People?v.?Mickle?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?140?,?284?Cal.Rptr.?511;?814?P.2d?290
[No.?S004708.Aug?19,?1991.]
THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DENNY?MICKLE,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-12278,?Thomas?McGinn?Smith,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli?and?Arabian,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.?Separate?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
Fern?M.?Laethem,?State?Public?Defender,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Roy?M.?Dahlberg,?Musawwir?M.?Spiegel,?Thomas?L.?Carroll?and?John?Fresquez,?Deputy?State?Public?Defenders,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Ronald?S.?Matthias,?Morris?Beatus,?Aileen?Bunney?and?Edward?P.?O’Brien,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
BAXTER,?J.
Defendant?Denny?Mickle?was?convicted?of?one?count?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187)fn.?1?with?personal?use?of?a?knife?(??12022,?subd.?(b)),?and?arson?(??451,?subd.?(b)).?Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?the?jury?found?true?a?special?circumstance?that?the?murder?occurred?while?defendant?was?engaged?in?the?commission?of?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?upon?a?minor.?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(v);?see???288,?subd.?(a).)
In?a?separate?proceeding?held?after?the?guilt?verdict?was?rendered?but?before?the?penalty?phase?began,?the?jury?found?defendant?competent?to?stand?[54?Cal.3d?156]?trial.?(???1367,?1368.)?Defendant?purported?to?appeal?from?the?competence?determination.?While?that?appeal?was?pending?in?the?Court?of?Appeal,?a?penalty?trial?was?held.?The?jury?sentenced?defendant?to?death,?and?the?trial?court?denied?the?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?verdict.?(??190.4,?subd.?(e).)?The?death?judgment?was?automatically?appealed?to?this?court.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).)?The?interlocutory?appeal?from?the?competence?determination?was?transferred?here?(Crim.?25540)?and?consolidated?with?the?automatic?appeal?(S004708/Crim.?25377).
For?reasons?which?will?be?explained,?the?interlocutory?appeal?from?the?competence?determination?will?be?dismissed?and?defendant’s?challenges?to?that?determination?considered?in?the?automatic?appeal?from?the?final?judgment.?We?find?no?prejudicial?error?affecting?the?guilt,?competence,?or?penalty?verdicts.?The?judgment?will?be?affirmed?in?its?entirety.
- Guilt?Phase?Evidence
- Prosecution?Case
- Crime?scene?evidence.?On?February?15,?1983,?the?victim,?12-?year-old?Lashan,?and?her?parents,?Darrell?and?Sally?K.,?moved?from?Pacifica?to?Daly?City.?Their?new?home?was?the?Mission?Bell?Motel,?which?was?occupied?primarily?by?permanent?residents,?including?families.?Darrell?happened?to?see?defendant?on?the?street?during?the?move?and?asked?for?his?help.?Defendant?was?a?longtime?acquaintance?of?Darrell’s?but?apparently?had?not?met?Sally?or?Lashan?before.?Because?defendant?had?no?home?and?all?three?adults?were?unemployed,?the?K.?family?agreed?to?let?defendant?stay?with?them?and?share?expenses.
The?foursome?occupied?unit?10.?It?had?a?front?room?with?a?door?facing?onto?the?motel?courtyard,?a?hallway,?a?bathroom,?a?kitchen,?and?a?bedroom?with?a?door?opening?into?an?alley?behind?the?unit.?There?was?no?telephone?in?the?unit,?so?calls?had?to?be?handled?through?the?motel?office?or?at?a?public?booth?nearby.?Defendant?slept?on?a?murphy?bed?in?the?front?room,?and?Lashan?and?her?parents?slept?in?the?bedroom.?The?first?nine?days?of?joint?residence?were?uneventful.
On?February?24,?the?day?of?the?crimes,?Lashan’s?parents?left?the?motel?at?noon?and?drove?to?Oakland?to?visit?Darrell’s?sick?grandmother.?At?some?point,?Sally?arranged?by?phone?to?have?a?woman?who?worked?at?Lashan’s?school?drive?Lashan?home?in?the?afternoon.?About?3:45?p.m.,?Sally?called?the?motel?and?told?defendant?about?the?arrangement.?He?promised?to?take?care?of?Lashan?until?Darrell?and?Sally?returned.?[54?Cal.3d?157]
Defendant?was?in?the?unit?at?4?p.m.?when?the?school?employee?dropped?Lashan?off?and?departed.?Lashan?was?wearing?pants?and?a?plaid?shirt.?At?5:30?p.m.,?Sally?phoned?to?say?that?she?and?Darrell?would?not?be?home?for?awhile.?Defendant?reported?that?Lashan?had?arrived?home?safely?and?was?doing?homework?and?watching?television.?This?was?the?first?time?defendant?and?Lashan?had?ever?been?alone?together.
At?7:30?p.m.,?two?rental?store?employees?arrived?at?unit?10?to?repossess?the?television?set.?Defendant?answered?the?door?and?briefly?chatted?with?them.?One?of?the?employees?went?into?the?bedroom?and?saw?Lashan?lying?on?the?bed?watching?television.?He?exchanged?a?few?words?with?her?and?took?the?set.?The?employee?could?not?remember?at?trial?what?Lashan?was?wearing?or?whether?she?was?lying?underneath?the?covers.?He?was?certain,?however,?that?both?defendant?and?Lashan?were?acting?”normal.”
Between?7:30?and?8:30?p.m.,?a?motel?resident?saw?defendant?pace?”back?and?forth”?between?unit?10?and?the?phone?booth?near?the?office.?The?resident?had?been?working?on?his?car?in?the?courtyard?across?from?the?unit?since?1?p.m.,?and?had?seen?defendant?make?the?same?trip?a?few?times?earlier?in?the?day.?Immediately?before?the?resident?left?the?motel?premises?at?8:30?p.m.,?he?saw?defendant?enter?unit?10.
Defendant?was?not?seen?again?until?9:50?p.m.,?when?he?arrived?at?the?South?San?Francisco?home?of?his?girlfriend,?Ruthie.?He?told?her?he?had?walked?from?the?motel,?a?one-hour?trip?by?foot.?He?was?carrying?a?clock?radio,?which?belonged?to?the?K.?family?and?had?been?sitting?on?the?television?in?their?bedroom.
At?10:30?p.m.,?while?Ruthie?was?in?the?room,?defendant?called?the?motel?and?asked?to?speak?to?the?residents?of?unit?10.?He?hung?up?moments?later?and?told?Ruthie?no?one?was?home.?Defendant?then?carried?the?phone?into?another?room?and?called?Lashan’s?parents?at?a?relative’s?house.?Defendant?told?Darrell?that?he?had?left?the?motel?at?7:30?p.m.,?and?was?calling?from?the?Tenderloin.?Defendant?also?said?he?needed?a?key?to?the?unit.?When?Darrell?noted?that?Lashan?could?open?the?door,?defendant?apologized?for?being?”stupid.”?Darrell?and?Sally?were?disturbed?by?the?call?and?immediately?drove?home.?Meanwhile,?defendant?borrowed?bus?fare?from?Ruthie?and?said?he?was?going?to?the?Tenderloin.?He?left?her?house?for?a?few?hours.
At?10:50?p.m.,?shortly?before?Lashan’s?parents?arrived?back?at?the?motel,?an?employee?of?a?nearby?restaurant?saw?flames?shooting?out?of?unit?10’s?bedroom?window.?The?fire?was?soon?extinguished.?Lashan’s?naked,?dead?[54?Cal.3d?158]?body?was?found?lying?facedown?on?the?bathroom?floor.fn.?2?Her?back?was?covered?with?soot?and?she?had?been?stabbed?several?times.?There?was?blood?but?no?soot?on?the?floor?underneath?the?body.?Bloodstains?were?found?near?the?bottom?of?a?hallway?dresser?and?the?bathroom?doorjamb.?A?motel?butcher?knife?with?a?bloodstained?blade?was?found?on?the?counter?near?the?kitchen?sink.fn.?3
The?front?room,?hallway,?bathroom,?and?kitchen?had?been?heavily?damaged?by?soot,?smoke,?and?heat.?Charred?paper?was?found?on?a?burned?section?of?the?murphy?bed?in?the?front?room.?In?the?bedroom,?the?mattress?and?base?of?the?headboard?had?been?consumed?by?flames,?but?the?top?of?the?headboard?and?nearby?furniture?suffered?only?minor?blistering?and?discoloration.?In?the?alley?outside,?broken?glass?from?the?bedroom?windows?had?soot?on?one?side.?The?doors?and?windows?were?locked?and?showed?no?signs?of?forced?entry.
Defendant?returned?to?Ruthie’s?house?about?2?a.m.?and?spent?the?night.?At?7?a.m.,?Ruthie?awoke?and?saw?a?television?report?which?apparently?identified?defendant?as?a?suspect?in?the?motel?crimes.?She?immediately?told?him?to?leave?the?house?and?call?the?police.?He?disclaimed?any?knowledge?of?the?events?described?in?the?report?and?then?left.?Ruthie?called?the?police.
Defendant?called?the?police?an?hour?later,?at?8?a.m.,?and?said?he?had?heard?about?the?fire?on?television?and?wished?to?discuss?it.?However,?he?did?not?show?up?at?the?prearranged?meeting?place.?Defendant?made?a?similar?call?at?9:30?p.m.,?identified?himself?as?a?”suspect,”?and?was?soon?taken?into?custody.
- Defendant’s?in-custody?statements.?A?half-hour?after?being?taken?into?custody?on?February?25,?defendant?had?three?consecutive?interviews?at?the?police?station.?He?first?spoke?with?Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy?pursuant?to?a?Miranda?waiver?(Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974]),?and?denied?committing?the?crimes.?He?said?he?left?Lashan?asleep?at?the?motel?at?8:15?p.m.?on?February?24,?and?rode?a?bus?to?the?Tenderloin.?He?claimed?to?have?called?Lashan’s?parents?from?there?and?then?visited?Ruthie.
Defendant?next?spoke?with?his?parole?officer,?Mr.?Bandettini,?pursuant?to?another?Miranda?waiver.?(Bandettini?was?identified?as?a?”state?investigator”?[54?Cal.3d?159]?at?trial.)?Defendant?first?denied?the?crimes,?but?then?said?he?could?not?”remember”?whether?he?had?stabbed?Lashan.?When?asked?if?he?had?sex?with?her,?he?replied,?”I?may?have.”
Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy?immediately?resumed?questioning.?Defendant?began?by?saying?he?”could?have?killed”?Lashan?and?”didn’t?know?what?[he]?was?doing.”?He?admitted?having?”sex”?with?her,?but?was?unclear?about?when?it?occurred.fn.?4?Although?defendant?first?denied?any?involvement?in?the?fire,?he?later?answered?in?the?affirmative?when?asked?if?he?could?have?killed?Lashan?and?set?the?fire.?Defendant?repeatedly?said?that?he?did?not?know?how?many?times?Lashan?had?been?”stuck,”?and?that?his?actions?were?not?”intentional.”
When?asked?to?describe?the?evening’s?activities?in?greater?detail,?defendant?replied,?in?somewhat?disjointed?and?emotional?terms,?that?he?and?Lashan?had?prepared?a?meal,?played?cards,?and?arm?wrestled.?He?started?looking?at?her?and?feeling?”crazy.”?He?paced?back?and?forth?between?the?motel?office?and?the?unit.?At?some?point,?he?lifted?the?knife?from?among?the?dirty?dishes?in?the?kitchen?sink,?held?it?in?both?hands?near?his?head,?and?attacked?her?with?it.?When?asked?how?Lashan?got?into?the?bathroom,?defendant?said?he?”might?have?stuck?her?one?time?while?she?was?asleep,”?and?”she?might?have?jumped?up?and?tried?to?get?away?from?it.”
Defendant?was?arrested?at?2?a.m.?on?February?26,?four?hours?after?questioning?had?begun.?He?was?carrying?a?small?Bible?and?a?keychain?that?Sally?owned?and?kept?in?the?bedroom?nightstand.?A?lighter?and?matches?were?also?found?in?his?possession.
At?10?a.m.?on?February?27,?Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy?briefly?spoke?with?defendant?at?the?Chope?hospital?jail?ward.?Defendant?said?he?had?started?a?fire?on?the?murphy?bed,?stamped?it?out,?and?then?started?the?bedroom?fire,?using?paper?each?time.?When?asked?whether?Lashan?had?made?him?angry?that?night,?he?said,?”no.”?As?before,?defendant?said?he?could?not?remember?the?number?of?stab?wounds,?but?knew?that?Lashan?had?”jumped?up”?after?the?first?one.?When?asked?what?he?did?with?the?knife?after?the?stabbing,?defendant?replied:?”I?was?holding?it?[in]?both?hands,?my?hands?were?shaking[.]?I?saw?the?blood?dripping?down?the?knife,?I?put?the?knife?in?a?basket.”?When?[54?Cal.3d?160]?asked?if?Lashan?was?still?breathing?at?the?time,?defendant?said:?”Yes[,]?she?was?breathing?and?calling?my?name.?She?had?a?dress?on.”
Defendant?told?a?Chope?hospital?nurse?that?he?had?killed?the?12-year-old?daughter?of?a?woman?he?was?living?with?in?a?Daly?City?motel?and?had?set?the?room?on?fire.
After?his?arrest?but?before?the?guilt?trial,?defendant?shared?a?county?jail?cell?with?Jeffrey?Steele,?who?was?awaiting?sentencing?after?pleading?guilty?to?burglary.?Steele?testified?that?defendant?said?he?had?”tak[en]?some?young?pussy”?and?”killed”?the?girl?because?she?threatened?to?tell?her?parents?that?he?had?”raped”?her.?Defendant?identified?the?victim?as?the?12-year-old?daughter?of?friends?with?whom?he?had?been?living?in?a?Daly?City?motel.?According?to?Steele,?defendant?admitted?choking?and?stabbing?the?girl,?but?believed?he?would?”beat”?the?charges?because?no?weapon?was?found?and?because?he?had?started?a?fire?to?conceal?the?murder.?When?Steele?mentioned?that?defendant?could?have?had?sex?with?a?prostitute?for?only?a?few?dollars,?defendant?said,?”but?it?is?not?like?that?young?pussy.”
- Expert?testimony.?City?Fire?Inspector?Christensen?examined?unit?10?and?concluded?that?the?fire?had?been?”intentionally”?set.?It?had?two?separate?points?of?origin?(the?two?beds),?paper?had?been?used?as?an?accelerant?on?the?murphy?bed,?and?no?electrical?or?other?”accidental”?cause?was?found.?The?bedroom?fire?started?quickly?at?the?foot?of?the?bed,?where?the?metal?springs?had?collapsed?from?intense?heat,?and?then?died?down?and?burned?slowly?for?one?or?two?hours.?Christensen?explained?that?the?bedroom?would?have?been?completely?destroyed?had?the?fire?burned?fast?and?hot.?The?large?amount?of?soot-a?sign?of?”incomplete?combustion”-was?also?indicative?of?a?low-oxygen,?slow-burning?fire.?The?buildup?of?carbon?monoxide?and?other?gasses?had?undoubtedly?blown?out?the?windows,?admitting?oxygen?and?causing?the?fire?to?flare?up?shortly?before?discovery.fn.?5
State?Fire?Investigator?McGill?reviewed?official?records?and?conducted?tests?upon?motel?bedding?material.?Like?Christensen,?McGill?concluded?that?the?fire?had?been?intentionally?set?and?smoldered?for?”a?minimum?of?two?hours.”
An?autopsy?performed?by?pathologist?Dr.?Lack?revealed?that?Lashan?had?died?of?four?deep?penetrating?stab?wounds,?namely,?a?chest?wound?passing?[54?Cal.3d?161]?through?the?right?lung,?an?abdominal?wound?exiting?through?the?back,?and?two?wounds?entering?from?the?back.?All?wounds?were?made?while?she?was?lying?down,?and?were?”consistent”?with?the?motel?butcher?knife.?No?defensive?knife?wounds?were?found.?Several?other?injuries?suggested?Lashan?had?been?”immobilized”?shortly?before?the?stabbing:?(1)?a?bruise?to?her?left?eye?had?probably?been?inflicted?with?a?punch,?(2)?a?”deep?imprint”?across?the?front?of?her?neck?had?probably?been?made?while?her?necklace?was?being?pulled?tightly?from?the?back,?and?(3)?fingernail?marks?on?her?throat?had?probably?been?made?while?she?was?being?choked.
The?autopsy?further?disclosed?that?after?the?stabbing,?Lashan?walked?at?least?briefly?while?the?fire?burned?and?survived?for?an?additional?30?minutes,?probably?in?a?state?of?”incipient?shock.”fn.?6Dr.?Lack?placed?the?time?of?death?at?9?p.m.,?with?a?half-hour?”grace?period”?on?either?side.?No?signs?of?recent?trauma?to?the?genital?area?were?found.?However,?because?Lashan?had?a?”mature”?vagina?in?which?the?hymen?had?been?ruptured?several?months?earlier,?the?absence?of?trauma?was?inconclusive?as?to?whether?intercourse?had?occurred?shortly?before?death.?A?vaginal?swab?revealed?the?presence?of?semen.
Dr.?Blake,?the?forensic?expert?who?tested?the?swab,?found?a?small?amount?of?semen?containing?essentially?equivalent?amounts?of?type?A?secretor?and?type?B?secretor?blood?group?substances.fn.?7?The?amount?of?semen?suggested?that?intercourse?had?occurred?3?to?36?hours?before?Lashan’s?death,?probably?18?to?24?hours?beforehand.?The?semen?could?have?been?donated?by?a?single?individual?with?type?AB?secretor?blood.?Alternatively,?there?could?have?been?two?different?donors,?one?of?whom?was?a?type?A?secretor?and?the?other?who,?like?defendant,?was?a?type?B?secretor.?In?order?for?two?donors?to?have?produced?this?equivalent?”A/B”?ratio,?both?must?have?ejaculated?near?the?same?time,?or?one?ejaculated?and?the?other?subsequently?deposited?only?preejaculatory?fluid.fn.?8?[54?Cal.3d?162]
- Defense?Case
The?defense?theory?was?that?the?fire?began?after?defendant?arrived?at?Ruthie’s?house?and?burned?quickly.?One?Detective?Hawthorne?testified?that?Fire?Inspector?Christensen?had?hypothesized?during?his?initial?examination?of?the?crime?scene?that?the?front?room?fire?burned?for?20?to?25?minutes?and?that?the?bedroom?fire?”started?rapidly”?by?means?of?a?liquid?accelerant.
- Competence?Phase?Evidence
After?the?guilt?verdict?was?rendered,?defendant?moved?for?a?competence?hearing?(???1367,?1368.)?The?motion?was?granted?under?circumstances?which?will?be?discussed?later.?Criminal?proceedings?were?suspended,?competence?phase?counsel?was?appointed,?and?a?new?jury?was?empaneled.
At?the?ensuing?hearing,?two?court-appointed?psychiatrists?testified?that?they?had?recently?examined?defendant?and?found?him?competent.?Dr.?Small?explained?that?defendant?was?”cooperative”?and?”logical,”?and?showed?no?sign?of?serious?mental?disorder;?even?if?defendant?was?being?truthful?in?claiming?to?have?experienced?a?midtrial?”hallucination”?of?Lashan,?such?an?experience?is?neither?disabling?per?se?nor?unusual?for?persons?suffering?from?personality?problems,?stress,?and/or?a?guilty?conscience.?Dr.?Bryan?testified?that?defendant?suffered?from?a?”passive-aggressive”?personality?problem?and?sexual?deviation,?but?that?he?spoke?about?the?criminal?trial?in?an?”appropriate”?and?”rational”?manner.?Defendant?knew?that?any?”hallucination”?he?had?experienced?was?not?real.?Finally,?a?deputy?sheriff?testified?that?defendant’s?personal?habits?and?deportment?in?jail?over?the?preceding?year?were?excellent,?and?that?he?never?acted?in?a?disruptive?or?bizarre?fashion.
The?jury?found?defendant?competent?to?undergo?a?penalty?trial.
III.?Penalty?Phase?Evidence
As?requested?by?defendant,?a?new?jury?was?empaneled?at?the?penalty?phase.
- Prosecution?Case
The?prosecution?called?most?of?the?witnesses?who?had?testified?against?defendant?at?the?guilt?phase?to?establish?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?Notable?exceptions?included?forensic?expert?Dr.?Blake?(who?testified?for?[54?Cal.3d?163]?defendant?at?the?penalty?phase)?and?informant?Steele?(who?gave?no?penalty?phase?testimony).?(??190.3,?factor?(a).)fn.?9
The?prosecution?also?introduced?certified?copies?of?defendant’s?two?prior?felony?convictions:?a?1975?jury?conviction?of?lewd?conduct?against?Rosa?S.?(??288,?subd.?(a)),?and?a?1980?conviction?upon?a?guilty?plea?of?wilful?cruelty?to?a?child,?Sheba?R.?(??273a,?subd.?(1)).?The?victims?and?other?witnesses?testified?about?these?crimes,?both?of?which?involved?forcible?sodomy?and/or?rape.?(??190.3,?factors?(b),?(c).)?In?addition,?Sheba’s?sister,?Lakecia?H.,?testified?about?defendant’s?unadjudicated?forcible?rape?of?her?at?age?13?in?1979.?(Id.,?factor?(b).)
- The?1975?rape?and?sodomy?of?Rosa.?18-year-old?Rosa?testified?that?in?May?1975,?when?she?was?7?years?old,?defendant?came?to?the?house?to?visit?her?mother,?Carol,?who?had?known?defendant’s?family?for?several?years.?Carol?was?not?there.?Defendant?ordered?Rosa,?who?was?at?home?with?her?siblings,?to?go?into?the?bedroom.?She?complied?out?of?fear.?Defendant?disrobed,?opened?Rosa’s?bathrobe,?and?pulled?down?her?panties.?He?then?raped?and?sodomized?her.?She?struggled?and?told?him?to?stop?because?he?was?hurting?her.?He?ignored?her?pleas?and?held?her?down?with?the?weight?of?his?body.?Ashamed,?she?did?not?tell?her?mother.?Several?days?later,?Rosa?began?experiencing?a?painful?vaginal?discharge?and?was?examined?by?her?mother.?Rosa?was?taken?to?a?doctor?and?treated?for?gonorrhea.?Both?Carol?and?the?doctor?described?Rosa’s?symptoms?and?diagnosis?at?trial.?Carol?also?testified?that?she?contracted?gonorrhea?during?a?single?sexual?encounter?with?defendant?near?the?time?Rosa’s?infection?was?discovered.
- The?1979?rape?of?Sheba.?13-year-old?Sheba?testified?that?in?fall?1979,?when?she?was?7?years?old,?defendant?was?intimately?involved?with?her?mother,?Vesta,?and?was?living?with?the?family.?One?night,?Sheba?was?sleeping?in?a?bed?with?one?of?her?sisters?and?with?Vesta.?Sheba?woke?up?and?found?that?defendant?had?pushed?aside?her?bedclothes?and?was?having?sexual?intercourse?with?her.?She?became?afraid?and?tried?to?pull?away.?Defendant?squeezed?her?stomach?until?it?hurt?and?held?her?down?with?his?arms.?Sheba?told?Vesta?about?the?assault?the?next?day.?Two?weeks?later,?Sheba?began?experiencing?a?painful?vaginal?discharge?but?was?too?ashamed?to?tell?her?mother.?Sheba’s?father,?Herbert,?testified?that?he?noticed?the?discharge?on?Sheba’s?panties?while?she?was?undressing?at?his?house.?He?took?her?to?the?hospital?where?she?was?treated?for?gonorrhea.?The?doctor?confirmed?this?diagnosis?at?trial.?Herbert?also?testified?that?when?Sheba?told?him?about?the?rape,?he?immediately?went?to?confront?defendant?at?Vesta’s?house.?Defendant?[54?Cal.3d?164]?fled.?When?defendant?returned,?he?punched?Herbert?and?the?two?struggled?until?the?police?came.?Vesta?did?not?testify.
- The?1979?rape?of?Lakecia.?19-year-old?Lakecia?testified?that?she?is?Sheba’s?older?sister?and?Vesta’s?daughter.?Defendant?befriended?Lakecia?on?the?street,?and?met?the?rest?of?the?family?through?her.?In?fall?1979,?when?Lakecia?was?13?years?old,?defendant?forced?his?way?into?the?locked?bathroom?just?as?Lakecia?was?finishing?her?bath.?He?pushed?her?onto?the?floor?and?had?sexual?intercourse?with?her.?She?told?him?to?stop?but?was?afraid?he?would?hurt?her?if?she?resisted.?She?soon?noticed?an?unusual?vaginal?discharge?and?visited?the?doctor.?She?learned?she?had?gonorrhea?and?was?pregnant?with?defendant’s?child.?Lakecia?gave?birth?to?a?daughter,?Makeda,?whom?defendant?acknowledged?as?his?own.
- Defense?Case
- The?crimes.?Defendant?called?Detective?Hawthorne?and?the?prosecution’s?forensic?expert,?Dr.?Blake.?Each?witness?repeated?his?guilt?phase?testimony?about?the?fire?and?the?semen?found?in?Lashan’s?vagina.
- Defendant’s?testimony.?Defendant,?who?was?27?years?old?at?the?time?of?the?crimes,?testified?on?direct?examination?as?follows:fn.?10he?grew?up?in?a?two-parent?home?with?two?brothers?and?a?sister.?He?had?little?interest?in?school?and?sometimes?fought?with?his?classmates,?but?was?not?”violent.”?He?had?”hallucinations”?as?a?boy,?e.g.,?a?ghost?and?a?headless?person.?Similarly,?at?Chope?hospital,?he?thought?a?creature?was?trying?to?enter?his?room?and?hurt?him.
Defendant?admitted?that?about?age?14,?he?climbed?into?bed?with?his?11-?year-old?sister?while?she?was?asleep?and?tried?to?have?sex?with?her.?She?resisted?and?told?their?mother.?Defendant?explained?that?he?had?not?previously?thought?about?or?been?”exposed”?to?sex?and?was?simply?”curious.”?About?the?same?age,?he?tried?to?choke?a?neighbor?lady?but?”didn’t?realize”?what?he?was?doing.
Defendant?testified?that?a?short?time?later,?his?parents?sent?him?to?the?psychiatric?ward?of?St.?Mary’s?Hospital?for?evaluation.?Later,?when?defendant?apparently?was?almost?16,?he?was?admitted?to?Napa?State?Hospital?(Napa).?He?was?given?depressive?medication?in?doses?which?he?believed?were?unnecessarily?large?and?disabling.?He?also?claimed?to?have?been?housed?in?the?adult?unit?for?several?months?even?though?certain?staff?members?said?he?was?too?young?to?be?there.?Defendant?testified?that?the?hospital?initially?[54?Cal.3d?165]?did?nothing?when?he?reported?being?raped?by?an?adult?patient.?A?few?weeks?later,?defendant?was?moved?to?the?adolescent?unit.
Defendant?testified?that?he?felt?”relaxed”?and?”fit?right?in”?with?patients?his?own?age.?He?attended?classes?and?social?events?(e.g.,?dances,?bowling),?but?had?difficulty?talking?in?group?or?individual?therapy?sessions.?Defendant?indicated?that?he?might?have?benefited?more?from?therapy?if?he?had?been?encouraged?to?participate.?He?said?there?were?”a?lot?of?sexual?activities”?among?the?patients?at?Napa,?but?he?did?not?implicate?himself?in?such?misconduct.
Defendant?testified?that?he?was?released?from?Napa?during?his?16th?year,?but?did?not?feel?ready?to?leave?because?the?”problem”?with?his?sister?had?not?been?solved.?He?soon?became?depressed,?took?an?overdose?of?sleeping?pills,?and?was?readmitted?to?Napa’s?adolescent?unit.?He?started?feeling?”adjusted”?and?relaxed?all?over?again.
Defendant?left?Napa?after?his?18th?birthday?in?1973,?and?held?a?series?of?odd?jobs.?In?May?1975,?he?visited?his?friend?Carol?and?once?had?sex?with?her.?He?testified?that?he?did?not?recall?having?sex?with?her?seven-year-old?daughter,?Rosa.
Defendant?testified?that?he?was?convicted?of?molesting?Rosa?in?1975?and?sent?to?Atascadero?State?Hospital?(Atascadero).?Because?he?felt?he?had?been?placed?in?the?wrong?group?therapy?program,?he?purportedly?requested?and?received?a?transfer?to?state?prison.
After?his?release?from?prison?in?1979,?defendant?began?a?sexual?relationship?with?Vesta.?He?admitted?impregnating?her?daughter,?Lakecia,?but?insisted?she?consented?to?sexual?intercourse?and?looked?much?older?than?13?years.?He?testified?that?he?did?not?recall?having?sex?with?Lakecia’s?seven-?year-old?sister,?Sheba.
Defendant?said?he?was?convicted?and?imprisoned?for?molesting?Sheba?in?1980,?and?was?still?on?parole?when?he?began?living?with?Lashan’s?family?in?1983.
According?to?defendant,?Lashan?came?home?from?school?on?the?day?of?the?crimes?and?prepared?a?meal.?He?helped?her?with?her?homework?and?they?watched?television.?Lashan?was?sleeping?in?the?bedroom?when?the?two?men?repossessed?the?television?at?7:30?p.m.?Between?8?and?8:15?p.m.,?defendant?smoked?”half?a?joint”?and?twice?tried?to?call?Lashan’s?parents?from?the?phone?booth?outside,?but?could?not?reach?them.?At?8:30?p.m.,?while?Lashan?was?[54?Cal.3d?166]?asleep,?defendant?assertedly?left?through?the?back?door?and?walked?to?Ruthie’s?house,?resting?twice?along?the?way.
Defendant?denied?stabbing?Lashan?or?confessing?to?anyone.?He?believed?he?was?being?falsely?accused?of?murder?because?he?had?previously?been?convicted?of?assaulting?young?girls.?Defendant?acknowledged,?however,?that?”there?is?something?wrong?with?[his]?mind”?and?that?he?might?have?committed?the?crimes?and?repressed?his?memory?of?them.?On?the?other?hand,?”[n]ot?ever?being?in?any?trouble?concerning?violence,?and?never?really?being?a?violent?person,?[he]?couldn’t?see?[himself]?killing?anyone.”?Defendant?denied?being?sexually?attracted?to?young?girls,?but?admitted?experiencing?a?strange?”light-headed”?feeling?and?hearing?a?”high-pitched?tone”?whenever?they?were?near.
- Other?defense?witnesses.?Two?psychologists,?Dr.?Walker?and?Dr.?Haney,?agreed?that?defendant?suffers?from?pedophilia,?paranoid?personality,?and?borderline?retardation.?Dr.?Walker?testified?that?defendant:?(1)?cannot?control?his?sexual?preference?for?children?absent?intensive?therapy,?(2)?has?an?IQ?of?77,?placing?him?in?the?lower?5?percent?of?the?population,?(3)?might?be?suffering?from?organic?brain?damage,?even?though?the?results?of?two?EEG’s?and?written?tests?were?inconclusive,?and?(4)?probably?committed?the?murder?in?a?”psychotic”?state.?Dr.?Haney?believed?defendant?would?be?”reasonably?well-adjusted”?in?prison?because?he?has?no?history?of?serious?institutional?violence?and?is?comfortable?in?a?structured?environment.?Both?psychologists?testified?that?defendant?had?received?”inappropriate”?care?in?the?various?institutions?because?they?failed?to?provide?individual?therapy?designed?for?a?paranoid/pedophiliac.
Defendant’s?mother,?Marie,?testified?that?she?and?defendant’s?father?have?been?married?for?30?years.?Defendant,?their?oldest?child,?was?born?when?Marie?was?17.?Defendant’s?father?worked?two?jobs?and?the?family?struggled?financially?for?many?years.?Marie?confirmed?that?defendant?experienced?frightening?visions?as?a?boy?and?was?a?disciplinary?problem.?She?is?not?convinced?of?his?guilt?in?this?case,?and?believes?he?should?receive?neither?death?nor?life?imprisonment.
Mr.?and?Mrs.?Bailey?testified?that?defendant’s?parents,?whom?the?Baileys?have?known?for?30?years,?are?hardworking?people,?dedicated?to?church?and?family.?The?Baileys?have?fond?memories?of?defendant?as?a?boy,?and?believe?he?now?deserves?”help.”?Mrs.?Bailey?stressed?that?defendant?is?like?a?grandson?to?them,?and?asked?that?his?life?be?spared.?[54?Cal.3d?167]
Defendant’s?junior?high?school?teacher?testified?that?defendant?was?enrolled?in?a?class?of?mentally?retarded?students?and?was?often?involved?in?”minor?scuffles”?at?school.fn.?11
- Guilt?and?Special?Circumstance?Issues
- Steele’s?Testimony
Defendant?challenges?certain?rulings?limiting?impeachment?of?informant?Steele.?We?find?no?prejudicial?error.
Shortly?before?Steele?took?the?stand,?defendant?moved?outside?of?the?jury’s?presence?to?introduce?letters?Steele?had?written?to?judges?in?three?separate?criminal?cases?pending?against?him?several?months?before?defendant’s?trial.?In?the?letters,?Steele?vigorously?offered?to?inform?on?various?people?in?exchange?for?leniency,?and?explained?that?he?feared?injury?and?death?in?prison?and?had?been?threatened?with?sexual?assault?in?jail.?In?addition,?defendant?offered?to?prove?that?Steele?had?threatened?witnesses,?apparently?in?the?same?cases.?Defendant?argued?that?the?proffered?evidence?showed?Steele?was?”desperate”?to?avoid?imprisonment?and?would?”do?or?say?anything”?to?promote?his?own?aims.?The?trial?court?refused?to?admit?the?evidence?on?relevance?grounds.
As?noted,?Steele?stated?on?direct?examination?that?he?shared?a?jail?cell?with?defendant?while?awaiting?sentencing?for?burglary,?and?that?defendant?admitted?killing?Lashan?to?prevent?her?from?disclosing?that?he?had?raped?her.?Steele?also?testified?as?follows:?he?offered?this?information?to?the?district?attorney?on?condition?he?be?allowed?to?serve?his?sentence?in?county?jail.?The?offer?was?rejected?and?he?received?a?three-year?prison?term.?Steele?repeated?the?offer?from?prison,?conditioning?it?upon?an?early?parole?date.?The?offer?was?rejected?again.?Steele?nonetheless?met?with?the?district?attorney?in?prison,?and?relayed?everything?he?purportedly?knew?about?the?crimes.?Steele?further?testified?that?he?had?been?paroled?shortly?before?the?instant?trial?and?had?received?no?benefit?for?his?testimony.?He?simply?wanted?to?”help?society”?and?become?a?”better”?person.
On?cross-examination,?Steele?admitted?repeating?his?request?for?an?early?parole?date?while?meeting?with?the?district?attorney?in?prison.?Steele?also?said?he?knew?he?could?be?returned?to?prison?if?he?”got?in?trouble”?on?parole.
In?a?bench?conference?held?towards?the?end?of?Steele’s?cross-examination,?defendant?again?asked?to?examine?Steele?and?introduce?evidence?about?the?[54?Cal.3d?168]?alleged?threats.?Later,?after?the?People?rested,?defendant?moved?outside?of?the?jury’s?presence?to?introduce?the?letters.?Each?time,?the?court?invoked?its?prior?ruling?and?denied?the?motion.
[1]?Defendant?correctly?observes?that?the?court?erred?in?denying?his?midtrial?motion?to?admit?the?letters?on?relevance?grounds.?Evidence?tending?to?show?a?witness?has?some?motive,?bias,?or?interest?that?might?induce?false?testimony?has?long?been?a?permissible?form?of?impeachment.?(Evid.?Code,????210,?780,?subd.?(f);?2?Jefferson,?Cal.?Evidence?Benchbook?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1982)???28.6,?pp.?900-913.)?Here,?Steele?insisted?that?he?expected?no?benefit?and?was?testifying?for?purely?unselfish?reasons.?The?proffered?letters?implicitly?contradicted?this?claim,?and?suggested?that?he?had?a?heightened?interest?in?currying?favor?with?the?prosecution?on?parole?and?avoiding?the?risk?of?harm?he?associated?with?imprisonment.?(See?People?v.?Dyer?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?26,?49-50?[246?Cal.Rptr.?209,?753?P.2d?1]?[witness’s?status?as?probationer/parolee?bears?on?bias].) [2]?Defendant?also?correctly?claims?the?court?erred?insofar?as?it?excluded,?as?irrelevant,?evidence?that?Steele?had?threatened?witnesses?to?prevent?them?from?testifying?against?him?in?a?legal?proceeding.?The?charged?crimes?occurred?after?Proposition?8?added?article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(d)?to?the?California?Constitution.fn.?12?Hence,?statutory?rules?against?impeachment?with?acts?not?culminating?in?a?felony?conviction?and?with?character?traits?not?bearing?directly?upon?honesty?or?veracity?do?not?apply.?(People?v.?Harris?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1047,?1081-1082?[255?Cal.Rptr.?352,?767?P.2d?619];?see?Evid.?Code,????786-?788.)?Evidence?that?Steele?threatened?witnesses?suggests?he?is?the?type?of?person?who?would?harm?others?and?subvert?the?court’s?truth-finding?process?for?selfish?reasons.?Both?traits?are?indicative?of?a?morally?lax?character?from?which?the?jury?could?reasonably?infer?a?readiness?to?lie.?(See?People?v.?Castro?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?301,?314-315?[211?Cal.Rptr.?719,?696?P.2d?111].) [3]?Nevertheless,?we?reject?a?related?suggestion?that?by?barring?cross-examination?of?Steele?about?the?letters?and?the?alleged?threats,?the?court?violated?defendant’s?Sixth?Amendment?right?of?confrontation.?Defendant?emphasizes?Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall?(1986)?475?U.S.?673,?679?[89?L.Ed.2d?674,?683,?106?S.Ct.?1431],?which?found?such?error?where?the?defendant?had?[54?Cal.3d?169]?been?prohibited?from?asking?a?prosecution?witness?about?a?key?fact?suggesting?bias-dismissal?of?a?criminal?charge?in?exchange?for?testimony.?The?high?court?made?clear?that?no?constitutional?violation?occurs?where?the?excluded?testimony?could?not?reasonably?have?produced?”a?significantly?different?impression?of?[the?witness’s]?credibility?….”?(Id.?at?p.?680?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?684];?see?People?v.?Rodriguez?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?730,?750-?751,?fn.?2?[230?Cal.Rptr.?667,?726?P.2d?113].)Inquiry?into?Steele’s?letters?and?his?alleged?threats?against?witnesses?would?not?have?painted?a?materially?different?picture?of?his?credibility.?Defense?counsel?implied?on?vigorous?cross-examination?that?Steele?was?a?manipulative?and?untrustworthy?person,?e.g.,?he?had?fired?several?competent?attorneys?in?the?burglary?case?because?they?advised?him?to?plead?guilty,?and?he?had?faked?being?defendant’s?friend?in?jail?in?order?to?obtain?information?that?could?later?be?used?against?him.?In?addition,?a?motive?to?fabricate?could?be?inferred?from?Steele’s?testimony.?Jurors?knew?he?had?repeatedly?attempted,?without?official?encouragement,?to?strike?a?deal?with?information?allegedly?obtained?from?defendant.?Jurors?also?knew?Steele?was?a?convicted?felon?who?was?testifying?under?pressure?to?perform?well?on?parole.?No?federal?constitutional?error?occurred.
Moreover,?even?under?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710-711,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065],?exclusion?of?the?impeachment?evidence?was?not?prejudicial.?For?the?reasons?stated?above,?Steele’s?testimony?was?susceptible?of?the?same?basic?inferences?as?the?proffered?evidence,?namely,?that?he?was?an?untrustworthy?person?with?reason?to?fabricate.?He?also?played?a?relatively?minor?role?in?the?prosecution’s?otherwise?strong?circumstantial?guilt?case.?Under?the?circumstances,?reversal?of?the?guilt?judgment?is?not?warranted.
- Miranda?Claim
As?noted,?defendant?turned?himself?in?for?questioning?late?February?25,?the?day?after?the?crimes.?Beginning?at?10?p.m.,?he?had?three?consecutive?interviews?over?a?four-hour?period?at?the?police?station.?The?first?and?third?sessions?were?with?Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy,?and?the?second?one?was?with?Parole?Officer?Bandettini.?Defendant?does?not?dispute?that?he?knowingly?and?voluntarily?waived?his?Miranda?rights?before?speaking?with?both?sets?of?officials;?that?all?stationhouse?statements?were?properly?admitted?at?trial;?and?that?he?never?invoked?his?right?to?counsel?or?silence.?In?the?third?session,?defendant?made?incriminating?statements?on?the?murder,?lewd?conduct,?and?arson?charges.
[4a]?Defendant?claims?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?his?pretrial?motion?to?suppress?statements?subsequently?made?in?a?fourth?interview?with?the?[54?Cal.3d?170]?same?detectives?at?Chope?hospital.?He?insists?he?should?have?been?readvised?of?his?Miranda?rights?at?the?hospital?to?ensure?that?he?was?capable?of?remembering?the?prior?warning?and?deciding?to?answer?more?questions.?In?our?view,?the?court?did?not?err?in?concluding?that?the?original?Miranda?warnings?were?”adequate”?and?that?defendant’s?hospital?statements?were?admissible?at?trial.The?pertinent?facts?are?as?follows:?For?reasons?not?clear?from?the?record,?defendant?was?determined?to?be?a?suicide?risk?and?hospitalized?after?his?arrest.?Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy?arrived?at?the?hospital?about?10?a.m.?on?February?27.?A?nurse?said?defendant?had?a?”bad?night,”?but?she?did?not?elaborate.?The?officers?entered?defendant’s?room,?which?was?locked?from?the?outside,?and?saw?him?sitting?on?the?bed.?He?looked?calm?and?normal.?Reese?asked?defendant?whether?he?”remembered”?them?and?their?”conversation”?from?the?”other?night.”?Defendant?said?he?did.?McCarthy?asked?defendant?how?he?was?doing,?and?defendant?replied,?”All?right.”?As?noted?earlier,?the?officers?asked?defendant?questions?for?about?10?minutes?and?elicited?a?few?new?details?about?the?fire?and?stabbing.?They?ended?questioning?when?a?nurse?entered?to?administer?medication.fn.?13
[5]?As?conceded?by?defendant,?readvisement?is?unnecessary?where?the?subsequent?interrogation?is?”reasonably?contemporaneous”?with?the?prior?knowing?and?intelligent?waiver.?(People?v.?Braeseke?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?691,?701-702?[159?Cal.Rptr.?684,?602?P.2d?384];?People?v.?Johnson?(1973)?32?Cal.App.3d?988,?997?[109?Cal.Rptr.?118].)?The?courts?examine?the?totality?of?the?circumstances,?including?the?amount?of?time?that?has?passed?since?the?waiver,?any?change?in?the?identity?of?the?interrogator?or?the?location?of?the?interview,?any?official?reminder?of?the?prior?advisement,?the?suspect’s?sophistication?or?past?experience?with?law?enforcement,?and?any?indicia?that?he?subjectively?understands?and?waives?his?rights.?(See?Martin?v.?Wainwright?(11th?Cir.?1985)?770?F.2d?918,?930-931?[78?A.L.R.Fed.?515];?Stumes?v.?Solem?(8th?Cir.?1985)?752?F.2d?317,?320-321;?United?States?ex.?rel.?Henne?v.?Fike?(7th?Cir.?1977)?563?F.2d?809,?814;?United?States?v.?Hopkins?(5th?Cir.?1970)?433?F.2d?1041,?1045;?People?v.?Quirk?(1982)?129?Cal.App.3d?618,?630?[181?Cal.Rptr.?301];?People?v.?Booker?(1977)?69?Cal.App.3d?654,?665?[138?Cal.Rptr.?347];?People?v.?Bennett?(1976)?58?Cal.App.3d?230,?238-239?[129?Cal.Rptr.?679];?People?v.?McFadden?(1970)?4?Cal.App.3d?672,?687?[84?Cal.Rptr.?675].)?[54?Cal.3d?171] [4b]?Here,?the?hospital?interview?occurred?only?36?hours?after?defendant?had?twice?received?and?twice?waived?his?Miranda?rights.?(See?Martin?v.?Wainwright,?supra,?770?F.2d?at?pp.?930-?931?[readvisement?unnecessary?one?week?later].)?It?was?clear?from?the?circumstances?that?defendant?was?still?in?official?custody.?He?was?familiar?with?the?criminal?justice?system?and?could?reasonably?be?expected?to?know?that?any?statements?made?at?this?time?might?be?used?against?him?in?the?investigation?and?any?subsequent?trial.?Indeed,?the?hospital?interview?was?conducted?by?the?same?two?officers?who?had?interrogated?defendant?and?placed?him?under?arrest?at?the?police?station.?By?asking?whether?he?”remembered”?them?and?the?prior?”conversation,”?the?officers?implied?that?they?were?simply?tying?up?loose?ends?from?the?earlier?”Mirandized”?session.?Nothing?in?the?record?indicates?that?defendant?was?mentally?impaired?or?otherwise?incapable?of?remembering?the?prior?advisement?and?deciding?to?answer?a?few?more?questions.?Under?these?facts,?no?Miranda?violation?occurred.- Defendant’s?Prior?Felony?Convictions
Before?the?October?1984?guilt?trial,?defendant?moved?to?preclude?impeachment?with?his?1975?lewd?conduct?conviction?and?1980?child?cruelty?conviction.?He?argued?that?the?prior?convictions?were?”too?similar”?to?the?sole?special-circumstance?allegation?of?murder?in?the?commission?of?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?upon?a?minor.?(See?Evid.?Code,???352;?People?v.?Beagle?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?441,?453?[99?Cal.Rptr.?313,?492?P.2d?1].)?The?prosecutor?replied?that?addition?of?article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(f)?to?the?California?Constitution?by?Proposition?8?eliminated?all?restrictions?on?the?admissibility?of?prior?convictions?for?impeachment,?including?the?court’s?traditional?power?to?exclude?prejudicial?evidence.fn.?14?Without?comment,?the?court?denied?defendant’s?motion.
Defendant?did?not?testify?at?the?guilt?phase.?The?first?degree?murder?charge?was?submitted?to?the?jury?on?theories?of?premeditated?murder?and?murder?in?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?a?lewd?act.?Defendant?was?convicted,?as?charged,?of?first?degree?murder?and?arson,?and?the?special?circumstance?was?found?true.
In?October?1985,?before?the?start?of?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?moved?for?a?new?trial?under?People?v.?Castro,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?301?(Castro),?which?[54?Cal.3d?172]?was?decided?after?the?guilt?verdict?was?rendered.?Defendant?conceded?in?the?motion-as?he?does?on?appeal-that?his?prior?convictions?involve?moral?turpitude?and?are?”prima?facie?admissible”?under?Castro.?(Id.?at?pp.?315-316;?see?People?v.?Massey?(1987)?192?Cal.App.3d?819,?823?[237?Cal.Rptr.?734].)?He?argued,?however,?that?the?court?erred?in?failing?to?exercise?its?discretion?to?exclude?the?priors?as?substantially?more?prejudicial?than?probative,?and?that?he?had?been?kept?off?the?stand?as?a?result.?(Castro,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?at?pp.?306-316?[plur.?opn.?of?Kaus,?J.],?322?[conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Grodin,?J.],?323-332?[conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Bird,?C.?J.].)
At?the?hearing?on?the?new?trial?motion,?the?court?announced?that?it?had?exercised?its?Castro?discretion?and?determined?that?its?pretrial?decision?to?admit?the?prior?convictions?was?correct.?The?court?then?denied?the?motion.
[7]?We?first?reject?the?Attorney?General’s?suggestion?that?defendant?has?waived?the?right?to?challenge?this?ruling.?Although?People?v.?Collins?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?378,?383-388?[228?Cal.Rptr.?899,?722?P.2d?173]?(Collins),?requires?a?defendant?to?testify?in?order?to?raise?a?Castro?claim?of?improper?impeachment?on?appeal,?this?rule?applies?to?trials?beginning?after?Collins?became?final.?Where,?as?here,?the?case?was?tried?before?Collins,?it?is?governed?by?prior?law?enabling?a?defendant?to?raise?such?a?claim?even?though?he?did?not?testify?or?make?an?offer?of?proof.?(Collins,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?388,?citing?People?v.?Fries?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?222,?232-234?[155?Cal.Rptr.?194,?594?P.2d?19].) [6b]?Nevertheless,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim?that?the?guilt?judgment?should?be?reversed?on?abuse-of-discretion?grounds.?At?the?hearing?on?the?new?trial?motion,?the?prosecution?indicated?that?it?never?intended?to?introduce?the?facts?underlying?the?1980?child?cruelty?conviction-forcible?rape-if?it?were?admitted?for?impeachment.?The?court?could?reasonably?conclude?that?the?sanitized?version?would?not?have?tainted?the?instant?verdict.?While?defendant’s?1975?lewd?conduct?conviction?is?similar?to?certain?elements?of?the?charged?crimes,?it?was?almost?10?years?old?at?the?time?of?the?guilt?trial.?The?court?could?reasonably?conclude?that?it?was?neither?so?recent?as?to?prejudice?defendant,?nor?so?remote?as?to?have?no?bearing?on?his?credibility.fn.?15?[54?Cal.3d?173]Defendant?insists?the?case?should?at?least?be?remanded?so?that?the?trial?court-which?had?heard?the?prosecution’s?evidence?when?making?its?belated?Castro?ruling-can?reassess?the?issue?after?hearing?what?his?own?testimony?would?have?been.?(See?Collins,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?378,?394,?fn.?20.)?However,?no?”Collins?remand”?is?necessary.?We?can?determine?from?the?existing?record?that?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?court’s?failure?to?consider?his?probable?testimony,?or?by?his?failure?to?testify?at?the?guilt?phase.
Defendant?argues?that,?had?he?testified?on?the?issue?of?guilt,?he?could?have?rebutted?the?prosecution’s?claims?of?premeditated?murder?and?lewd?conduct?supporting?the?first?degree?murder?and?special?circumstance?charges.?However,?defendant?concedes?his?guilt?phase?testimony?would?have?conformed?to?testimony?actually?given?under?oath?at?the?penalty?trial.?There,?he?denied?committing?the?crimes?or?being?present?at?the?motel?when?they?occurred.?This?alibi?defense?has?no?bearing?on?whether?defendant?was?properly?found?guilty?of?first?degree?murder?with?a?special?circumstance,?as?opposed?to?other?possible?offenses?arising?out?of?the?motel?incident.fn.?16
Moreover,?this?alibi?defense?is?inherently?implausible.?Defendant?admitted?at?the?penalty?trial,?and?an?eyewitness?confirmed,?that?defendant?was?present?at?the?motel?throughout?the?day?on?February?24?and?until?8:30?p.m.?Medical?evidence?established?that?the?stabbing?most?likely?occurred?at?that?time.?There?was?no?evidence?suggesting?that?a?third?person?had?gained?entry?to?the?motel?and?stabbed?Lashan.?No?witness?other?than?defendant?could?account?for?his?whereabouts?between?8:30?and?9:50?p.m.,?giving?him?ample?time?to?commit?the?crimes?and?walk?to?Ruthie’s?house.?In?addition,?defendant’s?version?of?events?at?trial?was?implicitly?undermined?by?four?witnesses?who?said?he?had?admitted?involvement?in?the?motel?crimes?(i.e.,?two?police?officers,?a?nurse,?and?an?informant).
Under?the?circumstances,?it?is?not?reasonably?probable?that?the?outcome?of?the?guilt?trial?would?have?been?different?if?defendant?had?testified?absent?fear?of?impeachment?with?his?prior?convictions.?The?court’s?decision?to?admit?them?for?that?purpose?was?harmless.
- Jury?Note?on?Murder?Instructions
The?jury?received?standard?instructions?defining?murder,?malice?aforethought,?first?degree?premeditated?murder,?first?degree?felony?murder,?second?[54?Cal.3d?174]?degree?murder,?and?voluntary?and?involuntary?manslaughter.?Two?hours?after?it?retired?to?deliberate,?the?jury?sent?the?court?a?note?asking?for?”a?summarized?definition?of?the?charges?of?murder.?First?Degree,?Second?Degree.”?In?the?presence?of?the?court?clerk?and?reporter,?but?without?notifying?counsel,?the?court?wrote?the?following?sentence?on?the?note?and?returned?it?to?the?jury:?”If?you?wish?to?be?brought?back?into?court,?I?will?reread?the?information?to?you.”?(Italics?added.)?The?jury?never?responded?to?the?court’s?offer.
[8]?Defendant?claims?the?court?breached?section?1138,?which?states?that?any?”information”?requested?by?the?jury?during?deliberations?must?be?given?”in?the?presence?of,?or?after?notice?to,?the?prosecuting?attorney,?and?the?defendant?or?his?counsel,?or?after?they?have?been?called.”?For?similar?reasons,?defendant?insists?the?court?violated?his?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?counsel.While?the?preferable?practice?is?to?notify?counsel?of?all?mid-deliberation?jury?inquries,?the?trial?court?did?not?err?here.?A?statutory?or?constitutional?violation?occurs?only?where?the?court?actually?provides?the?jury?with?instructions?or?evidence?during?deliberations?without?first?consulting?counsel.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Jennings?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?334,?382-384?[279?Cal.Rptr.?780,?807?P.2d?1009];?People?v.?Hogan?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?815,?848-?849?[183?Cal.Rptr.?817,?647?P.2d?93].)?Here,?the?court?simply?offered?to?provide?further?instruction?in?open?court,?presumably?after?proper?notice?to?counsel.?The?offer?was?not?accepted,?and?no?murder?instructions?were?actually?given?after?the?jury?retired?to?deliberate.
Defendant?makes?the?alternative?claim?that?his?Fifth?Amendment?right?to?a?fair?trial?was?violated?by?the?lack?of?further?instruction.?We?disagree.?Jurors?never?responded?to?the?court’s?offer?to?”reread?the?information”?they?had?requested.?Defendant’s?suggestion?that?this?offer?confused?the?jury?into?remaining?silent?is?speculative?and?implausible.?We?can?only?assume?that?the?jury,?upon?reflection,?was?satisfied?with?the?original?murder?instructions.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Beardslee?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?68,?97-?98?[279?Cal.Rptr.?276,?806?P.2d?1311].)?No?error?occurred.
- Failure?to?Instruct?Sua?Sponte?on?Attempt
The?jury?was?instructed?that?defendant?could?be?found?guilty?of?first?degree?felony?murder?if?the?killing?occurred?during?the?”commission?of?or?attempt?to?commit”?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?upon?a?child?under?the?age?of?14.?(Italics?added.)?However,?the?information,?instructions,?and?written?verdict?form?stated?that?the?jury?could?find?the?special?circumstance?to?be?true?if?the?killing?occurred?while?defendant?was?”engaged?in?the?commission?[54?Cal.3d?175]?of”?a?lewd?act.?(Italics?added.)?The?jury?received?an?instruction?defining?lewd?and?lascivious?conduct?under?section?288,?subdivision?(a)?(section?288(a)).?No?instruction?defining?attempt?was?given.?As?mentioned?earlier,?defendant?was?convicted?of?first?degree?murder?and?arson,?and?the?special?circumstance?was?found?true.
[9]?Defendant?insists?the?trial?court?erred?prejudicially?by?failing?to?instruct?sua?sponte?on?the?elements?of?attempt.?He?argues?that?absent?such?an?instruction,?the?jury?was?left?to?speculate?that?some?act?other?than?an?attempt?was?sufficient?to?satisfy?the?first?degree?felony-?murder?charge.?Defendant?also?claims?the?omission?might?have?misled?jurors?to?believe?that?they?could?apply?the?same?erroneous?”attempt”?theory?to?the?special?circumstance?allegation.Even?if?the?attempt?instructions?were?incomplete,?no?prejudice?occurred.?The?prosecutor?argued?at?the?close?of?the?guilt?phase?that?defendant?unlawfully?committed?two?lewd?acts?upon?Lashan?shortly?before?the?murder,?namely,?compulsory?disrobing?and?forcible?rape.?(See?People?v.?Austin?(1980)?111?Cal.App.3d?110,?114-115?[168?Cal.Rptr.?401]?(Austin),?and?discussion,?post.)?No?attempt?theory?was?urged.?Similarly,?the?information,?instructions,?and?verdict?form?spoke?only?in?terms?of?a?completed?lewd?act?at?the?special?circumstance?phase.?Because?jurors?found?the?special?circumstance?to?be?true,?they?necessarily?found?such?a?completed?act,?and?thereby?foreclosed?any?speculation?that?they?based?either?the?first?degree?murder?verdict?or?the?special?circumstance?finding?on?some?unknown,?incorrect?theory?of?attempt.?(See?People?v.?Sedeno?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?703,?721?[112?Cal.Rptr.?1,?518?P.2d?913].)
Defendant?suggests?the?special?circumstance?finding?does?not?conclusively?resolve?the?attempt?question.?He?argues?that?because?jurors?were?instructed?to?reach?a?verdict?on?the?murder?charge?before?turning?to?the?special?circumstance?allegation,?they?might?have?been?”thinking?in?terms?of?an?attempt”?for?each?offense.?We?are?not?persuaded.?The?instructions?on?all?charges?were?read?at?the?same?time.?We?assume?the?jury?followed?the?special?circumstance?instruction?and?found?actual?commission?of?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act.
- Austin?Instruction
Consistent?with?the?language?of?section?288(a),?the?jury?was?told?that?defendant?could?be?found?guilty?of?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?if?he?touched?a?child?under?age?14?”with”?the?specific?intent?to?sexually?arouse?either?party.?[54?Cal.3d?176]?(Italics?added.)fn.?17?A?touching?which?occurred?through?the?child’s?clothing?or?on?the?bare?skin?was?said?to?be?sufficient.
At?the?prosecutor’s?request,?the?jury?also?learned?that?it?could?find?commission?of?an?unlawful?lewd?act?if?defendant?”compel[led]?[the?child]?to?remove?[his?or?her]?own?clothing,?and?[defendant?had?the?requisite?specific?intent].?No?touching?of?the?child?by?[defendant]?is?required.”?(Italics?added.)?This?instruction?was?based?on?Austin,?supra,?111?Cal.App.3d?110,?115.?(See?also?People?v.?Meacham?(1984)?152?Cal.App.3d?142,?153-154?[199?Cal.Rptr.?586].)?Defendant?objected?to?it?on?undisclosed?grounds?below.fn.?18
Defendant?does?not?suggest?that?the?actual?or?constructive?disrobing?of?a?child?by?the?accused?cannot?constitute?a?lewd?act?as?a?matter?of?law.?Where?committed?for?a?sexually?exploitative?purpose,?such?conduct?is?presumptively?harmful?and?prohibited?by?section?288(a).
[10]?Defendant’s?main?complaint?is?that,?by?using?”and”?rather?than?”with”?to?define?the?necessary?relation?between?act?and?intent,?the?Austin?instruction,?as?given,?might?have?misled?jurors?to?believe?that?the?sexual?intent?could?have?been?focused?solely?on?”some?future?unrealized?act.”?However,?no?reasonable?jury?would?adopt?this?construction.?It?was?manifest?from?the?special?instruction?itself?that?the?constructive?disrobing?and?sexual?intent?must?coincide?in?order?for?a?crime?to?occur.?The?instructions?also?indicated?in?at?least?three?other?places?that?a?physical?touching?accomplished?”with”?such?intent?violates?section?288(a).?Contrary?to?what?defendant?argues,?this?language?fully?informed?the?jury?that?defendant?could?not?be?convicted?on?a?”disrobing”?theory?unless?he?intended?to?give?or?receive?immediate?sexual?gratification?from?that?activity.?No?error?occurred.?[54?Cal.3d?177]- Special?Finding
At?defendant’s?request,?the?jury?was?told?that?it?must?”unanimously?agree?on?the?particular?[lewd]?act?or?acts”?found?to?support?the?special?circumstance?charge,?and?that?it?must?”set?forth”?any?such?act?in?writing?on?the?verdict?form.fn.?19
Two?and?a?half?hours?after?deliberations?began,?the?jury?sent?the?court?the?following?note:?”Must?we?comment?[on]?and?explain?the?specific?lewd?or?lascivious?act??[The?verdict]?form?seems?to?call?for?an?entry.”?In?the?presence?of?the?clerk?and?reporter,?but?without?notifying?counsel,?the?court?wrote?the?word?”yes”?on?the?note?and?returned?it?to?the?jury.
The?verdict?form?supplied?by?defendant?and?ultimately?signed?by?the?jury?contained?preprinted?language?stating?that?the?special?circumstance?claim?of?murder?”in?the?commission?of”?a?lewd?act?was?”true.”?In?a?blank?space?calling?for?a?description?of?the?”specific?lewd?or?lascivious?act(s)”?committed?by?defendant,?the?jury?wrote,?”witnessed?by?the?victim[‘]s?nudity?and?obvious?use?of?force.”?(Italics?added.)fn.?20?Defendant?moved?to?strike?this?finding?on?grounds?it?did?not?state?a?violation?of?section?288(a)?as?a?matter?of?law.?The?court?denied?the?motion.
Defendant?raises?several?claims?concerning?the?foregoing?events,?none?of?which?has?any?merit.?[11]?He?first?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?answering?the?jury’s?inquiry?about?the?special?circumstance?verdict?without?prior?notice?to?counsel.?(Citing???1138;?People?v.?Hogan,?supra,?31?Cal.3d?815,?848-849.)?While?the?court?technically?erred,?no?prejudice?occurred?under?any?applicable?standard.?The?court’s?one-word?answer?simply?directed?the?jury?to?[54?Cal.3d?178]?follow?defense?instructions?previously?given,?requiring?unanimous?overt?agreement?on?any?lewd?act?found?to?support?the?special?circumstance?charge.
[12]?Defendant?next?argues?that?the?special?circumstance?must?be?set?aside?because?the?jury?ambiguously?described?the?lewd?act?attributed?to?defendant.?He?suggests?that?unanimous?agreement?on?the?nature?of?the?act?was?never?reached.However,?the?jury?obviously?agreed?that?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?had?occurred?under?one?of?two?viable,?closely?connected?theories,?i.e.,?that?defendant?either?forcibly?undressed?Lashan?or?forcibly?compelled?her?to?undress?herself.?(See?discussion,?ante.)?Any?asserted?failure?to?identify?or?unanimously?select?one?of?these?factual?scenarios?is?immaterial.?As?we?have?recently?observed,?the?requirement?of?jury?unanimity?in?criminal?cases?is?of?constitutional?origin.?(People?v.?Jones?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?294,?321?[270?Cal.Rptr.?611,?792?P.2d?643],?citing?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???16.)?It?is?primarily?intended?to?ensure?that?jurors?agree?upon?a?particular?act?where?evidence?of?more?than?one?possible?act?constituting?a?charged?criminal?offense?is?introduced.?(Jones,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?pp.?321?[maj.?opn.?of?Lucas,?C.?J.],?327?[dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.].)?Contrary?to?defendant’s?suggestion?here,?the?unanimity?rule?does?not?extend?to?the?minute?details?of?how?a?single,?agreed-upon?act?was?committed.?(See?People?v.?Beardslee,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?68,?92-94.)fn.?21
[13]?Defendant?also?claims?there?was?insufficient?evidence?to?support?the?special?circumstance?finding?on?a?”disrobing”?theory.?We?disagree.?The?evidence?established?that?12-year-old?Lashan?was?extremely?modest,?that?she?never?relaxed?in?the?nude?at?home,?and?that?she?undressed?at?night?only?under?parental?compulsion.?Nothing?unusual?was?noticed?about?her?appearance?when?she?was?last?seen?alive?watching?television?at?7:30?p.m.?Thus,?the?jury?could?reasonably?infer?that?Lashan?was?clothed?an?hour?later,?when?the?stabbing?most?likely?occurred.?However,?her?body?was?found?in?the?nude?and?bore?signs?of?a?violent?struggle?or?assault.?A?rational?trier?of?fact?could?conclude?that,?at?a?minimum,?the?murder?occurred?during?a?sexually?motivated,?compulsory?act?of?disrobing.?(???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(v),?288(a);?Austin,?supra,?111?Cal.App.3d?110,?114-115;?see?People?v.?Johnson?(1980)?26?Cal.3d?557,?578?[162?Cal.Rptr.?431,?606?P.2d?738,?16?A.L.R.4th?1255].)?[54?Cal.3d?179]- Corpus?Delicti
The?day?after?Mattson?I?was?decided,?the?jury?in?this?case?was?instructed?that?defendant?could?not?be?convicted?of?”a?criminal?offense”?unless?there?was?”some?proof?of?each?element?of?the?crime?independent?of?any?confession?or?admission?made?by?him?outside?of?this?trial.?This?rule?does?not?apply?to?proof?of?the?special?circumstance?….”?(Italics?added.)fn.?23?The?italicized?language?was?given?at?the?prosecutor’s?request,?and?was?based?on?dictum?in?People?v.?Sanders?(1983)?145?Cal.App.3d?218,?223?[193?Cal.Rptr.?331].?Defendant?objected?to?its?use,?but?did?not?state?his?reasons.?Apparently,?neither?the?court?nor?counsel?were?aware?that?Mattson?I?had?expressly?disapproved?Sanders?on?this?point.?(37?Cal.3d?at?p.?94,?fn.?4.)
Defendant?now?argues?that,?by?denying?him?a?state-created?entitlement?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?corpus?delicti?of?the?special?circumstance,?the?”anti-?Mattson”?instruction?violated?his?due?process?rights?under?the?Fifth?Amendment.?(See?Hicks?v.?Oklahoma?(1980)?447?U.S.?343,?346?[65?L.Ed.2d?175,?180,?100?S.Ct.?2227].)?He?insists?the?error?cannot?be?held?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?because?the?corpus?delicti?of?a?lewd?act?was?not?established?independent?of?his?extrajudicial?statements.?Defendant?does?not?dispute?that?[54?Cal.3d?180]?under?Mattson?I?and?its?progeny,?only?a?prima?facie?showing?permitting?a?reasonable?inference?that?a?crime?occurred?is?sufficient.?Such?evidence?need?not?connect?the?defendant?to?the?crime.?(People?v.?Wright?(1990)52?Cal.3d?367,?404?[276?Cal.Rptr.?731,?802?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Alcala?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?604,?624-?625?[205?Cal.Rptr.?775,?685?P.2d?1126].)
Even?under?the?standard?of?prejudice?urged?by?defendant,?no?reasonable?jury?properly?instructed?under?Mattson?I,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?85,?would?have?reached?a?different?result?on?the?felony-murder?special-circumstance?allegation.?Here,?the?naked?body?of?a?girl?under?age?14?was?found?with?semen?in?her?vagina?and?with?other?injuries?indicative?of?a?violent?assault.?These?facts?give?rise?to?a?strong?inference?that?an?unlawful?sexual?touching?occurred.?This?inference?satisfies?the?corpus?delicti?rule.?(People?v.?Mattson?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?826,?874-875?[207?Cal.Rptr.?278,?688?P.2d?887]?[nine-year-old?murder?victim?found?naked?from?the?waist?down?with?lacerated?hymen?and?other?injuries].)
In?any?event,?the?record?discloses?that?the?jury?did?not?rely?on?defendant’s?extrajudicial?statements?in?finding?the?special?circumstance?to?be?true.?In?statements?to?police?and?informant?Steele,?defendant?claimed?to?have?engaged?in?a?”sex”?act?with?Lashan,?i.e.,?”rape.”?He?also?told?police?that?she?was?clothed-“had?a?dress?on”-at?the?time?of?the?stabbing?and?presumably?the?sexual?assault.?However,?the?jury?identified?the?lewd?act?underlying?the?special?circumstance?as?a?compulsory?act?of?disrobing.?This?special?finding?forecloses?any?possibility?that?the?jury?relied?upon?defendant’s?extrajudicial?admissions.?(See?People?v.?Sedeno,?supra,?10?Cal.3d?703,?721.)
- Competence?Phase?Issues
- Interlocutory?Appeal
As?mentioned?earlier,?defendant?was?found?competent?to?stand?trial?in?a?separate?proceeding?held?after?the?guilt?verdict?was?rendered?but?before?the?penalty?trial?began.?Defendant,?acting?in?propria?persona,?immediately?filed?a?notice?of?appeal?from?the?competence?determination?in?the?Court?of?Appeal.?We?eventually?transferred?that?appeal?here,?and?consolidated?it?with?the?instant?appeal?from?the?death?judgment.?No?appellate?briefs?were?filed?below.?Defendant?raises?certain?challenges?to?the?competence?proceeding?in?the?automatic?appeal.
[15]?We?conclude?that?the?verdict?finding?defendant?competent?is?a?nonappealable,?interlocutory?ruling.?It?may?be?reviewed?on?appeal?only?from?a?final?judgment?in?the?underlying?criminal?proceeding.?(People?v.?Fields?(1965)?62?Cal.2d?538,?541-542?[42?Cal.Rptr.?833,?399?P.2d?369,?16?A.L.R.3d?[54?Cal.3d?181]?708];?see????1237,?subd.?(a),?1370,?subd.?(a);?see?also?Vardas?v.?Estelle?(5th?Cir.?1983)?715?F.2d?206,?208,?cert.?den.?465?U.S.?1104?[80?L.Ed.2d?133,?104?S.Ct.?1603]?[no?constitutional?right?of?direct?appeal?from?a?competence?determination].)Hence,?we?will?dismiss?the?interlocutory?appeal?and?consider?defendant’s?competence?phase?challenges?as?part?of?the?appeal?from?the?death?judgment.
- Attorney-client?Privilege
Defendant?argues?that?evidence?offered?in?his?case-in-chief?on?competence?was?erroneously?excluded?under?the?attorney-client?privilege.?His?claim?lacks?merit.
The?guilt?verdict?was?returned?in?October?1984.?Judge?Smith?presided?at?both?the?guilt?and?penalty?trials.
In?November?1984,?before?the?penalty?trial?began,?defense?counsel?Barnett?and?O’Malley?appeared?before?Judge?Knight?and?moved?for?a?competence?hearing.?Barnett?said?he?”question[ed]”?defendant’s?”ability?to?make?intelligent?and?effective?choices,”?and?to?”cooperate?in?his?own?defense.”?Without?comment,?Judge?Knight?granted?the?motion.?Criminal?proceedings?were?suspended?and?psychiatrists?were?appointed?to?examine?defendant.?Attorney?Digiacinto?was?appointed?to?represent?defendant?at?the?competence?phase.
The?competence?hearing?took?place?over?a?three-day?period?in?June?1985.?A?new?jury?was?empaneled.?Temporary?Judge?Browning?presided?at?the?hearing?pursuant?to?the?oral?and?written?stipulation?of?the?parties.
At?the?start?of?the?hearing,?Digiacinto?called?trial?counsel?Barnett?to?the?witness?stand.?The?following?events?occurred?outside?of?the?jury’s?presence:?the?prosecutor?objected?to?Barnett’s?testimony?on?grounds?he?might?reveal?confidential?communications?in?violation?of?defendant’s?attorney-?client?privilege.?The?court?deferred?ruling?on?the?issue?and?allowed?Barnett?to?answer?preliminary?questions.?When?ultimately?asked?for?his?opinion?on?defendant’s?present?competence?to?stand?trial,?Barnett?said?he?”could?not”?answer?unless?defendant?personally?waived?the?attorney-client?privilege?and?”possibly?the?doctor-patient?privilege.”
The?court?asked?defendant?whether?he?understood?Barnett’s?answer.?Defendant?said,?”yes.”?The?court?explained?that,?in?order?to?answer?questions?about?defendant’s?mental?condition,?Barnett?might?be?required?to?disclose?privileged?communications.?Defendant?twice?replied?that?he?would?not?waive?[54?Cal.3d?182]?the?privilege.?The?court?then?advised?defendant?that?his?decision?might?prevent?Barnett?from?giving?favorable?testimony?in?defendant’s?behalf,?but?that?the?court?did?not?actually?know?what?Barnett?would?say.?The?court?asked?defendant?whether?he?wished?to?consult?privately?with?Digiacinto.?Defendant?said,?”yes.”
After?the?meeting,?the?court?again?asked?defendant?whether?he?understood?that?he?had?the?right?to?prevent?Barnett?from?disclosing?confidential?”conversations”?or?”knowledge”?obtained?through?defendant?or?mental?health?experts.?Defendant?indicated?that?he?did.?The?court?asked?defendant?whether?he?waived?the?privilege.?Defendant?said,?”no.”
Digiacinto?made?the?following?statement:?”I?find?myself?…?between?a?rock?and?a?hard?place.?[?]?[T]he?only?evidence?which?could?be?[ad]duced?on?[defendant’s]?behalf?is?Mr.?Barnett’s?testimony.?Not?having?that?testimony?is?in?effect?a?deprivation?of?[defendant’s?right?to?a?competence]?hearing.?At?the?same?time,?how?can?anybody?[with]?a?Bar?card?advise?him?otherwise[?]”?(Italics?added.)
The?court?then?sustained?defendant’s?assertion?of?the?privilege.?It?noted?that?because?defendant?is?presumed?competent?and?bears?the?burden?of?proving?his?incompetence,?he?is?”presumed,?ergo,?to?have?the?mental?ability?to?form?a?reasoned?opinion?as?to?whether?to?waive?his?privilege?or?not.”?(See???1369,?subd.?(f).)fn.?24
The?jury?returned?to?the?courtroom.?The?defense?rested.?The?prosecution?called?the?two?court-appointed?psychiatrists,?Drs.?Small?and?Bryan.?Both?testified?that?they?had?recently?examined?defendant?and?found?him?mentally?able?to?understand?the?proceedings?and?assist?counsel.?A?deputy?sheriff?also?described?defendant’s?excellent?behavior?in?jail?over?the?preceding?year.?The?jury?found?defendant?competent?to?stand?trial.?(See???1367.)fn.?25
[16]?Defendant?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?presuming?him?competent?to?assert?the?attorney-client?privilege?over?Digiacinto’s?objection.?Defendant?insists?that?by?granting?the?motion?for?a?competence?hearing,?the?court?implicitly?expressed?a?”doubt”?as?to?his?competence.?(See???1368,?subd.?[54?Cal.3d?183]?(a);fn.?26?see?also?People?v.?Pennington?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?508,?518?[58?Cal.Rptr.?374,?426?P.2d?942]?[due?process?mandates?a???1368?hearing?where?there?is?substantial?evidence?of?incompetence].)?Such?”doubt,”?defendant?argues,?rendered?him?presumptively?incapable?of?personally?deciding?whether?to?exercise?any?right?or?privilege?during?the?competence?phase.Defendant?relies?primarily?upon?People?v.?Samuel?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?489?[174?Cal.Rptr.?684,?629?P.2d?485]?(Samuel),?which?reversed?a?criminal?conviction?because?there?was?insufficient?evidence?to?support?an?earlier?competence?verdict.?On?a?separate?point,?Samuel?observed?that?counsel?had?waived?any?objection?defendant?might?otherwise?have?made?to?admission?of?an?illegally?obtained?confession?at?the?competence?trial.?Samuel?assumed?that?”defendant’s?attorney?must?play?a?greater?role?in?making?fundamental?choices?for?him,?and?cannot?be?expected?to?seek?approval?of?strategic?decisions?made?in?the?course?of?obtaining?and?presenting?proof?of?incompetence.?…?[I]f?counsel?represents?a?defendant?as?to?whose?competence?the?judge?has?declared?a?doubt?sufficient?to?require?a?section?1368?hearing,?he?should?not?be?compelled?to?entrust?key?decisions?about?fundamental?matters?to?his?client’s?apparently?defective?judgment.”?(29?Cal.3d?at?p.?495.)
We?have?not?relied?on?this?dictum?in?the?decade?since?Samuel?was?decided.?(But?see?Shephard?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?180?Cal.App.3d?23,?30-31?[225?Cal.Rptr.?328];?People?v.?Bolden?(1979)?99?Cal.App.3d?375,?379-380?[160?Cal.Rptr.?268].)?And,?Samuel?did?not?confront?the?presumption?of?competence?in?section?1369,?subdivision?(f).?We?recently?upheld?this?statutory?presumption?against?a?due?process?claim?that?it?unfairly?requires?a?defendant?who?might?be?incompetent?to?shoulder?the?burden?of?establishing?his?condition.?(People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?881-?885?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282].)fn.?27
Whatever?the?continuing?validity?of?Samuel,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?489,?it?certainly?does?not?apply?here.?First,?no?unequivocal?objection?to?application?of?the?privilege?was?made?below.?After?defendant?consulted?with?Digiacinto?and?refused?to?waive?the?privilege?one?last?time,?Digiacinto?essentially?told?[54?Cal.3d?184]?the?court?that?both?he?and?Barnett?had?no?choice?but?to?respect?defendant’s?decision.fn.?28?Hence,?the?point?has?not?been?preserved?for?appeal.
In?addition,?nothing?in?the?appellate?record?suggests?that?defendant’s?refusal?to?waive?the?attorney-client?privilege?was?the?product?of?impaired?or?”defective?judgment.”?(Samuel,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?489,?495.)?Contrary?to?Justice?Kennard’s?view?of?the?record?in?this?case,?the?trial?court?obviously?ordered?a?competence?hearing?in?an?overabundance?of?caution,?and?not?because?it?was?statutorily?or?constitutionally?compelled?to?do?so.?(People?v.?Laudermilk?(1967)?67?Cal.2d?272,?283,?fn.?10?[61?Cal.Rptr.?644,?431?P.2d?228]?[discretion?to?grant?hearing].)?The?court?never?expressed?a?doubt?as?to?defendant’s?competence?on?the?record.?(See?People?v.?Marks?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1335,?1340-1341?[248?Cal.Rptr.?874,?756?P.2d?260];?People?v.?Hale?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?531,?540-?541?[244?Cal.Rptr.?114,?749?P.2d?769].)?And,?no?evidence?of?incompetence?was?introduced?before?or?during?the?competence?hearing.?(See?People?v.?Stankewitz?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?80,?91-92?[184?Cal.Rptr.?611,?648?P.2d?578,?23?A.L.R.4th?476];?People?v.?Laudermilk,?supra,?67?Cal.2d?at?p.?283.)?Defendant’s?statements?to?the?court?about?the?attorney-client?privilege?were?coherent?and?precise,?and?strongly?suggested?that?he?was?capable?of?deciding?whether?to?assert?it.?No?error?occurred.fn.?29
In?any?event,?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?court’s?decision?to?sustain?the?privilege.?Both?psychiatrists?concluded?that?defendant?was?competent?to?stand?trial,?and?neither?one?diagnosed?him?as?suffering?from?a?serious?mental?disorder.?It?is?not?reasonably?probable?that?Barnett’s?uncorroborated?[54?Cal.3d?185]?lay?opinion?would?have?convinced?the?jury?otherwise.?(People?v.?Watson?(1956)?46?Cal.2d?818,?836?[299?P.2d?243].)
- Excluded?Rebuttal?Evidence
After?the?People?rested,?defendant?called?an?attorney,?John?Balliet,?to?the?stand.?Outside?of?the?jury’s?presence,?defendant?argued?that?Balliet?was?an?expert?in?California?death?penalty?law?and?would?testify?about?the?”kind?of?cooperation”?needed?between?a?capital?defendant?and?counsel,?and?the?”varieties?of?evidence”?admissible?at?the?penalty?phase.?The?prosecutor?argued?that?Balliet’s?testimony?was?irrelevant?because?section?1367?does?not?differentiate?among?types?of?crimes?or?trials?in?defining?competence.?The?court?excluded?the?evidence?under?Evidence?Code?section?352.
Defendant?now?argues?that?the?court?abused?its?discretion?and?violated?his?federal?constitutional?right?to?a?fair?trial.?In?defendant’s?view,?Balliet’s?testimony?should?have?been?admitted?because?it?deeply?undermined?the?prosecution’s?mental?evidence.
We?disagree.?Both?psychiatrists?made?it?clear?that?the?concerns?Balliet?might?discuss?did?not?affect?their?assessment?of?defendant’s?mental?capacity?to?stand?trial.?And,?nothing?in?the?offer?of?proof?indicated?that?Balliet?would?describe?the?particular?facts?or?complexities?of?this?case.?The?court?could?reasonably?conclude?that?the?probative?value?of?Balliet’s?testimony?was?low,?while?the?risk?of?undue?delay?and?jury?confusion?was?high.?No?error?occurred.
- “Cumulative”?Effect?of?Alleged?Errors
- Penalty?Phase?Issues
- Evidence?in?Aggravation
Defendant?raises?several?challenges?to?evidence?admitted?during?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief?at?the?penalty?phase.?For?the?most?part,?defendant?relies?on?the?general?notion?that?such?evidence?must?bear?on?a?specific?aggravating?factor.?(See???190.3;?People?v.?Boyd?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?762,?772-776?[215?Cal.Rptr.?1,?700?P.2d?782].)?As?we?will?explain,?no?prejudicial?error?occurred?in?this?post-Boyd?penalty?trial.
[19]?Defendant?first?contends?the?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?that?he?transmitted?gonorrhea?to:?(1)?the?three?young?victims?of?his?prior?forcible?sexual?assaults-Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia-in?1975?and?1979,?(2)?Rosa’s?mother,?Carol,?in?1975,?and?(3)?Ruthie,?defendant’s?girlfriend?at?the?time?of?the?capital?crimes?in?1983.?Defendant?claims?his?transmission?of?gonorrhea?to?various?victims?and?partners?is?irrelevant?absent?evidence?that?he?actually?knew?he?carried?the?disease?before?each?forcible?sexual?assault?occurred.?He?also?implies?the?evidence?should?have?been?excluded?as?unduly?prejudicial.Defendant?has?waived?these?claims.?While?several?witnesses?testified?about?the?circumstances?under?which?they?discovered?the?disease,?defendant?never?objected?on?grounds?similar?to?those?now?raised?on?appeal.?(See?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?27-34?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)fn.?30
The?claim?also?fails?on?the?merits.?Evidence?that?defendant?suffered?from?a?sexually?transmittable?disease?over?the?eight-year?period?preceding?his?[54?Cal.3d?187]?attack?on?Lashan?suggests?that?he?knew?or?should?have?known?he?posed?a?special?danger?when?he?committed?the?lewd?act?against?her.?Moreover,?on?each?of?two?prior?occasions?(1975?and?1979),?at?least?two?females?who?claimed?contemporaneous?sexual?contact?with?defendant?contracted?gonorrhea?within?days?of?the?claimed?encounters.?As?noted?by?the?prosecutor?in?closing?argument,?such?evidence?corroborated?each?victim’s?identification?of?defendant?as?the?perpetrator?of?the?prior?sexual?assault.
[20]?Defendant?also?argues?the?court?erred?in?allowing?Lakecia?to?testify?that?she?became?pregnant?when?defendant?raped?her?in?1979.?The?point?is?waived?for?failure?to?object?at?trial.?In?any?event,?no?error?occurred.?Because?Lakecia?testified?that?she?gave?birth?to?a?child?that?defendant?acknowledged?as?his?own,?evidence?of?the?pregnancy?tended?to?identify?him?as?the?perpetrator?of?the?prior?unadjudicated?forcible?rape. [21]?Defendant?next?challenges?questions?posed?to?all?three?prior?victims?about?how?the?sexual?assaults?had?”affected”?their?lives?and?whether?they?had?been?able?to?”forget”?them.?Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia?each?replied?that?they?continued?to?experience?pain,?depression,?and?fear.Defendant?claims?this?”victim?impact”?evidence?is?irrelevant?because?it?does?not?bear?directly?on?the?”violent”?nature?of?his?past?criminal?activity.?This?objection?is?waived?for?failure?to?timely?assert?it?at?trial.fn.?31?We?also?reject?it?on?the?merits.?Forcible?sexual?conduct?with?children?is?unlawful?precisely?because?of?the?physical?and?emotional?trauma?it?inevitably?produces.?The?foreseeable?effects?of?defendant’s?prior?violent?sexual?assaults?upon?the?victims-ongoing?pain,?depression,?and?fear-were?thus?admissible?as?circumstances?of?the?prior?crimes?bearing?on?defendant’s?culpability.?(Compare?People?v.?Boyde?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?212,?249?[250?Cal.Rptr.?83,?758?P.2d?25].)
[22]?For?similar?reasons,?we?reject?defendant’s?related?claim?that?the?testimony?violated?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529].?Booth?held?that?the?Eighth?Amendment?prohibits?consideration?of?some?”victim?impact”?evidence?by?a?capital?sentencing?jury.?Even?assuming?Booth?applies?to?defendant?in?the?wake?of?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597],?Booth?is?not?[54?Cal.3d?188]?implicated?by?argument?or?evidence?mentioning?the?obvious?emotional?effect?of?defendant’s?prior?sexual?molestations?on?the?victims.?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?795-797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330].)?In?any?event,?this?portion?of?Rosa’s,?Sheba’s,?and?Lakecia’s?testimony?was?insignificant?in?light?of?extensive?properly?admitted?evidence?concerning?the?despicable?nature?of?both?the?prior?and?current?crimes.?(See?People?v.?Melton?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?713,?757?[244?Cal.Rptr.?867,?750?P.2d?741].) [23]?Defendant?also?claims?the?court?erred?in?admitting?evidence?that?Vesta?had?”mental?or?emotional?problems”?at?the?time?he?was?sexually?involved?with?her?and?was?molesting?her?daughters,?Sheba?and?Lakecia.?Defendant?argues?that?the?circumstances?surrounding?his?consensual?adult?relationship?with?Vesta?are?unrelated?to?the?molestations.As?before,?defendant?has?waived?these?points?by?failing?to?object?on?similar?grounds?at?trial.fn.?32?We?also?reject?them?on?the?merits.?This?evidence?implied?that?defendant?manipulated?Vesta?in?order?to?gain?access?to?Sheba?and?Lakecia.?Contrary?to?what?defendant?argues?here,?the?jury?could?reasonably?view?the?vulnerability?of?Vesta?and?her?daughters?as?an?aggravating?circumstance?of?the?prior?forcible?rapes.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?713,?757?[defendant?financially?manipulated?elderly?gay?lover?for?several?years?before?violently?assaulting?him].)
[24]?Defendant?finally?observes?that?some?of?the?foregoing?witnesses?mentioned?that?defendant?was?reasonably?”intelligent”?and?did?not?act?in?a?”crazy”?or?”bizarre”?fashion?around?the?time?of?the?prior?or?current?crimes.?Defendant?insists?such?general?character?evidence?was?not?admissible?in?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief.?(People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?775-776.)Defendant?has?waived?this?claim?by?failing?to?object?on?similar?grounds?below.fn.?33?We?also?find?that?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?any?impropriety.?The?testimony?was?brief?and?mild,?and?it?clearly?would?have?been?relevant?and?admissible?to?rebut?defendant’s?evidence?of?mental?disturbance?and?[54?Cal.3d?189]?retardation.?The?prosecution?also?never?argued?that?the?mere?absence?of?evidence?of?mental?disturbance?could?be?considered?aggravating.
- Psychotherapist-patient?Privilege
Defendant?was?called?to?the?stand?immediately?after?the?first?two?defense?witnesses,?a?detective?and?a?forensic?expert,?testified?about?the?capital?crimes.?At?the?end?of?defendant’s?direct?examination,?the?prosecution?sought?immediate?access?to?defendant’s?hospital?records?(i.e.,?St.?Mary’s,?Napa,?Atascadero,?and?Chope).?The?prosecutor?argued?that?defendant?had?waived?any?applicable?privilege?by?revealing?his?psychiatric?history.?Defendant?renewed?a?prior?claim?that?the?psychotherapist-patient?privilege?applied,?and?that?he?had?not?tendered?his?mental?condition?within?the?meaning?of?the?”patient-?litigant”?exception.?(Evid.?Code,????1014,?1016.)fn.?34?The?court?summarily?granted?the?prosecutor’s?request?on?grounds?the?exception?applied.?The?prosecutor?obtained?a?continuance?to?review?the?records,?which?apparently?totalled?2,000?pages.
[25a]?Defendant?broadly?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?”fail[ing]?to?place?any?limitation”?on?prosecutorial?access?to?the?records.?The?documents?are?not?included?in?the?appellate?record,?and?defendant?does?not?describe?their?content.?His?sole?factual?complaint?concerns?disclosure?of?entries?in?the?Napa?records?which?apparently?describe?sexual?misconduct?and?assaultive?behavior?by?defendant?towards?patients?and?staff.?The?prosecutor?apparently?relied?on?these?entries?during?cross-?examination.?(See?discussion,?post.) [26]?It?is?settled?that?the?patient-litigant?exception?authorizes?disclosure?of?otherwise?privileged?matters?bearing?directly?upon?an?emotional?or?mental?condition?voluntarily?disclosed?by?the?patient.?(In?re?Lifschutz?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?415,?431?[85?Cal.Rptr.?829,?467?P.2d?557,?44?A.L.R.3d?1];?see?also?People?v.?Wharton?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?522,?552?[280?Cal.Rptr.?631,?809?P.2d?290].)?The?exception?recognizes?that?it?would?be?unfair?to?allow?the?patient?[54?Cal.3d?190]?to?describe?”at?length?to?the?jury?in?a?crowded?courtroom?the?details?of?his?supposed?ailment,?and?then?neatly?suppress?the?available?proof?of?his?falsities?by?wielding?a?weapon,?nominally?termed?a?privilege.”?(Lifschutz,?supra,?at?p.?433,?fn.?16,?citations?and?internal?quotation?marks?omitted.) [25b]?Assuming?the?pertinent?records?contained?confidential?communications,?the?trial?court?could?reasonably?conclude?that?defendant’s?”entire?mental?condition?[had?been]?placed?in?issue?[on?direct?examination]?and?that?records?of?past?psychotherapy?[would]?clearly?be?relevant”?on?cross-examination.?(In?re?Lifschutz,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?415,?435.)?Defendant?essentially?claimed?that?mental?problems?had?prompted?his?admission?into?St.?Mary’s?as?a?teenager?and?had?continued?through?his?incarceration?at?Chope?hospital?as?an?arrestee?in?this?case.fn.?35?He?also?accused?Napa?and?Atascadero?of?professional?malpractice,?but?suggested?he?had?nonetheless?adjusted?well?in?Napa.fn.?36?The?court?did?not?err?in?concluding?that?defendant?had?waived?the?privilege?insofar?as?it?might?otherwise?apply?to?recorded?information?about?his?condition,?treatment,?and?performance?at?these?institutions.- Cross-examination?of?Defendant
Defendant?challenges?two?related?topics?of?cross-examination.?First,?the?prosecution?asked?defendant?whether?he?had?committed?11?acts?of?sexual?misconduct?at?Napa?between?the?ages?of?16?and?18.?They?included?four?acts?of?consensual?sexual?intercourse?with?female?patients?(three?which?defendant?admitted?and?one?which?he?denied),?and?seven?instances?of?sexually?soliciting?or?”groping”?female?patients?and?staff?(three?which?defendant?denied?and?four?which?he?did?not?recall).fn.?37?These?questions?were?apparently?based?on?the?Napa?records,?and?no?other?evidence?on?the?issue?was?presented.
Second,?defendant?was?asked?whether?he?had?committed?17?unprovoked?physical?assaults?and?threatened?3?acts?of?violence?against?patients?and?staff?[54?Cal.3d?191]?at?Napa.?A?typical?example?involved?defendant?striking?another?patient?for?changing?the?television?channel?in?the?recreation?room.?Defendant?testified?that?he?did?not?recall?any?of?these?incidents.?It?appears?the?prosecution?relied?on?hospital?records.?No?other?evidence?of?these?acts?was?introduced.
[27]?Defendant?argues?that?the?prosecutor?asked?the?foregoing?questions?without?a?”?’good?faith?belief’?”?that?they?were?true,?and?for?the?improper?purpose?of?placing?damaging?insinuations?before?the?jury.?(People?v.?Perez?(1962)?58?Cal.2d?229,?241?[23?Cal.Rptr.?569,?373?P.2d?617,?3?A.L.R.3d?946],?citation?omitted;?see?also?People?v.?Bittaker?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1046,?1098?[259?Cal.Rptr.?630,?774?P.2d?659].)Defendant?has?waived?the?point?by?failing?to?object?on?similar?grounds?below.fn.?38?In?any?event,?the?requisite?”good?faith”?can?be?inferred?from?the?record.?The?factual?specificity?of?the?challenged?questions?indicates?that?they?stemmed?from?information?gleaned?during?the?prosecution’s?review?of?records?obtained?from?the?defense.?Defendant?admitted?that?some?of?the?acts?had?occurred,?denied?others,?and?gave?equivocal?answers?about?the?rest.?Under?the?circumstances,?the?prosecutor?could?properly?ask?leading?questions?of?defendant-a?hostile?witness-and?leave?the?jury?to?deem?his?nonaffirmative?responses?incredible.
[28]?Defendant’s?next?claim?begins?with?the?observation?that?under?People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762,?775-?776,?the?prosecution?may?not?introduce?evidence?of?defendant’s?”bad?character”?in?its?case-in-chief?unless?it?bears?on?a?specific?aggravating?factor?listed?in?section?190.3.?Defendant?notes?that?while?the?prosecution?may?nonetheless?rebut?mitigating?character?evidence?presented?by?defendant?under?”expanded?factor?(k)”?(Boyd,?at?pp.?775-776),fn.?39?such?rebuttal?evidence?must?relate?”to?a?particular?incident?or?character?trait”?raised?by?defendant.?(People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?730,?792,?fn.?24;?see?also?Evid.?Code,????210,?761.)?Defendant?argues?that?[54?Cal.3d?192]?cross-examination?questions?concerning?his?alleged?sexual?and?assaultive?misconduct?at?Napa?do?not?meet?this?standard.The?point?is?waived?for?failure?to?timely?object?below.?(See?fn.?38,?ante.)?We?also?reject?it?on?the?merits.?Evidence?that?defendant?engaged?in?a?pattern?of?violent?and?disruptive?behavior?at?Napa?tended?to?rebut?several?good?character?statements?and?inferences?presented?on?direct?examination:?(1)?that?he?”adjusted”?well?in?Napa’s?structured?environment?except?insofar?as?he?passively?withdrew?in?therapy,?(2)?that?he?did?not?participate?in?covert?”sexual?activities”?among?the?patients?at?Napa,?and?(3)?that?he?was?not?a?”violent”?person?and?had?never?been?”in?any?trouble?concerning?violence.”?The?prosecutor?could?properly?ask?defendant?about?specific?incidents?of?misconduct?directly?contradicting?these?claims.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Rodriguez,?supra,42?Cal.3d?730,?791-792?&?fn.?24?[defendant’s?act?of?reaching?for?a?shotgun?when?stopped?by?a?police?officer?rebutted?evidence?of?his?gentle?and?loving?nature].)
[29]?Defendant?suggests?the?prosecutor?also?improperly?asked?whether?he?had?invited?a?5-year-old?neighbor?girl,?Michelle?S.,?into?the?house?at?age?14,?removed?her?panties,?and?ejaculated?on?her.?Defendant?denied?committing?the?molestation,?which?allegedly?occurred?a?few?months?before?he?sexually?molested?his?sister.Defendant?has?waived?any?challenge?to?this?evidence?by?failing?to?object?to?its?admission?below.?We?also?see?no?impropriety?under?the?principles?discussed?above.?The?Michelle?S.?incident?was?relevant?because?it?rebutted?defendant’s?earlier?testimony?that?he?had?not?thought?about?or?been?”exposed”?to?sex?before?the?incident?with?his?sister.
Reference?to?the?molestation?of?Michelle?also?did?not?violate?the?”good?faith”?rule.?The?prosecutor?informed?the?court?before?the?penalty?phase?began?that?Michelle?could?not?be?located?and?would?not?be?called?in?its?case-?in-chief.?Nevertheless,?the?prosecution?called?Juvenile?Probation?Officer?Ringer?in?rebuttal?at?the?penalty?phase.?Ringer?testified?that?during?an?official?investigation?of?the?incident?17?years?before?the?instant?trial,?defendant?admitted?having?”sexual?contact”?with?Michelle.fn.?40?[54?Cal.3d?193]
- Exclusion?of?Defense?Evidence
Defendant?claims?the?trial?court?erroneously?prevented?three?defense?witnesses?from?answering?certain?questions?during?direct?examination.?(Skipper?v.?South?Carolina?(1986)?476?U.S.?1,?4?[90?L.Ed.2d?1,?6-7,?106?S.Ct.?1669].)?As?we?will?explain,?any?error?was?harmless?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?(People?v.?Lucero?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?1006,?1031-1032?[245?Cal.Rptr.?185,?750?P.2d?1342];?see?Chapman?v.?California,?supra,?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?7055,?710-711].)
[30]?Defendant?first?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?sustaining?the?prosecutor’s?relevance?objections?to?the?following?questions?asked?of?Dr.?Walker?about?the?psychological?care?defendant?received?before?the?instant?crimes:?(1)?”what?should?have?been?done”?for?defendant?during?each?hospital?and?prison?stay,?(2)?how?has?the?professional?”perception”?and?”treatment”?of?pedophilia?”change[d]”?over?the?years,?and?(3)?”what?should?have?been?done?to?safeguard?the?public”?each?time?defendant?was?released?from?an?institution.?Defendant?insists?here,?as?in?his?offer?of?proof?below,?that?evidence?of?the?state’s?”improper”?diagnosis?and?treatment?should?have?been?allowed?in?mitigation.We?agree.?The?proffered?evidence?was?relevant?and?admissible?insofar?as?it?suggested?that?defendant?had?sought?and/or?been?denied?treatment?which?might?have?controlled?the?same?dangerous?personality?disorder?that?purportedly?contributed?to?the?instant?crimes.?The?jury?could?reasonably?view?such?fact?as?bearing?on?defendant’s?moral?culpability.?(See?People?v.?Ramirez?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1158,?1173?[270?Cal.Rptr.?286,?791?P.2d?965].)
Nevertheless,?the?jury?heard?a?detailed?account?of?the?”inappropriate”?treatment?received?by?defendant?during?each?institutional?confinement.?Based?upon?commitment?records?and?personal?interviews,?Dr.?Walker?and?Dr.?Haney?testified?that?defendant:?(1)?should?not?have?been?placed?in?the?adult?unit?when?first?admitted?to?Napa,?(2)?should?have?received?individual?therapy?geared?toward?pedophilia?at?Napa?and?Atascadero,?instead?of?the?”unfocused”?group?therapy?actually?provided,?(3)?should?have?received?individual?therapy?in?prison,?and?(4)?showed?no?improvement?upon?his?release?from?each?institution.?Both?psychologists?blamed?the?various?institutions?for?failing?to?properly?diagnose?defendant?as?a?paranoid/pedophiliac.?Moreover,?Dr.?Walker?thoroughly?described?modern?treatment?techniques?for?such?diagnosis,?i.e.,?establishing?a?one-on-one?therapeutic?relationship?which?overcomes?the?patient’s?extreme?mistrust?and?denial,?but?compels?him?to?[54?Cal.3d?194]?confront?the?harm?he?has?caused.?Defense?counsel?also?emphasized?”institutional?failure”?as?a?mitigating?factor?in?closing?argument.?No?prejudice?occurred.
[31]?Defendant?next?observes?that?Mrs.?Bailey,?a?close?family?friend,?was?asked?whether?defendant?deserved?mercy.?She?said,?”yes,”?and?explained?that?imposition?of?the?death?penalty?would?devastate?defendant’s?parents?and?the?Baileys.?Mrs.?Bailey?then?began?to?plead?for?”mercy”?from?the?witness?stand,?asking?the?court?to?”please”?do?”anything”?in?its?power?to?prevent?a?death?sentence.?The?court?informed?Mrs.?Bailey?that?she?had?answered?the?question.?She?nonetheless?continued?her?plea:?”Please.?Please.?Thank?you.?God?Bless?you.?I?thank?you.?But?please-.”?(Italics?added.)?The?court?intervened?and?instructed?the?jury?to?disregard?the?italicized?portion?of?her?testimony.As?noted?by?defendant,?a?capital?defendant?is?entitled?to?introduce?at?the?penalty?phase?the?opinions?of?family?and?friends?about?the?appropriateness?of?a?death?sentence?in?his?particular?case.?Such?evidence?”exemplifie[s]?the?feelings?held?toward?defendant?by?a?person?with?whom?he?[has]?had?a?significant?relationship,”?and?bears?on?his?overall?character?and?humanity.?(People?v.?Heishman?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?147,?194?[246?Cal.Rptr.?673,?753?P.2d?629].)
The?court?did?not?violate?this?principle?here.?Mrs.?Bailey?was?permitted?to?state?that?defendant?should?not?be?sentenced?to?death.?She?also?described?the?emotional?effect?the?sentence?would?have?upon?persons?who?had?known?him?since?birth.?The?court?intervened?only?because?Mrs.?Bailey?continued?to?beg?for?mercy?after?having?been?advised?that?she?had?answered?the?question.?The?court?could?properly?strike?the?portion?of?her?testimony?amounting?to?a?nonsubstantive?emotional?outburst.
[32]?Defendant?also?claims?the?court?erred?in?sustaining?the?prosecutor’s?objection?when?Mr.?Bailey?was?asked?whether?defendant?should?be?sentenced?to?death.?Although?such?ruling?was?erroneous?under?Heishman,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?page?194,?no?prejudice?occurred.?Mr.?Bailey?testified?that?he?had?fond?memories?of?defendant?and?believed?he?deserved?”help.”?Moreover,?Mrs.?Bailey?indicated?that?she?and?her?husband?viewed?defendant?as?a?grandson,?and?would?be?devastated?if?he?were?sentenced?to?death.?Thus,?despite?the?court’s?ruling,?the?jury?was?fully?informed?that?the?Baileys?believed?defendant’s?life?should?be?spared.- Expert?Opinion?on?the?Death?Penalty
Dr.?Haney?gave?extensive?direct?examination?testimony?about?defendant’s?pedophilia,?paranoid?personality,?borderline?retardation,?and?past?”inappropriate”?[54?Cal.3d?195]?care.?On?cross-examination,?Dr.?Haney?revealed?that?he?had?testified?many?times?in?death?penalty?trials-always?for?the?defense.?Over?defendant’s?relevance?objection,?the?prosecutor?asked?Dr.?Haney?whether?he?was?”opposed?to?the?death?penalty.”?He?said?he?did?not?oppose?it?per?se.?When?the?witness?was?asked?whether?he?opposed?it?”in?this?case,”?he?said?”yes.”?On?redirect?examination,?defendant?asked?Dr.?Haney?to?explain?the?last?answer.?The?court?sustained?the?prosecutor’s?relevance?objection?before?an?explanation?was?given.
The?prosecution?eventually?called?Dr.?Missett,?a?psychiatrist,?in?rebuttal.?On?direct?examination,?he?testified?that?defendant?was?a?”predatory”?pedophile?who?suffered?from?no?neurological?disease?or?psychosis,?showed?signs?of?an?antisocial?personality?disorder,?and?resisted?legitimate?treatment?efforts.?On?cross-examination,?defendant?asked?Dr.?Missett?whether?he?was?in?”favor?of?the?death?penalty?in?this?case.”?The?court?commented?that?the?witness?could?answer?”yes”?or?”no”?and?could?”explain?his?answer.”?Defendant?objected,?noting?that?Dr.?Haney?had?not?been?allowed?to?give?a?similar?explanation.?The?court?overruled?the?objection.?Dr.?Missett?testified?that?he?did?not?oppose?the?death?penalty?here?because?defendant?committed?a?vicious?crime,?had?no?mental?disease,?and?rejected?past?treatment?opportunities.
The?jury?was?excused?for?the?day.?Defendant?immediately?moved?for?a?mistrial?on?grounds?Dr.?Haney?should?have?been?allowed?to?explain?his?answer?and?rebut?any?inference?of?personal?bias?about?the?death?penalty.?The?prosecutor?offered?to?prepare?a?jury?instruction?limiting?consideration?of?expert?testimony?about?the?death?penalty?to?its?potential?bearing?on?bias.
Penalty?phase?instruction?began?the?next?morning.?Before?the?jury?entered?the?courtroom,?defendant?raised?a?minor?objection?to?the?prosecutor’s?proposed?instruction?concerning?expert?opinion?on?the?death?penalty.?The?court?agreed?to?modify?the?instruction?in?the?manner?urged?by?defendant.?It?also?offered?either?to?strike?Dr.?Missett’s?explanation?for?favoring?the?death?penalty,?or?to?allow?Dr.?Haney?to?state?the?reasons?underlying?his?contrary?opinion.?The?prosecution?said?it?had?no?objection?in?either?case.
After?a?brief?recess,?defendant?said?Dr.?Haney?could?not?be?reached?by?phone.?The?court?denied?defendant’s?mistrial?motion,?and?called?the?jury?into?the?courtroom.?It?then?instructed?the?jury,?as?promised,?to?”completely?disregard?any?of?the?reasons?that?Dr.?Missett?gave”?for?favoring?the?death?penalty.fn.?41?[54?Cal.3d?196]?The?court?also?eventually?read?the?instruction?approved?by?both?parties.?It?said?that?both?experts?had?”testified?regarding?their?respective?views?on?the?death?penalty.?This?testimony?was?not?offered?for?the?purpose?of?determining?whether?or?not?the?death?penalty?is?appropriate?in?this?case.?Rather,?[it]?was?offered?and?may?be?considered?by?you?only?for?the?limited?purpose?of?determining?what,?if?any,?bias?the?witness?has?for?or?against?the?death?penalty,?and?the?extent?to?which?such?bias?…?bears?on?your?evaluation?of?[the?witness’s]?credibility.?[?]?The?question?of?which?penalty?to?impose?is?a?matter?for?your?determination,?and?you?may?not?take?into?account?any?opinion?expressed?by?any?expert?witness?as?to?which?penalty?should?be?imposed.”
[33]?Defendant?first?argues?that?the?court?erred?in?allowing?any?questions?about?the?death?penalty.?He?views?all?such?testimony?as?incompetent?expert?opinion?on?the?”ultimate?issue.”We?disagree.?Questions?seeking?to?elicit?a?partisan?expert’s?philosophical?views?on?capital?punishment?might?disclose?some?bias?bearing?on?expert’s?credibility?as?a?witness?at?the?penalty?phase.?(See?Evid.?Code,????210,?780,?subd.?(f).)?Here,?the?instruction?approved?by?both?parties?allowed?the?jury?to?consider?expert?opinion?on?the?death?penalty?only?for?this?”limited?purpose.”
Nevertheless,?we?disapprove?questions?posed?to?each?expert?about?whether?and/or?why?they?favored?or?opposed?death?”in?this?case.”?(Italics?added.)?Detailed?testimony?on?this?issue?might?lead?the?jury?to?confuse?expert?opinion?on?a?pertinent?mental?condition?with?an?opinion?on?the?appropriate?punishment.?At?a?minimum,?direct?testimony?on?the?latter?issue?would?not?”assist”?the?jury?in?making?its?normative,?individualized?penalty?determination.?(See?Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(a).)?In?future?cases,?trial?courts?should?preclude?examination?of?an?expert?witness?on?the?appropriateness?of?death?in?a?particular?case.
Nevertheless,?any?impropriety?here?was?clearly?harmless.?Counterbalancing?testimony?was?given?by?each?expert-one?favored?death?and?the?other?opposed?it?”in?this?case.”?The?jury?was?also?told?that?such?testimony?could?not?be?considered?in?determining?the?”appropriate”?penalty?for?defendant’s?crimes,?and?that?it?was?relevant?only?on?the?limited?question?of?bias.?Finally,?the?penalty?jury?heard?overwhelming?graphic?evidence?in?aggravation?and?extensive?conflicting?evidence?about?defendant’s?psychological?history?and?condition.?There?is?no?reasonable?possibility?that?competing?experts’?predictable?views?on?sentencing?could?have?affected?the?jury’s?verdict.?[54?Cal.3d?197] [34]?Defendant?also?contends?the?trial?court?erred?in?allowing?only?the?prosecution’s?expert,?Dr.?Missett,?to?state?the?reasons?underlying?his?opinion?about?the?death?penalty?”in?this?case.”?However,?no?one-sided?rehabilitation?occurred.?We?can?only?assume?the?jury?followed?the?court’s?first?instruction?and?”completely?disregard[ed]”?this?portion?of?Dr.?Missett’s?testimony.?(Italics?added.)
- Effect?of?Alleged?Errors
Defendant?argues?that?the?various?asserted?penalty?phase?errors,?both?singly?and?in?combination,?undermined?the?reliability?of?the?death?verdict.?However,?we?have?rejected?most?of?these?claims,?and?find?the?remainder?to?be?inconsequential.?No?more?need?be?said.?(See?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1241?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047].)
VII.?Disposition
The?judgment?is?affirmed?in?its?entirety?(S004708/Crim.?25377).?The?appeal?consolidated?therewith?(Crim.?25540)?is?dismissed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?and?Arabian,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.
I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?of?death?and?in?the?dismissal?of?the?purported?interlocutory?appeal?from?the?determination?of?mental?competence.?After?review,?I?find?no?basis?to?do?otherwise.
I?write?separately?to?express?my?views?on?the?giving?of?certain?instructions?at?the?proceedings?on?mental?competence?and?the?introduction?of?so-called?”victim?impact”?evidence?at?the?penalty?phase.
I
Unlike?the?majority,?I?conclude?that?the?trial?court?erred?by?instructing?the?jury?at?the?proceedings?on?mental?competence,?in?accordance?with?Penal?Code?section?1369,?subdivision?(f),?that?”The?defendant?is?presumed?to?be?mentally?competent,?and?he?has?the?burden?of?proving?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?that?he?is?mentally?incompetent?….”?For?the?reasons?stated?in?my?dissenting?opinion?in?People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?913-914?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282],?I?believe?that?such?an?instruction?is?erroneous?under?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution,?and?that?the?contrary?view?of?the?majority?in?that?decision?is?simply?wrong.?[54?Cal.3d?198]
Reversal,?however,?is?not?required.?Evidently,?the?error?is?not?reversible?per?se,?but?rather?is?subject?to?harmless-error?analysis?under?the?”reasonable?doubt”?standard?of?Chapman?v.?California?(1967)?386?U.S.?18,?24?[17?L.Ed.2d?705,?710-711,?87?S.Ct.?824,?24?A.L.R.3d?1065].?(People?v.?Medina,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?at?p.?922?(dis.?opn.?of?Broussard,?J.).)?Applying?the?Chapman?test,?I?find?no?prejudice.?Through?his?claim?of?the?attorney-client?privilege,?which?he?asserted?insistently,?defendant?must?be?deemed?to?have?conceded?the?issue?of?mental?competence.?(Cf.?People?v.?Gonzalez?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?1179,?1267-1269?[275?Cal.Rptr.?729,?800?P.2d?1159]?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.)?[discussing?harmless-error?analysis?under?Chapman?for?instructional?error?involving?mandatory?conclusive?presumptions,?including?the?use?of?the?”concession”?rationale].)
II
Like?the?majority,?I?conclude?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?by?admitting?at?the?penalty?phase?the?testimony?of?”other?crimes”?victims?Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia?relating?to?the?effect?of?those?offenses?on?their?lives.
There?was?no?error?under?state?law.
“Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?(Pen.?Code,???190?et?seq.),?the?determination?of?punishment?turns?on?the?personal?moral?culpability?of?the?capital?defendant.?[Citations.]?Culpability?is?assessed?in?accordance?with?specified?factors?of?’aggravation’?and?’mitigation’?(Pen.?Code,???190.3)?as?construed?in?the?case?law:?(a)?the?circumstances?of?the?crime;?(b)?prior?violent?criminal?activity;?(c)?prior?felony?convictions;?(d)?extreme?mental?or?emotional?disturbance;?(e)?victim?participation?or?consent;?(f)?reasonable?belief?in?moral?justification?or?extenuation;?(g)?extreme?duress?or?substantial?domination;?(h)?impairment?through?mental?disease?or?defect?or?through?intoxication;?(i)?age;?(j)?status?as?an?accomplice?and?minor?participant;?and?(k)?any?other?extenuating?fact.”?(People?v.?Gallego?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?115,?207?[276?Cal.Rptr.?679,?802?P.2d?169]?(conc.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.);?accord,?People?v.?Cox?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?618,?702?[280?Cal.Rptr.?692,?809?P.2d?351]?(conc.?&?dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)
Plainly,?the?defendant’s?personal?moral?culpability?depends?on?both?the?subjective?guilt?he?incurred?by?committing?his?crime?and?the?objective?harm?he?caused?through?its?commission.
I?turn?to?the?case?at?bar.?The?testimony?of?Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia?was?admissible?under?state?law.?Of?course,?”evidence?…?concerning?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?capital?offense?[and]?the?effect?of?that?offense?on?the?victim”?is?relevant?to?the?material?issue?of?the?circumstances?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?199]?crime.?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?797?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330].)?So?too,?similar?evidence?relating?to?other?violent?offenses-like?the?testimony?in?question-is?relevant?to?the?material?issue?of?prior?violent?criminal?activity.?(Ibid.)
Neither?was?there?error?under?the?United?States?Constitution.
Unlike?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?which?requires?the?imposition?of?a?penalty?that?is?proportionate?to?the?defendant’s?personal?moral?culpability,?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause?of?the?Eighth?Amendment?merely?prohibits?the?imposition?of?a?penalty?that?is?disproportionate?thereto?(People?v.?Marshall?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?907,?938?[269?Cal.Rptr.?269,?790?P.2d?676]).
In?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496,?502-509?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?448-452,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?concluded?that?the?introduction?of?evidence?concerning?such?matters?as?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family,?and?the?opinions?of?family?members?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal-except?to?the?extent?it?related?directly?to?the?circumstances?of?the?crime-was?violative?of?a?criminal?defendant’s?rights?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause,?and?that?accordingly?such?evidence?was?inadmissible?per?se.?In?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805,?810-812?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?882-883,?109?S.Ct.?2207],?the?court?followed?Booth?and?concluded?that?the?presentation?of?argument?relating?to?such?matters?was?violative?of?those?same?rights?and?as?such?was?improper?per?se.
I?turn?again?to?the?present?case.?The?testimony?of?Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia?was?not?inadmissible?under?the?cruel?and?unusual?punishments?clause.?Booth?and?Gathers?”do?not?extend?to?evidence?or?argument?concerning?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?the?capital?offense?or?the?effect?of?that?offense?on?the?victim.?…?[Neither?do?they]?extend?to?evidence?or?argument?relating?to?the?nature?and?circumstances?of?other?criminal?activity?involving?the?use?or?threat?of?force?or?violence?or?the?effect?of?such?criminal?activity?on?the?victims?….”?(People?v.?Benson,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?797,?italics?added.)
Recently,?in?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?111?S.Ct.?2597],?the?court?overruled?Booth?and?Gathers?to?the?extent?that?they?held?that?evidence?or?argument?relating?to?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics?or?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family?was?inadmissible?or?improper?per?se.?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?738-739,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2611].)?It?did?not?reach?the?holdings?of?those?cases?as?to?evidence?or?argument?concerning?the?opinions?of?family?members?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal.?(Id.?at?p.?___,?fn.?2?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?739,?fn.?2,?111?S.Ct.?at?[54?Cal.3d?200]?p.?2611,?fn.?2].)?It?permitted?the?states?to?allow?the?kind?of?evidence?and?argument?at?issue.?(Id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?736,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2609].)?But?it?did?not?require?them?to?do?so.?(See?id.?at?p.?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?736-737,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?2609].)fn.?1
In?this?connection,?the?following?observation?should?be?made.?Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?evidence?and?argument?concerning?the?victim’s?personal?characteristics,?the?emotional?impact?of?the?crime?on?the?victim’s?family,?and?the?opinions?of?family?members?about?the?crime?and?the?criminal?are?generally?inadmissible?and?improper.?In?the?usual?case?at?least,?none?of?those?three?topics?appears?sufficiently?relevant?to?any?material?issue.?That?conclusion?follows?from?a?review?of?the?statutory?aggravating?and?mitigating?factors.?It?also?follows?from?a?consideration?of?the?question?that?is?crucial?here,?i.e.,?the?defendant’s?personal?moral?culpability.?As?stated?above,?culpability?depends?on?both?subjective?guilt?and?objective?harm.?Typically,?none?of?the?three?topics?identified?above?is?probative?of?guilt.?So?much?is?clear.?But?neither?is?any?of?them?probative?of?harm.?The?criminal?law?takes?account?of?the?general?injury?to?society?as?a?whole?that?arises?from?crime,?not?the?peculiar?hurt?suffered?by?any?of?its?particular?members.?True,?the?three?topics?may?vividly?depict?the?latter.?But?they?do?not?appreciably?reveal?the?former.
III
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?I?concur?in?the?affirmance?of?the?judgment?of?death?and?in?the?dismissal?of?the?purported?interlocutory?appeal?from?the?determination?of?mental?competence.
KENNARD,?J.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?I?agree?with?most?of?the?majority’s?reasoning.?I?disagree,?however,?with?certain?aspects?of?the?majority’s?treatment?of?defendant’s?contention?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?allowing?defendant?himself?to?assert?the?attorney-client?privilege?at?the?competency?hearing.
In?support?of?his?contention,?defendant?relied?on?People?v.?Samuel?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?489?[174?Cal.Rptr.?684,?629?P.2d?485].?In?Samuel,?we?stated?that?in?representing?a?client?”as?to?whose?competence?the?judge?has?declared?a?doubt?sufficient?to?require?a?[Penal?Code]?section?1368?hearing,”?an?attorney?”should?not?be?compelled?to?entrust?key?decisions?about?fundamental?matters?[54?Cal.3d?201]?to?his?client’s?apparently?defective?judgment.”?(Id.?at?p.?495.)?In?this?case,?the?majority?expresses?some?doubt?about?”the?continuing?validity?of?Samuel”?in?light?of?our?recent?opinion?in?People?v.?Medina?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?870,?881-885?[274?Cal.Rptr.?849,?799?P.2d?1282],?upholding?the?constitutionality?of?Penal?Code?section?1369,?subdivision?(f),?which?allocates?the?burden?of?proof?at?a?competency?hearing?to?the?party?seeking?to?establish?the?defendant’s?incompetence.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?183.)?In?my?view,?the?allocation?of?the?burden?of?proof?at?the?hearing?to?determine?whether?a?defendant?is?competent?to?stand?trial?does?not?alter?the?fundamental?obligation?for?a?criminal?defense?attorney?to?render?effective?representation?to?a?client?at?such?a?hearing.?Under?the?statutory?scheme?governing?the?procedures?for?determining?competency,?there?is?no?hearing?until?either?the?court?or?trial?counsel?makes?an?initial?determination?that?the?defendant’s?mental?competence?is?in?doubt.?(Pen.?Code,???1368.)?Because?that?initial?determination?calls?into?question?the?judgment?of?a?defendant?who?is?subject?to?a?section?1368?hearing,?Samuel’s?conclusion?that?defense?counsel?should?not?entrust?key?decisions?to?such?a?defendant?was?correct.
Also,?it?does?not?appear?that?the?attorney-client?privilege?was?even?applicable?to?the?specific?question?asked?in?this?case.?The?attorney?representing?defendant?at?the?competency?hearing?called?defendant’s?trial?counsel?as?a?witness?and?asked?his?opinion?of?defendant’s?competence?to?stand?trial.?Because?the?question?as?posed?would?not?require?trial?counsel?to?reveal?the?content?of?any?confidential?conversations?he?had?with?defendant,?he?could?have?answered?it?without?violating?the?attorney-client?privilege.
As?the?majority?opinion?correctly?points?out,?however,?we?need?not?consider?whether?the?trial?court?erred?in?permitting?defendant?to?invoke?the?attorney-client?privilege.?Neither?defendant’s?trial?counsel?nor?the?attorney?appointed?to?represent?him?at?the?competency?hearing?objected?to?defendant’s?assertion?of?the?privilege.?Thus,?the?issue?was?not?preserved?for?appeal.
Broussard,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?Sally?testified?that?Lashan?was?a?quiet,?intelligent?girl?who?was?extremely?”shy”?about?her?body.?She?never?walked?or?relaxed?naked?in?the?house,?and?often?fell?asleep?in?her?clothes?or?lied?about?having?taken?a?bath?in?order?to?avoid?getting?undressed?at?night.?According?to?Sally,?Lashan?”would?stay?in?her?clothes?forever?unless?[her?parents]?made?her?get?out?of?them.”
FN?3.?No?fingerprints?were?found?on?the?knife.
FN?4.?When?the?officers?first?asked?defendant?whether?he?had?sex?with?Lashan,?he?said,?”Yeah,?I?did.?I?am?not?sure?if?I?touched?her?this?time.”?In?midinterview,?they?asked?whether?he?had?sex?with?Lashan?before?the?stabbing.?He?said,?”Afterwards[.]?I?had?sex?with?her,?afterwards.”?Towards?the?end?of?the?interview,?defendant?made?two?other?statements?on?the?topic,?namely,?”I?can’t?remember?if?I?touched?her”?and?”I?might?have?[had?sex?with?her].”
FN?5.?Christensen?testified?that?a?fire?that?starts?quickly?can?burn?slowly?depending?upon?various?factors,?including?the?amount?of?fuel?provided?by?any?accelerant?and?the?amount?of?oxygen.?Christensen?believed?that?even?though?the?bedroom?fire?burned?slowly,?it?started?quickly?by?means?of?some?accelerant.?He?initially?hypothesized?that?stains?found?on?the?bedroom?carpet?might?have?been?made?with?a?liquid?accelerant.?Subsequent?laboratory?tests?performed?at?his?direction?ruled?out?this?possibility.
FN?6.?Dr.?Lack?testified?that?the?soles?of?Lashan’s?feet?were?coated?with?a?mixture?of?blood,?soot,?and?paint?flecks,?indicating?that?she?walked?and?bled?during?the?fire.?Soot?covered?a?layer?of?coagulated?blood?on?top?of?her?wounds?but?had?not?entered?them,?indicating?that?she?bled?during?the?fire.?Soot?also?was?found?”deep?down”?in?Lashan’s?lungs,?and?she?had?a?45?percent?carbon?monoxide?blood?level.?These?two?facts?indicated?that?she?was?alive?and?breathing?for?a?”fairly?lengthy?period”?during?the?fire.?The?stab?wounds,?not?the?carbon?monoxide,?were?the?”immediate?cause?of?death.”
FN?7.?Lashan?was?a?type?O?secretor.?Defendant?is?a?type?B?secretor.
FN?8.?Dr.?Blake?said?nonejaculation?is?not?unusual?in?sexual?assault?cases,?i.e.,?it?occurs?25?to?30?percent?of?the?time.?Criminalist?Ng?testified?that?she?tested?the?vaginal?swab?and?also?found?semen.?However,?she?used?techniques?admittedly?less?”sensitive”?than?those?employed?by?Dr.?Blake?and?found?no?trace?of?type?A?or?B?blood?group?substances.
FN?9.?The?Attorney?General?erroneously?maintains?that?defendant’s?postarrest?statements?to?Detectives?Reese?and?McCarthy?at?Chope?hospital?were?not?introduced?at?the?penalty?phase.?Such?evidence?appears?in?an?augmentation?to?the?record?filed?in?this?court?on?April?12,?1989.
FN?10.?Pertinent?facts?elicited?on?cross-examination?will?be?discussed?later?in?the?opinion.
FN?11.?Evidence?introduced?by?the?prosecution?in?rebuttal?at?the?penalty?phase?will?be?discussed?where?pertinent?in?the?opinion.
FN?12.?Article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(d)?of?the?Constitution?provides:?”Except?as?provided?by?statute?hereafter?enacted?by?a?two-thirds?vote?of?the?membership?in?each?house?of?the?Legislature,?relevant?evidence?shall?not?be?excluded?in?any?criminal?proceeding?….?Nothing?in?this?section?shall?affect?any?existing?statutory?rule?of?evidence?relating?to?privilege?or?hearsay,?or?Evidence?Code,?Sections?352,?782?or?1103.”?Because?the?charged?crimes?occurred?after?June?9,?1982,?the?effective?date?of?Proposition?8,?article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(d)?governs?defendant’s?trial.?(People?v.?Smith?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?251,?257-263?[193?Cal.Rptr.?692,?667?P.2d?149].)
FN?13.?We?note?that?none?of?defendant’s?extrajudicial?statements?was?tape-recorded.?On?the?first?night?of?questioning,?Reese?decided,?based?on?18?years’?experience?with?the?police?force,?not?to?use?a?tape?recorder?because?defendant?seemed?”nervous”?and?might?have?been?”distracted”?by?the?machine.?Instead,?McCarthy?took?extensive?notes?of?statements?defendant?made?to?the?officers?at?both?the?police?station?and?Chope?hospital.?Reese?reviewed?the?notes?while?the?interviews?were?fresh?in?his?mind?and,?like?McCarthy,?testified?that?they?were?”accurate.”?Defendant’s?stationhouse?interview?with?his?parole?officer?was?not?transcribed.
FN?14.?Article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(f)?of?the?Constitution?provides?that?”[a]ny?prior?felony?conviction?of?any?person?in?any?criminal?proceeding?…?shall?subsequently?be?used?without?limitation?for?purposes?of?impeachment?….”?(Italics?added.)?This?provision?governs?defendant’s?trial?because,?as?noted?earlier,?the?charged?crimes?occurred?after?the?effective?date?of?Proposition?8.?(People?v.?Smith,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?251,?257-263.)
FN?15.?We?note?that?in?their?briefs?at?trial?and?on?appeal,?the?parties?state?that?defendant’s?oldest?conviction,?involving?lewd?conduct?against?Rosa?S.,?occurred?in?1977.?While?the?abstract?of?judgment?bears?a?1977?date,?the?verdict?was?actually?rendered?by?the?jury?in?1975,?the?same?year?the?crime?was?committed?and?tried.?We?infer?from?defendant’s?testimony?at?the?penalty?trial?that?he?underwent?psychological?evaluation?and/or?treatment?at?Atascadero?during?this?time.?In?any?event,?the?different?dates?on?documents?concerning?this?conviction?almost?certainly?did?not?affect?the?court’s?decision?to?admit?it?under?Castro,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?301.?The?court?did?not?explicitly?factor?age?into?its?analysis,?and?the?two-year?discrepancy?does?not?materially?alter?the?prejudice/probative?balance.
FN?16.?Defendant?erroneously?claims?he?testified?at?the?penalty?phase?that?he?killed?Lashan?as?the?result?of?an?”uncontrollable?impulse”?and?that?no?sexual?misconduct?occurred.?Although?he?told?police?he?had?”sex”?with?Lashan?and?”unintentionally”?stabbed?her,?he?denied?any?involvement?in?the?motel?crimes?at?trial.
FN?17.?Section?288(a)?prohibits?the?commission?of?”any?lewd?or?lascivious?act”?upon?the?body?of?a?child?under?age?14?”with?the?intent?of?arousing,?appealing?to,?or?gratifying?the?lust?or?passions?or?sexual?desires?of?that?person?or?of?the?child.”
FN?18.?The?instructions?defined?a?section?288(a)?offense?as?follows:?”[E]very?person?who?wilfully?and?lewdly?commits?any?lewd?or?lascivious?act?upon?or?with?the?body,?or?any?part?or?member?thereof,?of?a?child?under?the?age?of?14?years,?with?the?specific?intent?of?arousing,?appealing?to,?or?gratifying?the?lust?or?passions?or?sexual?desires?of?such?person?or?of?such?child,?is?guilty?of?the?crime?of?committing?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?upon?the?body?of?a?child.?[?]?A?lewd?or?lascivious?act?is?defined?as?any?touching?of?the?body?of?a?person?under?the?age?of?14?years?with?the?specific?intent?[described?above].?[?]?To?constitute?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?it?is?not?necessary?that?bare?skin?be?touched.?The?touching?may?be?through?the?clothing?of?the?child.?[?]?Where?a?person?compels?a?child?under?the?age?of?14?to?remove?the?child’s?own?clothing,?and?that?person?has?the?specific?intent?[described?above],?such?person?may?be?guilty?of?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?in?violation?of?[section?288(a)].?No?touching?of?the?child?by?the?person?is?required.?…?[?]?[E]ach?of?the?following?elements?must?be?proved:?(1)?that?a?person?committed?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?upon?the?body?of?a?child,?(2)?that?the?child?was?under?14?years?of?age,?and?(3)?that?such?act?was?committed?with?the?specific?intent?[described?above].”?(Italics?added.)?The?italicized?sentence?was?based?on?Austin,?supra,?111?Cal.App.3d?110,?114-?115.
FN?19.?The?jury?was?instructed?in?pertinent?part:?”If?you?find?[defendant]?guilty?of?murder?of?the?first?degree,?you?must?then?determine?if?[the]?murder?was?committed?under?the?following?special?circumstance[,]?to?wit[,]?while?the?defendant?was?engaged?in?the?commission?of?a?lewd?and?lascivious?act?upon?[Lashan],?a?child?under?the?age?of?14?years.?[?]?A?special?circumstance?must?be?proved?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?[?]?If?you?have?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?whether?[the]?special?circumstance?is?true,?it?is?your?duty?to?find?that?it?is?not?true.?[?]?In?order?to?find?the?special?circumstance?charged?in?this?case?to?be?true?or?untrue,?you?must?agree?unanimously.?If?you?find?the?special?circumstance?to?be?true,?you?must?also?unanimously?agree?on?the?particular?act?or?acts?committed.?[?]?You?will?include?in?your?verdict.[,]?on?a?form?that?will?be?supplied[,]?your?finding?as?to?whether?the?special?circumstance?is?or?is?not?true.?If?true,?the?specific?act?or?acts?constituting?the?special?circumstance?shall?be?set?forth?by?you?on?that?special?verdict.”?(Italics?added.)?Defendant?supplied?the?italicized?language.
FN?20.?The?special?circumstance?verdict?stated:?”We,?the?jury?in?the?above?entitled?cause,?find?the?special?circumstance?charged?in?the?Information?filed?herein,?that?the?murder?of?[Lashan]?was?committed?by?[defendant]?while?[he]?was?engaged?in?the?commission?of?the?crime?of?child?molest[ation]?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2(a)(17)(v)?to?be?true,?and?the?specific?lewd?or?lascivious?act(s)?committed?upon?[Lashan]?by?the?defendant?to?be:?witnessed?by?the?victim[‘]s?nudity?and?obvious?use?of?force.”?(Italics?added.)?The?jury?inserted?the?italicized?language.
FN?21.?Although?the?special?finding?in?this?case?is?not?fatally?flawed,?we?strongly?caution?trial?courts?against?using?verdict?forms?that?allow?lay?jurors?substantial?leeway?in?wording?special?findings.
FN?22.?Section?190.41?was?recently?enacted?by?voter?initiative.?(See?Ballot?Pamp.,?Proposed?Stats.?and?Amends.?to?Cal.?Const.?with?arguments?to?voters,?Primary?Elec.?(June?5,?1990),?Prop.?115,?text?of?proposed?law,?p.?67.)?It?effectively?overturns?Mattson?I,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?pages?93-94,?by?providing?that?the?corpus?delicti?of?felony-based?special?circumstances?enumerated?in?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)?”need?not?be?proved?independently?of?a?defendant’s?extrajudicial?statement.”?We?recently?relied?upon?state?rules?of?statutory?construction?and?upon?the?constitutional?prohibition?against?ex?post?facto?legislation?to?conclude?that?section?190.41?applies?only?to?crimes?committed?after?its?effective?date.?(Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282,?297-298?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434].)
FN?23.?The?jury?received?the?following?corpus?delicti?instruction:?”No?person?may?be?convicted?of?a?criminal?offense?unless?there?is?some?proof?of?each?element?of?the?crime?independent?of?any?confession?or?admission?made?by?him?outside?of?this?trial.?[?]?This?rule?does?not?apply?to?the?special?circumstance,?the?special?allegation,?or?degree?of?the?murder?charged?in?the?information.?[?]?The?identity?of?the?person?who?is?alleged?to?have?committed?a?crime?is?not?an?element?of?the?crime[,]?nor?is?the?degree?of?the?crime.?Such?identity?or?degree?of?the?crime?may?be?established?by?an?admission?or?a?confession.”?(Italics?added.)?Defendant?objects?to?the?italicized?language.
FN?24.?Section?1369,?subdivision?(f)?states?in?part:?”It?shall?be?presumed?that?the?defendant?is?mentally?competent?unless?it?is?proved?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?that?the?defendant?is?mentally?incompetent.?The?verdict?of?the?jury?shall?be?unanimous.”?Here,?this?principle?was?communicated?to?the?jury?in?a?special?instruction?requested?by?defendant.
FN?25.?Section?1367?provides?that?an?accused?is?mentally?incompetent?to?stand?trial?if,?”as?a?result?of?mental?disorder?or?developmental?disability,?[he]?is?unable?to?understand?the?nature?of?the?criminal?proceedings?or?to?assist?counsel?in?the?conduct?of?a?defense?in?a?rational?manner.”
FN?26.?Section?1368,?subdivision?(a)?states?that?if?”a?doubt?arises?in?the?mind?of?the?judge?as?to?the?mental?competence?of?the?defendant,”?the?court?shall?inquire?of?defense?counsel?regarding?the?defendant’s?competence.?Subdivision?(b)?of?the?same?section?provides?that?if?counsel?believes?defendant?may?be?incompetent,?the?court?shall?order?a?hearing?on?the?matter,?and?even?if?defense?counsel?believes?his?client?is?competent,?the?court?may,?in?its?discretion,?order?a?competence?hearing.?Once?the?hearing?is?ordered,?”all?proceedings?in?the?criminal?prosecution?shall?be?suspended?until?the?question?of?[defendant’s]?present?mental?competence?has?been?determined.”?(Id.,?subd.?(c).)
FN?27.?Defendant?makes?the?same?due?process?claim?that?we?thoroughly?discussed?and?rejected?in?People?v.?Medina,?supra,?51?Cal.3d?870,?881-?885.?We?see?no?reason?to?reconsider?that?analysis?here.
FN?28.?The?”model?provision”?on?competence?procedures?set?forth?in?the?American?Bar?Association’s?Standards?for?Criminal?Justice?supports?this?position.?Standard?7-4.8(b)?provides:?”Evidence?presented?at?the?hearing?should?conform?to?rules?of?evidence?applicable?to?criminal?cases?within?that?jurisdiction.?…?[?]?(i)?Defense?counsel?may?elect?to?relate?to?the?court?personal?observations?of?and?conversations?with?the?defendant?to?the?extent?that?counsel?does?not?disclose?confidential?communications?or?violate?the?attorney-client?privilege.?…?[?]?(ii)?The?court?may?properly?inquire?of?defense?counsel?about?the?professional?attorney-client?relationship?and?the?client’s?ability?to?communicate?effectively?with?counsel.?The?defense?counsel,?however,?should?not?be?required?to?divulge?the?substance?of?confidential?communications?or?those?that?are?protected?by?the?attorney-client?privilege.”?(2?ABA?Standards?for?Criminal?Justice,?std.?7-4.8?(2d?ed.?1986)?p.?7.208,?italics?added;?see?also?id.,?com.?to?std.?7-4.8,?at?p.?7.213.)
FN?29.?Justice?Kennard?also?states?that?trial?counsel?Barnett?could?necessarily?have?answered?the?question?calling?for?an?opinion?on?defendant’s?competence?without?disclosing?confidential?information.?However,?Barnett?made?clear?that?he?did?not?believe?he?”could”?do?so?and?defendant?apparently?agreed.?Under?the?circumstances,?the?trial?court?was?not?obliged-and?indeed?might?not?have?been?authorized-to?inquire?further?whether?any?answer?by?Barnett?might?have?implicated?the?privilege.?We?also?decline?to?second-guess?the?trial?court’s?implicit?determination?that?this?assertion?of?the?privilege?was?sincere.?Moreover,?even?if?Barnett’s?answer?did?not?disclose?on?its?face?that?his?opinion?depended?upon?confidential?communications,?the?door?might?thereby?have?been?opened?for?prosecutorial?inquiry?into?the?basis?of?the?opinion.?(People?v.?Dubrin?(1965)?232?Cal.App.2d?674,?680?[43?Cal.Rptr.?60].)
FN?30.?Evidence?that?defendant?transmitted?the?disease?to?his?three?prior?victims?was?elicited?from?several?witnesses?in?the?following?order:?(1)?Sheba,?(2)?Sheba’s?father,?Herbert,?(3)?Lakecia,?(4)?Sheba’s?doctor,?(5)?Rosa,?(6)?Rosa’s?doctor,?and?(7)?Rosa’s?mother,?Carol.?Defendant?only?objected?during?testimony?by?the?second?(Herbert)?and?fifth?(Rosa)?witnesses.?Defendant’s?sole?complaint?at?trial?was?that?they?were?discussing?the?hearsay?results?of?laboratory?tests?or?irrelevant?details?of?medical?treatment.
Similarly,?defendant?initially?raised?a?relevance?objection?to?evidence?of?Carol’s?gonorrhea?only?insofar?as?it?was?not?temporally?linked?to?her?daughter?Rosa’s?infection.?The?objection?was?effectively?cured?when?the?prosecutor?elicited?from?Carol?that?she?had?contracted?the?disease?from?defendant?within?”a?few?days”?of?Rosa’s?diagnosis.?Finally,?defendant?did?not?object?when?Officer?Reese?testified?that?Ruthie?said?she?had?contracted?the?disease?from?defendant?around?the?time?the?capital?crimes?occurred.
FN?31.?The?prosecution?asked?Sheba?and?Lakecia?about?the?effect?of?the?prior?rapes?on?the?same?day?of?trial.?Defendant?did?not?object.?Rosa?was?called?to?the?stand?the?next?day.?Before?direct?examination?began,?defendant?asked?the?court?to?prevent?her?from?being?asked?the?same?questions?on?relevance?grounds.?The?court?summarily?declined?the?request.?In?our?view,?defendant?should?have?objected?when?this?line?of?questioning?first?began?the?previous?day.?Having?failed?to?do?so,?he?should?have?at?least?moved?to?strike?the?testimony?of?the?first?two?witnesses?when?seeking?to?bar?similar?testimony?by?the?third?one.
FN?32.?Evidence?concerning?Vesta’s?emotional?condition?was?provided?by?Sheba?and?Herbert,?respectively.?Defendant?made?an?unintelligible?”foundation”?objection?during?Sheba’s?testimony,?but?did?not?complain?that?either?witness?was?giving?an?irrelevant?or?inflammatory?opinion.
FN?33.?The?challenged?testimony?was?elicited?from?five?witnesses?in?the?following?order:?(1)?Officer?Reese,?based?on?defendant’s?conduct?during?the?prearrest?interrogation?in?this?case,?(2)?Parole?Officer?Bandettini,?based?on?his?contact?with?defendant?during?a?three-month?period?preceding?the?instant?crimes,?(3)?Ruthie,?based?on?her?nine-month?intimate?relationship?with?defendant?preceding?the?instant?crimes,?(4)?Rosa,?based?on?her?observations?of?defendant?shortly?before?and?during?the?sexual?assault?in?1975,?and?(5)?Carol,?based?on?social?contact?with?defendant?during?the?same?period.?Defendant?did?not?object?until?the?last?two?witnesses?testified.?He?raised?an?unclear?”foundation”?objection?during?both?examinations?and?a?relevance?objection?to?an?unimportant?detail?mentioned?in?one?of?them.
FN?34.?Evidence?Code?section?1014?grants?the?patient?”a?privilege?to?refuse?to?disclose,?and?to?prevent?another?from?disclosing,?a?confidential?communication?between?patient?and?psychotherapist.”
Evidence?Code?section?1016?exempts?from?the?privilege?any?”communication?relevant?to?an?issue?concerning?the?mental?or?emotional?condition?of?the?patient?if?such?issue?has?been?tendered?by?…?[t]he?patient.”
These?sections?were?first?mentioned?when?defendant?moved?to?quash?the?prosecutor’s?subpoena?for?production?of?the?Napa?and?Atascadero?records?at?the?competence?phase.?Defendant?disputed?the?prosecutor’s?claim?that?defendant?had?tendered?the?issue?of?his?past?psychiatric?history?by?moving?to?establish?his?incompetence?to?stand?trial.?The?trial?court?initially?denied?the?motion?to?quash.?It?later?vacated?the?order?in?response?to?an?alternative?writ?of?mandate?obtained?by?defendant?from?the?Court?of?Appeal.
FN?35.?Defendant?testified?on?direct?examination?that?he?suffered?from?”hallucinations”?as?a?child?and?as?a?patient?at?Chope?hospital;?that?he?had?a?sexual?”problem”?with?his?sister?and?uncontrollably?choked?a?neighbor?lady?as?a?teenager;?that?he?experienced?disturbing?sensations?around?young?girls?as?an?adult;?and?that?he?believed?there?was?”something?wrong?with?[his]?mind”?at?the?time?of?the?capital?trial.
FN?36.?Defendant?testified?on?direct?examination?that?he?was?improperly?placed?in?the?adult?unit?and?given?excessive?medication?when?first?admitted?to?Napa;?that?Napa?delayed?in?moving?him?to?the?adolescent?unit?even?though?the?staff?knew?he?had?been?raped?by?an?adult?patient;?that?Napa?failed?to?help?him?benefit?from?therapy;?and?that?Napa?prematurely?released?him?at?age?16,?leading?to?his?suicide?attempt?and?readmission.?Defendant?also?indicated?that?despite?these?problems?he?felt?”adjusted”?and?”relaxed”?once?he?entered?Napa’s?adolescent?unit.?Finally,?defendant?testified?that?Atascadero?placed?him?in?the?wrong?group?therapy?program,?and?that?he?essentially?had?no?choice?but?to?seek?a?transfer?to?state?prison.
FN?37.?Defendant?volunteered?that?one?of?his?sexual?partners?at?Napa?may?have?had?a?venereal?disease,?but?he?denied?contracting?it.
FN?38.?The?prosecutor?asked?most?of?the?sexual?misconduct?questions?without?substantive?objection?from?defense?counsel.?When?the?prosecutor?returned?to?the?topic?several?hours?later,?counsel?argued?that?the?questions?were?irrelevant?and?beyond?the?scope?of?direct?examination.?However,?he?did?not?move?to?strike?defendant’s?earlier?testimony,?and?never?claimed?the?prosecutor?was?acting?in?bad?faith.
Defense?counsel?also?remained?silent?until?the?prosecutor?had?elicited?answers?about?half?of?the?assaultive?acts.?Counsel?eventually?claimed?a?mistrial?was?warranted?because?the?questions?were?”irrelevant”?and?”unfounded,”?but?did?not?accuse?the?prosecutor?of?misconduct.
FN?39.?The?jury?was?instructed?that,?under?section?190.3,?factor?(k),?it?could?consider?”any?other?circumstance?which?extenuates?the?gravity?of?the?crime?even?though?it?is?not?a?legal?excuse?for?the?crime?and?any?sympathetic?or?other?aspect?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?record?that?the?defendant?offers?as?a?basis?for?a?sentence?less?than?death,?whether?or?not?related?to?the?offense?for?which?he?is?on?trial.”?The?italicized?language?modifies?and?more?than?satisfies?standard?instructional?language?set?forth?in?People?v.?Easley?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?858,?878,?footnote?10?[196?Cal.Rptr.?309,?671?P.2d?813].
FN?40.?We?further?note?that?the?prosecutor?requested?and?received?a?special?instruction?citing?People?v.?Boyd,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?762.?It?told?the?jury?not?to?consider?defendant’s?behavior?at?Napa?as?”evidence?of?any?wrongdoing”?or?as?”a?factor?in?aggravation,”?and?to?consider?it?only?for?the?”limited?purpose?of?determining?the?nature?of?any?mental?disease?or?defect?suffered?by?the?defendant,?and?the?appropriateness?of?the?treatment?provided.”?Another?instruction?told?the?jury?that?they?could?consider?only?four?acts?of?violent?criminal?activity?as?aggravating?under?section?190.3,?factor?(b),?namely,?the?sexual?assaults?upon?Rosa,?Sheba,?and?Lakecia,?and?the?battery?upon?Herbert?(Sheba?and?Lakecia’s?father).?This?instruction?also?made?clear?that?such?acts?must?be?proven?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?Finally,?the?prosecutor?embraced?these?principles?in?closing?argument.?She?stated,?among?other?things,?that?the?jury?was?not?to?consider?the?molestations?of?Michelle?S.?and?defendant’s?sister?or?the?misconduct?at?Napa?as?aggravating?under?factor?(b).
FN?41.?The?court?also?suggested?that?another?instruction?would?prevent?the?jury?from?relying?on?expert?opinion?about?the?death?penalty?in?determining?defendant’s?sentence:?”I?will?instruct?you?with?reference?to?the?opinions?of?both?Dr.?Haney?and?Dr.?Missett?[that]?their?position?…?on?the?death?penalty?should?not?play?any?[role?in]?what?your?verdict?is?in?this?case.”
FN?1.?Of?course,?”a?new?[federal?constitutional]?rule?for?the?conduct?of?criminal?prosecutions”-like?that?of?Payne?-“is?to?be?applied?retroactively?to?all?cases,?state?or?federal,?pending?on?direct?review?or?not?yet?final,?with?no?exception?for?cases?in?which?the?new?rule?constitutes?a?’clear?break’?with?the?past.”?(Griffith?v.?Kentucky?(1987)?479?U.S.?314,?328?[93?L.Ed.2d?649,?661,?107?S.Ct.?708].)