People?v.?Mickey?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?612?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?801;?818?P.2d?84 [No.?S004567. Oct?31,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?aand?Respondent,?v.?DOUGLAS?SCOTT?MICKEY,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-11727,?John?F.?Cruikshank,?Jr.,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL John?B.?Oakley,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Ronald?S.?Matthias,?Martin?S.?Kane,?Morris?Beatus?and?Dane?R.?Gillette,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION MOSK,?J. This?is?an?automatic?appeal?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b))?from?a?judgment?of?death?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?(id.,???190?et?seq.). On?May?29,?1981,?the?District?Attorney?of?Placer?County?filed?an?information?against?defendant?Douglas?Scott?Mickey.?Count?I?charged?that?on?or?about?September?29,?1980,?defendant?murdered?Eric?Lee?Hanson.?(Pen.?Code,???187.)?Count?II?charged?that?on?or?about?the?same?date?he?also?murdered?Catherine?Blount.?(Ibid.)?As?to?each?count,?five?special?circumstances?were?alleged:?multiple?murder?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(3));?intentional?murder?for?financial?gain?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(1));?heinous,?atrocious,?or?cruel?murder?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(14));?felony-murder-robbery?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i));?and?felony-murder-burglary?(id.,???190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(vii)). Defendant?pleaded?not?guilty?to?the?murder?charges?and?denied?the?special?circumstance?allegations.?On?his?motion,?the?court?subsequently?changed?[54?Cal.3d?637]?venue?from?Placer?County?to?San?Mateo?County.?Also?on?his?motion,?it?set?aside?both?of?the?heinous-atrocious-cruel?special-circumstance?allegations. Trial?was?by?jury.?The?panel?returned?verdicts?finding?defendant?guilty?as?charged?on?both?counts?of?murder,?determined?each?offense?to?be?in?the?first?degree,?and?found?all?the?remaining?special-circumstance?allegations?true.?It?subsequently?returned?a?verdict?of?death.?The?court?entered?judgment?accordingly. As?we?shall?explain,?we?conclude?that?except?as?to?one?of?the?multiple-?murder?special-circumstance?findings?and?both?of?the?intentional-murder-for-?financial-gain?special-circumstance?findings,?the?judgment?must?be?affirmed. Facts Guilt?Phase At?the?guilt?phase,?the?People?introduced?substantial?evidence,?both?testimonial?and?physical,?to?prove?the?murder?charges?and?special?circumstance?allegations.?The?evidence?featured?certain?extrajudicial?statements?by?defendant?to?persons?including?family?members,?friends,?and?acquaintances,?the?police,?and?a?fellow?inmate?in?jail.?It?also?included?testimony?by?Edward?Rogers,?who?was?an?accomplice?and?took?the?stand?under?a?grant?of?immunity.?The?tale?told?is?long?and?detailed.?Its?substance?is?as?follows. In?September?1980?defendant?was?married?to?Lieutenant?Allison?W.?Mickey,?an?Air?Force?nurse,?and?resided?with?her?and?her?two?children?in?housing?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan.?The?couple?was?experiencing?difficulties?in?their?financial?situation?and?consequent?distress?in?their?personal?relationship.?By?the?time?of?trial,?their?marriage?had?been?dissolved. About?September?17,?1980,?defendant?returned?to?California,?flying?into?Travis?Air?Force?Base?in?Solano?County.?During?much?of?his?time?in?the?state,?he?stayed?with?Rogers,?a?longtime?friend,?in?Concord;?both?were?about?31?years?of?age. Defendant?disclosed?several?reasons?for?his?visit-including,?primarily,?an?intent?to?execute?a?plan?to?rob?and?murder?a?man?in?Placer?County?and?then?possibly?to?travel?to?Alaska?to?kill?his?wife’s?former?husband?for?the?proceeds?of?a?life?insurance?policy?of?which?she?and/or?her?children?were?beneficiaries.?[54?Cal.3d?638] The?man?in?Placer?County?was?Eric?Lee?Hanson.?He?dealt?in?marijuana?and?hashish,?and?also?cultivated?the?former.?He?had?a?business?partner?by?the?name?of?Randy?Hoehne.?Hanson?lived?with?his?lover,?Catherine?Blount,?in?a?house?in?the?rural?community?of?Ophir;?Hoehne?lived?there?as?well,?but?at?the?time?relevant?here?slept?in?a?tent?some?distance?away?in?order?to?guard?the?marijuana?crop;?Hanson?was?about?29?years?old,?Blount?18,?and?Hoehne?24. Defendant?had?been?a?friend?of?Hanson?for?several?years,?but?bore?secret?grievances?against?him?and?desired?revenge.?Years?earlier,?defendant?believed,?Hanson?had?stolen?certain?items?belonging?to?him?and?his?family.?In?1979?defendant?raided?Hanson’s?marijuana?crop?in?retaliation.?After?his?arrival?in?California,?he?retrieved?the?drug?from?the?place?at?which?he?had?hidden?it,?and?began?to?consume?it?continually-apparently?together?with?alcohol.?He?discussed?his?scheme?against?Hanson?with?Rogers?and?took?steps?to?accomplish?his?objective. On?September?22,?1980,?defendant?traveled?to?Hanson’s?home?in?a?car?he?had?borrowed?from?Rogers?in?order?to?carry?out?his?plan.?He?arrived?about?11?p.m.?He?was?armed?with?a?rifle?belonging?to?Rogers,?which?he?had?fitted?with?a?homemade?silencer.?Blount?was?alone?in?the?house;?Hanson?and?Hoehne?were?out?on?the?property.?Blount?invited?defendant?in.?Hanson?soon?returned.?Defendant?did?not?do?the?deed-apparently?because?Hoehne?learned?of?his?presence?and?could?therefore?link?him?to?whatever?might?happen.?He?visited?with?Hanson?and?Blount,?stayed?overnight,?and?left?the?next?day.?During?his?time?at?the?property,?defendant?observed?Hanson?counting?”a?good?size?stack?of?money”;?he?attempted?to?sell?him?some?of?the?marijuana?he?had?stolen?the?year?before,?but?was?unsuccessful. On?September?28,?1980,?defendant?again?traveled?to?Hanson’s?home?in?order?to?carry?out?his?plan,?this?time?accompanied?by?Rogers?in?a?pickup?truck?belonging?to?the?latter.?The?pair?established?a?rendezvous?point?at?a?public?telephone?booth?near?a?restaurant?a?few?miles?from?the?house;?defendant?took?down?the?number?of?that?telephone?and?gave?Rogers?the?number?of?Hanson’s.?They?drove?to?the?property.?Rogers?left?defendant?off.?The?time?was?near?midnight.?Defendant?was?armed?with,?at?least,?a?knife?belonging?to?himself?and?a?pistol?belonging?to?Rogers.?Hanson?and?Blount?were?alone?in?the?house;?Hoehne?was?in?his?tent.?Hanson?and?Blount?greeted?defendant?at?the?door?and?invited?him?in. During?the?earliest?hours?of?September?29,?1980,?evidently?after?Hanson?and?Blount?went?to?sleep,?defendant?killed?the?couple:?he?bludgeoned?Hanson?with?a?baseball?bat?and?slit?his?throat?from?ear?to?ear?down?to?the?spinal?cord;?he?stabbed?Blount?seven?times?in?the?chest?in?a?close?pattern,?[54?Cal.3d?639]?piercing?her?heart?with?three?of?the?blows.?Immediately?thereafter,?he?removed?a?substantial?quantity?of?property?from?the?house,?loaded?it?into?a?black?Volkswagen?Karmann?Ghia?that?belonged?to?Hanson,?and?departed;?he?left?no?fingerprints?behind.?He?arrived?at?the?rendezvous?point.?Rogers?followed?in?the?pickup?truck.?Some?distance?away,?with?Rogers’s?help?he?transferred?the?goods?to?the?truck?and?then?wiped?the?Volkswagen?clean?of?fingerprints?and?abandoned?it?there.?Defendant?said?he?wanted?to?go?back?and?burn?the?house;?Rogers?dissuaded?him,?declaring?one?should?never?return?to?the?scene?of?the?crime.?The?pair?drove?back?to?Concord.?Once?there,?defendant?sutured?with?needle?and?thread?a?gaping?injury?he?had?sustained?to?his?left?leg?during?the?events?at?Hanson’s?home.?The?pair?proceeded?to?stash?the?stolen?goods. On?September?30,?1980,?defendant?fled?this?country?from?Travis?Air?Force?Base,?stopped?over?in?Hawaii,?and?arrived?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan?on?October?3.?On?October?2?Rogers?made?a?statement?to?officers?at?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Department?implicating?himself?and?defendant?in?the?deeds?described?above.?Defendant?was?subsequently?arrested?in?Japan?and?was?eventually?returned?to?this?state. In?his?defense,?defendant?introduced?little?evidence,?and?did?not?himself?take?the?stand.?It?was?his?basic?position?that?the?People?failed?to?sustain?their?burden?to?prove?him?guilty?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?any?applicable?mental?state?required?for?criminal?liability.?More?positively,?he?claimed?that?in?committing?the?acts?in?question?he?acted?in?self-defense?or?under?voluntary?intoxication?and/or?diminished?capacity?as?a?result?of?voluntary?intoxication.fn.?1?For?his?defense,?he?relied?on?certain?of?his?extrajudicial?statements?introduced?by?the?People,?which?if?believed?could?support?his?position. Penalty?Phase At?the?penalty?phase,?the?People?introduced?evidence?in?aggravation?that?they?themselves?characterized?as?”very?limited.”?Specifically,?they?attempted?to?prove?that?on?four?occasions,?in?the?course?of?domestic?disputes?involving?his?first?and?second?wives,?defendant?engaged?in?other?violent?criminal?activity,?viz.,?assault?and/or?battery. By?contrast,?defendant?introduced?substantial?evidence?in?mitigation.?[54?Cal.3d?640] Family?members,?friends,?and?acquaintances?narrated?a?story?of?defendant’s?background?and?character.?Its?main?points?are?these. Defendant’s?parents,?Robert?and?Dorothy?Mickey,?were?married?in?1946;?defendant’s?brother?Ronald?was?born?in?1947,?defendant?himself?in?1948;?the?family?lived?in?the?environs?of?Placer?and?Nevada?Counties.?Defendant?was?a?good,?loving,?and?hardworking?child?and?youth. Tragedy,?however,?touched?defendant’s?life.?When?he?was?about?five?years?of?age,?a?half?brother?named?Randall?was?killed?in?an?automobile?accident.?When?defendant?was?about?17,?his?mother?died?in?an?automobile?crash-possibly?by?accident?and?possibly?by?suicide.?He?had?been?very?close?to?her,?and?felt?her?loss?deeply.?He?turned?to?alcohol?to?deaden?the?pain.?Not?long?afterward,?his?maternal?grandfather?died.?A?little?later,?his?brother?Ronald?killed?himself. Defendant?began?to?drift?through?life,?moving?from?job?to?job,?place?to?place,?marriage?to?marriage.?He?developed?a?taste?for?various?illicit?substances,?including?marijuana,?hashish,?mescaline,?psilocybin,?hallucinogenic?mushrooms,?phencyclidine?(PCP),?and?lysergic?acid?diethylamide?(LSD).?He?also?developed?an?interest?in?eastern?religions.?He?soon?met?Hanson,?who?shared?his?taste?and?interest.?The?two?men?quickly?became?close?friends.?They?engaged?in?unusual?behavior?under?the?influence?of?the?illicit?substances?they?ingested.?For?example,?they?”would?get?naked?and?admire?…?the?strength?in?their?bodies?….?And?they?would?talk?about?philosophies?and?run?through?the?hills?like?deer?….” With?the?exception?of?the?crimes?of?which?he?had?been?convicted?and?the?other?unadjudicated?violent?criminal?activity,?defendant?was?nonviolent,?and?would?likely?adapt?well?to?life?in?prison. Two?experts?gave?opinions?bearing?on?defendant’s?mental?state?at?the?time?of?the?crimes.?Each?testified?in?substance?that?at?the?critical?time,?defendant?did?not?have?the?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?or?to?conform?his?conduct?to?the?requirements?of?law-or?at?best,?any?capacity?he?may?have?had?was?”severely”?or?”significantly”?impaired.?Each?identified?two?causes?of?defendant’s?condition:?long-term?and?heavy?”polysubstance”?abuse?and?psychopathology.?Each?discovered?a?delusional?system?that?was?apparently?based?on?writings?of?an?author?named?Carlos?Castaneda,?who?was?then?popular?in?the?drug?culture.?In?that?system,?as?one?of?the?experts?stated?in?pertinent?part,?Hanson?was?the?master?and?defendant?the?apprentice;?defendant?wished?to?become?a?”spiritual?warrior”;?at?one?point,?Hanson?began?to?”rob[?]”?defendant?of?the?”power”?he?needed?to?achieve?his?goal;?defendant?had?to?kill?Hanson?to?get?his?”power”?back-and?did?so.?Each?[54?Cal.3d?641]?expert’s?opinion?was?based?in?large?part?on?information?provided?by?defendant?himself. In?rebuttal,?the?People?introduced?evidence?in?the?form?of?opinion?by?an?expert?to?counter?the?opinions?of?defendant’s?experts.?The?opinion?of?the?People’s?expert?was?based?on?information?coming?from?sources?including?defendant?as?well?as?his?family,?friends,?acquaintances,?and?others.?The?People’s?expert?contradicted?defendant’s. Guilt?Issues Defendant?raises?a?number?of?claims?challenging?the?judgment?as?to?guilt.?As?will?appear,?none?is?meritorious. Denial?of?Motion?to?Suppress?Statements Prior?to?trial,?defendant?moved?to?suppress?evidence?of?certain?statements?he?had?made.?On?October?14,?1980,?he?was?arrested?in?Japan?for?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount.?On?January?16,?1981,?he?departed?Japan?for?the?United?States?in?the?custody?of?Robert?P.?LaRoche,?a?deputy?United?States?Marshal?for?the?Eastern?District?of?California;?Donald?J.?Nunes,?the?Sheriff?of?Placer?County;?and?Curtis?A.?Landry,?a?deputy?sheriff?and?detective?under?Nunes’s?command.?The?party?flew?from?Tokyo?to?Honolulu,?stayed?overnight,?and?then?flew?from?Honolulu?to?San?Francisco.?During?the?Tokyo-Honolulu?flight?and?later?in?Honolulu,?defendant?made?self-inculpatory?statements?to?Detective?Landry.?[1]?(See?fn.?2.)?As?relevant?here,?the?suppression?motion?was?based?on?the?broad?ground?that?the?statements?in?question?were?involuntary?and?hence?inadmissible:?they?were?involuntary?as?a?matter?of?fact?under?the?due?process?clauses?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?and?article?I,?sections?7?and?15,?of?the?California?Constitution;?and?they?were?involuntary?as?a?matter?of?law?under?the?rule?of?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974]?(hereafter?sometimes?Miranda).fn.?2?[54?Cal.3d?642] The?trial?court?conducted?a?hearing.?Defendant?and?the?People?introduced?evidence,?both?testimonial?and?documentary.?The?witnesses?included?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry,?but?not?defendant.?The?court?found?facts?expressly?and?impliedly.?Those?facts?tell?the?following?tale.fn.?3 During?the?earliest?hours?of?September?29,?1980,?defendant?killed?Hanson?and?Blount.?On?September?30?he?fled?this?country?from?Travis?Air?Force?Base,?stopped?over?in?Hawaii,?and?arrived?at?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?in?Japan?on?October?3.?At?that?time,?he?was?still?married?to?Lieutenant?Allison?W.?Mickey,?an?Air?Force?nurse,?and?resided?with?her?and?her?two?children?in?base?housing. On?October?7,?1980,?the?People?filed?a?complaint?in?the?Justice?Court?for?the?Auburn-Colfax?Judicial?District?of?the?County?of?Placer?accusing?defendant?of?murdering?Hanson?and?Blount?under?special?circumstances.?That?same?day,?an?arrest?warrant?was?issued?by?the?court,?indicating?Yokota?Air?Force?Base?as?defendant’s?residence. On?October?11,?1980,?Sheriff?Nunes?left?for?Japan,?taking?with?him?the?arrest?warrant?and?supporting?papers.?A?provisional?warrant?for?detention?was?subsequently?issued?by?Japanese?authorities. On?October?14,?1980,?defendant?was?arrested?by?United?States?Air?Force?security?police?officers?at?his?residence?on?the?Yokota?Air?Force?Base.?Shortly?thereafter,?Sheriff?Nunes?met?defendant.?He?advised?him?of?his?rights?under?Miranda.?Defendant?told?Nunes?that?”he?did?not?want?to?decide?[54?Cal.3d?643]?whether?to?talk?to?[him]?or?not?at?that?time.?That?he?wished?to?counsel?with?a?friend”-who?was?apparently?a?”military?attorney”-“before?making?a?decision.”?Thereupon,?conversation?essentially?ceased.?Nunes,?however,?did?inform?defendant?that?he?would?be?held?at?the?Tokyo?Detention?House?pending?extradition.?Defendant?was?surrendered?to?Japanese?authorities.?From?that?day?forward,?defendant’s?wife?Allison?cooperated?with?Nunes?and?other?officials. On?October?15,?1980,?it?appears,?defendant?expressed?a?desire?to?waive?extradition?proceedings?and?return?to?the?United?States?voluntarily.?Sheriff?Nunes?learned?of?this?fact?from?the?United?States?Embassy.?Through?the?embassy?he?attempted?to?arrange?a?meeting?with?defendant?to?seek?confirmation,?but?was?informed?he?had?requested?to?speak?only?with?his?wife. On?October?16,?1980,?at?Sheriff?Nunes’s?request,?Allison?visited?defendant?and?asked?whether?he?did?in?fact?desire?to?waive?extradition;?defendant?apparently?answered?in?the?affirmative.?The?Japanese?government,?however,?would?not?permit?a?waiver. On?October?18,?1980,?Sheriff?Nunes?departed?Japan.?He?left?behind?certain?evidence?he?had?gathered?relating?to?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount?for?use?in?the?extradition?proceedings.?Those?proceedings?were?subsequently?conducted.?Defendant?was?represented?by?counsel. On?January?12,?1981,?Marshal?LaRoche?arrived?in?Japan?with?a?warrant?for?defendant’s?extradition.?With?him?were?Sheriff?Nunes?and?Detective?Landry.?The?presence?of?nonfederal?officers?such?as?Nunes?and?Landry?was?not?customary.?It?was?permitted,?however,?when?authorized.?Such?was?the?case?here.?Nunes?and?Landry?went?to?Japan?to?collect?evidence?and?interview?witnesses?and?also?to?accompany?defendant?on?his?return.?They?did?not?intend?to?seek?a?statement?from?defendant,?nor?did?they?actually?try?to?do?so.?In?Nunes’s?words,?”We?were?in?transit.?…?[T]he?conditions?weren’t?conducive?to?that.”?During?their?stay?in?Japan,?Nunes?and?Landry?did?in?fact?collect?evidence?and?interview?witnesses. About?3:30?p.m.?on?January?16,?1981,?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?and?Detective?Landry?met?defendant?at?the?Tokyo?Detention?House?in?order?to?take?him?into?their?custody.?Defendant?was?alert?and?in?good?health;?he?was?also?jovial?and?extremely?talkative,?evidently?glad?to?be?in?the?company?of?Americans?and?to?be?able?to?speak?English.?He?recognized?Nunes?and?appeared?happy?to?see?him?again.?Nunes?engaged?in?”small?talk”?with?defendant?and?helped?him?with?his?tie.?Landry?explained?to?defendant?the?[54?Cal.3d?644]?operation?of?a?knee?brace?that?would?be?used?as?a?restraint.?Landry?knew?defendant?had?previously?been?Mirandized?by?Nunes. About?3:50?p.m.?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?boarded?a?van?for?Tokyo?International?Airport?at?Narita.?The?trip?took?approximately?three?hours.?During?the?ride,?defendant?spoke?with?Nunes,?who?was?seated?next?to?him,?and?to?a?lesser?extent?with?Landry.?Although?their?conversation?touched?on?such?topics?as?the?countryside?and?Tokyo’s?congested?traffic,?in?LaRoche’s?view?”Almost?all?of?it?concerned?home?town?talk,?[defendant’s]?father,?friends,?relations,?people?that?they?knew?mutually.”?LaRoche?”thought?he?talked?an?awful?lot,”?and?was?”glad?when?he?kept?quiet.”?It?was?defendant?who?generally?opened?the?conversation?and?directed?its?course.?Throughout?this?period?of?time,?there?was?no?mention?of?the?murder?of?Hanson?and?Blount. About?7?p.m.?Marshal?LaRoche,?Sheriff?Nunes,?Detective?Landry,?and?defendant?arrived?at?Tokyo?International?Airport.?The?group?waited?in?a?security?area?for?more?than?an?hour.?Again?there?was?”small?talk,”?but?no?mention?of?the?crimes.?Landry?was?regularly?afflicted?with?bad?breath?and?constantly?carried?mints?to?deal?with?the?problem.?The?day?before,?he?had?visited?defendant’s?wife?Allison?at?her?residence.?She?kept?a?bowl?of?mints?near?the?door,?and?gave?him?some.?As?a?result?of?their?close?proximity,?Landry?noticed?that?defendant?too?had?bad?breath.?He?offered?him?a?mint.?Defendant?took?it?and?expressed?recognition.?Landry?asked,?”[D]o?you?know?where?I?got?this?”?Defendant?replied,?”Yes,”?and?”his?chin?quivered?and?he?kind?of?bowed?his?head?and?put?his?head?in?his?hands”?and?”covered?his?eyes?….”?Some?time?later,?the?group?boarded?their?plane. […]
