People?v.?Fierro?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?173?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?426;?821?P.2d?1302 [No.?S004726. Dec?26,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DAVID?REY?FIERRO,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Riverside?County,?No.?CR-?23644,?Gerald?F.?Schulte,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.) COUNSEL James?S.?Thomson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Michael?Laurence?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Louis?R.?Hanoian?and?Lilia?E.?Garcia,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?200] OPINION ARABIAN,?J. Defendant?David?Rey?Fierro?was?convicted?by?a?jury?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187)?fn.?1?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?true?the?special?circumstance?allegation?that?the?murder?was?committed?during?the?perpetration?of?a?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)),?and?also?returned?a?special?finding?that?defendant?shot?and?killed?the?victim.?As?to?each?count?the?jury?also?found?that?defendant?used?a?firearm?to?commit?the?offense.?(??12022.5.)?The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?at?death.?This?appeal?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).) Facts Guilt?Phase?Evidence The?Prosecution On?the?evening?of?January?6,?1985,?Sam?Allessie?was?robbed?and?murdered?in?front?of?the?small?grocery?store?which?he?owned?with?his?wife,?Trudy,?in?Glen?Avon.?Defendant,?who?was?on?parole?for?burglary,?was?arrested?two?days?later.?He?was?linked?to?the?crimes?by?eyewitness?identifications,?fingerprints?which?he?left?on?the?victim’s?truck,?bloodstains?in?his?car,?and?money?from?the?robbery?found?in?his?wallet.?As?recounted?at?trial,?the?facts?of?this?tragic?episode?unfolded?as?follows. About?6?p.m.?on?the?evening?in?question,?Sam?and?Trudy?Allessie?were?preparing?to?close?their?store?for?the?night.?As?was?their?custom?on?Sunday?evenings,?they?planned?to?deposit?the?day’s?receipts?in?the?night?slot?of?their?bank?and?then?go?to?dinner.?Trudy?had?placed?in?her?purse?approximately?$4,000,?comprised?of?checks,?money?orders?and?about?$1,000?in?cash.?The?cash?was?in?$50?and?$100?denominations.?Trudy?observed?Sam?look?into?his?wallet,?which?he?carried?in?his?back?pants?pocket,?for?money?to?pay?for?dinner. They?left?through?the?front?doors?of?the?market?and?approached?Sam’s?pickup?truck.?Sam?opened?the?passenger?door?for?Trudy?and?circled?around?the?back?of?the?truck?to?the?driver’s?side.?As?Trudy?lost?sight?of?Sam,?she?heard?loud?talking?from?the?rear?of?the?truck.?Suddenly?she?saw?a?”kid”?trying?to?unlock?the?driver’s?door?with?Sam’s?keys.?She?became?scared?and?heard?Sam?holler,?”Watch?your?purse,?honey.”?Trudy?opened?her?door?to?join?her?husband?and?at?that?moment?was?confronted?by?the?same?”kid”?she?had?seen?moments?earlier.?He?demanded?money.?Trudy?responded,?”All?right,?all?[1?Cal.4th?201]?right,”?and?opened?her?purse?and?handed?him?a?bundle?of?currency.?He?then?grabbed?the?purse?and?ran?toward?the?rear?of?the?truck,?out?of?view. Trudy?thereupon?started?out?of?the?truck?and?heard?a?shot.?fn.?2?Running?to?the?front?of?the?store?she?found?Sam?on?the?ground,?bleeding.?As?she?screamed?for?help,?a?light?colored?car?sped?out?of?the?parking?lot?and?turned?onto?Mission?Boulevard?toward?the?freeway. About?the?time?the?Allessies?were?closing?the?store,?Robert?Gonzales?was?in?a?telephone?booth?outside?the?market?talking?to?his?girlfriend.?Gonzales?heard?a?gunshot?and?saw?a?man?with?a?gun.?Several?seconds?later,?he?observed?the?man?fire?a?second?shot?and?then?run?toward?a?yellow?Pacer.?As?Gonzales?took?cover,?he?saw?a?figure?enter?the?Pacer,?which?raced?away?in?the?direction?of?the?freeway. That?same?evening,?Carol?DiCenso?and?her?husband,?Antonio,?were?driving?on?Mission?Boulevard?in?the?area?of?Trudy’s?Market.?Carol?was?in?the?rear?passenger?seat.?As?they?approached?the?market,?Carol?observed?three?men?standing?in?a?group;?one?was?dressed?in?a?white,?short-sleeved?T-shirt;?the?man?in?the?center,?Sam?Allessie,?was?dressed?in?dark?clothing;?the?man?to?Sam’s?left?was?dressed?in?a?black?sleeveless?tank-top?shirt.?As?the?DiCensos’?car?drove?past,?Carol?saw?and?heard?a?gunshot?blast?fired?by?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt.?Sam?Allessie?slumped?to?his?knees?and?fell?over.?Seconds?later,?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt?straddled?the?fallen?body,?stretched?out?his?arm,?and?fired?another?shot?into?the?victim. Carol?DiCenso?then?observed?the?man?in?the?white?T-shirt?bend?over,?put?his?arms?around?the?victim?in?a?”hugging”?type?motion?and?reach?underneath?him.?In?the?meantime,?the?other?man?in?the?dark?shirt,?who?had?been?standing?nearby,?started?to?run?away.?The?shooter?followed,?running?toward?a?car?which?had?its?lights?on.?Moments?later,?Benita?Watson,?who?was?a?passenger?in?another?car?travelling?down?Mission?Boulevard,?noticed?a?light?colored?AMC?Pacer?with?a?chrome?luggage?rack?travelling?in?the?same?direction.?Ms.?Watson?heard?a?woman?scream?and?heard?shouts?to?”follow?that?car.”?The?Pacer?then?accelerated?and?pulled?away. Sam?was?dead?when?the?police?arrived?at?the?scene.?His?car?keys?and?wallet?were?missing.?Blood?spots?and?a?bloody?shoe?print?were?observed?leading?away?from?the?body.?Based?on?the?descriptions?of?the?assailant?and?the?getaway?car?and?conversations?with?local?law?enforcement?officers,?Sergeant?Turley?of?the?Riverside?Sheriff’s?Department?focused?on?defendant?[1?Cal.4th?202]?as?a?possible?suspect.?Within?several?days,?it?was?discovered?that?four?fingerprints?lifted?from?Sam?Allessie’s?truck?matched?defendant’s?fingerprints.?Shortly?thereafter,?defendant?was?detained?and?taken?into?custody.?When?he?was?stopped,?he?was?driving?an?AMC?Pacer?with?a?luggage?roof?rack.?His?girlfriend,?Laura?Garcia?(hereafter?Laura?Fierro),?fn.?3?and?a?small?child?were?passengers?in?the?car.?A?search?of?Laura?Fierro’s?purse?at?the?station?disclosed?a?man’s?wallet?containing?defendant’s?driver’s?license.?The?wallet?contained?$650?in?cash,?comprised?of?four?$100?bills?and?five?$50?bills. Several?weeks?later,?Mrs.?Allessie?identified?defendant?from?both?a?photographic?and?a?live?lineup.?At?trial,?she?identified?defendant?as?the?man?who?had?robbed?her.?Robert?Gonzales?also?picked?defendant?from?a?photographic?lineup.?fn.?4?Although?Carol?DiCenso?could?not?identify?the?man?she?saw?that?evening,?her?description?of?the?shooter?as?wearing?a?light?colored?T-shirt?matched?Mrs.?Allessie’s?description?of?defendant. A?search?of?Laura?Fierro’s?house,?where?defendant?lived,?revealed?several?white?short-sleeved?T-shirts?and?a?pink?slip?for?the?Pacer?signed?by?defendant.?Human?blood?was?found?on?the?sole?of?one?of?defendant’s?shoes.?Testing?could?only?determine?that?it?was?human?blood.?A?search?of?defendant’s?Pacer?revealed?dried?blood?in?the?area?of?the?front?passenger?door.?Testing?determined?that?it?was?not?that?of?defendant?but?was?consistent?with?the?blood?of?Sam?Allessie. An?autopsy?disclosed?that?the?victim?died?of?two?gunshot?wounds?to?the?chest.?One?wound?was?consistent?with?having?been?fired?from?a?distance?of?up?to?12?inches?while?the?victim?was?standing,?allowing?the?bullet?to?exit?through?the?back.?The?other?was?a?larger?”contact”?wound,?meaning?the?muzzle?of?the?gun?was?in?contact?with?the?victim’s?clothes.?The?nature?and?size?of?the?entry?wound,?the?bullet’s?trajectory,?the?crush-type?injuries?to?the?back?and?the?piece?of?bullet?lodged?in?the?back?all?indicated?that?the?victim?was?lying?on?the?ground?when?the?shot?was?fired.?Dr.?Hunter,?who?performed?the?autopsy,?determined?that?the?smaller?wound?was?inflicted?first,?and?that?the?larger?”contact”?wound?was?inflicted?shortly?thereafter.?Either?wound?would?have?been?fatal. The?Defense The?defense?called?several?witnesses?to?show?that?a?person?other?than?defendant?was?seen?leaving?the?scene?after?the?shooting.?Hubert?Joubert,?who?lived?across?the?street?from?Trudy’s?Market,?testified?that?he?saw?a?Mexican?[1?Cal.4th?203]?male?wearing?some?sort?of?checkered?jacket?walking?away?from?the?scene?shortly?after?the?shooting.?When?this?individual?was?a?block?away?he?”took?off?running.”?Joubert?also?stated?that?he?saw?two?cars?driving?away?from?the?scene?on?Mission?Boulevard.?Lori?James,?who?also?lived?near?the?market,?stated?that?she?heard?two?gunshots?and?saw?two?men?running?from?the?scene;?one?of?them?had?on?a?white?T-shirt;?she?did?not?see?the?other?because?he?had?entered?a?yellow?Pacer.?The?man?in?the?T-shirt?entered?the?passenger?side?of?the?car.?Charles?Dickey,?who?was?driving?his?tow?truck?on?Mission?Boulevard,?observed?a?Pacer?similar?to?defendant’s?but?with?a?different?license?plate. Defendant?also?called?several?deputy?sheriffs?who?spoke?with?Trudy?Allessie?shortly?after?the?crimes;?defendant?attempted?to?impeach?Mrs.?Allessie’s?trial?testimony?with?prior?inconsistent?statements?as?to?precisely?when?and?where?she?heard?the?two?shots,?and?the?manner?in?which?the?robber?took?her?purse. Defendant?also?called?two?expert?witnesses.?David?Duncan?testified?that?the?lack?of?damage?to?the?bullet?recovered?from?the?victim’s?back?indicated?that?it?had?been?fired?while?the?victim?was?standing,?rather?than?lying?on?the?ground.?Jules?Slaick?testified?as?to?various?distances?at?the?crime?scene?and?the?location?of?light?fixtures. Defendant?did?not?testify?at?the?guilt?phase?of?trial. Penalty?Phase?Evidence The?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?defendant’s?prior?violent?conduct?in?connection?with?a?1982?burglary?conviction.?The?victim?of?the?burglary,?Tim?Deno,?recounted?the?circumstances?of?the?crime.?Defendant?stipulated?that?he?pled?guilty?to?burglary?with?use?of?a?deadly?weapon. In?mitigation,?defendant?testified?in?his?own?behalf,?denying?that?he?shot?and?killed?Sam?Allessie.?Six?members?of?defendant’s?family?also?testified?as?to?defendant’s?poor?relationship?with?his?father,?his?participation?in?Little?League?and?school?plays,?and?his?close?and?loving?relationships?with?his?siblings,?wife?and?children.?Defendant’s?aunt?claimed?that?the?actual?killer?was?another?member?of?the?family?defendant?was?seeking?to?protect.?[1?Cal.4th?204] Discussion Guilt?Phase?Claims Alleged?Marsden?Error [1a]?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?failed?to?conduct?a?proper?inquiry?when?defendant?asserted?a?conflict?with?the?public?defender?and?erred?in?denying?defendant’s?request?to?appoint?a?private?attorney. The?law?governing?this?area?is?well?settled.?[2]?”When?a?defendant?seeks?to?discharge?his?appointed?counsel?and?substitute?another?attorney,?and?asserts?inadequate?representation,?the?trial?court?must?permit?the?defendant?to?explain?the?basis?of?his?contention?and?to?relate?specific?instances?of?the?attorney’s?inadequate?performance.?[Citation.]?A?defendant?is?entitled?to?relief?if?the?record?clearly?shows?that?the?first?appointed?attorney?is?not?providing?adequate?representation?[citation]?or?that?defendant?and?counsel?have?become?embroiled?in?such?an?irreconcilable?conflict?that?ineffective?representation?is?likely?to?result?[citations].”?(People?v.?Crandell?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?833,?854?[251?Cal.Rptr.?227,?760?P.2d?423];?see?also?People?v.?Marsden?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?118,?124-?125?[84?Cal.Rptr.?156,?465?P.2d?44].) [1b]?Defendant?complained?about?his?representation?by?the?public?defender’s?office?on?three?occasions.?The?first?occurred?on?June?17,?1985,?after?the?preliminary?hearing?but?prior?to?arraignment?on?the?information.?At?an?in?camera?hearing?out?of?the?presence?of?the?prosecutor,?defendant?expressed?dissatisfaction?with?the?fact?that?he?had?been?represented?by?three?different?deputy?public?defenders.?fn.?5?Defendant?requested?a?new?attorney,?preferably?one?outside?of?the?public?defender’s?office,?apparently?in?the?hope?that?this?would?entitle?him?to?a?new?preliminary?hearing.?The?trial?court?expressed?sympathy?with?defendant’s?frustration?over?the?change?of?attorneys?but?explained?that?it?did?not?provide?a?legal?basis?for?the?appointment?of?private?counsel;?the?court?further?explained?that?a?substitution?of?attorneys?would?not?entitle?defendant?to?a?new?preliminary?hearing.?The?court?also?assured?defendant?that?it?was?familiar?with?the?three?deputies?and?that?each?was?competent?and?well?qualified.?After?a?short?recess,?defendant?was?arraigned?and?agreed?to?waive?time?for?trial. The?record?thus?discloses?that?defendant?did?not?assert?either?incompetence?of?counsel?or?irreconcilable?differences?with?the?public?defender?at?the?[1?Cal.4th?205]?first?in-chambers?conference.?Accordingly,?there?was?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?denying?the?request?for?substitution?of?counsel.?(People?v.?Moore?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?63,?76?[252?Cal.Rptr.?494,?762?P.2d?1218].) The?second?in?camera?hearing?was?convened?on?April?11,?1986,?to?inquire?into?an?earlier?statement?by?defendant?that?he?was?not?”comfortable”?with?his?attorney.?fn.?6?Defendant?indicated?that?he?did?not?”trust”?his?attorney?because?the?latter?had?”lied”?to?him.?When?pressed?by?the?court?to?elaborate,?however,?defendant?was?unable?to?describe?any?specific?lies?by?counsel?or?any?circumstances?where?he?had?been?misled. Defendant?also?indicated?that?he?was?dissatisfied?with?counsel?because?the?latter?wanted?him?to?take?a?”deal”?which?he?was?unwilling?to?take.?Again,?however,?defendant?was?unable?or?unwilling?to?elaborate.?The?court?reminded?defendant?that?one?week?earlier?he?had?asked?both?attorneys,?outside?of?defendant’s?presence,?if?a?disposition?was?possible.?Although?counsel?indicated?that?defendant?would?not?plead?guilty?to?first?degree?murder?and?the?prosecutor?stated?that?he?would?not?accept?anything?less?than?life?without?possibility?of?parole,?the?court?nevertheless?directed?counsel?to?convey?the?offer?to?defendant.?After?a?short?time,?counsel?returned?to?inform?the?court?that?defendant?would?not?accept?the?plea. The?trial?court?asked?defendant?if?this?explanation?had?helped?to?”jog”?his?memory.?Defendant?responded?that?”it?wasn’t?all?clear?like?that”?when?counsel?had?spoken?to?him.?Nevertheless,?defendant?remained?adamant?that?he?did?not?trust?his?attorney,?and?complained?about?counsel’s?performance?at?pretrial?motions.?Counsel,?in?response,?stated?that?he?had?consulted?sufficiently?with?defendant?in?preparing?the?case,?had?adequately?investigated?the?facts?and?law?and?was?prepared?for?trial.?He?acknowledged,?however,?that?defendant?did?appear?to?distrust?him,?explaining?that?defendant?had?discouraged?his?brothers?from?cooperating?with?the?investigation?because?he?feared?counsel?would?disclose?the?results?to?the?district?attorney.?Counsel?indicated?that?he?had?said?and?done?nothing?to?cause?defendant?to?distrust?him.?The?trial?court?assured?defendant?that?there?was?no?connection?between?the?public?defender’s?office?and?the?district?attorney,?and?observed?that?his?attorney?had?done?an?”exemplary”?job?at?pretrial?motions.?Finally,?the?court?asked?defendant?if?he?had?any?other?reasons?for?seeking?other?counsel.?Defendant?[1?Cal.4th?206]?responded,?”I?just?want?another?attorney.”?The?court?thereupon?found?there?was?no?basis?to?conclude?that?counsel?was?not?providing?effective?assistance?or?that?a?breakdown?in?the?attorney-client?relationship?had?occurred?such?that?defendant’s?right?to?effective?assistance?would?be?substantially?impaired. The?record?amply?supports?the?trial?court’s?findings.?As?outlined?above,?the?court?carefully?inquired?into?defendant’s?reasons?for?requesting?substitution?of?counsel,?which?proved?to?be?either?groundless?or?patently?insufficient?to?demonstrate?”such?an?irreconcilable?conflict?that?ineffective?representation?[was]?likely?to?result.”?(People?v.?Crandell,?supra,?46?Cal.3d?at?p.?854;?People?v.?Moore,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?76.) Finally,?defendant?was?accorded?a?third?in?camera?hearing?shortly?after?the?guilty?verdicts?were?rendered?and?before?the?commencement?of?the?penalty?phase.?The?purpose?of?the?hearing,?according?to?counsel,?was?to?express?defendant’s?continuing?objection?to?representation?by?the?public?defender.?Although?defendant?was?not?displeased?with?his?attorney’s?performance?and?had?cooperated?fully?throughout?the?guilt?phase,?he?did?not?feel?”comfortable”?because?the?public?defender’s?office?”worked?for?the?same?employer?as?the?District?Attorney’s?office.” Counsel?also?noted?that?he?had?differed?with?defendant?over?trial?strategy;?while?counsel?had?originally?advised?defendant?to?admit?participation?in?the?crime?and?direct?his?defense?to?the?special?circumstance,?defendant?was?disposed?to?deny?participation?altogether.?Ultimately,?defendant’s?views?prevailed.?Counsel?also?advised?the?court?that?he?anticipated?another?potential?conflict?at?the?penalty?phase;?contrary?to?the?advice?of?counsel,?defendant?did?not?wish?to?call?members?of?his?family?as?witnesses?”because?he?feels?that?they?have?suffered?enough.”?When?asked?if?he?had?anything?to?add?to?his?attorney’s?statement,?defendant?simply?reiterated?his?displeasure?at?the?fact?that?he?had?been?represented?by?different?deputy?public?defenders;?he?added?that?he?did?not?desire?to?change?attorneys. Thus,?the?record?of?proceedings?at?the?third?in-chambers?hearing?discloses?neither?a?request?for?substitution?of?counsel,?nor?any?credible?evidence?of?a?lack?of?diligent?representation?or?a?breakdown?in?the?attorney-client?relationship.?The?record?utterly?fails?to?support?defendant’s?repeated?claims?that?a?lack?of?”trust”?between?himself?and?counsel?impaired?his?representation.?On?the?contrary,?counsel?apparently?deferred?to?defendant’s?preferred?strategy?at?the?guilt?phase,?and?defendant?ultimately?followed?counsel’s?advice?to?call?family?members?at?the?penalty?phase. Accordingly,?we?find?no?basis?for?concluding?that?the?trial?court?either?failed?to?conduct?a?proper?Marsden?inquiry?or?abused?its?discretion?in?[1?Cal.4th?207]?declining?to?substitute?counsel.?(People?v.?Silva?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?604,?622?[247?Cal.Rptr.?573,?754?P.2d?1070].) Prosecutorial?Misconduct Defendant?next?argues?that?the?prosecutor?committed?prejudicial?misconduct?at?several?points?during?voir?dire?and?closing?argument. Voir?Dire (i)?The?Adversarial?Process [3a]?Both?attorneys?commented?on?the?nature?of?the?adversarial?process?during?voir?dire.?Defense?counsel?analogized?the?upcoming?trial?to?a?”game”?and?observed?that?each?side?was?seeking?essentially?the?same?goal,?”each?of?us?is?trying?to?win?for?our?team?….”?The?prosecutor,?in?response,?emphasized?that?his?role?was?not?”strict[ly]?adversarial,”?that?his?”client”?was?the?people?of?the?state?and?that?he?was?thereby?obligated?to?ensure?that?”people?receive?fair?trials”?and?not?simply?”convict?those?charged?with?crimes?and?throw?justice?and?equity?out?the?door.”?To?illustrate?the?point,?the?prosecutor?noted?that?he?had?”an?obligation?ethically?in?seeking?justice?to?make?sure?[defense?counsel]?knows?about?all?the?witnesses?I?intend?to?call,?what?they?are?going?to?say,?what?they?saw,?all?of?those?things.?[?]?This?isn’t?just?a?game?….”?By?way?of?contrast,?the?prosecutor?observed?that?defense?counsel?”has?no?obligation?under?our?system?of?justice?to?reciprocate,?to?tell?me?where?they’re?going?or?what?they?may?do?or?who?they?may?call.”?He?is?”an?adversary,”?the?prosecutor?explained,?”pure?and?simple.”?”He?must?represent?his?client?and?his?sole?obligation?within?certain?ethical?grounds?is?to?obtain?an?acquittal?for?his?client.” Defendant?now?contends?that?the?prosecutor’s?remarks?”grossly?distorted”?the?adversarial?process,?impugned?the?ethics?of?defense?counsel?and?improperly?used?the?prestige?of?his?office?to?bolster?the?state’s?case.?As?the?People?correctly?observe,?however,?defendant?failed?to?object?to?any?of?the?prosecutor’s?remarks,?thereby?waiving?his?present?objections.?[4]?”It?is,?of?course,?the?general?rule?that?a?defendant?cannot?complain?on?appeal?of?misconduct?by?a?prosecutor?at?trial?unless?in?a?timely?fashion?he?made?an?assignment?of?misconduct?and?requested?that?the?jury?be?admonished?to?disregard?the?impropriety.”?(People?v.?Benson?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?754,?794?[276?Cal.Rptr.?827,?802?P.2d?330];?see?also?People?v.?Ratliff?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?675,?690-?691?[224?Cal.Rptr.?705,?715?P.2d?665];?People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?27?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].) […]
