People?v.?Webster?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?411?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?31;?814?P.2d?1273
[No.?S004528.?Crim.?No.?23128.Aug?30,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
[No.?S007757.Aug?30,?1991.]
In?re?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER?on?Habeas?Corpus.
(Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?62613,?Sheldon?H.?Grossfeld,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?[54?Cal.3d?412]?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli?and?Arabian,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk,?Broussard?and?Kennard,?JJ.)
COUNSEL
Joseph?D.?Allen,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Allen?&?Allen?and?David?K.?Allen?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White?and?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?[54?Cal.3d?423]?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jane?N.?Kirkland,?Ward?A.?Campbell?and?Edmund?D.?McMurray,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
BAXTER,?J.
Defendant?Larry?Junior?Webster?and?three?other?men?were?jointly?tried?on?charges?arising?from?the?death?of?William?Burke.?A?jury?convicted?defendant?of?first?degree?murder?with?personal?use?of?a?deadly?and?dangerous?weapon?(Pen.?Code,????187,?189,?12022,?subd.?(b)),fn.?1?robbery?(??211),?conspiracy?to?commit?first?degree?murder?and?robbery?(??182,?former?subd.?1?[now?subd.?(a)(1)]),?and?grand?theft?of?an?automobile?(former???487,?subd.?3?[see?now???487h]).?Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?the?jury?found?as?special?circumstances?of?the?murder?that?defendant?intentionally?committed?it?while?lying?in?wait?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15))?and?while?engaged?in?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?a?robbery?(id.,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?After?a?penalty?trial,?the?jury?fixed?defendant’s?punishment?at?death.?His?motion?for?modification?of?the?death?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e))?was?denied.?Defendant’s?appeal?is?automatic.
We?find?no?prejudicial?error?affecting?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?judgments.?We?will?therefore?affirm?them?in?full.
Defendant?has?filed?a?separate?petition?for?habeas?corpus?alleging?(1)?that?his?trial?counsel?rendered?ineffective?assistance?in?various?respects?and?(2)?that?newly?discovered?evidence?warrants?guilt?and?penalty?retrials.?We?conclude?that?the?petition?fails?to?state?a?prima?facie?case?for?relief.?We?will?therefore?deny?the?petition.
Guilt?Trial
- Prosecution?evidence.
The?principal?prosecution?witnesses?were?Bruce?Smith?and?Michelle?Cram.?As?the?jury?knew,?Smith?had?already?pled?guilty?to?second?degree?murder?in?connection?with?the?homicide,?and?Cram?had?been?granted?immunity?in?return?for?her?testimony.
Smith?and?Cram?provided?the?following?account,?differing?only?in?minor?details:?In?late?August?1981,?defendant,?Joseph?Madrigal,?Carl?Williams,?Robert?Coville,?Smith,?and?the?17-year-old?Cram?were?living?at?a?riverbank?encampment?in?Sacramento.?Defendant?was?the?group?leader.?On?the?night?of?August?29,?Smith,?Madrigal,?and?Coville?robbed?a?nearby?convenience?store.?[54?Cal.3d?424]?Quick?response?by?the?police?forced?the?trio?to?hide?for?several?hours?before?returning?to?camp.
The?next?day,?August?30,?defendant?and?Williams?made?one?of?several?trips?to?buy?beer,?which?the?camp?residents?were?consuming?at?a?steady?pace.?When?the?men?returned?in?early?afternoon,?defendant?said?they?had?met?two?”outlaws”?(“street?persons”?or?”survivors”)?at?the?Shell?station?near?the?convenience?store.?Defendant?reported?there?was?still?intense?police?activity?in?the?area?because?of?the?robbery,?and?he?suggested?the?group?needed?to?leave?town.?Defendant?said?he?had?arranged?to?use?the?”outlaws’?”?car?for?joint?drug?purchases?or?robberies?that?evening.?The?opportunity?arose,?he?suggested,?to?lure?one?of?the?”outlaws”?back?to?the?camp,?kill?him,?and?steal?the?car.
Madrigal,?Coville,?and?Williams?expressed?enthusiasm?for?the?plan.?According?to?Cram,?defendant?said?he?personally?would?kill?and?dismember?the?victim;?according?to?Smith,?Coville?said?he?”hadn’t?killed?somebody?in?quite?a?while”?and?would?”take?care?of?it.”?When?Cram?expressed?skepticism?about?defendant’s?boasts,?he?insisted?he?was?serious.?Defendant?said?this?would?be?Cram’s?first?criminal?lesson?and?would?help?her?become?more?independent?from?Williams,?with?whom?she?was?living.
It?was?decided?that?because?the?”outlaws”?knew?Williams,?he?would?walk?back?to?the?Shell?station?with?defendant?to?meet?them.?Madrigal?would?go?along.?Once?the?three?returned?to?camp?with?the?intended?victim,?either?defendant?(according?to?Cram)?or?Coville?(according?to?Smith)?would?kill?him.?Defendant?showed?Smith?where?to?dig?a?grave?and?told?Cram?to?clean?up?the?campsite?and?pack?in?preparation?for?the?group’s?departure.?Defendant,?Williams,?and?Madrigal?then?left?for?a?7:30?p.m.?meeting?with?the?”outlaws.”?Defendant?had?drunk?beer?all?day?and?may?have?taken?amphetamines.?As?usual,?defendant?was?wearing?glasses;?Williams?wore?a?cowboy?hat.
While?the?three?men?were?gone,?Smith?and?Cram?worked?at?their?assignments;?Coville?sat?and?drank?beer.?After?half?an?hour’s?absence,?defendant?called?out?from?the?top?of?a?levee?that?his?group?had?returned.?Four?men?walked?single?file?down?the?trail?to?the?camp.?Williams?was?in?the?lead,?followed?in?order?by?Madrigal,?victim?Burke,?and?defendant.?When?the?four?were?about?halfway?down?the?trail,?defendant?suddenly?grabbed?Burke?and?pulled?a?knife.?According?to?Smith,?defendant?moved?around?to?the?front?of?Burke?and?stabbed?him;?Cram?saw?defendant?reach?from?behind?to?stab?Burke?in?the?chest.?Burke?protested,?and?a?struggle?ensued.?Madrigal?turned?back?to?assist?defendant.?Burke?began?to?make?gurgling?sounds.?[54?Cal.3d?425]
Cram?became?hysterical,?so?defendant?and?Williams?told?Smith?to?take?her?to?”Fag?Beach”?and?wait.fn.?2?Ten?minutes?later,?defendant,?Madrigal,?Williams,?and?Coville?arrived?at?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot?with?the?group’s?belongings.?Defendant?gave?Coville?a?car?key,?which?Coville?used?to?unlock?the?trunk?of?a?car?parked?in?the?lot.?The?group?loaded?their?possessions?in?the?car,?proceeded?to?Interstate?5,?and?drove?all?night?toward?Southern?California.?Defendant?indicated?that?they?should?eventually?turn?east,?toward?Missouri.
As?they?rode,?Madrigal?explained?to?Smith?that?”the?man?had?died?hard.”?Madrigal?said?Burke?had?managed?to?grab?defendant’s?knife?and?inflict?a?thigh?wound?on?defendant?before?Madrigal?joined?in?to?help?defendant?”finish?the?job?and?get?his?knife?back.”?Madrigal?indicated?that?he?himself?had?been?slashed?across?the?stomach?by?Burke?during?the?struggle.?Smith?said?that,?at?one?point,?he?saw?defendant’s?and?Madrigal’s?knives?in?the?car.
About?3:30?p.m.?the?next?day,?as?defendant?was?driving,?an?officer?of?the?California?Highway?Patrol?(CHP)?stopped?the?group’s?car?for?speeding?on?Interstate?15?near?Barstow.?Investigation?stemming?from?the?traffic?stop?eventually?led?to?the?arrest?of?all?six?passengers,?and?to?statements?by?Smith?and?Cram?concerning?the?Burke?homicide.?(See?discussion,?post.)?On?September?8,?Detective?Burchett?of?the?Sacramento?Police?Department?took?an?in-custody?statement?from?Cram?which?essentially?conformed?to?her?trial?testimony.
Guided?by?Smith’s?directions,?the?police?found?Burke’s?body?in?its?shallow?riverbank?grave?on?the?morning?of?September?3.?Burke’s?throat?had?been?cut,?and?there?were?24?other?stab?wounds,?8?in?the?rear?of?the?body.?The?wounds?could?have?been?inflicted?by?more?than?one?knife?and?more?than?one?person.?Burke’s?pants?pocket?was?turned?out,?but?his?wallet?had?not?been?taken.
The?car?in?which?the?group?was?arrested?was?registered?to?Ronnie?Glover.?Glover?testified?that?on?the?evening?of?August?30,?he?loaned?the?car?to?his?cousin?Burke,?with?whom?he?was?travelling.?Burke?then?left?the?Shell?station?in?the?company?of?three?men?meeting?the?descriptions?of?defendant?(glasses),?Madrigal,?and?Williams?(cowboy?hat).?Glover?never?saw?Burke?or?the?car?again.
When?examined?at?the?time?of?booking,?Madrigal?and?defendant?both?had?fresh?injuries.?Defendant’s?wound?was?on?the?knee.?A?bloodstained?knife?was?found?in?the?car?taken?from?Glover?and?Burke.?[54?Cal.3d?426]
- Defense?evidence.
Defendant?testified?in?his?own?behalf.?He?denied?any?plan?to?kill?the?victim?and?steal?his?car.?The?camp?residents?had?engaged?in?a?drunken?discussion?about?killing?people,?but?defendant?insisted?he?merely?taunted?the?others?to?show?they?were?not?as?”tough”?as?they?maintained.?Defendant?did?tell?the?”sniveling”?Cram?that?”[t]his?will?be?your?first?day?of?school,”?but?the?remark?was?intended?only?to?”shut?her?up.”?He?did?not?order?anyone?to?dig?a?grave?or?break?camp?before?he?went?to?meet?Glover?and?Burke.
Later,?according?to?defendant,?Burke?handed?him?the?car?keys?when?they?arrived?at?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot.?Defendant?was?”fairly?loaded”?but?not?staggering?drunk.?As?the?four?men?walked?from?the?car?toward?the?camp,?he?and?Burke?were?arguing?over?how?to?split?the?proceeds?of?drug?sales?and?robberies?planned?for?later?in?the?evening.?Burke?wanted?a?larger?share?because?he?had?furnished?the?car.?Burke?suddenly?pulled?a?knife?and?slashed?defendant?on?the?leg.?Defendant?managed?to?get?control?of?Burke’s?weapon?and?defended?himself.?Burke?kept?”charging”?at?defendant?and?Madrigal,?forcing?them?to?continue?stabbing?him.?Burke?could?have?left?had?he?wished?to?do?so.
Only?after?Burke’s?death,?defendant?said,?did?the?group?decide?to?take?the?car?and?flee.?Attempts?to?dig?a?makeshift?grave?were?unsuccessful,?so?they?dragged?Burke’s?body?under?a?bush.?They?also?threw?knives?belonging?to?defendant,?Madrigal,?Burke,?and?Smith?into?the?river.?Defendant?denied?going?through?Burke’s?pockets.?He?could?not?name?the?owner?of?the?knife?found?in?the?car?but?said?it?was?not?Madrigal’s.
William?Gaida,?a?Sacramento?detective,?testified?about?a?statement?taken?from?Cram?on?September?2,?which?differed?in?minor?respects?from?Cram’s?trial?testimony.?Larry?Moser?testified?that?several?years?earlier,?he?was?seriously?injured?in?a?barroom?fight?initiated?by?Burke.
Coville?testified?in?his?own?defense.?He?denied?participating?in?or?overhearing?a?plan?to?kill?Burke.?Coville?said?he?was?drunk?when?defendant,?Madrigal,?and?Williams?returned?to?camp?with?Burke.?Coville?insisted?he?did?not?see?the?killing?of?Burke,?but?defendant?later?told?him?”this?guy?[had]?jumped?on?[defendant]?and?stuck?him?with?a?knife”?and?defendant?thought?the?”guy”?was?dead?after?a?struggle.?Coville?recited?in?some?detail?how?the?group?reached?Burke’s?car?and?left?town.
A?psychiatrist,?Dr.?Globus,?testified?that?Coville?was?an?alcoholic?with?brain?damage?and?a?history?of?”amnestic?episodes.”?Coville?told?Dr.?Globus?he?remembered?little?of?the?incident?besides?drinking?and?”partying.”?Dr.?[54?Cal.3d?427]?Globus?believed?Coville?and?concluded?he?could?not?have?formed?the?mental?states?necessary?for?malice,?premeditation,?lying?in?wait,?or?intent?to?kill.
Neither?Williams?nor?Madrigal?testified.?Madrigal’s?long?history?of?behavioral?and?psychiatric?problems?and?drug?and?alcohol?abuse?was?detailed.?Dr.?Mungas,?a?psychologist,?testified?that?Madrigal?had?hazy?memories?of?a?fight?but?remembered?no?details.?Dr.?Mertz,?a?psychiatrist,?testified?that?Williams?told?her?he?had?been?consuming?beer?and?amphetamines?continuously?by?the?evening?of?August?30;?he?remembered?going?to?the?Shell?station?and?returning?with?Burke;?he?heard?a?scuffle?behind?him?and?took?Cram?away.?Dr.?Mertz?concluded?that?because?of?drug?and?alcohol?intoxication,?Williams?had?diminished?capacity?to?conspire,?harbor?malice,?premeditate,?or?intend?to?kill.fn.?3
Penalty?Trial
- Prosecution?evidence.
The?People?presented?evidence?that?in?the?early?morning?of?August?31,?1981,?the?day?after?the?Burke?homicide,?defendant,?Madrigal,?Smith,?and?Williams?robbed?a?convenience?store?in?Pacoima.?The?prosecution?presented?a?videotape?of?the?robbery,?along?with?the?testimony?of?Smith?and?the?store?clerk,?Eli?Yitshaky.?The?evidence?indicated?that?defendant?was?the?ringleader,?that?he?and?Madrigal?brandished?knives,?and?that?Yitshaky?was?knocked?unconscious?after?complying?with?the?robbers’?order?to?lie?down?on?the?floor.?The?robbers?took?food,?money?from?the?cash?register,?and?Yitshaky’s?personal?property.?Defendant,?who?followed?Smith?from?the?store,?told?Smith?he?had?”punched?[Yitshaky]?out”?and?had?taken?his?wallet?and?watch.
The?prosecution?introduced?evidence?that?on?October?31,?1981,?defendant?and?Madrigal?were?convicted?of?armed?robbery?in?the?Pacoima?case.?Two?Washington?State?felony?convictions?against?defendant?were?also?presented:?a?1977?conviction?for?second?degree?assault,?and?a?1974?conviction?for?second?degree?burglary.
- Defense?evidence.
Several?members?of?defendant’s?family?testified?in?his?behalf.?According?to?his?two?sisters,?the?family?was?poor.?Their?father?was?unemployed?and?a?[54?Cal.3d?428]?cruel?alcoholic?who?often?beat?the?children?and?their?mother.?Still,?defendant?was?cooperative?and?hardworking?until?he?returned?from?his?two?combat?tours?in?Vietnam.?Thereafter,?his?personality?was?completely?changed;?he?was?remote?and?bitter.?He?complained?that?television?news?about?the?war?was?inaccurate.?While?drinking?in?a?bar?with?his?sister?Linda?Moss,?defendant?cried?and?said?he?had?run?over?a?Vietnamese?child?while?driving?his?Army?supply?truck?during?maneuvers.?Defendant’s?mother?confirmed?her?son’s?personality?change?after?Vietnam?and?pleaded?for?his?life.
Defendant?produced?documentary?evidence?that?he?had?received?the?Bronze?Star?for?combat?bravery?in?Vietnam.?The?citation?for?this?medal?indicated?that?defendant,?disregarding?his?own?safety,?had?leveled?”devastating”?machine-gun?fire?on?an?advancing?enemy?force?to?protect?tanks?that?were?taking?on?ammunition?from?his?supply?truck.
Finally,?defendant?presented?evidence?about?his?efforts?to?learn?a?trade?in?the?Washington?State?Penitentiary.?A?prison?vocational?counselor?said?defendant?approached?him?for?assistance?in?entering?auto-body?and?welding?courses.?According?to?his?instructors,?defendant’s?performance?in?the?auto-?body?class?was?average;?his?performance?in?a?welding?class?was?excellent.
Madrigal,?who?was?jointly?tried?on?the?issue?of?penalty,?also?presented?character?and?background?evidence?from?relatives.?Dr.?Mertz?expanded?upon?the?guilt?phase?evidence?of?Madrigal’s?mental?state.?Dr.?Mertz?said?Madrigal?still?had?little?recall?of?the?Burke?homicide?and?had?expressed?remorse.?She?reiterated?that?Madrigal?was?a?chronic?alcoholic?and?amphetamine?abuser?and?diagnosed?an?”atypical?pervasive?developmental?disorder”?with?antisocial?features.?These?conditions,?said?Dr.?Mertz,?impaired?Madrigal’s?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?and?to?conform?his?behavior?to?law.?The?jury?sentenced?Madrigal?to?life?imprisonment?without?parole.
[1]?(See?fn.?4.)?Guilt?Issuesfn.?4
- Search?and?seizure?issues.
Defendant?claims?his?convictions?must?be?reversed?because?the?evidence?linking?him?to?Burke’s?death?stems?from?illegal?searches?and?seizures.?(U.S.?Const.,?Amends.?IV,?XIV;?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???13.)?We?disagree.?[54?Cal.3d?429]
The?pertinent?facts?are?gleaned?from?both?the?preliminary?hearing?and?the?superior?court?suppression?hearing.?On?the?afternoon?of?August?31,?1981,?CHP?Officer?Abbott?stopped?a?Chrysler?automobile?for?speeding?on?Interstate?15?near?Barstow.?Abbott?asked?defendant,?the?driver,?for?his?license;?defendant?produced?only?a?birth?certificate.?While?writing?the?speeding?ticket,?Abbott?asked?defendant?who?owned?the?car.?Defendant?said?”it?belonged?to?a?guy?in?the?back?seat”?but?also?indicated?that?the?passengers?were?hitchhikers.?Abbott?then?received?a?radio?message?that?defendant?was?wanted?on?an?outstanding?warrant.?Abbott?arrested?defendant,?placed?him?in?the?patrol?car,?and?radioed?for?assistance.
Backup?units?arrived?within?two?or?three?minutes.?Abbott?then?approached?the?Chrysler?and?asked?the?five?passengers?who?owned?it.?All?shrugged?or?shook?their?heads.?Abbott?ordered?them?out?of?the?vehicle.?Coville?appeared?intoxicated,?so?Abbott?arrested?him?for?public?drunkenness?and?placed?him?in?another?patrol?unit.?Abbott?asked?again?who?owned?the?Chrysler?and?again?received?negative?responses.?Several?of?the?occupants?said?they?were?hitchhikers.?Abbott?then?searched?the?Chrysler’s?glove?compartment?and?visor?for?registration?papers.?None?were?found.?Abbott?also?radioed?for?a?registration?check?on?the?vehicle,?but?he?received?no?immediate?reply.
While?Abbott?was?looking?inside?the?Chrysler?for?registration,?he?saw?a?wallet?lying?in?the?middle?of?the?front?seat,?the?position?previously?occupied?by?Coville.?Abbott?retrieved?the?wallet?and?asked?each?of?the?vehicle’s?occupants?who?owned?it.?Defendant?explicitly?denied?ownership,?as?did?all?the?others?with?the?possible?exception?of?the?intoxicated?Coville.?Abbott?then?opened?the?wallet?for?the?purpose?of?determining?its?owner.?He?found?identification?for?Eli?Yitshaky,?the?clerk?of?the?Pacoima?convenience?store?robbed?by?defendant?and?three?of?his?companions?early?that?morning.
Abbott?eventually?learned?by?radio?that?the?Chrysler?was?registered?to?a?Mr.?Glover?of?Oroville,?but?the?car?had?not?been?reported?stolen.?The?passengers?were?asked?if?they?knew?Glover;?all?responded?negatively.?Smith,?Cram,?Madrigal,?and?Williams?were?released?by?the?roadside?with?their?belongings,?and?the?car?was?impounded.?Shortly?thereafter,?Abbott’s?investigation?linked?the?wallet?to?the?Pacoima?robbery.?Abbott?learned?that?defendant?and?his?five?passengers?fit?the?four?robbers’?general?descriptions.?The?four?released?passengers?were?located?and?arrested.?Smith?and?Cram?made?in-custody?statements?about?the?Burke?homicide.
Detectives?went?to?the?impound?lot?on?September?2.?They?had?no?search?warrant.?In?plain?sight,?they?saw?beer?cans,?beer?and?cigarette?cartons,?meat?[54?Cal.3d?430]?packages,?and?the?like?strewn?about?the?interior?of?the?Chrysler.?These?items?matched?articles?taken?in?the?Pacoima?robbery.?The?detectives?also?saw?a?knife?and?letter?opener?on?the?rear?shelf,?and?registration?papers?were?observed?on?the?sun?visor.
Defendant?claims?Abbott’s?”search”?of?the?Chrysler,?leading?to?discovery?of?the?wallet,?was?invalid?because?Abbott?had?neither?a?warrant,?nor?probable?cause,?nor?justification?based?on?exigent?circumstances.?Even?if?the?wallet?was?properly?discovered,?he?urges,?Abbott?had?no?right?to?open?it?and?discover?the?incriminating?information?inside?without?first?obtaining?a?warrant.?Finally,?defendant?contends,?the?police?lacked?cause?to?impound?the?vehicle,?thus?providing?detectives?the?opportunity?to?scrutinize?it?for?evidence?on?September?2.
[2]?At?the?outset,?we?conclude?Abbott?acted?properly?when?he?removed?the?occupants?of?the?Chrysler?and?entered?the?car?for?the?limited?purpose?of?finding?the?registration.?Then,?as?now,?the?Vehicle?Code?allowed?a?CHP?officer,?among?others,?to?inspect?a?registrable?vehicle?and?its?title?in?order?to?determine?ownership.?(Veh.?Code,???2805,?subd.?(a).)fn.?5?The?law?also?required?the?driver?of?a?motor?vehicle?to?produce?his?or?her?license?and?registration?for?examination?upon?a?peace?officer’s?demand.?(Id.,????4462,?subd.?(a),?12951,?subd.?(b).)fn.?6?Within?constitutional?limits,?such?statutes?authorize?an?officer?to?enter?a?stopped?vehicle?and?conduct?an?immediate?warrantless?search?for?the?required?documents.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Faddler?(1982)?132?Cal.App.3d?607,?610-611?[183?Cal.Rptr.?328];?People?v.?Burnett?(1980)?107?Cal.App.3d?795,?799-800?[165?Cal.Rptr.?781];?Jackson?v.?Superior?Court?(1977)?74?Cal.App.3d?361,?367?[142?Cal.Rptr.?299];?People?v.?Martin?(1972)?23?Cal.App.3d?444,?447?[100?Cal.Rptr.?272];?cf.?Carroll?v.?United?States?(1925)?267?U.S.?132?[69?L.Ed.?543,?45?S.Ct.?280,?39?A.L.R.?790];?Wimberly?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?557?[128?Cal.Rptr.?641,?547?P.2d?417].)The?Chrysler?was?validly?detained?on?the?highway?for?a?moving?traffic?violation.?(Compare?Delaware?v.?Prouse?(1979)?440?U.S.?648,?663?[59?L.Ed.2d?660,?673-674,?99?S.Ct.?1391].)?While?that?detention?continued,?Abbott?learned?that?defendant?was?subject?to?arrest?on?an?outstanding?warrant.?Defendant?had?disclaimed?ownership?of?the?car,?stating?that?it?[54?Cal.3d?431]?belonged?to?a?passenger,?but?also?said?the?passengers?were?hitchhikers.?The?passengers?confirmed?they?were?hitchhikers,?and?all?denied?ownership.?In?this?uncertain?situation,?Abbott?was?amply?entitled?to?inspect?the?Chrysler’s?registration?to?ascertain?its?owner?before?deciding?whether?to?release?or?impound?the?vehicle.
Moreover,?it?was?reasonable?for?Abbott?to?remove?the?passengers?and?find?the?documentation?himself.?Abbott?had?every?reason?to?believe?that?the?occupants,?who?disclaimed?ownership,?would?not?be?able?to?find?or?produce?the?registration?on?their?own.?(See?People?v.?Martin,?supra,?23?Cal.App.3d?444,?447;?compare?Jackson?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?74?Cal.App.3d?361,?368.)?For?his?own?safety,?Abbott?was?entitled?to?search?for?the?papers?personally?and?to?remove?the?five?passengers?from?the?car?before?doing?so.?(See?People?v.?Faddler,?supra,?132?Cal.App.3d?607,?610;?Jackson,?supra,?74?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?369;?Martin,?supra,?23?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?447.)?At?the?time?he?saw?the?wallet,?Abbott?was?confining?his?search?to?the?visor?and?glove?compartment,?traditional?repositories?of?auto?registrations.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Chavers?(1983)?33?Cal.3d?462,?470?[189?Cal.Rptr.?169,?658?P.2d?96].)
[3]?While?engaged?in?these?appropriate?activities,?Abbott?saw?the?wallet?lying?in?plain?view?in?the?now-empty?interior.?The?observation?and?seizure?of?evidence?in?plain?view?from?a?position?where?the?officer?has?a?right?to?be?is?not?constitutionally?prohibited.?(People?v.?Rios?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?351,?357?[128?Cal.Rptr.?5,?546?P.2d?293];?Lorenzana?v.?Superior?Court?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?626,?634?[108?Cal.Rptr.?585,?511?P.2d?33].)Abbott?also?acted?constitutionally?by?opening?the?wallet?to?find?out?who?owned?it.?Nobody?at?the?scene?claimed?ownership?or?knowledge?of?the?owner’s?identity.?One?passenger?suggested?the?wallet?might?have?been?left?behind?by?another?person?to?whom?the?group?had?given?a?ride.?Abbott?had?a?duty?of?reasonable?diligence?to?ascertain?and?notify?the?owner?of?apparently?lost?property?he?had?found?or?received.?(??485;?see?also?Civ.?Code,???2080.1,?subd.?(b).)?Abbott?acted?as?a?”caretaker”?only;?there?is?no?indication?his?conduct?was?a?pretext?for?seeking?criminal?evidence.?The?minimal?scope?of?the?intrusion?conformed?to?his?limited?purpose.
Under?these?circumstances,?Abbott’s?action,?assuming?it?amounted?to?a?”search,”?was?constitutionally?reasonable?even?absent?a?warrant?or?probable?cause.?(See?United?States?v.?O’Bryant?(11th?Cir.?1985)?775?F.2d?1528,?1534;?State?v.?Pidcock?(1988)?306?Ore.?335?[759?P.2d?1092,?1095],?cert.?den.?(1989)?489?U.S.?1011?[103?L.Ed.2d?183,?109?S.Ct.?1120];?cf.?South?Dakota?v.?Opperman?(1976)?428?U.S.?364?[49?L.Ed.2d?1000,?96?S.Ct.?3092]?[inventory?[54?Cal.3d?432]?search].)fn.?7?For?similar?reasons,?once?Abbott?determined?that?the?identification?in?the?wallet?did?not?match?any?person?on?the?scene,?he?was?justified?in?seizing?and?retaining?it?for?further?investigation.
[4]?Nor?can?defendant?seriously?argue?that?it?was?unreasonable?to?impound?the?Chrysler.?The?car?had?been?stopped?on?a?desolate?stretch?of?rural?freeway,?and?a?registration?check?disclosed?it?belonged?to?someone?not?on?the?scene.?The?driver?and?one?of?the?passengers?were?under?arrest.?The?remaining?occupants?disclaimed?any?link?to?the?vehicle?that?would?allow?its?release?to?them.?Defendant’s?initial?suggestion?that?he?was?driving?with?the?permission?of?an?owner-passenger?had?proven?false.?Thus,?Abbott?could?not?reasonably?rely?on?defendant?for?instructions?about?securing?the?car.In?any?event,?probable?cause?had?by?then?arisen?to?believe?the?Chrysler?was?stolen,?and?Abbott?testified?to?such?a?suspicion.?The?impound?was?thus?entirely?proper.?Evidence?thereafter?retrieved?from?the?car?without?a?warrant?was?observed?in?plain?sight?by?officers?at?the?impound?lot.?No?illegal?search?and?seizure?occurred.
- Motion?to?”fire”?counsel.
On?Friday,?October?15,?1982,?one?day?after?the?already-postponed?guilt?trial?had?been?scheduled?to?begin?in?Judge?Grossfeld’s?court,?defendant?moved?before?Judge?Boskovich?to?”fire”?his?appointed?trial?attorney,?Vincent?O’Brien,?for?failure?to?”appeal?[certain?pretrial]?motions.”?After?inquiry,?Judge?Boskovich?denied?the?motion.?Defendant?makes?a?number?of?arguments?in?connection?with?this?incident.?None?has?merit.
The?context?of?defendant’s?contentions?is?as?follows:?The?People?proceeded?by?information,?and?search-and-seizure?issues?were?litigated?at?the?preliminary?hearing.?(??1538.5,?subd.?(f).)?On?March?2,?1982,?defendant?was?arraigned?in?superior?court.?On?April?30,?59?days?later,?defendant?joined?Madrigal’s?and?Williams’?motion?to?set?aside?the?information?under?section?995.?The?section?995?motion?urged?(1)?that?the?prosecution’s?evidence?stemmed?from?an?allegedly?illegal?search?and?seizure?during?the?Barstow?traffic?stop,?and?(2)?that?there?was?insufficient?evidence?of?lying?in?wait.?After?postponements,?the?section?995?motion?was?heard?and?denied?on?June?22.
On?July?7,?Madrigal?and?Williams?sought?a?writ?of?prohibition?to?overturn?the?June?22?order.?The?petition,?which?defendant?did?not?join,?raised?both?the?[54?Cal.3d?433]?search?and?seizure?and?lying-in-wait?issues.?It?was?summarily?denied?on?August?26.fn.?8
Meanwhile,?on?July?14,?defendant?joined?Madrigal’s?July?2?superior?court?motion?to?suppress?evidence?under?section?1538.5,?subdivision?(i).?The?motion?made?search-and-seizure?claims?similar?to?those?already?rejected?by?the?trial?court?under?section?995.?On?September?28,?after?an?evidentiary?hearing,?the?trial?court?granted?in?part?and?denied?in?part?the?section?1538.5?motion.?Defendant?was?precluded?by?statute?from?seeking?pretrial?review?of?this?denial?because?the?section?1538.5?motion?had?been?filed?more?than?60?days?after?his?arraignment.?(??1510.)fn.?9
Trial?was?originally?set?for?September?28,?but?the?date?had?been?continued?to?Thursday,?October?14.?The?matter?trailed?thereafter?pending?completion?of?final?pretrial?motions.?Judge?Grossfeld,?to?whom?the?matter?was?assigned?for?trial,?had?constantly?reminded?the?parties?that?trial?should?begin?no?later?than?Monday,?October?18.
Judge?Boskovich?was?also?involved?in?the?completion?of?pretrial?motions.?On?Friday?morning,?October?15,?with?all?defendants?present,?Madrigal?moved?before?Judge?Boskovich?to?relieve?his?appointed?counsel,?Robert?Peters,?and?represent?himself?pursuant?to?Faretta?v.?California?(1975)422?U.S.?806?[45?L.Ed.2d?562,?95?S.Ct.?2525].fn.?10?Madrigal?said?he?was?dissatisfied?because?counsel?had?failed?to?”appeal”?the?denial?of?pretrial?motions.?Peters?responded?that?writ?relief?had?been?sought?from?denial?of?the?section?995?motion,?and?that?counsel?were?”trying?to?prepare?one?on?the?denial?of?the?1538.5.”?The?court?declared?that?counsel’s?representation?had?been?excellent,?that?the?motion?for?self-representation?was?untimely,?and?that?if?it?were?granted,?the?ensuing?trial?delay?would?not?be?in?the?interest?of?justice.?The?court?denied?the?Faretta?motion?and?proceeded?to?other?matters.
Later?the?same?day,?defendant?interrupted?the?proceedings,?stating?that?he?wanted?to?”fire”?O’Brien,?his?appointed?counsel.?Like?Madrigal,?defendant?[54?Cal.3d?434]?declared?that?his?dissatisfaction?stemmed?from?counsel’s?failure?to?”appeal”?pretrial?motions.?The?court?asked?O’Brien?for?a?response.?O’Brien?explained?that?a?writ?petition?challenging?the?section?1538.5?denial?”is?to?be?filed?on?Monday”?and?that?”the?one?for?the?[section]?995?[denial]?has?already?been?filed.”?Judge?Boskovich?indicated?he?would?take?the?word?of?an?officer?of?the?court.?A?writ?petition,?said?the?judge,?had?”obviously”?been?filed?”on?these?particular?motions”?and?”I?don’t?know?what?else?[defendant]?could?ask?for.”?Accordingly,?”[t]he?Marsden?motion”?to?discharge?counsel?(see?People?v.?Marsden?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?118?[84?Cal.Rptr.?156,?465?P.2d?44])?was?denied.
Coville?immediately?stated?that?he?also?wished?to?”fire”?his?appointed?counsel?for?”conflict?of?interest”?because?pretrial?motions?had?not?been?”appeal[ed].”?Defendant?interjected?that?”[w]e?feel?they’re?trying?to?get?us?into?trial?before?we?can?get?these?motions?into?Appellate?Court?and?get?a?ruling?on?them.”?Once?again?the?court?sought?counsel’s?response.?Coville’s?attorney,?Lloyd?Riley,?explained?that?he?intended?to?seek?section?1538.5?review?on?behalf?of?Coville?as?soon?as?a?transcript?of?the?trial?court?proceedings?became?available.?Riley?”expected”?the?writ?petition?would?be?filed?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?by?Wednesday,?October?20,?the?day?jury?selection?was?scheduled?to?begin.
The?court?declared?that?all?counsel?had?obviously?done?everything?possible?to?present?pretrial?motions?and?writs,?and?that?it?appeared?”we?have?reached?the?stage?where?…?the?defendants?…?are?just?trying?to?delay?progress?….”?Coville’s?motion?was?denied.
On?Monday,?October?18,?all?defendants?jointly?filed?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?a?petition?for?writ?of?mandate?challenging?the?trial?court’s?partial?denial?of?relief?under?section?1538.5.?Citing?section?1510,?the?Court?of?Appeal?summarily?denied?the?petition?as?untimely.
Defendant?first?argues?that?his?counsel?rendered?constitutionally?ineffective?assistance?by?failing?to?join?the?only?timely?writ?proceeding,?that?arising?from?denial?of?the?section?995?motion,?and?for?failing?to?file?a?section?1538.5?motion?within?60?days?after?arraignment.?Counsel’s?omission,?he?urges,?effectively?denied?him?pretrial?appellate?review?of?his?lying-in-?wait?and?search-and-seizure?claims.
[5]?The?appellate?record?fails?to?disclose?the?reasons?for?counsel’s?conduct.?Even?if?we?assume?that?counsel?could?have?had?no?sound?tactical?purpose?(see?People?v.?Pope?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?412,?425-426?[152?Cal.Rptr.?732,?590?P.2d?859,?2?A.L.R.4th?1]),?defendant?fails?to?show?prejudice?warranting?reversal.?Madrigal?and?Williams?did?seek?writ?review?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?435]?section?995?denial;?their?petition?properly?raised?the?lying-in-wait?and?search-and-?seizure?issues?common?to?all?the?defendants.?The?Court?of?Appeal?summarily?denied?pretrial?relief,?and?defendant?fails?to?show?that?the?result?might?have?been?different?had?he?joined?the?petition.In?any?event,?by?timely?pursuing?trial?court?remedies?under?sections?995?and?1538.5,?counsel?took?all?steps?necessary?to?preserve?defendant’s?claims?for?appellate?review.?The?law?permits?an?accused?to?seek?pretrial?writ?review?after?motions?under?sections?995?and?1538.5?have?been?denied?in?the?superior?court?(see????999a,?1538.5,?subd.?(i)),?but?these?procedures?are?optional.?Counsel’s?failure?to?preserve?defendant’s?pretrial?writ?rights?did?not?preclude?defendant?from?raising?his?lying-in-wait?and?search-and-seizure?arguments?on?appeal?from?his?convictions.?Moreover,?as?we?explain?elsewhere?(see?discussions?ante?and?post),?those?arguments?fail?on?their?merits.
Hence,?any?inadvertent?mishandling?of?pretrial?writs?by?Attorney?O’Brien?does?not?undermine?confidence?in?the?outcome?of?defendant’s?case.?(Strickland?v.?Washington?(1984)?466?U.S.?668,?694?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?697-698,?104?S.Ct.?2052];?see?People?v.?Fosselman?(1983)?33?Cal.3d?572,?584?[189?Cal.Rptr.?855,?659?P.2d?1144].)?Nor?was?counsel’s?omission?so?serious?as?to?cast?doubt?on?the?overall?reliability?of?the?adversarial?process.?(See?United?States?v.?Cronic?(1984)?466?U.S.?648,?659?[80?L.Ed.2d?657,?668,?104?S.Ct.?2039].)
[6a]?Defendant?next?argues?that?when?he?moved?to?discharge?his?attorney,?counsel?”misled”?the?trial?court?by?implying?inaccurately?that?defendant?had?joined?the?section?995?writ?petition,?and?by?failing?to?disclose?that?the?anticipated?section?1538.5?petition?would?be?untimely.?Defendant?also?suggests?the?court?itself?overlooked?the?statutory?time?limits?applicable?to?the?pretrial?writs.?As?a?result,?he?urges,?the?court?ruled?on?his?motion?without?realizing?the?legitimacy?of?his?complaints. [7]?When?a?defendant?moves?for?substitution?of?appointed?counsel,?the?court?must?consider?any?specific?examples?of?counsel’s?inadequate?representation?that?the?defendant?wishes?to?enumerate.?Thereafter,?substitution?is?a?matter?of?judicial?discretion.?Denial?of?the?motion?is?not?an?abuse?of?discretion?unless?the?defendant?has?shown?that?a?failure?to?replace?the?appointed?attorney?would?”substantially?impair”?the?defendant’s?right?to?assistance?of?counsel.?(People?v.?Douglas?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?468,?520?[268?Cal.Rptr.?126,?788?P.2d?640];?People?v.?Moore?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?63,?76?[252?Cal.Rptr.?494,?762?P.2d?1218];?People?v.?Marsden,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?118,?123-124.) [6b]?Here?the?court?satisfied?its?duty?to?consider?defendant’s?complaints.?It?allowed?defendant?to?explain?his?single?ground?of?dissatisfaction-counsel’s?[54?Cal.3d?436]?handling?of?pretrial?writs.?The?court?sought?a?response?from?counsel?and?considered?the?information?provided?in?reaching?a?decision.?There?is?no?evidence?that?counsel?intended?to?mislead?the?court.?The?court?was?entitled?to?accept?counsel’s?explanation?and?was?not?obliged?to?inquire,?sua?sponte,?into?the?actual?efficacy?of?counsel’s?efforts.Nor?did?the?court?err?in?denying?the?motion?for?substitution.?Even?if?evidence?of?counsel’s?inadvertence?had?been?before?the?court,?defendant’s?showing?indicates?neither?constitutionally?inadequate?assistance?nor?a?fundamental?breakdown?of?attorney-client?relations.?(See?People?v.?Hamilton?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1163-1164?[259?Cal.Rptr.?701,?774?P.2d?730].)fn.?11?Absent?more?convincing?indicia?that?retention?of?Attorney?O’Brien?might?”substantially?impair”?defendant’s?right?to?counsel,?there?was?no?obligation?to?appoint?new?counsel.
Defendant?suggests?the?court?might?nonetheless?have?exercised?its?broad?Marsden?discretion?differently?had?counsel’s?oversights?been?revealed.?We?are?not?persuaded.
Even?under?defendant’s?assumptions,?counsel?had?committed?no?serious?transgression.?Having?observed?counsel’s?pretrial?performance?at?some?length,?the?court?maintained?that?all?defendants?were?receiving?excellent?representation.?Three?of?the?defendants?suddenly?presented?similar?motions?to?discharge?their?lawyers?on?the?eve?of?an?already-postponed?trial.?The?court?expressed?its?paramount?concern,?supported?by?the?evidence,?that?these?developments?were?an?orchestrated?last-minute?attempt?to?delay?trial.?It?does?not?appear?reasonably?probable?that?any?gaps?in?the?Marsden?evidence?affected?the?result?of?the?motion.?No?basis?for?reversal?appears.
[8]?Defendant?claims?he?was?also?making?a?constitutional?Faretta?motion?to?represent?himself.?If?his?purpose?was?not?immediately?clear,?he?urges,?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?inquire?about?his?intent.?However,?there?is?no?such?duty.?A?defendant?seeking?to?proceed?in?propria?persona?must?make?an?unequivocal?assertion?of?that?right?within?a?reasonable?time?before?trial.?(People?v.?Wright?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?367,?409?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Bloom?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1194,?1219-?1220?[259?Cal.Rptr.?669,?774?P.2d?698];?People?v.?Windham?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?121,?127-128?[137?Cal.Rptr.?8,?560?P.2d?1187].)?Defendant?never?hinted?he?wished?to?proceed?without?any?lawyer,?even?though?he?was?present?when?Madrigal?earlier?made?just?such?a?request.?No?Faretta?error?occurred.?[54?Cal.3d?437]- Absence?of?mental?defenses.
Defendant?makes?an?appellate?claim?that?O’Brien?rendered?ineffective?assistance?at?the?guilt?phase?by?failing?to?investigate?and?present?possible?mental?defenses,?such?as?combat-induced?posttraumatic?stress?disorder?(PTSD).?However,?the?record?on?appeal?fails?to?disclose?that?counsel?could?or?should?have?found?and?presented?such?evidence.?As?is?appropriate?in?such?circumstances?(see?People?v.?Pope,?supra,?23?Cal.3d?412,?426),?defendant?has?developed?the?claim?more?fully?in?his?petition?for?habeas?corpus.?We?therefore?discuss?it?below?in?connection?with?the?petition.
- Failure?to?request?Keenan?counsel.
The?record?on?appeal?falls?far?short?of?a?showing?that?counsel?was?constitutionally?inadequate?for?failing?to?request?cocounsel.?As?defendant?concedes,?O’Brien?frequently?consulted?with?Owen?on?an?informal?basis?throughout?the?proceedings?on?guilt.?Moreover,?despite?possible?conflicts?of?interest?among?the?codefendants,?O’Brien?had?the?support?of?codefendants’?counsel?on?important?common?issues,?such?as?search?and?seizure?and?the?credibility?of?prosecution?witnesses.?The?record?discloses?no?evidence?that?O’Brien?was?overwhelmed?in?conducting?the?defense.
In?any?event,?because?the?claim?is?presented?as?one?of?ineffective?assistance?of?counsel,?relief?depends?solely?on?whether?counsel’s?error,?if?any,?may?have?affected?the?outcome.?(Strickland?v.?Washington,?supra,?466?U.S.?668,?692-693?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?696-697];?People?v.?Fosselman,?supra,?33?Cal.3d?572,?584.)?Defendant?identifies?no?evidence?in?the?record?that?such?actual?prejudice?occurred,?and?we?discern?none.?Hence,?the?claim?must?be?rejected.
- Number?of?peremptory?challenges.
The?trial?court?allowed?26?peremptory?challenges?to?be?exercised?jointly?by?the?4?codefendants,?and?granted?each?codefendant?5?extra?challenges?to?be?[54?Cal.3d?438]?exercised?individually,?for?a?total?of?46?peremptory?challenges.?The?prosecution?was?also?granted?a?total?of?46?peremptory?challenges.
The?court?allocated?the?challenges?pursuant?to?former?sections?1070?and?1070.5?(see?now?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???231,?subd.?(a)).?Section?1070,?subdivision?(a),?provided?that?defendant?and?the?state?were?entitled?to?26?peremptory?challenges?each?in?a?case?involving?the?death?penalty?or?life?imprisonment,?and?to?10?challenges?each?for?all?other?but?minor?offenses.fn.?12?Section?1070.5,?subdivision?(a),?provided?that?when?two?or?more?persons?were?jointly?tried?for?any?but?a?minor?offense,?the?number?of?challenges?provided?by?section?1070?must?be?allocated?and?exercised?jointly,?with?five?additional?challenges?for?each?individual?codefendant.?In?such?cases,?the?People?received?challenges?equal?to?the?total?number?allowed?the?defense.fn.?13
Defendant?now?claims?the?statutes?did?not?require?joint?exercise?of?the?26?defense?challenges?in?a?capital?case,?but?rather?granted?each?jointly?tried?capital?defendant?26?separate?challenges.?He?concedes?his?counsel?expressly?approved?the?trial?court’s?allocation?of?challenges.?However,?he?claims?that?once?peremptories?are?granted?by?the?state,?the?statutory?allocation?becomes?a?”fundamental”?jury?trial?right?that?can?only?be?waived?by?the?accused?personally.?(See?People?v.?Holmes?(1960)?54?Cal.2d?442?[5?Cal.Rptr.?871,?353?P.2d?583].)
[10]?We?reject?at?the?outset?a?right?of?personal?waiver.?Peremptory?challenges?are?intended?to?promote?a?fair?and?impartial?jury,?but?they?are?not?a?right?of?direct?constitutional?magnitude.?(Ross?v.?Oklahoma?(1988)?487?U.S.?81,?88-89?[101?L.Ed.2d?80,?90,?108?S.Ct.?2273];?People?v.?Ainsworth?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?984,?1005?[248?Cal.Rptr.?568,?755?P.2d?1017];?People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258,?281,?fn.?28?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748].)?In?other?contexts,?we?have?assumed?that?the?right?to?a?full?complement?of?peremptory?challenges?is?less?fundamental?than?the?right?to?jury?trial?itself.?For?example,?while?improper?denial?of?any?jury?is?automatically?reversible,?improper?denial?of?peremptory?challenges?warrants?reversal?only?[54?Cal.3d?439]?if?the?accused?can?show?the?error?affected?his?right?to?a?fair?and?impartial?jury.?(People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1087-1088?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659];?People?v.?Coleman?(1988)46?Cal.3d?749,?771?[251?Cal.Rptr.?83,?759?P.2d?1260].)?We?see?no?reason?to?deem?the?statutory?privilege?so?”fundamental”?or?”critical”?as?to?require?personal?waiver.?(Cf.?People?v.?Guzman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?915,?935-936?[248?Cal.Rptr.?467,?755?P.2d?917].)We?recognize?that?due?process?concerns?may?arise?when?the?state?arbitrarily?withholds?a?nonconstitutional?right?provided?by?its?laws.?(Ross?v.?Oklahoma,?supra,?487?U.S.?at?p.?89?[101?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?90-91];?see?Hicks?v.?Oklahoma?(1980)?447?U.S.?343?[65?L.Ed.2d?175,?100?S.Ct.?2227].)?However,?California?has?never?made?personal?waiver?a?part?of?the?state-created?right?to?peremptory?challenges.?Hence,?defendant?cannot?claim?his?counsel’s?waiver?violated?his?state-created?due?process?rights.?Because?counsel?agreed?to?the?trial?court’s?allocation?of?peremptory?challenges,?defendant’s?claim?of?improper?allocation?is?barred?on?direct?appeal.?We?dismiss?it?on?that?ground?alone.
In?addition,?the?claim?fails?on?the?merits.?The?allocation?of?challenges?at?defendant’s?trial?was?”supported?by?the?plain?language?of?the?statute[s]?and?all?relevant?authority.?[Citations.]”?(People?v.?Ainsworth,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?984,?1004.)?[11]?Nor?are?a?capital?accused’s?constitutional?rights?offended?by?forcing?him?to?share?peremptory?challenges?with?other?capital?and?noncapital?codefendants.?(Id.,?at?pp.?1005-1007.)
- Sufficiency?of?robbery?evidence.
Courts?of?Appeal?have?held?that?the?”immediate?presence”?element?is?satisfied,?even?when?the?actual?taking?of?property?is?far?from?the?scene?of?the?assault,?”so?long?as?[the?victim]?perceives?any?overt?act?in?the?commission?of?the?robbery?and?is?subjected?to?the?requisite?force?or?fear.?…”?(People?v.?Martinez?(1984)?150?Cal.App.3d?579,?604?[198?Cal.Rptr.?565];?see?also,?e.g.,?People?v.?Miramon?(1983)?140?Cal.App.3d?118,?124?[189?Cal.Rptr.?432];?[54?Cal.3d?440]?People?v.?Wiley?(1976)?57?Cal.App.3d?149,?160-161?[129?Cal.Rptr.?13];?People?v.?Lavender?(1934)?137?Cal.App.?582,?589-590?[31?P.2d?439].)?Under?these?cases,?it?would?be?enough?that?defendant?and?his?companions?killed?Burke?for?the?purpose?of?taking?or?retaining?property?entrusted?to?Burke’s?possession?and?control.
However,?in?People?v.?Hayes?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?577?[276?Cal.Rptr.?874,?802?P.2d?376],?we?disapproved?such?an?expansive?interpretation?of?”immediate?presence”?for?purposes?of?robbery.?As?we?explained,?to?ignore?the?distance?between?the?act?of?taking?and?the?application?of?”force?or?fear”?would?deny?meaning?to?the?separate?requirement?of?robbery?that?the?property?be?”tak[en]”?from?the?victim’s?person?or?”immediate?presence.”?(Id.,?at?p.?628.)
[13]?Adopting?the?prevailing?American?rule,?we?held?that?”?’?”[a]?thing?is?in?the?[immediate]?presence?of?a?person,?in?respect?to?robbery,?which?is?so?within?his?reach,?inspection,?observation,?or?control,?that?he?could,?if?not?overcome?by?violence?or?prevented?by?fear,?retain?his?possession?of?it.?[Citations.]”?’?”?(Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?626-627,?quoting?Commonwealth?v.?Homer?(1920)?235?Mass.?526?[127?N.E.?517,?520].)?The?zone?of?immediate?presence?includes?the?area?”within?which?the?victim?could?reasonably?be?expected?to?exercise?some?physical?control?over?his?property.”?(Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?627,?quoting?People?v.?Bauer?(1966)?241?Cal.App.2d?632,?642?[50?Cal.Rptr.?687].) [12b]?The?distance?between?Burke’s?auto?and?the?murder?scene?was?not?so?great?as?to?violate?these?standards?as?a?matter?of?law.?Defendant,?Madrigal,?Williams,?and?Burke?had?brought?the?car?from?a?remote?location?to?the?”Fag?Beach”?lot,?which?apparently?was?a?common?and?convenient?public?parking?spot?for?persons?using?the?nearby?riverbank.?Burke?and?the?three?other?men?then?walked?the?relatively?short?distance?to?the?riverbank?campsite-a?mere?quarter?of?a?mile?by?defendant’s?own?calculation.?Like?Burke,?the?robbers?were?on?foot,?and?they?were?no?closer?to?the?car?at?the?moment?they?assaulted?Burke?than?was?Burke?himself.?There?was?no?evidence?that?Burke?was?too?far?away?to?perceive?and?resist?an?attempt?to?seize?the?vehicle.The?jury?could?thus?reasonably?infer?that?but?for?defendant’s?attack,?Burke’s?relative?proximity?to?the?car?would?have?allowed?him?to?take?effective?physical?steps?to?retain?control?of?the?vehicle,?and?to?prevent?defendant?and?his?companions?from?stealing?it.?The?jury?could?also?conclude?[54?Cal.3d?441]?that?the?theft?was?”by?means?of”?force,?in?that?defendant?attacked?Burke?to?eliminate?his?resistance?to?the?taking.fn.?14
Moreover,?nothing?in?Hayes?suggests?that?criminals?may?escape?robbery?convictions?simply?by?luring?their?victim?far?enough?away?from?the?property?to?make?his?control?more?difficult?or?the?application?of?force?or?fear?more?convenient.?Hayes?disapproved?several?decisions?holding?that?”immediate?presence”?is?satisfied?by?the?victim’s?perception?of?any?overt?act?committed?in?aid?of?the?taking,?but?our?opinion?expressly?excepted?a?long-standing?decision,?People?v.?Lavender,?supra,?137?Cal.App.?582.?(Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?628,?fn.?10.)
In?Lavender,?supra,?137?Cal.App.?582,?robbers?induced?a?hotel?clerk?to?show?them?a?room;?once?there,?they?tied?up?the?clerk,?extorted?the?combination?to?the?office?cash?register,?returned?to?the?adjacent?office,?and?rifled?the?register.?The?Court?of?Appeal?reviewed?decisions?suggesting?that?”immediate?presence”?is?satisfied?if?the?victim?is?close?enough?to?perceive?the?taking,?but?the?court?also?observed?that?”[a]t?least?as?early?as?the?time?when?the?clerk?was?induced?to?leave?the?hotel?office?…?the?crime?of?robbery?was?commenced;?…?The?trick?or?device?by?which?the?physical?presence?of?the?clerk?was?detached?from?the?property?under?his?protection?and?control?should?not?avail?defendant?in?his?claim?that?the?property?was?not?taken?from?the?’immediate?presence’?of?the?victim.”?(137?Cal.App.?at?p.?591,?italics?added.)
Similar?principles?have?traditionally?applied?to?the?requirement?that?the?taking?be?both?from?the?victim’s?person?or?immediate?presence?and?by?force?or?fear.?Cases?untouched?by?Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?577,?hold?that?even?if?the?perpetrator?used?peaceful?means,?such?as?a?pretext,?to?separate?the?property?from?the?victim,?”what?would?have?been?a?mere?theft?is?transformed?into?robbery?if?the?perpetrator?…?[later]?uses?force?to?retain?or?escape?with?[the?property].”?(People?v.?Winkler?(1986)?178?Cal.App.3d?750,?756?[224?Cal.Rptr.?28];?see?People?v.?Anderson?(1966)?64?Cal.2d?633,?638?[51?Cal.Rptr.?238,?414?P.2d?366].)
[14]?We?affirm?these?principles.?One?commits?robbery?when,?with?intent?to?rob,?he?uses?peaceful?means?to?move?the?victim?away?from?a?place?where?the?victim?could?physically?protect?the?property,?then?employs?force?or?fear?[54?Cal.3d?442]?upon?the?victim?in?order?to?make?good?the?theft?or?escape.?The?act?of?”taking”?begins?when?the?separation?of?the?victim?from?his?or?her?property?occurs,?and?it?continues?through?the?forcible?consummation.?Hence,?the?defendant?may?be?found?guilty?of?a?”taking”?which?is?both?from?the?victim’s?”person?or?immediate?presence”?and?”by?means?of?force?or?fear.”?(??211.)?At?oral?argument,?defendant’s?counsel?conceded?as?much.fn.?15 [12c]?Here,?the?prosecution?evidence?indicated?that?defendant?and?his?companions,?acting?by?prearrangement,?induced?victim?Burke?to?leave?his?car?in?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot,?then?to?walk?with?them?to?a?more?secluded?place?where?their?attack?would?be?safer?and?his?ability?to?protect?the?vehicle?from?seizure?would?be?reduced.?The?jury?could?therefore?conclude?they?robbed?Burke?of?the?car. [15]?Furthermore,?the?evidence?supports?a?conclusion?that?the?key?to?the?car?was?taken?from?Burke’s?”person?or?immediate?presence”?by?force?or?fear.?Even?under?defendant’s?version?of?events,?he?obtained?the?key?from?Burke’s?”person”;?defendant?said?Burke?handed?him?the?key?at?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot.?If?the?jury?believed?this,?it?could?still?conclude?that?defendant?later?used?force?to?prevent?Burke?from?retrieving?the?key.?(See?authorities?cited?ante.)Finally,?the?jury?could?determine?that?defendant?did?use?force?in?the?first?instance?to?gain?possession?of?the?key?from?Burke’s?”person.”?Burke’s?body?was?found?with?his?pants?pocket?turned?out,?but?his?wallet?was?not?missing.?A?reasonable?inference?arises?that?the?key?was?obtained?by?killing?Burke,?then?rifling?his?body.?[16]?(See?fn.?16.)?The?evidence?of?robbery?was?sufficient.fn.?16?[54?Cal.3d?443]
- Theft?as?lesser?included?offense.
An?accused?is?entitled?on?request?to?nonargumentative?instructions?that?”pinpoint”?the?theory?of?the?defense.?(People?v.?Daniels?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?815,?870?[277?Cal.Rptr.?122,?802?P.2d?906];?People?v.?Wright?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1126,?1137?[248?Cal.Rptr.?600,?755?P.2d?1049].)?However,?defendant?requested?no?”pinpoint”?instructions?on?the?issue?of?after-formed?intent.?The?trial?court?had?no?sua?sponte?duty?to?provide?them.?(See?generally?People?v.?Bloom,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?1194,?1212.)
Defendant?suggests?our?Turner?and?Ramkeesoon?decisions?established?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?instruct?on?after-formed?intent.?Such?is?not?the?case.?In?Turner?and?Ramkeesoon,?we?addressed?the?presence?or?absence?of?[54?Cal.3d?444]?after-formed?intent?instructions?only?when?deciding?whether?reversible?prejudice?had?arisen?from?the?trial?courts’?erroneous?failure?to?furnish?any?instructions?or?verdict?forms?on?lesser?included?offenses?supported?by?the?evidence.?(Turner,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pp.?690-693;?Ramkeesoon,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?at?pp.?351-353.)?In?contrast?to?Turner?and?Ramkeesoon,?the?instant?trial?court?did?provide?a?full?opportunity?for?conviction?on?lesser?included?offenses?of?robbery.fn.?17?Defendant’s?assertion?of?direct?error?must?therefore?be?rejected.
[20]?Defendant’s?argument?also?fails?as?a?claim?that?his?counsel?rendered?ineffective?assistance?by?omitting?to?request?”pinpoint”?instructions.?The?standard?instructions?made?clear?that?robbery?required?a?finding?of?taking?by?force?or?fear,?while?the?lesser?included?theft?offenses?did?not.?The?evidentiary?dispute?was?between?the?prosecution’s?theory?of?a?group-planned?killing?for?robbery,?on?the?one?hand,?and?defendant’s?claims?of?theft?as?an?afterthought?to?self-defense,?on?the?other.?Confronted?with?these?two?versions,?and?no?other,?the?jury?convicted?defendant?of?conspiracy?to?rob?and?conspiracy?to?murder,?based?on?instructions?specifying?overt?acts?that?preceded?Burke’s?death.?It?found?defendant?guilty?of?first?degree?murder?”under?the?felony?murder?rule,”?i.e.,?homicide?”as?a?result”?of?the?actual?or?attempted?commission?of?robbery?with?specific?intent.?It?also?found?that?defendant?had?committed?first?degree?murder?”other?than?under?the?felony?murder?rule,”?based?on?instructions?defining?premeditated?murder?and?murder?by?lying?in?wait.?It?upheld?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?under?instructions?that?the?robbery?must?not?be?”incidental”?to?the?murder.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?1,?59-?62.)?And?it?further?found?as?a?special?circumstance?that?defendant?killed?intentionally?”while”?lying?in?wait.Hence,?the?jury?necessarily?and?specifically?rejected?defendant’s?claim?of?after-formed?intent.?(See?Turner,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?pp.?691-693;?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?746-747;?see?also?People?v.?Sedeno?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?703,?721?[112?Cal.Rptr.?1,?518?P.2d?913].)?Counsel’s?failure?to?request?”pinpoint”?instructions?on?the?issue?thus?does?not?undermine?confidence?in?the?outcome.?(Strickland?v.?Washington,?supra,?466?U.S.?668,?694?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?698];?see?People?v.?Fosselman,?supra,?33?Cal.3d?572,?584.)?[54?Cal.3d?445]
- Impeachment?with?prior?burglary?conviction.
Defendant?moved?in?limine?to?exclude?three?prior?felonies?for?purposes?of?impeachment.?The?trial?court?excluded?a?1977?assault?and?admitted?a?1974?burglary.?The?court?reserved?judgment?on?whether?the?1981?Pacoima?robbery?conviction?could?be?used?for?impeachment?and?ordered?the?prosecution?not?to?mention?it?until?a?final?ruling?was?made.?Defendant?testified,?and?his?own?counsel?elicited?the?1974?burglary?for?defensive?purposes.?The?prosecutor?briefly?cross-examined?defendant?about?the?burglary?but?did?not?refer?to?the?1981?robbery.fn.?18
[21]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?never?exercised?its?discretion?to?exclude?the?1974?burglary?under?Evidence?Code?section?352?because?the?court?erroneously?believed?that?prior?felony?convictions?suggesting?dishonesty?must?be?admitted?”without?limitation”?under?a?then-recent?constitutional?amendment?added?by?Proposition?8.?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???28,?subd.?(f)?(hereafter?article?I,?section?28?(f)),?added?by?initiative,?Prop.?8,?Primary?Elec.?(June?8,?1982),?commonly?known?as?the?Victims’?Bill?of?Rights.)fn.?19?The?claim?lacks?merit.Because?defendant’s?charged?crimes?occurred?before?the?effective?date?of?Proposition?8,?the?court?was?mistaken?in?its?expressed?belief?that?article?I,?section?28(f)?applied.?(See?People?v.?Smith?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?251,?257-263?[193?Cal.Rptr.?692,?667?P.2d?149].)?However,?the?court?also?indicated?it?would?exercise?its?discretion?under?pre-?Proposition?8?authority?to?allow?impeachment?with?the?1974?burglary.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Rist?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?211,?218-219?[127?Cal.Rptr.?457,?545?P.2d?833];?People?v.?Beagle?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?441,?453-454?[99?Cal.Rptr.?313,?492?P.2d?1].)?As?the?court?noted,?the?burglary?(which?counsel?conceded?was?theft-related)?bore?on?honesty,?was?dissimilar?to?the?charged?offenses,?and?was?not?unduly?remote?because?defendant?had?not?thereafter?led?a?blameless?life.?(Rist,?supra,?16?Cal.3d?at?pp.?218-222;?People?v.?Benton?(1979)?100?Cal.App.3d?92,?97?[161?Cal.Rptr.?12].)?No?error?appears.
- Form?of?guilt?verdicts.
At?the?conclusion?of?the?guilt?trial,?the?court?read?its?proposed?instructions?and?verdict?forms?aloud?to?counsel,?admonishing?that?”[i]f?I?don’t?hear?any?objection,?the?Court?will?interpret?[counsel’s]?silence?as?we?go?through?[54?Cal.3d?446]?these”?to?mean?assent.?With?respect?to?count?two?(the?murder?charge),?instructions?on?three?theories?of?first?degree?murder?were?proffered:?felony?murder?in?the?commission?of?robbery,?deliberate?and?premeditated?murder,?and?murder?by?means?of?lying?in?wait.
The?court?proposed?that?the?jury?be?permitted?to?return?any?one?or?more?of?three?separate?verdicts?of?first?degree?murder?against?defendant.?One?specified?that?defendant?was?”guilty?of?…?violation?of?section?187?…?(Murder?in?the?First?Degree?Under?the?Felony?Murder?Rule).”?A?second?stated?that?defendant?was?”guilty?of?…?violation?of?section?187?…?(Murder?in?the?First?Degree?Other?Than?Under?the?Felony?Murder?Rule.)”?A?third?declared?that?defendant?was?”guilty?of?…?violation?of?section?187?…?(Murder?in?the?First?Degree?Under?Both?of?the?Aforesaid?Theories:?to?wit,?Under?the?Felony?Murder?Rule?and?Other?Than?Under?the?Felony?Murder?Rule.)”
Defense?counsel?voiced?no?objection,?and?the?verdict?forms?described?above?were?submitted?to?the?jury?as?proposed.?The?court?instructed?that?the?jury?must?agree?unanimously?on?each?form.?The?jury?signed?all?three.?A?jury?poll?confirmed?the?result.?Counsel?never?objected?to?the?murder?verdicts?in?the?trial?court.
[22]?Defendant?now?asserts?they?were?defective.?As?he?notes,?in?a?criminal?case,?”[t]he?jury?must?render?a?general?verdict,”?and?may?return?a?”special?verdict”?only?”when?they?are?in?doubt?as?to?the?legal?effect?of?the?facts?proved,?…”?(??1150.)?”A?general?verdict?upon?a?plea?of?not?guilty?is?either?’guilty’?or?’not?guilty,’?…”?(??1151.)?”A?special?verdict?is?that?by?which?the?jury?find?the?facts?only,?leaving?the?judgment?to?the?Court.”?(??1152.)Defendant?argues?that?a?general?verdict?may?not?specify?the?theory?of?conviction,?and?a?special?verdict?may?not?decide?the?ultimate?issue?of?conviction?or?acquittal.?Hence,?he?urges,?the?instant?murder?verdicts?were?neither?general?nor?special,?and?were?thus?unauthorized.
However,?the?point?was?waived?by?defendant’s?persistent?failure?to?object?or?seek?corrective?measures?below.?We?reject?it?for?that?reason?alone.
Furthermore,?defendant?cannot?claim?his?counsel’s?failure?to?object?constituted?ineffective?assistance?warranting?reversal.?The?forms?returned?by?defendant’s?jury?were?not?forbidden?”special?verdicts,”?but?”general”?verdicts?supplemented?by?special?”findings.”?(See?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?550?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244];?People?v.?Burgener?(1986)?[54?Cal.3d?447]?41?Cal.3d?505,?537-538?[224?Cal.Rptr.?112,?714?P.2d?1251].)?We?recently?intimated?that?special?”findings”?may?accompany?a?general?criminal?verdict,?even?if?not?expressly?authorized?by?statute,?so?long?as?they?do?not?interfere?with?the?jury’s?deliberative?process.?(People?v.?Farmer?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?888,?920?[254?Cal.Rptr.?508,?765?P.2d?940];?but?see?People?v.?Perry?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?756,?783-784?[103?Cal.Rptr.?161,?499?P.2d?129].)?Defendant?identifies?no?deliberative?harm?that?might?arise?from?requiring?the?jury?to?agree?on?specific?theories?of?first?degree?murder.
In?any?event,?technical?defects?in?a?verdict?may?be?disregarded?if?the?jury’s?intent?to?convict?of?a?specified?offense?within?the?charges?is?unmistakably?clear,?and?the?accused’s?substantial?rights?suffered?no?prejudice.?(???1258,?1404;fn.?20?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Radil?(1977)?76?Cal.App.3d?702,?710?[142?Cal.Rptr.?233];?People?v.?Bratis?(1977)?73?Cal.App.3d?751,?763-764?[141?Cal.Rptr.?45];?People?v.?McKinney?(1945)?71?Cal.App.2d?5,?13-?14?[161?P.2d?957].)
The?instant?verdicts?conclusively?show?the?jury’s?intent?to?convict?defendant?of?first?degree?murder?as?charged?in?count?2.?Defendant’s?claim?of?prejudice?is?less?clear.?He?implies?that?the?special?findings?denied?him?the?benefit?of?a?long-established?principle?of?appellate?review.?This?rule?holds?that?”when?the?prosecution?presents?its?case?to?the?jury?on?alternate?theories,?some?of?which?are?legally?[and?factually?supportable]?and?others?legally?[or?factually?defective],?and?the?reviewing?court?cannot?determine?from?the?record?on?which?theory?the?ensuing?general?verdict?of?guilt?rested,?the?conviction?cannot?stand.?…”?(People?v.?Green,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?1,?69;?see?also?id.,?at?pp.?70-71.)
But?there?is?no?”substantial?right”?to?a?verdict?that?is?vulnerable?in?this?respect.?An?accused?suffers?no?cognizable?”prejudice”?when?the?trial?court?protects?the?record?by?directing?the?jury?to?agree?unanimously?on?each?alternate?theory?supporting?the?charge,?and?to?disclose?the?results.
Even?if?defendant’s?theory?were?correct,?no?prejudice?would?arise?on?these?facts.?Every?first?degree?murder?theory?presented?and?found?against?defendant?was?amply?supported.?(See?discussions?ante?and?post.)?Hence,?an?undifferentiated?verdict?would?not?have?changed?the?appellate?outcome.?No?basis?for?reversal?appears.?[54?Cal.3d?448]
- Lying?in?wait.
The?lying-in-wait?instructions?also?expressed?the?correct?temporal?relationship?between?concealment?and?attack.?For?purposes?of?first?degree?murder,?CALJIC?No.?8.25,?as?received?by?the?jury,?states?that?the?killing?must?be?”immediately?preceded”?by?the?period?of?lying?in?wait.?The?special?circumstance?instruction?set?forth?the?statutory?requirement?that?the?murder?was?committed?”while”?the?defendant?was?lying?in?wait.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15);?CALJIC?No.?8.81.15.)?The?evidence?indicated?that?defendant?maneuvered?himself?behind?Burke,?then?attacked?without?warning?from?that?position?of?advantage.?(See?Domino?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?129?Cal.App.3d?1000,?1011?[181?Cal.Rptr.?486].)?The?jury?cannot?have?been?misled.
- Robbery-murder?special?circumstance.
Defendant?claims?there?was?no?substantial?evidence,?for?purposes?of?the?robbery-murder?special?circumstance,?that?the?robbery?was?more?than?”incidental”?to?the?murder.?(People?v.?Green,?supra,27?Cal.3d?1,?59-62.)?On?the?contrary,?two?prosecution?witnesses?testified?at?length?to?a?plan?of?murder?for?the?purpose?of?robbery.?The?record?fully?supports?a?robbery-murder?special-circumstance?finding.
- Miscellaneous?contentions.
Defendant?makes?two?additional?claims?of?error?with?respect?to?guilt?and?special?circumstances.?Both?have?been?rejected?in?prior?decisions.?The?contentions,?and?the?dispositive?contrary?authority,?are?as?follows:
[26]?”Death?qualification”?of?the?unitary?guilt/penalty?jury?denied?him?a?fair?and?representative?guilt?jury.?(E.g.,?Lockhart?v.?McCree?(1986)?476?U.S.?162?[90?L.Ed.2d?137,?106?S.Ct.?1758];?People?v.?Hamilton,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?1142,?1165;?People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?353?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680];?Hovey?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?28?Cal.3d?1?[168?Cal.Rptr.?128,?616?P.2d?1301].) [27]?The?jury?should?have?been?instructed?that?intent?to?kill?is?necessary?for?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance.?(People?v.?Poggi?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?306,?326-327?[246?Cal.Rptr.?886,?753?P.2d?1082];?People?v.?Anderson?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1104,?1138-1147?[240?Cal.Rptr.?585,?742?P.2d?1306].)fn.?22?[54?Cal.3d?450]Penalty?Issues
- Instructions?on?sympathy?and?mitigating?evidence.
The?trial?court?instructed?in?the?statutory?language?that?the?jury?could?consider?”[a]ny?…?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime?….”?(??190.3,?factor?(k),?italics?added;?CALJIC,?former?No.?8.84.1,?factor?(k).)?At?the?defendants’?request,?the?court?added?the?phrase?”including?but?not?limited?to?the?defendant’s?character,?background,?mental?condition?and?physical?condition.”?In?his?argument,?the?prosecutor?minimized?the?importance?of?defense?evidence?in?mitigation?but?never?suggested?that?any?evidence?proffered?by?the?defense?was?legally?irrelevant.?Hence,?there?is?no?reasonable?likelihood?the?jury?was?misled?about?its?constitutional?and?statutory?duty?to?consider?every?”aspect?of?'[the]?defendant’s?character?or?record?…?that?the?defendant?proffers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death.’?”?(People?v.?Easley?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?858,?878?&?fn.?10?[196?Cal.Rptr.?309,?671?P.2d?813],?quoting?Lockett?v.?Ohio?(1978)?438?U.S.?586,?604?[57?L.Ed.2d?973,?990,?98?S.Ct.?2954]?[plur.?opn.];?see?Boyde?v.?California?(1990)?494?U.S.?370,?381-382?[108?L.Ed.2d?316,?329-330,?110?S.Ct.?1190];?People?v.?Gonzalez?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1225?&?fn.?23?[275?Cal.Rptr.?729,?800?P.2d?1159].)
Defendant?claims?the?court?should?have?substituted?”mitigates”?for?”extenuates”?as?he?suggested.?However,?the?words?are?synonyms,?and?defendant?fails?to?show?how?use?of?the?statutory?term?”extenuates”?obscured?the?jury’s?understanding.?The?court?did?not?err?by?refusing?the?proffered?substitution.
Defendant?contends?the?court’s?failure?to?countermand?the?standard?guilt?phase?”antisympathy”?instruction?(CALJIC?No.?1.00)?left?the?penalty?jury?insufficiently?informed?about?its?duty?to?”?’consider?any?”sympathy?factor”?raised?by?the?evidence?before?it.’?”?(People?v.?Easley,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?at?p.?876,?quoting?People?v.?Robertson?(1982)?33?Cal.3d?21,?58?[188?Cal.Rptr.?77,?655?P.2d?279].)?On?the?contrary,?the?trial?court?gave?a?defense?instruction?that?in?weighing?the?”sympathetic?elements”?of?the?defendant’s?background,?”the?jury?may?consider?pity,?sympathy?and?mercy?….”
Defendant’s?assertion,?that?the?prosecutor?argued?sympathy?was?irrelevant,?lacks?merit.?The?prosecutor?maintained?that?the?evidence?in?mitigation?was?[54?Cal.3d?451]?weak,?and?he?invited?the?jury?to?accord?defendant?the?same?mercy?defendant?showed?his?victim.?No?suggestion?was?made,?however,?that?consideration?of?sympathy?would?be?legally?improper.?The?jury?cannot?have?been?misled.
- Instructions?on?scope?of?sentencing?authority.
We?have?concluded?that?the?1978?law’s?”shall/outweigh”?language,?properly?construed,?does?not?limit?the?sentencer’s?discretion?to?decide?the?appropriate?penalty?under?the?evidence.?”Weighing”?is?neither?a?mechanical?counting?of?factors?nor?an?arbitrary?assignment?of?values.?It?is?the?subjective?mental?process?by?which?the?sentencer?”determines?under?the?relevant?evidence?which?penalty?[it?believes]?is?appropriate?in?the?particular?case.?[Fn.?omitted.]”?(People?v.?Brown?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?512,?541?[220?Cal.Rptr.?637,?709?P.2d?440];?see?People?v.?Boyde?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?212,?253?[250?Cal.Rptr.?83,?758?P.2d?25].)
In?Brown,?supra,?we?expressed?concern?that?instructions?phrased?in?the?”unadorned”?statutory?language?might?sometimes?be?misleading.?Therefore,?we?endorsed?more?elaborate?explanatory?instructions?for?use?in?subsequent?trials.?(40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?544,?fn.?17,?545,?fn.?19.)?On?the?other?hand,?we?examine?pre-Brown?trials?in?which?the?”unadorned”?instruction?was?given?to?determine?”whether,?in?context,?the?sentencer?may?have?been?misled?to?defendant’s?prejudice?about?the?scope?of?its?sentencing?discretion?….”?(Id.,?at?p.?544,?fn.?17.)
Here,?in?addition?to?the?”unadorned”?standard?instructions,?the?jury?received?a?defense?instruction?that?the?mere?counting?of?opposing?factors?was?wrong,?and?that?”[t]he?particular?weight?of?such?opposing?circumstances?is?not?determined?by?the?relative?number,?but?by?their?relative?convincing?force?on?the?ultimate?question?[of]?punishment.”
Furthermore,?the?prosecutor?did?nothing?to?exploit?possible?ambiguities?in?the?”unadorned”?instructions.?His?argument?was?brief?and?restrained.?He?simply?claimed?that?aggravation?outweighed?mitigation,?that?mercy?was?not?warranted,?that?defendant’s?culpability?might?be?even?greater?than?Madrigal’s,?but?that?both?men?deserved?death.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?jury?[54?Cal.3d?452]?cannot?have?been?misled?about?its?discretion?to?impose?the?appropriate?penalty?under?the?particular?circumstances.?No?basis?for?reversal?appears.fn.?23
- Remorselessness?as?aggravating?factor.
Moreover,?evidence?that?the?murder?of?Burke?and?the?robbery?of?Yitshaky?were?particularly?remorseless?could?be?considered?in?aggravation.?Section?190.3,?factor?(a),?”allows?the?sentencer?to?evaluate?all?aggravating?and?mitigating?aspects?of?the?capital?crime?itself.?Moreover,?there?is?nothing?inherent?in?the?issue?of?remorse?which?makes?it?mitigating?only.?The?defendant’s?overt?indifference?or?callousness?toward?his?misdeed?bears?significantly?on?the?moral?decision?whether?a?greater?punishment,?rather?than?a?lesser,?should?be?imposed.?[Citation?omitted.]”?(People?v.?Gonzalez,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1232,?italics?in?original,?some?italics?omitted.)?By?similar?reasoning,?the?prosecution?may?also?show?and?argue?in?aggravation?that?other?”violent?criminal?activity”?by?the?defendant?(??190.3,?factor?(b))?was?particularly?brutal,?callous,?and?remorseless.?(See?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?757.)?No?improper?argument?occurred.
- “Other?crimes”?instructions.
The?pertinent?sentencing?factors?were?submitted?to?the?jury?in?the?standard?language?of?section?190.3?(see?CALJIC,?former?No.?8.84.1),?including?factors?(a)?(“[t]he?circumstances?of?the?crime?of?which?the?defendant?was?convicted?in?the?present?proceeding?….”),?(b)?(“[t]he?presence?or?absence?of?[violent]?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?….”),?and?(c)?(“[t]he?presence?or?absence?of?any?prior?felony?conviction.”).?The?court?refused?proffered?defense?instructions?which?would?have?specified?that?factors?(a),?(b),?and?(c)?constitute?mutually?exclusive?categories?of?crimes?and?do?not?overlap.fn.?24?Defendant?claims?this?was?error.
[31]?Defendant?is?correct?in?his?assertion?that?factors?(a)?and?(b)?are?mutually?exclusive.?”[T]he?term?’criminal?activity?[involving]?force?or?[54?Cal.3d?453]?violence’?as?used?in?[factor]?(b)?is?limited?to?conduct?other?than?the?immediate?circumstances?for?which?the?death?penalty?is?being?contemplated.?[Citation?omitted.]”?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?763;?People?v.?Miranda?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?57,?105-106?[241?Cal.Rptr.?594,?744?P.2d?1127].)Four?years?ago?we?stated?that?instructions?in?future?cases?should?make?clear?the?distinction?between?factors?(a)?and?(b)?”in?order?to?avoid?any?possible?confusion?on?this?point.”?(Miranda,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?106,?fn.?28.)?However,?we?have?not?suggested?that?courts?erred?in?earlier?cases?by?refusing?to?elaborate?upon?the?statutory?language.
Indeed,?we?have?stressed?that?any?ambiguity?in?the?earlier?standard?factor?(a)-(b)?instruction?was?unlikely?to?cause?prejudice.?Unless?invited?to?do?so?by?the?prosecutor,?we?observed,?”jurors?are?unlikely?to?give?the?circumstances?of?the?current?crime?greater?weight?in?the?penalty?determination?simply?because?they?appear?to?be?included?in?two?separate?categories?of?statutory?’aggravation.’?”?(People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?763.)?No?such?exploitation?occurred?here.
Furthermore,?the?court?did?not?err?by?refusing?instructions?that?distinguished?factor?(c)?from?both?factors?(a)?and?(b).?The?statutory?language?already?separates?factor?(c)?from?factor?(a)?by?limiting?the?jury’s?consideration?to?”prior”?felony?convictions.?And,?contrary?to?the?import?of?the?defense?instruction,?factors?(b)?and?(c)?may?overlap;?if?defendant?engaged?in?”violent?criminal?activity”?which?resulted?in?a?”prior?felony?conviction,”?the?jury?may?consider?the?violence?under?factor?(b)?and?the?conviction?under?factor?(c).?(Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?764.)
- Admission?of?”subsequent”?felony?conviction.
However,?defendant?failed?to?object?or?request?limiting?instructions?when?the?conviction?was?introduced?in?evidence.?Indeed,?for?obvious?tactical?reasons,?the?defense?sought?to?stipulate?to?the?convictions?as?a?means?of?excluding?the?underlying?facts.?Hence,?the?issue?is?waived?on?appeal.
In?any?event,?no?basis?for?reversal?appears.?The?Pacoima?robbery?conviction,?based?on?defendant’s?guilty?plea,?was?admissible?under?factor?(b)?as?proof?of?his?participation?in?the?underlying?violent?criminal?activity.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?577,?632-633?[juvenile?adjudication?for?violent?criminality];?People?v.?Lucky?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?259,?294-295?[247?Cal.Rptr.?1,?753?P.2d?1052]?[same].)?Such?proof?was?significant?considering?the?victim’s?failure?to?identify?defendant?at?the?penalty?trial.
Moreover,?though?the?prosecutor?also?incorrectly?argued?the?conviction’s?relevance?under?factor?(c),?and?the?jury?received?no?contrary?instruction,?we?see?no?prejudice.?Once?the?brutal?facts?of?the?Pacoima?robbery?were?disclosed,?”[t]he?additional?fact?that?defendant?was?convicted?of?that?offense?could?have?added?very?little?to?the?total?picture?considered?by?the?jury?….”?(Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?567,?italics?in?original.)
- Substitution?of?penalty?counsel.
The?only?solution,?defendant?suggests,?was?to?empanel?a?new?penalty?jury?which?would?rehear?the?guilt?phase?evidence?in?Owen’s?presence.?In?defendant’s?view,?the?court?had?a?sua?sponte?duty?to?order?such?remedies?here.?Alternatively,?he?suggests,?counsel?was?ineffective?for?failing?to?request?them.
Courts?of?Appeal?have?held?that?a?fundamental?deprivation?of?the?right?to?effective?representation?may?occur?when?circumstances?force?replacement?of?defense?counsel?for?closing?arguments?only.?The?cases?reason?that?substitute?counsel?has?no?means?of?raising?credibility?issues?in?counsel’s?summation,?because?counsel?was?not?present?to?observe?the?witnesses’?demeanor.?A?retrial?may?therefore?be?necessary,?in?which?the?evidence?is?presented?to?a?new?jury?with?substitute?counsel?present.?(People?v.?Manson?(1976)?61?[54?Cal.3d?455]?Cal.App.3d?102,?197-203?[132?Cal.Rptr.?265];?see?also?People?v.?Gibbs?(1986)?177?Cal.App.3d?763,?766?[223?Cal.Rptr.?194].)
A?different?situation?arises,?however,?when?substitution?becomes?necessary?between?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases?of?a?capital?trial.?The?jury?has?already?heard?the?credibility?arguments?of?guilt?phase?counsel?who?was?present?for?testimony,?and?has?nonetheless?convicted?the?defendant?of?capital?murder.
The?separate?penalty?phase?assumes?the?validity?of?the?capital?conviction,?then?addresses?a?different?issue-which?available?punishment?is?appropriate?under?all?the?aggravating?and?mitigating?circumstances.?”Lingering?doubt”?arguments?are?often?unwise,?for?they?risk?antagonizing?a?jury?that?has?already?found?the?defendant?guilty.fn.?25
The?theoretical?possibility?of?a?lingering-doubt?argument?does?not?automatically?require?the?heroic?and?cumbersome?procedure?defendant?suggests.?The?trial?court?in?this?case?had?no?sua?sponte?duty?to?empanel?a?new?penalty?jury?simply?because?guilt?counsel?was?forced?to?withdraw?before?the?penalty?phase?commenced.
Nor?does?counsel’s?failure?to?press?the?issue?warrant?reversal?on?a?theory?of?ineffective?assistance.?Though?Attorney?O’Brien?and?his?guilt?phase?colleagues?argued?credibility?issues?with?vigor,?the?jury?had?clearly?rejected?them?and?had?accepted?every?prosecution?theory?of?defendant’s?role?and?guilt.fn.?26?The?eyewitness?and?circumstantial?evidence?supporting?their?verdicts?was?very?strong?indeed.?Moreover,?a?contemporaneous?example?of?defendant’s?violent?criminal?leadership?was?presented?at?the?penalty?phase.
Under?these?circumstances,?the?penalty?jury?was?unlikely?to?give?lingering?doubt?substantial?weight?on?the?issue?of?penalty.?Any?hindrance?of?penalty?counsel’s?ability?to?present?a?lingering-doubt?argument?does?not?undermine?confidence?in?the?outcome.
- Miscellaneous?contentions.
Habeas?Corpus
[36]?Defendant?has?submitted?a?petition?for?habeas?corpus?alleging?ineffective?trial?assistance?and?newly?discovered?evidence.?Defendant?claims?that?the?failure?of?guilt?phase?counsel,?Vincent?O’Brien,?to?investigate?a?defense?based?on?drug?and?alcohol?intoxication?and?combat-induced?PTSD?was?prejudicial?at?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?phases.?Defendant?further?asserts?that?O’Brien’s?failure?to?seek?live?witnesses?to?defendant’s?heroism?in?Vietnam?hindered?substitute?penalty?phase?counsel?and?caused?the?omission?of?important?evidence?in?mitigation?of?penalty.?At?the?least,?defendant?asserts,?he?has?discovered?”new”?evidence?on?these?topics?that?justifies?a?new?trial.?In?our?view,?defendant?fails?to?state?a?prima?facie?case?for?relief.In?support?of?the?PTSD?claim,?defendant?attaches?the?declaration?of?Dr.?John?W.?Podboy,?a?licensed?clinical?psychologist?with?substantial?experience?as?an?expert?witness?for?both?sides?in?criminal?trials.?After?conducting?two?posttrial?examinations?of?defendant,?a?review?of?his?military?records,?and?interviews?with?members?of?his?family,?Dr.?Podboy?concludes?that?defendant?”suffered?from?a?psychological?condition?at?the?time?of?the?homicide,?produced?by?a?combination?of?drug?abuse,?alcohol?abuse,?and?posttraumatic?stress?from?his?military?service”?which,?if?presented?at?trial,?”could”?have?altered?the?guilt?and?penalty?verdicts.
We?note?at?the?outset?that?defendant’s?claims?of?an?inadequate?pretrial?mental?investigation?are?vigorously?denied?by?trial?counsel?O’Brien.?Defendant?declares?that?O’Brien?had?him?examined?only?for?sanity?and?competence,?but?O’Brien’s?declaration?attached?to?the?petition?states?otherwise.?O’Brien?insists?he?was?aware?of?PTSD,?had?defendant?examined?for?this?specific?purpose,?and?obtained?no?encouraging?opinions.?The?People?have?supplied?a?[54?Cal.3d?457]?further?declaration?from?O’Brien,?who?confirms?he?pursued?a?PTSD?defense?but?was?told?by?both?of?his?chosen?experts,?Drs.?Budwin?and?French,?that?there?was?”no?evidence”?of?PTSD?or?any?other?mental?state?affecting?criminal?intent.?Of?course,?counsel?is?not?required?to?pursue?repetitive?mental?examinations?until?he?finally?obtains?a?favorable?diagnosis.?(People?v.?Williams?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?883,?945?[245?Cal.Rptr.?336,?751?P.2d?395].)
O’Brien’s?declaration?implies?that?his?pretrial?mental?experts?did?not?have?defendant’s?military?records?available;?according?to?O’Brien,?the?defense?investigator?had?not?completed?work?in?that?area?by?the?time?of?O’Brien’s?withdrawal?at?the?conclusion?of?the?guilt?phase.?Moreover,?substitute?penalty?counsel,?William?Owen,?disputes?O’Brien’s?claim?that?O’Brien?had?done?any?substantial?work?in?preparation?for?the?penalty?phase.
However,?Owen?himself?ultimately?had?the?benefit?of?a?five-week?hiatus?between?the?guilt?and?penalty?trials.?Early?in?this?hiatus,?during?an?in?camera?continuance?hearing,?Owen?represented?to?the?trial?court?that?he?had?already?sent?his?own?chosen?psychologist?to?reexamine?defendant,?and?had?also?requested?defendant’s?military?records,?which?he?expected?to?receive?quite?promptly.?Despite?these?steps,?Owen?did?not?proffer?a?mental-state?defense?at?the?penalty?phase?and?did?not?develop?defendant’s?military?background?beyond?presenting?the?Bronze?Star?citation.
In?his?declaration?attached?to?the?petition,?Owen?concedes?the?hiatus?between?trials,?and?he?acknowledges?he?received?”some”?court-ordered?funds?for?penalty?phase?investigation.?Nonetheless,?Owen?fails?to?mention?the?outcome?of?his?inquiries.?We?find?the?omission?significant.?The?inference?arises?that?Owen?was?privy?to?full?information?but?found?nothing?further?of?benefit?to?defendant’s?case.
There?is,?however,?a?more?fundamental?reason?why?defendant’s?petition?must?fail.?It?appears?clear?that?omission?from?defendant’s?trial?of?the?information?he?now?presents?does?not?undermine?confidence?in?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?verdicts.
At?the?guilt?trial,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?a?careful?plan?to?commit?murder?for?robbery;?defendant?claimed?self-defense.?Defendant?concedes?that?the?number?and?nature?of?Burke’s?wounds,?and?his?own?trial?admission?that?he?gained?possession?of?the?only?weapon?early?in?the?struggle,?doomed?any?claim?of?”reasonable”?self-defense.?However,?defendant?suggests,?information?about?PTSD?would?have?supported?a?theory?that?he?reflexively?overreacted?to?Burke’s?initial?attack?as?a?result?of?combat?training?and?stress.?The?jury’s?acceptance?of?such?an?”honest?but?unreasonable”?[54?Cal.3d?458]?self-defense?theory,?he?points?out,?would?at?least?have?reduced?the?homicide?to?voluntary?manslaughter.?(People?v.?Flannel?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?668,?674-680?[160?Cal.Rptr.?84,?603?P.2d?1].)
However,?the?evidence?for?the?prosecution’s?theory,?which?negates?any?claim?of?honest?self-defense,?was?extremely?convincing.?Two?eyewitnesses?testified?to?a?plan?to?ambush,?rob,?and?kill?Burke,?and?their?accounts?coincided?in?all?essential?details.?The?previous?night’s?robbery?provided?a?strong?motive;?the?pattern?of?wounds?on?Burke’s?body?suggested?a?surprise?attack;?and?the?group’s?flight?indicated?consciousness?of?guilt.
Moreover,?one?of?the?principal?prosecution?witnesses,?Bruce?Smith,?implicated?himself?in?the?murder-robbery?conspiracy?and?revealed?on?the?stand?that?he?had?pled?guilty?to?murder?for?his?part?in?the?killing.?Under?these?circumstances,?PTSD?evidence?had?little?chance?of?bolstering?defendant’s?version?of?events-a?version?that?exonerated?Smith.
Nor,?in?our?view,?would?the?outcome?have?been?altered?by?further?development?of?a?theory?that?drug?and?alcohol?consumption,?and?PTSD,?had?diminished?defendant’s?capacity?to?intend?a?robbery?or?a?killing.?The?guilt?jury?was?aware?that?defendant?and?his?companions?had?consumed?drugs?and?alcohol?in?substantial?amounts?on?the?day?of?Burke’s?murder.?However,?the?eyewitnesses?suggested?defendant?was?not?highly?intoxicated.?Defendant?agreed.
Moreover,?defendant’s?own?testimony?suggested?he?was?pursuing?a?rational?plan?to?use?Glover’s?car?for?robberies?and?drug?sales.?His?extensive?recall?of?the?events?of?August?30?also?weighs?heavily?against?a?finding?of?diminished?capacity.?It?is?not?reasonably?probable?that?pursuit?of?a?diminished?capacity?defense?would?have?affected?the?guilt?verdict.
We?also?conclude?that?the?absence?of?evidence?on?PTSD,?and?on?defendant’s?combat?experiences,?does?not?undermine?confidence?in?the?penalty?judgment.?The?jury?believed?beyond?reasonable?doubt?that?defendant?had?personally?participated?in?a?brutal?robbery-murder,?and?it?obviously?accepted?the?prosecution’s?claim?that?he?was?the?leader?of?the?plot.fn.?27?The?jury?heard?that?defendant?had?sustained?other?serious?felony?convictions,?and?committed?other?acts?of?criminal?violence,?over?an?extended?period.
On?the?other?hand,?the?jurors?knew?of?defendant’s?valorous?performance?qualifying?him?for?the?Bronze?Star,?and?they?had?access?to?the?official?[54?Cal.3d?459]?description?of?his?heroism?on?that?occasion.?Counsel?was?not?obliged?to?locate?and?present?live?witnesses?to?these?events.
The?jurors?also?heard?from?several?members?of?defendant’s?family?that?his?experiences?in?Southeast?Asia?had?deeply?changed?his?personality,?and?that?he?was?”messed?up”?on?drugs?when?he?returned.?Defendant’s?sister?described?his?remorse?for?accidentally?running?over?a?Vietnamese?child?during?military?maneuvers.?The?jury?thus?received?a?substantially?accurate?picture?of?the?mitigating?aspects?of?defendant’s?character?and?background.
Defendant?claims?that?professional?analysis?of?defendant’s?Army?records?would?have?disclosed?a?classic?case?of?combat-related?psychological?deterioration.?Though?his?service?record?was?excellent?until?his?return?from?Vietnam,?defendant?suggests,?his?subsequent?drug?abuse,?poor?attitude,?and?absences?without?leave?led?to?numerous?punishments?and?demotions,?and?finally?to?discharge?on?grounds?of?unfitness.
However,?placing?these?records?in?issue?would?have?posed?dangers?that?largely?eliminated?their?value.?The?service?documents?attached?to?the?petition?reveal,?for?example,?that?defendant?was?punished?for?unauthorized?leave?from?his?combat?unit?in?mid-November?1969,?less?than?two?weeks?before?his?Bronze?Star?heroism.
Moreover,?the?Army?psychological?profile?prepared?just?prior?to?defendant’s?separation?from?service?in?1970?concluded?that?there?were?”no?mental?defects”?warranting?a?medical?discharge,?and?that?defendant?”was?and?is?mentally?responsible,?[and]?able?to?distinguish?right?from?wrong?and?adhere?to?the?right?….”?The?profile?described?defendant?in?unflattering?terms?as?a?”habitual?drug?user”?who?”disagrees?with?what?the?Army?stands?for,”?”feels?no?responsibility?toward?the?Army?and?does?whatever?he?feels?like?doing,”?and?”lack[s]?any?motivation?to?do?a?job?well.”?Defendant?was?deemed?unamenable?to?counseling.
Cross-examination?of?defense?experts?on?these?points?could?hardly?have?helped?defendant’s?case.?The?defense?avoided?these?traps?by?presenting?the?Bronze?Star?citation?alone,?then?allowing?family?members?to?describe?defendant’s?worsening?mental?condition.
Under?these?circumstances,?neither?Dr.?Podboy’s?analysis,?nor?the?failure?to?develop?defendant’s?military?background,?casts?substantial?doubt?upon?the?guilt?and?penalty?verdicts.?Hence,?we?conclude?that?defendant?has?failed?to?state?facts?entitling?him?to?relief?on?habeas?corpus.?(Strickland?v.?Washington,?supra,?466?U.S.?668,?694?[80?L.Ed.2d?674,?697-698];?People?v.?Fosselman,?[54?Cal.3d?460]?supra,?33?Cal.3d?572,?584;?see?In?re?Swain?(1949)?34?Cal.2d?300,?304?[209?P.2d?793].)
Disposition
The?guilt?and?penalty?judgments?are?affirmed.?The?petition?for?habeas?corpus?is?denied.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?and?Arabian,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?as?to?defendant’s?conviction?of?first?degree?murder,?conspiracy?to?commit?first?degree?murder,?and?grand?theft?of?an?automobile?(together?with?the?various?sentence-enhancement?findings).?I?also?concur?in?the?denial?of?the?petition?for?writ?of?habeas?corpus.
Otherwise,?I?dissent.
To?begin?with,?I?would?reverse?defendant’s?conviction?of?robbery.?The?evidence?is?insufficient?on?at?least?one?of?the?theories?presented?to?the?jury,?specifically,?that?relating?to?the?taking?of?the?automobile.
Robbery?has?been?defined?by?the?Legislature?as?”the?felonious?taking?of?personal?property?in?the?possession?of?another,?from?his?person?or?immediate?presence,?and?against?his?will,?accomplished?by?means?of?force?or?fear.”?(Pen.?Code,???211.)
It?is?indisputable?that?the?automobile?was?not?taken?from?the?victim’s?”immediate?presence”-so?long?as?that?crucial?phrase?is?given?a?reasonable?construction,?as?it?was?in?our?recent?decision?in?People?v.?Hayes?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?577?[276?Cal.Rptr.?874,?802?P.2d?376]:?”[a]?thing?is?in?the?[immediate]?presence?of?a?person,?in?respect?to?robbery,?which?is?so?within?his?reach,?inspection,?observation?or?control,?that?he?could,?if?not?overcome?by?violence?or?prevented?by?fear,?retain?his?possession?of?it.”?(Id.?at?pp.?626-627,?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.)?The?automobile?here?was?at?least?a?quarter?of?a?mile?from?the?victim.
The?majority’s?analysis?expands?the?crime?of?robbery?in?an?altogether?novel?fashion?and?beyond?any?reasonable?limit?marked?by?the?Legislature’s?definition.?Not?only?does?the?offense?cover-as?it?has?always?and?properly?covered-the?”taking”?of?an?item?of?personal?property?from?a?person’s?”immediate?presence”?”by?means?of?force?or?fear.”?But?today?for?the?first?time,?it?is?extended?to?the?”taking”?of?the?person?from?the?item’s?”immediate?[54?Cal.3d?461]?presence”?by?any?means?whatever-including,?as?here,?deceit?totally?devoid?of?force?or?fear.?The?legislative?definition?has?been?redefined.
The?majority’s?analysis?also?overrules?Hayes?sub?silentio.?As?noted,?the?rule?of?that?case?is?that?an?item?of?personal?property?is?in?a?person’s?”immediate?presence”?if?it?”is?so?within?his?reach,?inspection,?observation?or?control,?that?he?could,?if?not?overcome?by?violence?or?prevented?by?fear,?retain?his?possession?of?it.”?(52?Cal.3d?at?p.?627,?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.)?The?majority?effectively?”restate”?the?rule?to?the?following?effect:?the?item?is?in?the?person’s?”immediate?presence”?if?it?”is?so?within?his?reach,?inspection,?observation?or?control,?that?he?could,?if?not?overcome?by?violence?or?prevented?by?fear,?regain?his?possession?of?it.”?As?so?”restated,”?the?rule?disappears.?This?is?because?a?person,?if?not?for?violence?or?fear,?can?conceivably?regain?possession?of?any?item,?no?matter?how?far?distant?it?is.
As?shown?above,?the?evidence?is?insufficient?to?support?the?robbery?conviction?on?at?least?one?of?the?theories?presented?to?the?jury.?When?such?is?the?case,?the?conviction?must?be?reversed.?(People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?69-71?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)
I?would?then?set?aside?the?felony-murder-robbery?special-circumstance?finding.?The?underlying?special?circumstance,?of?course,?requires?a?robbery.?(Pen.?Code,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i).)?But?as?shown,?the?evidence?of?robbery?is?insufficient.?It?follows?that?the?evidence?of?the?special?circumstance?is?insufficient?as?well.
Next,?I?would?set?aside?the?lying-in-wait?special-circumstance?finding.
This?finding?is?factually?unsupported.?As?I?explained?in?my?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?in?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527,?574?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244],?the?lying-?in-wait?special?circumstance?requires?waiting,?watching,?and?concealment.?”Concealment”?means?actual?physical?concealment?of?the?killer’s?person,?and?not?merely-as?a?majority?of?this?court?inexplicably?held?in?Morales?at?page?555-mere?concealment?of?his?true?intent?and?purpose.?”[T]he?gist?of?’lying?in?wait’?is?that?the?person?places?himself?in?a?position?where?he?is?waiting?and?watching?and?concealed?from?the?person?killed?with?the?intention?of?inflicting?bodily?injury?upon?such?person?or?of?killing?such?person.”?(People?v.?Morales,?supra,?at?p.?574,?internal?quotation?marks?omitted,?italics?in?original?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)?The?evidence?here?establishes?without?dispute?that?there?was?no?actual?physical?concealment?of?defendant’s?person?from?the?victim.
The?lying-in-wait?special-circumstance?finding?is?legally?unsupported?as?well.?The?underlying?special?circumstance,?as?defined?by?the?holding?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?462]?majority?in?Morales?and?by?the?instructions?of?the?trial?court?here,?requires?concealment?of?only?the?killer’s?true?intent?and?purpose.?So?defined,?it?is?inadequate?as?a?predicate?for?the?determination?of?death?eligibility?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution-and,?a?fortiori,?under?the?cruel?or?unusual?punishment?clause?of?article?I,?section?17,?of?the?California?Constitution.
As?I?also?explained?in?my?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?in?Morales-without?substantive?response?on?the?part?of?the?majority?therein:?”To?withstand?scrutiny?under?the?Eighth?Amendment?as?a?valid?predicate?for?the?determination?of?death-eligibility,?a?special?circumstance?’?”…?must?…?provide?a?’meaningful?basis?for?distinguishing?the?few?cases?in?which?[the?penalty]?is?imposed?from?the?many?cases?in?which?it?is?not.’?”?’?[Citations.]?Whether?the?basis?for?distinguishing?between?cases?is?’meaningful’?depends?on?whether?it?serves?the?principal?social?goals?of?the?death?penalty:?retribution?and?deterrence.?[Citation.]
“In?my?view,?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?does?not?pass?constitutional?muster.?My?reasons?are?as?follows.?First,?this?special?circumstance?does?not?distinguish?the?few?cases?in?which?the?death?penalty?is?imposed?from?the?many?in?which?it?is?not.?Indeed,?it?is?so?broad?in?scope?as?to?embrace?virtually?all?intentional?killings.?Almost?always?the?perpetrator?waits,?watches,?and?conceals?his?true?purpose?and?intent?before?attacking?his?victim;?almost?never?does?he?happen?on?his?victim?and?immediately?mount?his?attack?with?a?declaration?of?his?bloody?aim.?Second,?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?does?not?provide?a?meaningful?basis?for?distinguishing?between?murderers?who?may?be?subjected?to?the?death?penalty?and?those?who?may?not.?To?my?mind,?the?killer?who?waits,?watches,?and?conceals?is?no?more?worthy?of?blame?or?sensitive?to?deterrence?than?the?killer?who?attacks?immediately?and?openly.”?(People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?575?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)
Because?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance,?as?defined?to?require?concealment?of?only?the?killer’s?true?intent?and?purpose,?is?inadequate?as?a?predicate?for?death?eligibility?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clauses,?the?related?finding?in?this?case?is?constitutionally?invalid.
Finally,?I?would?reverse?the?sentence?of?death.?When?the?felony-murder-?robbery?and?lying-in-wait?special-circumstance?findings?are?set?aside,?there?remains?no?valid?special-circumstance?finding.?Without?such?a?finding,?as?relevant?here,?a?defendant?is?not?eligible?for?the?ultimate?sanction.?(See?Pen.?Code,???190.2,?subd.?(a).)?As?a?result,?the?sentence?of?death?in?this?case?is?[54?Cal.3d?463]?unsupported?as?a?matter?of?law.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Guerra?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?377,?389?[220?Cal.Rptr.?374,?708?P.2d?1252].)fn.?1
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?I?would?reverse?defendant’s?conviction?of?robbery,?set?aside?the?felony-murder-robbery?and?lying-in-wait?special-?circumstance?findings,?and?reverse?the?sentence?of?death.
BROUSSARD,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?join?in?the?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?of?Justice?Mosk.?As?he?and?Justice?Kennard?point?out,?defendant’s?conviction?for?robbery?and?the?special?circumstance?of?felony?murder?based?upon?robbery?cannot?stand,?because?the?victim’s?car-the?object?of?the?robbery-was?not?taken?from?the?person?or?immediate?presence?of?the?victim.?I?agree?also?with?Justice?Mosk?that?the?special?circumstance?of?murder?while?lying?in?wait?should?be?set?aside,?but?write?separately?to?explain?more?fully?my?views?on?this?subject.
First,?I?doubt?whether?the?evidence?supports?a?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait?in?the?present?case.?In?People?v.?Morales?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?527?[257?Cal.Rptr.?64,?770?P.2d?244],?the?leading?decision?defining?that?special?circumstance,?the?court?held?that?physical?concealment?is?not?required-only?concealment?of?purpose-but?emphasized?that?such?concealment?must?be?accompanied?by?”a?substantial?period?of?watching?and?waiting?for?an?opportune?time?to?act.”?(P.?557.)?The?court?distinguished?Richards?v.?Superior?Court?(1983)?146?Cal.App.3d?306?[194?Cal.Rptr.?120],?a?case?in?which,?according?to?Morales,?”the?victim?was?stabbed?to?death?and?robbed?after?[54?Cal.3d?464]?being?lured?to?a?garage?by?the?defendants?on?the?pretext?that?they?needed?to?recover?some?of?their?tools.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?556.)?Morales?disapproved?Richards’s?reasoning?to?the?extent?that?Richards?required?physical?concealment,?but?approved?Richards’s?result,?on?the?ground?that?in?Richards?there?was?an?absence?of?”any?period?of?watchful?waiting?on?the?defendant’s?part.?They?simply?lured?their?victim?to?a?garage?and?killed?him.”?(Ibid.)
The?facts?of?the?present?case?closely?parallel?Richards.?In?that?case?the?defendants?persuaded?the?victim?to?go?with?them?to?a?garage?where?they?intended?to?kill?him.?When?he?arrived?they?killed?him?as?planned.?Here?the?defendants?persuaded?the?victim?to?come?with?them?to?their?riverside?camp?where?they?intended?to?kill?him.?When?he?arrived?they?carried?out?their?plan.?I?see?no?factual?distinction.?If?Richards?was?rightly?decided?(as?Morales?implied)?on?the?ground?that?there?was?no?period?of?watchful?waiting,?we?should?reach?the?same?conclusion?here.
If?we?assume?for?sake?of?argument?that?the?present?case?is?one?of?murder?while?lying?in?wait?as?that?concept?is?defined?in?Morales,?we?reach?the?question?whether?that?concept?provides?a?constitutionally?adequate?basis?for?deciding?which?murderers?are?subject?to?the?death?penalty.?As?I?will?explain,?lying?in?wait?originally?served?an?entirely?different?purpose-to?classify?as?first?degree?murder?those?killings?committed?by?means?which?conclusively?demonstrated?premeditation.?It?was?not?intended?to?and?does?not?serve?to?distinguish?among?premeditated?first?degree?murders?so?as?to?single?out?those?particularly?heinous?killings?which?may?warrant?death.
The?concept?of?murder?by?lying?in?wait?entered?California?law?in?1856.?(Stats.?1856,?ch.?139,???2,?p.?219.)?Its?function?was?explained?in?People?v.?Sanchez?(1864)?24?Cal.?17:?”In?dividing?murder?into?two?degrees,?the?Legislature?intended?…?to?establish?a?test?by?which?the?degree?of?every?case?of?murder?may?be?readily?ascertained.?That?test?may?be?thus?stated:?Is?the?killing?wilful,?(that?is?to?say,?intentional,)?deliberate,?and?premeditated??If?it?is,?the?case?falls?within?the?first,?and?if?not,?within?the?second?degree.?There?are?certain?kinds?of?murder?which?carry?with?them?conclusive?evidence?of?premeditation.?These?the?Legislature?has?enumerated?in?the?statute?….?These?cases?are?of?two?classes.?First-Where?the?killing?is?perpetrated?by?…?means?of?poison,?lying?in?wait,?or?torture.?…”?(Pp.?28-29.)?In?short,?the?prosecution?could?either?prove?premeditation?directly,?or?it?could?prove?it?indirectly?by?proving?poison,?lying?in?wait,?or?torture,?since?it?was?inconceivable?that?a?defendant?who?used?such?means?would?not?have?premeditated.
Current?Penal?Code?section?189,?enacted?in?1872,?codified?the?reasoning?of?Sanchez.?It?provides?that?”[a]ll?murder?which?is?perpetrated?by?means?of?[54?Cal.3d?465]?…?lying?in?wait,?or?by?any?other?kind?of?wilful,?deliberate,?and?premeditated?killing?…?is?murder?of?the?first?degree.”?The?reference?to?”any?other?kind?of?wilful,?deliberate,?and?premeditated?killing”?(italics?added)?makes?it?clear?that?murder?by?lying?in?wait?is?considered?to?be?simply?one?kind?of?premeditated?murder.
The?California?courts?construed?the?concept?of?lying?in?wait?as?providing?an?alternative?method?for?showing?premeditation.?Thus?in?People?v.?Thomas?(1953)?41?Cal.2d?470?[261?P.2d?1],?Justice?Traynor?noted?that?”[t]here?must?…?be?substantial?evidence?of?a?long?enough?period?of?waiting?and?watching?in?concealment?to?show?a?state?of?mind?equivalent?to?premeditation?and?deliberation?before?the?court?can?properly?give?an?instruction?on?lying?in?wait.”?(Id.?at?p.?481?(conc.?opn.);?see?People?v.?Hyde?(1985)?166?Cal.App.3d?463,?475?[212?Cal.Rptr.?440].)
Consequently?the?courts?did?not?require?physical?concealment?for?lying?in?wait,?for?proof?of?physical?concealment?is?not?necessary?to?show?premeditation.?Proof?that?a?defendant?waited?for?the?opportunity?to?kill?the?victim,?concealing?his?purpose?(People?v.?Tuthill?(1947)?31?Cal.2d?92,?100-101?[187?P.2d?16])?or?his?identity?(People?v.?Hyde,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?463,?475-476)?is?sufficient?to?show?premeditation.
The?1978?death?penalty?initiative,?however,?added?many?special?circumstances?to?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?including?one?under?which?a?defendant?must?be?sentenced?to?death?or?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?if?the?”defendant?intentionally?killed?the?victim?while?lying?in?wait.”?(Pen.?Code,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(15).)?In?this?setting,?lying?in?wait?is?not?a?means?of?proving?premeditation?in?order?to?show?the?murder?is?one?of?the?first?degree.?To?the?contrary,?the?murder?must?already?have?been?found?to?be?first?degree?before?the?jury?reaches?the?question?of?special?circumstance.
Instead,?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait?serves-and?to?be?constitutional,?must?serve-a?different?purpose:?it?must?provide?a?”?’?”meaningful?basis?for?distinguishing?the?few?cases?in?which?[the?death?penalty]?is?imposed?from?the?many?cases?in?which?it?is?not.”?’?”?(Godfrey?v.?Georgia?(1980)?446?U.S.?420,?427?[64?L.Ed.2d?398,?406,?100?S.Ct.?1759],?quoting?Furman?v.?Georgia?(1972)?408?U.S.?238,?313?[33?L.Ed.2d?346,?392,?92?S.Ct.?2726]?(White,?J.,?conc.);?see?McCleskey?v.?Kemp?(1987)?481?U.S.?279,?305-306?[95?L.Ed.2d?262,?287,?107?S.Ct.?1756]?(state?must?establish?rational?criteria?for?death?eligibility).)?Past?cases?which?define?lying?in?wait?by?looking?to?actions?which?demonstrate?premeditation?are?of?no?help?in?this?setting.?Instead,?we?must?define?murder?by?lying?in?wait?so?there?is?a?qualitative?moral?difference?between?such?murders?and?those?which?do?not?involve?lying?in?wait-one?of?such?significance?that?a?person?who?kills?by?[54?Cal.3d?466]?lying?in?wait?should?be?executed,?or?at?least?imprisoned?for?life?without?possibility?of?parole,?while?one?who?kills?without?lying?in?wait?(or?any?other?special?circumstance)?deserves?at?most?life?imprisonment?with?possibility?of?parole.
Recognizing?this?constitutional?imperative,?the?court?in?People?v.?Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?527,?557,?said,?”we?believe?that?an?intentional?murder,?committed?under?circumstances?which?include?(1)?a?concealment?of?purpose,?(2)?a?substantial?period?of?watching?and?waiting?for?an?opportune?time?to?act,?and?(3)?immediately?thereafter,?a?surprise?attack?on?an?unsuspecting?victim?from?a?position?of?advantage,?presents?a?factual?matrix?sufficiently?distinct?from?’ordinary’?premeditated?murder?to?justify?treating?it?as?a?special?circumstance.”?But?this?analysis?is?inadequate.?To?be?sure,?a?murder?meeting?these?criteria?is?different?from?one?that?does?not,?as?a?murder?in?summer?is?different?from?one?in?winter.?But?to?meet?constitutional?requirements,?the?difference?must?be?such?that?murder?while?lying?in?wait?deserves?a?punishment?far?more?severe?than?an?otherwise?identical?murder?which?does?not?involve?lying?in?wait.?Morales?made?no?attempt?to?show?that?a?murder?by?lying?in?wait?is?more?heinous?than?an?”ordinary”?murder,?or?that?the?difference,?if?any,?is?sufficient?to?justify?the?disparity?in?penalty.
Consider,?for?example,?the?following?comparison:?Killer?A?learns?that?the?victim?will?be?at?a?certain?place,?goes?directly?there,?and?shoots?the?unsuspecting?victim?in?the?back.?Killer?B?does?the?same,?except?that?the?victim?is?delayed,?and?B?must?wait?for?a?substantial?period?for?the?victim?to?appear.?Under?Morales,?B?commits?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait,?but?A?does?not.?Yet?would?anyone?claim?on?these?facts?that?B?deserves?a?far?more?severe?punishment?than?A?
Morales?listed?three?criteria?for?the?lying?in?wait?special?circumstance,?but?those?criteria?do?not?fulfill?the?constitutional?test.?The?first?criterion?listed?in?Morales,?concealment?of?purpose,?is,?as?Morales?itself?noted,?characteristic?of?many?”routine”?murders.?The?second-a?period?of?watching?and?waiting-is?the?key?element?in?lying?in?wait?when?that?concept?is?used?to?prove?premeditation,?but?is?of?no?significance?in?connection?with?special?circumstances.?As?I?have?said,?there?seems?no?reason?to?punish?more?severely?the?killer?who?waits?for?his?victim?than?the?killer?who?hunts?down?the?victim.?The?last?criterion-a?surprise?attack?on?an?unsuspecting?victim?from?a?position?of?advantage-adds?little.?Since?the?first?criterion?was?concealment?of?purpose,?the?attack?is?necessarily?a?surprise?and?the?victim?unsuspecting.?The?only?new?element?is?that?the?killer?occupy?a?”position?of?advantage,”?and?no?cases?tell?us?what?that?means.?It?would?seem?to?me?that?a?premeditating?killer?confronting?an?unsuspecting?victim?always?has?an?advantage.?[54?Cal.3d?467]
In?the?present?case,?for?example,?defendant?Madrigal?preceded?the?victim?down?the?trail?and?defendant?Webster?followed?the?victim.?Both?attacked?the?victim?with?knives?and?killed?him.?The?jury?found?Webster,?but?not?Madrigal,?guilty?of?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait.?Was?that?because?Webster?had?a?”position?of?advantage”?because?he?was?behind?the?victim,?but?Madrigal?did?not??Whether?or?not?that?was?the?jury’s?reasoning,?when?two?people?conspire?to?kill?a?victim?and?attack?him?simultaneously,?does?it?make?any?sense?to?sentence?one?to?be?executed?on?the?ground?that?he?alone?had?a?”position?of?advantage?”
In?short,?a?murder?by?lying?in?wait?is?simply?an?ordinary?premeditated?murder?in?which?the?killer?chooses?to?wait?for?his?victim?to?come?to?him?instead?of?going?to?the?victim.?Morales,?as?I?have?noted,?makes?no?attempt?to?explain?why?lying?in?wait?is?included?in?the?list?of?special?circumstances.?A?Court?of?Appeal?case?attempted?an?explanation,?but?the?reasons?suggested?are?so?preposterous?that?the?author?ends?up?writing?tongue?in?cheek.
In?Richards?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?146?Cal.App.3d?306,?314,?footnote?5,?the?court?speculated?that?”[o]ne?supposes?that?…?it?is?perceived?as?a?particularly?cowardly?form?of?murder-hence?the?opprobrium?heaped?on?the?western?villain?who?killed?from?ambush.?And?in?earlier,?more?religious?times,?special?scorn?was?reserved?for?those?who?murdered?victims?in?a?fashion?intended?to?deprive?them?of?the?opportunity?for?reflection?and?contrition.?Thus,?the?piteous?complaint?of?Hamlet’s?father?that?he?was?murdered?’in?the?blossoms?of?my?sin/?Unhousel’d,?disappointed,?unanel’d/?No?reckoning?made,?but?sent?to?my?account/?With?all?my?imperfections?on?my?head?….’?(Hamlet,?act?I,?scene?v.,?line?66ff.)”
I?do?not?believe?the?drafters?and?voters?in?1978?included?the?lying-in-?wait?special?circumstance?because?of?a?400-year-old?notion?that?an?honorable?killer?allows?the?victim?time?to?confess?his?sins,?or?even?a?100-year-old?notion?that?a?honorable?killer?waits?until?the?victim?has?a?chance?to?draw?first.?In?any?case,?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance,?as?construed?in?Morales,?embodied?neither?notion.?To?the?contrary,?Morales?specifically?rejected?the?contention?that?the?special?circumstance?only?applies?if?the?killer?ambushes?the?victim.
Neither?is?there?any?societal?consensus?that?a?murder?while?lying?in?wait?is?more?heinous?than?an?ordinary?murder,?and?thus?more?deserving?of?death.?Of?the?35?other?states?imposing?the?death?penalty,?only?3?treat?lying?in?wait?as?either?a?special?circumstance?or?an?aggravating?factor.?(Colo.?Rev.?Stat.???16-11-103(6)(f);?Ind.?Code?Ann.???35-50-2-9;?Mont.?Code?Ann.???45-5-102.)?Indiana?requires?that?the?defendant?be?physically?concealed?from?the?victim.?(Davis?v.?State?(Ind.?1985)?477?N.E.2d?889,?895-896.)?Thus?there?are?[54?Cal.3d?468]?at?most?two?other?states?which?would?permit?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?for?murders?falling?under?the?Morales?criteria;?at?least?forty-seven?states?would?not.
I?conclude?that?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait,?as?construed?in?Morales,?does?not?meet?minimum?constitutional?criteria:?it?does?not?provide?a?principled?or?rational?ground?for?determining?which?murderers?should?be?death?eligible.?Lying?in?wait?proves?premeditation,?and?thus?proves?that?a?murder?is?of?the?first?degree.?But?those?first?degree?murderers?who?lie?in?wait?are?no?more?deserving?of?death?than?those?who?act?with?dispatch.
Since?the?evidence?does?not?support?the?special?circumstance?of?felony?murder,?and?the?special?circumstance?of?lying?in?wait?is?constitutionally?invalid,?we?should?reverse?the?penalty?judgment.
KENNARD,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?I?cannot?agree,?however,?with?the?majority’s?treatment?of?the?”immediate?presence”?element?of?robbery,?and?therefore?write?separately.
Penal?Code?section?211,?defining?the?crime?of?robbery,?requires?that?property?be?taken?from?the?person?or?immediate?presence?of?the?victim?through?the?use?of?force?or?fear.?In?People?v.?Hayes?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?577,?627?[276?Cal.Rptr.?874,?802?P.2d?376],?we?held?that?”immediate?presence”?means?”an?area?over?which?the?victim,?at?the?time?force?or?fear?was?employed,?could?be?said?to?exercise?some?physical?control.”
In?this?case?the?evidence,?viewed?in?the?light?most?favorable?to?the?prosecution?(People?v.?Johnson?(1980)?26?Cal.3d?557,?576?[162?Cal.Rptr.?431,?606?P.2d?738,?16?A.L.R.4th?1255]),?showed?that?at?the?time?of?the?attack?the?victim?was?approximately?one-quarter?mile?from?his?car,?and?was?walking?down?a?narrow?trail?single?file?with?defendant?and?two?others.?The?majority?sets?forth?two?reasons?why,?in?its?view,?the?immediate?presence?requirement?of?robbery?was?met?in?this?case.?Neither?is?convincing.
First,?the?majority?reasons?that?”[t]he?jury?could?…?reasonably?infer?that?but?for?defendant’s?attack,?[the?victim’s]?relative?proximity?would?have?allowed?him?to?take?effective?physical?steps?to?retain?control?of?the?vehicle?….”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?440.)?This?reasoning?is?unpersuasive.
In?effect,?the?majority?substitutes?a?concept?of?relative?proximity?to?the?stolen?property?for?the?statutory?element?of?immediate?presence.?The?defect?in?the?majority’s?reasoning?can?be?best?understood?by?hypothesizing?that?at?the?time?of?the?attack?the?victim?and?his?attackers?were?not?one-quarter?mile?but?two?miles?from?the?car.?The?majority’s?reasoning?would?be?equally?[54?Cal.3d?469]?applicable?to?that?situation,?since?one?could?reasonably?infer?that?but?for?the?attack?the?victim’s?”relative?proximity”?would?have?enabled?him?to?take?effective?physical?steps?to?retain?control?of?the?vehicle.?Yet?it?cannot?be?rationally?argued?that?a?car?two?miles?from?its?driver?is?within?the?driver’s?”immediate?presence,”?that?is,?in?an?area?in?which?the?driver?could?exercise?physical?control?over?the?vehicle.
Still?another?example?reveals?the?defects?of?the?majority’s?approach.?Let?us?assume?that?the?victim?and?defendant?had?merely?decided?to?go?for?a?walk,?and?that?a?third?party?stole?the?car?from?the?lot?where?it?was?parked?when?the?victim?was?a?quarter-mile?away.?The?victim,?who?was?walking?away?from?the?car?and?down?a?narrow?trail?with?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?theft,?would?not?have?known?the?car?was?gone?until?he?returned.?In?other?words,?in?all?probability?the?car?would?not?have?been?within?the?victim’s?sensory?perception?at?the?time?it?was?taken.?If?the?”immediate?presence”?requirement?of?the?robbery?statute?is?not?tested?by?sensory?perception,?however,?then?it?is?difficult?to?see?what?it?means.?For?instance,?defendant?and?his?companions?could?have?walked?with?the?victim?not?a?quarter-mile,?but?a?mile,?or?three?miles,?or?five,?and?apparently?the?immediate?presence?requirement?would?still?be?met?under?the?majority’s?approach.?The?majority’s?”relative?proximity”?theory?thus?nullifies?the?statutory?requirement?of?immediate?presence.
Second,?the?majority?finds?the?immediate?presence?requirement?of?the?robbery?statute?satisfied?on?a?”luring?away”?theory.?Under?the?majority’s?approach,?robbery?is?committed?when?the?defendant?”uses?peaceful?means?to?move?the?victim?away?from?a?place?where?the?victim?could?physically?protect?the?property,?then?employs?force?or?fear?upon?the?victim?in?order?to?make?good?the?theft?or?escape.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?pp.?441-442.)
This?approach?presumes?that?the?elements?of?robbery?can?occur?over?a?theoretically?limitless?time?span.?But?less?than?10?months?ago,?the?members?of?this?court?unanimously?agreed?that?the?term?immediate?presence?means?”an?area?over?which?the?victim,?at?the?time?force?or?fear?was?employed,?could?be?said?to?exercise?some?physical?control.”?(People?v.?Hayes,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?627,?italics?added.)?The?majority’s?conclusion?in?this?case-that?a?defendant?who?lures?the?victim?away?from?the?immediate?presence?of?the?property,?then?employs?force?or?fear,?can?be?guilty?of?robbery-directly?conflicts?with?this?unambiguous?language?from?our?recent?decision?in?Hayes.
The?majority?correctly?finds?that?the?evidence?supports?a?conclusion?that?the?key?to?the?victim’s?car?was?taken?from?his?person?by?means?of?force?or?fear.?But?because,?as?the?majority?observes,?we?cannot?be?certain?under?the?[54?Cal.3d?470]?circumstances?of?this?case?that?the?jury?based?its?robbery?finding?on?the?taking?of?the?key?and?not?the?car,?this?rationale?alone?cannot?support?the?robbery?special?circumstance.?(See?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?70?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)?Accordingly,?I?would?strike?the?robbery?special?circumstance,?and?affirm?the?death?verdict?in?this?case?based?solely?on?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?”Fag?Beach”?is?the?name?by?which?Smith?referred?to?the?riverbank?area?at?the?foot?of?North?10th?Street,?directly?below?the?parking?lot?where?Burke’s?auto?had?been?left.?The?record?discloses?no?official?name?for?the?beach.?The?informal?name?is?used?by?the?parties?to?this?appeal,?and?we?employ?it,?in?quotation?marks,?for?convenience?only.
FN?3.?The?jury?acquitted?Coville?and?Williams?of?first?degree?murder,?but?found?them?guilty?of?robbery,?second?degree?murder,?grand?theft?of?an?auto,?and?conspiracy?to?commit?robbery?and?first?degree?murder.?Madrigal,?like?defendant,?was?found?guilty?of?conspiracy,?robbery,?grand?theft?of?an?automobile,?and?first?degree?murder?with?personal?use?of?a?dangerous?and?deadly?weapon.?As?to?Madrigal,?a?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?was?found?not?true,?but?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?was?found?true.?Defendant?and?Madrigal?proceeded?to?a?separate?penalty?trial.
FN?4.?At?the?outset,?the?People?request?that?we?take?”judicial?notice”?of?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?unpublished?decision?in?the?joint?appeal?of?codefendants?Madrigal,?Williams,?and?Coville.?The?People?concede?the?decision?has?no?res?judicata?or?law-of-the-case?effect?on?defendant’s?appeal.?However,?they?suggest,?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?resolution?of?certain?common?appellate?issues?is?deserving?of?”some?consideration”?by?this?court.?The?People’s?request?circumvents?the?rule?that,?with?exceptions?not?pertinent?here,?an?unpublished?opinion?”shall?not?be?cited?or?relied?upon?by?a?court?or?party?in?any?other?action?or?proceeding?….”?(Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?977(a),?(b).)?We?therefore?deny?it.
FN?5.?Vehicle?Code,?section?2805,?subdivision?(a),?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”For?the?purpose?of?locating?stolen?vehicles,?a?member?of?the?California?Highway?Patrol?[or?a?city?or?county?officer?conducting?theft?investigations]?may?inspect?any?[registrable]?vehicle?…?and?may?inspect?the?title?or?registration?of?vehicles,?in?order?to?establish?the?rightful?ownership?or?possession?of?the?vehicle?….”
FN?6.?Vehicle?Code,?Section?4462,?subdivision?(a),?provides:?”The?driver?of?a?motor?vehicle?shall?present?the?registration?or?identification?card?or?other?evidence?of?registration?of?any?or?all?vehicles?under?his?immediate?control?for?examination?upon?demand?of?any?peace?officer.”
Vehicle?Code,?Section?12951,?subdivision?(b),?provides:?”The?driver?of?a?motor?vehicle?shall?present?his?license?for?examination?upon?demand?of?a?peace?officer?enforcing?the?provisions?of?this?code.”
FN?7.?Indeed,?by?reporting?the?wallet?stolen,?its?true?owner,?Yitshaky,?had?implicitly?consented?to?police?efforts?to?identify?and?recover?it.?(People?v.?Hackett?(1981)?115?Cal.App.3d?592,?598?[171?Cal.Rptr.?320].)
FN?8.?The?pretrial?writ?proceedings?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?are?not?part?of?the?record?on?appeal.?Defendant?has?nonetheless?asked?us?to?take?judicial?notice?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?record.?The?People?have?been?apprised?of?the?materials?to?be?judicially?noticed?and?do?not?oppose?the?request.?Accordingly,?we?grant?it.?(Evid.?Code,????452,?subd.?(d),?453,?459.)
FN?9.?Section?1510?provides?in?pertinent?part?that?”[t]he?denial?of?a?motion?made?pursuant?to?Section?995?or?1538.5?may?be?reviewed?prior?to?trial?only?if?the?motion?was?made?…?not?later?than?…?60?days?following?defendant’s?arraignment?on?the?information?or?indictment?if?a?felony,?unless?within?these?time?limits?the?defendant?was?unaware?of?the?issue?or?had?no?opportunity?to?raise?the?issue.”
FN?10.?The?hearing?on?Madrigal’s?motion?was?not?part?of?the?original?record?on?appeal?in?defendant’s?case.?At?the?People’s?request,?we?augmented?the?record?to?include?the?transcript?of?this?hearing.
FN?11.?Defendant?suggests?a?fundamental?breakdown?in?attorney-client?communications?must?be?found?to?exist?when?counsel?”misleads”?the?court?in?order?to?undermine?his?client’s?motion?for?substitution.?As?noted,?however,?the?record?contains?no?indication?that?O’Brien?was?engaged?in?an?intentional?effort?to?deceive.
FN?12.?Former?section?1070,?subdivision?(a),?provided?that?”[i]f?the?offense?be?punishable?with?death,?or?with?imprisonment?in?the?state?prison?for?life,?the?defendant?is?entitled?to?26?and?the?state?to?26?peremptory?challenges.?Except?[with?respect?to?offenses?punishable?by?imprisonment?of?90?days?or?less],?on?a?trial?for?any?other?offense,?the?defendant?is?entitled?to?10?and?the?state?to?10?peremptory?challenges.”
FN?13.?Former?section?1070.5,?subdivision?(a),?declared?that?”[e]xcept?[with?respect?to?offenses?punishable?by?imprisonment?of?90?days?or?less],?when?two?or?more?defendants?are?jointly?tried?for?any?public?offense,?whether?felony?or?misdemeanor,?the?state?and?the?defendants?shall?be?entitled?to?the?number?of?challenges?prescribed?by?Section?1070?of?this?code,?which?challenges?on?the?part?of?the?defendants?must?be?exercised?jointly.?Each?defendant?shall?also?be?entitled?to?five?additional?challenges?which?may?be?exercised?separately;?the?state?shall?also?be?entitled?to?additional?challenges?equal?to?the?number?of?all?the?additional?separate?challenges?allowed?the?defendants.”
FN?14.?In?Hayes,?supra,?the?jury?asked?the?meaning?of?”immediate?presence”?and?was?then?specially?instructed?that?a?robbery?occurs?in?the?victim’s?”immediate?presence”?if?he?perceives?any?”overt?act”?connected?with?the?offense.?Because?of?this?instructional?error,?we?could?not?affirm?robbery?findings?against?Hayes?simply?by?concluding?that?the?evidence?would?have?supported?such?findings?under?correct?principles.?(52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?627-629.)?Here,?by?contrast,?the?jury?received?only?the?standard?robbery?instruction,?CALJIC?No.?9.10,?which?correctly?set?forth?that?the?property?must?have?been?taken?from?the?victim’s?”person?or?…?immediate?presence.”
FN?15.?Hayes?itself?included?circumstantial?evidence?from?which?a?trier?of?fact?could?infer?that?the?defendant?lured?the?victim,?a?motel?manager,?to?a?remote?room?on?the?pretext?of?a?plumbing?problem,?then?killed?the?manager?to?facilitate?thefts?from?the?motel?office.?(52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?597-599.)?Our?opinion?did?not?mention?this?theory?as?support?for?our?conclusion?that?the?case?for?”immediate?presence”?was?legally?sufficient.?(Id.,?at?pp.?630-631.)?As?noted,?however,?nothing?in?Hayes?is?inconsistent?with?a?”luring?away”?theory?of?”immediate?presence.”
FN?16.?Evidence?that?the?key?may?have?been?taken?from?Burke’s?person?or?presence?by?force?or?fear?does?not?spare?us?from?deciding?whether?there?was?similar?evidence?with?respect?to?the?car.?The?instructions?did?not?specify?the?object?or?objects?of?the?robbery,?nor?was?the?jury?required?to?do?so?in?its?verdicts?and?findings.?In?his?closing?argument,?the?prosecutor?focused?entirely?on?the?plan?to?steal?the?car;?he?never?mentioned?the?key?or?the?evidence?that?it?was?taken?from?Burke’s?”immediate?presence.”?Defense?counsel?exploited?the?omission.?He?accused?the?prosecutor?of?”glossing?over”?the?object?of?the?robbery,?argued?that?the?auto?was?not?within?Burke’s?”immediate?presence,”?pointed?to?evidence?that?the?key?might?simply?have?remained?in?the?car,?and?disputed?inferences?that?the?key?was?taken?from?Burke’s?pocket?after?his?death.?Defense?counsel?also?urged?there?was?no?robbery?of?the?key?if?Burke?handed?it?over?voluntarily,?as?defendant?testified.?Under?these?circumstances,?we?cannot?be?certain?the?jury?based?its?robbery?findings?on?the?premise?that?the?key?was?taken?separately?from?the?car.?Hence,?we?may?not?uphold?the?robbery?findings?unless?we?conclude?there?was?substantial?evidence?to?support?all?the?robbery?theories?before?the?jury.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?69?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)?For?this?reason,?we?must?confront?the?issue?of?the?auto’s?”immediate?presence.”
FN?17.?We?have?admonished?that?the?jury?should?not?be?confronted?with?an?”all?or?nothing”?choice?when?it?believes?that?the?accused?is?guilty?only?of?a?lesser?included?offense.?If?given?no?opportunity?to?convict?of?the?lesser?offense,?we?reasoned,?the?jury?may?wrongly?convict?of?the?greater?offense,?even?though?it?believes?an?element?of?that?offense?is?missing,?rather?than?acquit?the?defendant?entirely.?(See?Ramkeesoon,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?at?p.?352;?People?v.?Wickersham?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?307,?324-325?[185?Cal.Rptr.?436,?650?P.2d?311].)?That?danger?was?eliminated?here,?since?the?jury?was?instructed?to?acquit?or?find?a?lesser?included?offense?unless?it?believed?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?all?elements?of?robbery?were?present.
FN?18.?Defendant’s?claim?that?the?prosecutor?elicited?the?1981?robbery?during?cross-examination?is?not?borne?out?by?the?record.
FN?19.?Article?I,?section?28(f)?provides?in?pertinent?part?that?”[a]ny?prior?felony?conviction?…?shall?subsequently?be?used?without?limitation?for?purposes?of?impeachment?…?in?any?criminal?proceeding.?…”
FN?20.?Section?1258?provides?that?an?appellate?judgment?shall?be?given?”without?regard?to?technical?errors?or?defects,?or?to?exceptions,?which?do?not?affect?the?substantial?rights?of?the?parties.”?Section?1404?provides?that?”[n]either?a?departure?from?the?form?or?mode?prescribed?by?this?code?in?respect?to?any?pleading?or?proceeding,?nor?an?error?or?mistake?therein,?renders?it?invalid,?unless?it?has?actually?prejudiced?the?defendant,?or?tended?to?his?prejudice,?in?respect?to?a?substantial?right.”?(See?also?Cal.?Const.,?art.?VI,???13.)
FN?21.?Defendant?suggests?that?by?eliminating?the?requirement?of?physical?concealment,?Morales?expanded?liability?in?a?way?that?cannot?constitutionally?be?applied?to?crimes,?such?as?his,?that?had?already?been?committed.?(See?Bouie?v.?City?of?Columbia?(1964)?378?U.S.?347,?352?[12?L.Ed.2d?894,?899,?84?S.Ct.?1697].)?On?the?contrary,?Morales?represents?no?unforeseeable?change?in?the?law;?our?opinion?cited?numerous?supportive?California?decisions?dating?back?to?1947.?(Morales,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?pp.?554-555.)
FN?22.?In?any?event,?the?jury?necessarily?found?defendant?intended?to?kill?when?it?found?true?a?special?circumstance?that?defendant?”intentionally?killed?…?while?lying?in?wait.”?(See?People?v.?Sedeno,?supra,?10?Cal.3d?703,?721.)
FN?23.?Because?we?may?reject?defendant’s?claims?under?our?traditional?Brown?analysis,?we?decline?the?People’s?request?that?we?reconsider?Brown?in?light?of?two?recent?United?States?Supreme?Court?decisions,?Blystone?v.?Pennsylvania?(1990)?494?U.S.?299?[108?L.Ed.2d?255,?110?S.Ct.?1078]?and?Boyde?v.?California,?supra,?494?U.S.?370.?(People?v.?Gonzalez,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1231,?fn.?30.)
FN?24.?The?proffered?instruction?would?have?added?the?phrase?”other?than?those?considered?in?(a)?and?(c)”?to?the?end?of?factor?(b),?and?the?phrase?”other?than?those?considered?in?(a)?and?(b)”?to?the?end?of?factor?(c).
FN?25.?The?guilt?and?penalty?trials?must?be?before?the?same?jury,?except?upon?a?showing?of?good?cause.?The?guilt?phase?evidence?may?be?considered?at?the?penalty?phase.?(??190.4,?subds.?(c),?(d);?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Beardslee?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?68,?101-102?[279?Cal.Rptr.?276,?806?P.2d?1311].)
FN?26.?Here,?the?prosecution’s?case?on?guilt?withstood?the?attacks?of?four?separate?defense?counsel?upon?the?credibility?of?prosecution?witnesses?Smith?and?Cram.
FN?27.?Defendants?Williams?and?Coville?had?been?convicted?of?noncapital?charges.?Though?the?jury?convicted?Madrigal?of?capital?murder,?it?found?true?a?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?only?with?respect?to?defendant.?Madrigal?received?a?sentence?of?life?without?parole,?and?only?defendant?was?sentenced?to?death.
FN?1.?In?passing,?I?note?the?following.?The?majority?make?the?statement,?which?purports?to?derive?ultimately?from?People?v.?Marsden?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?118?[84?Cal.Rptr.?156,?465?P.2d?44],?that?”Denial?of?the?motion?[for?substitution?of?appointed?counsel]?is?not?an?abuse?of?discretion?unless?the?defendant?has?shown?that?a?failure?to?replace?the?appointed?attorney?would?’substantially?impair’?the?defendant’s?right?to?assistance?of?counsel.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?435.)
A?review?of?Marsden?and?other?applicable?authorities?teaches?that?the?quoted?statement?should?not?be?read?literally.?Otherwise,?it?would?”immunize”?each?and?every?denial?of?a?substitution?motion?that?does?not?”?’substantially?impair’?the?defendant’s?right?to?assistance?of?counsel”-no?matter?how?unreasonable?any?such?denial?might?in?fact?be.
In?Marsden?we?held:?”[T]he?decision?whether?to?permit?a?defendant?to?discharge?his?appointed?counsel?and?substitute?another?attorney?…?is?within?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court,?and?a?defendant?has?no?absolute?right?to?more?than?one?appointed?attorney.?’A?defendant’s?right?to?a?court-appointed?counsel?does?not?include?the?right?to?require?the?court?to?appoint?more?than?one?counsel,?except?in?a?situation?where?the?record?clearly?shows?that?the?first?appointed?counsel?is?not?adequately?representing?the?accused.?…’?”?(2?Cal.3d?at?p.?123.)
The?Marsden?holding?entails?the?following?proposition-which?I?have?cast?in?the?majority’s?terms:?when?the?defendant?shows?that?a?failure?to?replace?his?appointed?attorney?would?”substantially?impair”?his?right?to?the?assistance?of?counsel,?the?trial?court?must?replace?the?attorney;?otherwise,?it?may?replace?the?attorney?or?not?depending?on?the?totality?of?the?relevant?circumstances.