte?instruction?is?required?by?our?decisions.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?291,?342;?People?v.?Ghent?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?739,?773-774?[239?Cal.Rptr.?82,?739?P.2d?1250].)?We?decline?defendant’s?invitation?to?reconsider?them.
XXV.?Miscellaneous?Penalty?Phase?Instructions
[38]?Defendant?maintains?the?court?erred?in?refusing?to?instruct?that?the?factor?of?age?in?former?CALJIC?No.?8.84.1?(??190.3,?factor?(i))?is?a?mitigating?factor?only.?The?prosecutor?argued?that?defendant,?at?age?39,?should?have?known?better?than?to?do?what?he?did.?As?defendant?acknowledges,?we?have?previously?rejected?similar?contentions.?(People?v.?Lucky,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?301-303;?People?v.?Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?232-?233.)?We?therefore?reject?his?claim.We?have?likewise?rejected?defendant’s?argument?that?a?burden-of-proof?instruction?is?required?at?the?penalty?phase.?(Andrews,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?232;?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?1285.)
Finally,?we?have?held,?contrary?to?defendant’s?argument,?that?the?court?has?no?duty?to?excise?assertedly?inapplicable?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors?from?the?statutory?list?of?sentencing?factors.?(People?v.?Lewis?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?262,?280-281?[266?Cal.Rptr.?834,?786?P.2d?892];?People?v.?Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?104-105.)?We?decline?to?reconsider?these?holdings.
XXVI.?Alleged?Prosecutorial?Misconduct?in?Final?Argument
[39]?Defendant?claims?several?instances?of?misconduct?in?the?prosecutor’s?final?argument.?We?reject?his?claims.As?with?the?prosecutor’s?final?argument?at?the?guilt?phase,?defendant?failed?to?object?at?trial?to?any?of?the?alleged?instances?of?misconduct?he?now?asserts.?As?shown?below,?a?timely?objection?and?admonition?would?have?cured?any?alleged?misconduct?in?this?case.?Therefore,?defendant’s?claim?is?waived.?(People?v.?Rich,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1087;?People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?at?p.?28.)
But?even?in?the?absence?of?waiver,?defendant’s?claims?of?misconduct?fail.?Initially,?defendant?faults?the?prosecutor?for?attempting?to?use?defendant’s?cocaine?addiction?as?an?aggravating?factor.?The?prosecutor?argued?that?defendant?was?not?impaired?by?the?use?of?cocaine,?that?he?functioned?well?during?his?use?of?it,?and?that,?”if?anything,?the?cocaine?effectively?enhanced?this?desire?to?abuse?people,?sexually?abuse?them?and?ultimately?kill?them.”?[53?Cal.3d?1249]?The?prosecutor’s?argument?was?supported?by?testimony?from?a?defense?expert?who?acknowledged?that?cocaine?users?like?defendant?remain?fully?aware?of?their?conduct.?It?was?also?supported?by?testimony?from?defendant?himself,?who?acknowledged?that?he?considered?himself?a?”sex?fiend”?while?freebasing?and?that?he?”liked?to?be?with?prostitutes?and?do?dope.?Chase?women?and?do?dope.”?Thus,?the?prosecutor?was?pointing?to?a?connection?between?cocaine?and?defendant’s?sexual?desires?that?defendant?himself?admitted.?Nor?did?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?turn?cocaine?addiction?into?an?aggravating?factor.?Considered?in?context,?the?prosecutor?was?merely?arguing?that?factor?(h)?in?section?190.3?(impairment?as?a?result?of?intoxication)?did?not?apply?in?this?case.
Defendant?also?asserts?the?prosecutor?relied?on?nonstatutory?aggravating?factors?in?his?argument,?including?defendant’s:?(1)?lack?of?remorse?and?conscience?as?shown?by?the?manner?of?the?killings;?(2)?”explosive?disposition”?as?manifested?by?the?testimony?of?his?brother,?his?conduct?in?the?courtroom,?and?other?evidence?of?violence;?and?(3)?established?penchant?for?violence,?as?”a?disservice?to?others”?in?society.?We?detect?no?prejudice?to?defendant?in?these?remarks.?The?references?to?lack?of?remorse?and?conscience?were?part?of?a?factual?discussion?of?the?circumstances?of?defendant’s?crimes,?an?aggravating?factor.?(??190.3,?factor?(a).)?Defendant’s?conduct?in?the?courtroom?was?but?one?example?of?his?”explosive?disposition”;?the?record?contained?abundant?evidence?of?past?violence?from?which?an?inference?of?future?violence?could?properly?be?drawn.?There?was?neither?misconduct?nor?prejudice?in?these?remarks.?(People?v.?Carrera,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?339;?People?v.?Adcox,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?pp.?258-259;?People?v.?McDowell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?571.)
In?addition,?defendant?charges?the?prosecutor?with?misconduct?in?pointing?to?defendant’s?activities?in?fashioning?a?silencer?and?in?arguing?that?defendant?”would?have?continued?to?kill?absent?his?arrest.”?The?evidence?supports?the?prosecutor’s?argument?on?both?counts.?Defendant?had?procured?a?pamphlet?on?silencers.?He?conceded?on?the?stand?at?the?guilt?phase?that?he?had?ground?down?the?sight?on?his?gun?as?part?of?an?”experiment”?involving?the?manufacture?of?a?silencer.?Moreover,?the?number?and?pattern?of?defendant’s?crimes?permitted?an?inference?that?similar?conduct?could?be?expected?in?the?future.?No?misconduct?occurred.
Finally,?defendant?alleges?the?prosecutor?made?unfounded?derogatory?remarks?about?him,?referring?to?the?facts?of?his?crimes?and?calling?him?a?”human?monster”?and?a?”mutation.”?There?was?no?misconduct?in?the?prosecutor’s?remarks.?As?we?have?observed?in?connection?with?the?guilt?phase?argument?(pt.?XV,?ante),?the?use?of?these?kinds?of?terms?can?constitute?permissible?comment?regarding?egregious?conduct?on?defendant’s?part.?[53?Cal.3d?1250]?That?was?the?case?here.?Even?if?the?use?of?these?characterizations?could?be?viewed?as?misconduct,?defendant?suffered?no?prejudice.?An?objection?and?admonition?would?have?cured?any?error;?defendant?made?no?objection.?Moreover,?the?prosecutor’s?exaggerated?expressions?were?brief?and?isolated?instances,?and?emanated?from?the?heinous?details?of?defendant’s?crimes?and?defendant’s?own?statements?about?his?conduct.?(People?v.?Bloom,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?1194,?1213;?People?v.?Hovey,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?979-980.)?XXVII.?Guilt?and?Penalty?Phase?Error?and?the?Rule?of?Harmless?Error
Defendant?claims?the?cumulative?impact?of?the?guilt?and?penalty?phase?errors?deprived?him?of?his?Eighth?Amendment?right?to?a?reliable?penalty?determination.?We?have?rejected?each?of?defendant’s?assignments?of?guilt?and?penalty?phase?error?or?have?found?such?errors?waived?or?harmless.?We?discern?no?cumulative?impact?of?these?harmless?errors?sufficient?to?justify?reversal.?(People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?1241.)
Contrary?to?defendant’s?assertions,?we?have?reviewed?the?record?in?this?case?and?find?each?of?the?assignments?of?error?and?misconduct?at?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases,?even?if?assumed?to?be?meritorious,?to?be?harmless;?with?respect?to?any?alleged?errors?of?constitutional?dimension,?we?find?they?were?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?Defendant’s?conviction?of?the?crimes?with?which?he?was?charged?rests?firmly?on?a?foundation?of?physical?evidence?that?connects?each?of?the?crimes?to?defendant?and?his?warehouse.?His?purported?explanations?for?these?connections?were?inconsistent?with?each?other?and?the?incontrovertible?evidence.?His?history?of?vicious?crimes?was?vividly?described?by?numerous?witnesses?and?revealed?by?overwhelming?corroborative?evidence.?Even?if?defendant?had?received?an?error-free?trial,?there?is?no?reasonable?prospect?the?guilt?or?penalty?verdicts?would?have?been?different.?(United?States?v.?Hasting?(1983)?461?U.S.?499,?507-512?[76?L.Ed.2d?96,?105-108,?103?S.Ct.?1974];?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?23-24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065].)
XXVIII.?The?Automatic?Motion?for?Modification?of?the?Death?Verdict
[39]?Defendant?asserts?the?court?did?not?comply?with?statutory?requirements?in?ruling?on?the?automatic?motion?for?modification?of?the?death?verdict.?(??190.4,?subd.?(e).)?He?maintains?the?trial?judge?failed?to?consider?applicable?mitigating?factors?and?improperly?considered?a?probation?report.?We?reject?both?of?defendant’s?assertions.Defendant?argues?the?court?made?no?mention?of?the?mitigating?fact?of?the?absence?of?prior?felony?convictions?or?the?testimony?of?his?friends?and?[53?Cal.3d?1251]?employees?as?to?his?general?character.?He?submits?the?court?erred?in?stating?there?were?no?factors?in?mitigation.?Defendant?ignores?the?context?of?the?court’s?remarks.?It?expressly?stated?at?the?outset?it?had?considered?all?statutory?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors;?it?also?stated?it?had?considered?the?testimony?of?the?defense?witnesses?at?the?penalty?phase.?Thus,?the?court?did?not?fail?to?consider?defense?evidence?or?mitigating?factors?such?as?defendant’s?prior?felony?record;?it?simply?found?such?factors?to?be?insufficient?to?vitiate?the?jury’s?penalty?determination.?Such?a?finding?was?not?only?proper,?it?was?amply?justified?by?the?record?in?this?case.?(People?v.?Williams,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1330.)
Defendant?also?maintains?the?court?violated?the?rule?of?People?v.?Lewis,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?page?287,?by?considering?the?probation?report?before?it?ruled?on?the?automatic?motion?for?modification?of?sentence.?He?asserts?he?was?prejudiced?by?the?report?because?it?describes?the?impact?of?his?crimes?on?the?parents?of?Barbara?Searcy?and?Kathryn?Barrett.?The?record?does?not?clearly?show?that?the?court?reviewed?or?considered?the?probation?report?as?part?of?the?automatic?modification?motion.?At?the?conclusion?of?its?ruling?on?the?motion,?the?court?expressly?stated?its?ruling?was?based?on?”all?of?the?evidence”?without?any?reference?to?the?probation?report.?Only?thereafter?(and?just?before?pronouncing?sentence)?did?the?court?mention?having?considered?the?probation?report.
Assuming?the?court?did?read?the?report?before?formulating?its?ruling?on?the?modification?motion,?we?perceive?no?prejudice?to?defendant.?In?contrast?to?the?situation?in?Lewis,?the?court?here?did?not?refer?to?the?report?or?to?the?so-called?victim?impact?information?the?report?contains?in?the?course?of?its?ruling.?(50?Cal.3d?at?p.?287.)?Nor?does?defendant?show?that?any?information?contained?in?the?report?conceivably?influenced?the?court’s?ruling.?In?the?absence?of?any?contrary?indication?in?the?record,?we?will?assume?the?trial?judge?was?able?to?put?aside?extraneous?information?in?the?report.?Defendant’s?claim?is?rejected.?(People?v.?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pp.?539-540.)
XXIX.?Constitutionality?of?the?1978?Death?Penalty?Law
Finally,?defendant?maintains?the?1978?death?penalty?statute?is?unconstitutional?because?it?does?not?require:?(1)?written?findings?as?to?the?aggravating?factors?found?by?the?jury;?(2)?proof?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?of?the?aggravating?factors;?(3)?jury?unanimity?on?the?aggravating?factors;?(4)?a?finding?that?aggravating?factors?outweigh?mitigating?factors?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt;?(5)?a?finding?that?death?is?the?appropriate?punishment?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt;?and?(6)?a?”procedure?to?enable?the?reviewing?court?to?evaluate?meaningfully?the?sentencer’s?decision.”?Although?defendant?[53?Cal.3d?1252]?does?not?so?acknowledge,?we?have?rejected?each?of?these?contentions?in?past?decisions.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?777-778;?People?v.?Gates,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1188-1190,?1201;?People?v.?Allen,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?1285;?People?v.?Malone,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?60;?People?v.?Jackson?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?264,?316-?317?[168?Cal.Rptr.?603,?618?P.2d?149];?People?v.?Brown,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?461-462;?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?883,?960?[245?Cal.Rptr.?336,?751?P.2d?395];?People?v.?Bell?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?502,?553?[262?Cal.Rptr.?1,?778?P.2d?129];?see?also?Lowenfield?v.?Phelps?(1988)?484?U.S.?231,?245-?246?[98?L.Ed.2d?568,?582,?108?S.Ct.?546];?Pulley?v.?Harris?(1984)?465?U.S.?37,?39?&?fn.?1,?51-55?[79?L.Ed.2d?29,?33,?40-44,?104?S.Ct.?871].)
In?addition?to?the?briefs?filed?by?defendant’s?appointed?counsel?on?appeal,?defendant?himself?has?filed?several?briefs?in?propria?persona.?We?have?considered?the?issues?and?arguments?raised?in?each?of?the?briefs?and?discern?in?them?no?basis?to?reverse?or?modify?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?phase?determinations?or?the?judgment?of?death.?Where?appropriate,?we?have?discussed?the?additional?issues?and?arguments?raised?in?the?briefs?filed?in?propria?persona?during?the?course?of?our?discussion?of?the?principal?assignments?of?error?outlined?above.
The?remaining?matters?in?the?briefs?authored?by?defendant?do?not?merit?extended?discussion?or?consideration.?For?example,?defendant?maintains?the?prosecution?made?improper?use?of?his?invocation?of?his?right?to?remain?silent?by?introducing?parts?of?his?tape-recorded?statements?in?which?he?had?refused?to?answer?questions,?and?by?commenting?on?his?responses?in?final?argument.?Initially,?defendant?does?not?point?to?any?objection?to?the?prosecutor’s?conduct.?As?a?result,?his?arguments?are?deemed?waived.?(Evid.?Code,???353.)?In?addition,?the?record?reveals?that?defendant?voluntarily?consented?to?interrogation?and?then?selectively?refused?to?answer?certain?questions?on?grounds?that,?e.g.,?he?was?not?a?stool?pigeon?or?he?was?unwilling?to?put?his?foot?in?his?mouth.?In?closing?argument,?the?prosecutor?commented?on?inconsistencies?between?defendant’s?pretrial?statements?and?his?trial?testimony.
A?defendant?cannot?consent?to?be?interrogated?and?then?select?the?portions?of?the?interrogation?that?will?be?used?at?his?trial.?The?record?does?not?reveal?that?any?admission?made?by?defendant?after?he?had?invoked?Miranda?rights?was?admitted?at?his?trial.?Defendant?does?not?demonstrate?that?his?constitutional?or?other?legal?rights?were?in?any?way?violated?in?this?case.?(People?v.?Silva,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?629-630.)?Whether?or?not?expressly?discussed,?we?have?considered?and?rejected?as?without?merit?all?of?the?assignments?of?error?presented?in?all?of?defendant’s?briefs.?[53?Cal.3d?1253]
Disposition
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?we?find?no?reversible?error?in?the?record.?The?judgment?of?death?is?affirmed.
Broussard,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Concurring.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?After?review,?I?have?found?no?error?warranting?reversal.
I?write?separately?because?I?am?troubled?by?the?majority’s?treatment?of?defendant’s?contention?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?denying?his?motion?for?change?of?venue.
To?be?sure,?in?the?past?our?opinions?have?at?times?been?somewhat?ambiguous?on?the?proper?method?of?analysis?for?such?a?claim?on?appeal,?appearing?to?conflate?the?logically?separate?questions?of?whether?error?was?committed?and,?if?so,?whether?reversal?is?required.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Williams?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1125-1126?[259?Cal.Rptr.?473,?774?P.2d?146];?People?v.?Adcox?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?207,?231?[253?Cal.Rptr.?55,?763?P.2d?906];?People?v.?Balderas?(1985)41?Cal.3d?144,?177?[222?Cal.Rptr.?184,?711?P.2d?480];?People?v.?Harris?(1981)?28?Cal.3d?935,?948-949?[171?Cal.Rptr.?679,?623?P.2d?240]?(plur.?opn.).)?Now,?however,?the?principles?are?clear.?(See?People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?541-542?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640]?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?People?v.?Cooper?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?771,?805-806?[281?Cal.Rptr.?90,?809?P.2d?865].)
Penal?Code?section?1033?provides?in?relevant?part?that?”the?court?shall?order?a?change?of?venue,”?”[o]n?motion?of?the?defendant,?to?another?county?when?it?appears?that?there?is?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?cannot?be?had?in?the?county.”?(Id.,?subd.?(a).)
As?I?explained?in?my?concurring?opinion?in?People?v.?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?468,?”When?a?defendant?claims?on?appeal?that?a?ruling?denying?a?change-of-venue?motion?was?erroneous,?the?first?question,?obviously,?concerns?whether?the?ruling?was?in?fact?such.?The?relevant?inquiry?is:?Was?there?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?could?not?be?had?in?the?county??This?inquiry,?of?course,?focuses?on?the?ruling?itself?and?the?record?on?which?it?was?made.?It?does?not?look?to?subsequent?matters,?such?as?the?voir?dire?of?prospective?jurors.
“The?second?question-which?must?be?resolved?if?error?is?found-concerns?whether?reversal?is?required.?The?relevant?inquiry?then?becomes:?Is?[53?Cal.3d?1254]?there?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?was?not?in?fact?had?in?the?county??This?inquiry?may?consider?pertinent?matters?subsequent?to?the?challenged?ruling.?Only?if?the?answer?is?affirmative?must?reversal?be?ordered.”?(People?v.?Douglas,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?542,?italics?in?original?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?accord,?People?v.?Cooper,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?pp.?805-806.)
The?crucial?phrase?”reasonable?likelihood”?”means?something?less?than?’more?probable?than?not[,]’?”?but?”something?more?than?merely?’possible.’?”?(People?v.?Bonin?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?659,?673?[250?Cal.Rptr.?687,?758?P.2d?1217].)
On?appeal,?a?ruling?denying?a?change-of-venue?motion?is?subject?to?independent?review.?(See?generally?People?v.?Bonin,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?pp.?676-677.)?Plainly,?the?reasonable?likelihood?vel?non?of?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?is?a?mixed?question?of?law?and?fact;?moreover,?the?issue?is?predominantly?legal?and?also?implicates?constitutional?rights.?The?determination?of?such?a?question?is?scrutinized?de?novo.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Louis?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?969,?987?[232?Cal.Rptr.?110,?728?P.2d?180].)
In?this?case,?I?have?some?doubts?about?the?majority’s?conclusion?that?the?trial?court’s?denial?of?defendant’s?change-of-venue?motion?was?not?erroneous.?After?independent?review,?it?appears?at?least?arguable?that?at?the?time?of?the?ruling,?there?was?indeed?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?could?not?be?obtained?in?the?county.?Indeed,?at?the?hearing?a?sociological?expert?gave?testimony,?based?on?a?survey?he?had?conducted,?that?suggested?that?about?20?percent?of?the?prospective?jurors?would?have?to?be?excused?for?cause?for?actual?bias.?Although?the?majority?do?not?acknowledge?the?fact,?the?survey?was?commissioned?by?the?People?and?the?expert?testified?on?their?behalf.
But?even?if?the?trial?court?did?indeed?err,?I?do?not?believe?that?reversal?is?required.?There?was?not?a?reasonable?likelihood?that?a?fair?and?impartial?trial?was?not?in?fact?obtained.?Certainly,?the?voir?dire?of?the?prospective?jurors?who?were?subsequently?sworn?to?try?the?case?supports?only?one?conclusion,?viz.,?that?they?were?indeed?fair?and?impartial.?Defendant?does?not-and?cannot-claim?otherwise.