People v. Price

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

After a year-long trial,

1

a jury convicted defendant Curtis Floyd Price of the first degree murders of Elizabeth Ann Hickey and Richard Barnes (Pen. Code, § 187; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated), and it made special circumstance findings, as to

*376

the Hickey murder, of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and burglary-murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii)). The jury also convicted defendant of one count each of robbery (§ 211) with the use of a firearm (§§ 1203.06, 12022.5), burglary (§ 459), receiving stolen property (§ 496), and conspiracy (§ 182). The jury further found that defendant had twice previously been convicted of serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had completed two prior separate prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (a)).

The jury fixed the penalty for the murder of Hickey at death. The trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict of death (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and it sentenced defendant on the noncapital counts to imprisonment for a determinate term of 10 years, consecutive to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. Defendant’s appeal from the judgment is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

The sentence for the offense of burglary shall be stayed, but the judgment shall otherwise be affirmed.

I. Facts

A.

Summary of Facts Relating to Guilt

Defendant was released from prison in September 1982. On January 23, 1983, the gun collection of Richard Moore disappeared from his residence, apparently having been stolen in a burglary. On February 13, 1983, the body of Richard Barnes was found in his residence. He had been shot in the back of the head three times. On the morning of February 19, 1983, Berlie Petty found the body of Elizabeth Ann Hickey in the residence they shared. Hickey, the stepdaughter of burglary victim Moore, had been beaten to death with a blunt instrument; guns belonging to her and to Petty were missing from their residence. That same evening, a gunman robbed employees of the Triplex Theater. The Barnes killing occurred in Los Angeles County. The Moore burglary, the Hickey killing, and the Triplex Theater robbery all occurred in Humboldt County.

The police arrested defendant for the Triplex Theater robbery. After a lengthy investigation, he was also charged with the Barnes and Hickey

*377

murders, receiving stolen property (the Moore weapons), and robberies at three other commercial establishments in Humboldt County during January and February of 1983.

At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that defendant belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood (AB), a prison gang, and had committed the charged offenses in furtherance of a conspiracy originating with the gang leadership. The principal objective of the conspiracy was the murder of Richard Barnes, who was the father of an AB member who had testified against other gang members. Defendant obtained the stolen Moore weapons, possibly with the knowledge or assistance of Hickey, to use in the killing of Barnes or for other AB assignments. Hickey was killed to obtain the guns in her residence and/or because she could incriminate defendant in the theft of the Moore weapons and/or the murder of Barnes. Defendant committed the Triplex Theater robbery to obtain funds with which to carry out his AB assignments.

The defense denied that defendant had committed any of the offenses. It offered alibi evidence to show that defendant was not in Humboldt County at the time of the Hickey killing and the Triplex Theater robbery. It attempted to cast doubt on the identification testimony of the robbery victims and the veracity of the prosecution’s AB witnesses, and it sought to cast suspicion on Petry for Hickey’s murder.

The jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder (one with special circumstances) and one count each of robbery, possession of stolen property, burglary, and conspiracy. The jury acquitted defendant of one count of robbery, and it was unable to reach verdicts as to the remaining robbery counts.The description of the evidence that follows omits evidence of the charges that did not result in convictions.

B.

Prosecution Evidence

1.

The Conspiracy and Barnes Murder

Before this case arose, Steven Barnes, an AB member, had testified as a prosecution witness against other AB members and against several non-AB members. During the summer of 1982, the AB leadership, which included Michael Thompson and Clifford Smith, decided to retaliate. The decision was made during a series of meetings at Palm Hall, an area inside the state prison at Chino. Prison authorities had placed Steven Barnes in protective custody, so the AB leaders decided to kill members of his immediate family instead. They selected defendant to do the killing.

*378

Defendant was then serving a sentence in the Montana state prison, but he was scheduled for release from prison soon without parole supervision. One of the AB leaders brought defendant to Palm Hall in August 1982 by subpoenaing him to testify at the leader’s trial. After defendant arrived at Palm Hall, AB leaders offered him the “contract” to kill Richard Barnes. Defendant accepted. The AB leaders instructed him to procure weapons in Northern California before returning south to kill Richard Barnes.

Janet Myers visited Smith regularly in prison. She was an AB “runner,” relaying messages to and from other AB members. Smith instructed Myers to take care of defendant. Defendant went to Myers’s house on the day he was released from prison. Joseph O’Rourke, an AB leader who normally supplied weapons to AB members in Southern California, picked defendant up there. Defendant spent about one month working for O’Rourke.

After O’Rourke was arrested in October 1982, defendant went to Humboldt County, where he spent most of the next three months. Defendant returned to Southern California in late January 1983. He stayed at the Santa Ana home of Michelle Scarborough, another AB runner, for approximately a week. He then stayed with Myers in Claremont. Defendant had a blue airline bag in which he kept a sawed-off shotgun and a revolver. While staying with Myers, defendant made a weekend trip to Auburn, near Folsom Prison, where he stayed with Rebecca Williams.

One night Myers drove defendant to different addresses he wanted to see. One of the addresses was the Temple City residence of Richard Barnes. On February 12, 1983, at 11 p.m., defendant left Myers’s house with Tammi Shinn, another AB “runner.” He returned early the next morning, collected his belongings, and left.

On February 13, 1983, sheriff’s deputies discovered the body of Richard Barnes in the bedroom of his residence. The body was on the bed. The cause of death was three contact-range gunshot wounds to the back of the head inflicted by a .22-caliber handgun.

After the murder, Myers brought Smith a note signed by defendant. It stated: “That’s took care of. Everything went well. I am going back north. I will be in touch with you later.” Myers destroyed the note after showing it to Smith.

The evidence against defendant on the conspiracy and Barnes murder counts consisted primarily of the testimony of Michael Thompson, Clifford Smith, and Janet Myers. In addition, the prosecution introduced evidence

*379

that defendant had testified in an earlier, unrelated trial that he was an AB member. Credit card receipts showed that defendant had purchased gasoline in Pomona on February 12 and in Anaheim on February 13, 1983. In the room defendant had occupied in his mother’s house in Eureka, police found a slip of paper on which Richard Barnes’s address had been written, together with the name “Nate,” a nickname for Steven Barnes, and the words “send subpoena to him.” In defendant’s wallet, which they obtained from defendant’s mother, police found another note with a reference to an address and telephone number for “Steve Barnes’ step-father in Fountain Valley.”

2.

The Moore Residence Burglary and the Hickey Murder

On January 23, 1983, William Eaton reported an apparent burglary at the Humboldt County residence of Richard and Dottie Moore, Eaton’s stepfather and mother, who were away from their residence for the weekend. The only items missing were the firearms in Richard Moore’s collection, which included two rifles, three shotguns, and a .22-caliber handgun. The house had not been ransacked.

On February 18,1983, Berlie Petry had been living with Elizabeth Hickey and her two minor children for three or four years. Hickey was the daughter of Dottie Moore and the stepdaughter of Richard Moore. Petry worked the night shift as a security guard at a lumber company. Both Petry and Hickey owned guns, including rifles, shotguns, and handguns. They kept the guns locked in a bedroom closet, except for a revolver that Hickey kept in a trunk. Petry left for work as usual at 11:30 p.m. As was his custom, he called the residence every hour on the hour. He spoke to Hickey at 1 a.m. and at 2 a.m., but he received no answer at 3 a.m. The line was busy at 4 a.m. and thereafter.

When Petry returned home at 8:30 a.m., the telephone receiver was off the hook. In the bedroom, he found Hickey’s nude and lifeless body on their bed. Both the bedroom closet and Hickey’s trunk had been ripped open. The guns were gone. Also missing was a combination radio and tape player that Petry had recently given Hickey. In Hickey’s trunk, officers found a note in Hickey’s handwriting that said “Call Curt at [telephone number of Rebecca Williams] about money for guns.”

Hickey had been killed by blows to the head with a bar like a tire iron or crowbar. There were five or six depressed skull fractures that left brain tissue exposed. Bruises on the upper right chest and each shoulder indicated Hickey had been forcibly held down. There were defensive wounds on the

*380

back of the hands. Two small knife incisions in the chest near the sternum were apparently inflicted after death.

2

A day or two after Hickey’s murder, defendant arrived at his stepfather’s residence in Reno, Nevada.

3

He had two bundles wrapped in blankets. Defendant said they were guns that might have been stolen. Defendant’s stepfather gave him permission to leave the guns at the residence. On February 28, 1983, defendant returned to Reno and moved the bundles to a ministorage unit.

A search of defendant’s automobile yielded a product manual for one of Petry’s rifles, a knife that had belonged to Hickey and had the name “Liz” written on it in fingernail polish, and a notebook in which someone had written, “Elizabeth, weapons, corner of Simpson and Pine [the location of Hickey’s residence].” Hickey’s telephone number was written on the same page. Another note with the name “Liz” and Hickey’s telephone number was found in defendant’s room at his mother’s residence in Eureka. A third note with Hickey’s name, address, and telephone number was found in defendant’s wallet. Defendant’s mother gave police a combination radio and tape player that had been in defendant’s room. It was identical to the one taken from the Hickey residence. In a suitcase in the garage of defendant’s mother’s residence, the police found a shotgun like one taken from the Moore residence. The barrel and stock had been sawed off.

On March 31, 1983, law enforcement authorities searched the mini-storage unit in Reno, Nevada. They found all of the guns taken from the Moore residence except one shotgun (apparently the one found in defendant’s mother’s garage) and the handgun. They also found all the guns belonging to Hickey and Petry, and over 1,000 rounds of various kinds of ammunition. Most of the guns were loaded. Moore’s handgun, which was one of only four makes that could have fired the bullets that killed Richard Barnes, was never found.

3.

The Triplex Theater Robbery

A man entered the Triplex Theater on February 19, 1983, at approximately 6:30 p.m. He had long, thin blond hair and was wearing sunglasses, a watch cap, and gloves. During the movie, he came out into the lobby, pointed a

*381

revolver at the manager, and directed him into the office. At the man’s direction, the manager put $7,000 in a bag and gave it to the man, who ran out of the theater.

A month earlier, on January 16,1983, an employee of the theater had seen a man with thin blond hair, wearing sun glasses, a large coat, a watch cap, and gloves, who came out into the lobby several times during the movie. The man’s behavior seemed so unusual that she eventually decided to report it to the police, but the man had left before the police arrived. This employee selected defendant’s photograph from a photo lineup, but she was unable to identify defendant at a live lineup.

The theater employees assisted the police in preparing a composite sketch of the robber. Five of the employees selected defendant’s photograph from a photo lineup as being similar to the robber, although none of them made a positive identification.

Defendant bought an automobile for $1,602 in cash on February 25, 1983. Later that day, defendant was involved in an automobile accident. He paid the other driver $100 in settlement, taking the cash from a box that contained stacks of currency. When he rented the storage locker in Reno, Nevada, defendant paid $150 for six months’ rental in advance. Although defendant used credit cards to purchase gasoline in January and February of 1983, including three purchases on February 18, he did not use the credit cards after that day.

In a suitcase in defendant’s mother’s garage, the police found a blond wig, black gloves, a watch cap, a handgun, and various items of theatrical makeup (including spirit gum, liquid latex, derma wax, and nose putty). In the room defendant occupied in his mother’s house, the police found a note that was apparently a list of defendant’s expenses and debts. On it defendant had written “need mucho dinero” and “$1,000.001 owe Mom means it’s all about ‘movie time.’ ” In the room, the police also found $400 in cash in a plastic container.

4.

Investigation and Additional Evidence

Defendant was arrested in Humboldt County for the Triplex Theater robbery on March 3,1983. His mother visited him in jail on March 27,1983. Defendant asked her to move the guns and ammunition from the storage locker in Reno and to dispose of them so they would never be found. He referred to the guns as “Brand business.” “The Brand” is another name for the AB.

*382

In September 1983, Michael Thompson agreed to cooperate with law enforcement on the Barnes killing. Thompson persuaded Janet Myers to cooperate also. In October 1985, after testifying as a defense witness at defendant’s preliminary hearing, Clifford Smith renounced the AB and agreed to testify for the prosecution.

At trial, Una Ransbottom, one of Hickey’s neighbors, testified she had seen a man with Hickey on two occasions shortly before Hickey was killed. When police showed her a photographic lineup, she selected a photograph of defendant as the man she had seen with Hickey.

C.

Defense Evidence

The defense called three prison inmates, Wendall Norris, John Stinson, and Robert Rowland, who testified that the AB existed only as an outlook, a way of life, or a loose social club rather than an organized criminal gang. They also said it was a label that prison authorities used to justify restrictive confinement.

The defense adduced evidence to show that Petry had the motive and the opportunity to kill Hickey. As part of his job, Petry was required to patrol the lumberyard each hour with a punch clock and put special keys in it at each of 33 key stations. Petry’s tape for the morning of February 19, 1983, showed that no keys were punched between 5:35 and 6:15 a.m. Petry explained, however, that he missed some of his key stations because he had to attend to a boiler breakdown, and because he had gate duty. Also, Petry’s telephone log showed he had received telephone calls at 6 a.m. from security guards at other locations.

Petry’s relationship with Hickey was troubled. Hickey frequently visited bars while Petry was at work and brought men home with her. A neighbor testified Hickey had brought over 100 men to her home. Petry once came home from work and found another man in bed with Hickey. Hickey infected Petry with venereal disease at least twice. Petry testified that Hickey was the first and only woman with whom he had been sexually intimate. A cab driver testified that Petry began hitting Hickey once while they were riding in his cab. Friends recalled seeing Hickey with black eyes and bruises on her face a couple of times. A defense expert, psychiatrist Martin Blinder, testified about domestic homicides and the kinds of relationships that are most often associated with the killing of a spouse or lover. He said that mutilation of the victim’s face indicated a close personal relationship between the killer and the victim.

Rebecca Williams testified that defendant arrived at her home in Auburn on February 13 or 14,1983. He stayed there until February 17. He borrowed

*383

her car that day and returned the next day, February 18, with long bundles. He left again in her car the same day. Defendant’s stepfather testified that defendant arrived in Reno, Nevada, with two long bundles on February 18 and remained there until February 20, 1983.

Defendant’s brother testified that he had purchased the radio and tape player found in defendant’s mother’s residence, and that he had given it to defendant as a present.

D.

Facts Relating to Penalty

In 1967, defendant was convicted of possessing marijuana and of escape from Tehama County jail. He was released on parole in 1971. Defendant violated his parole by going to Montana, where he attempted to rob a small grocery store with a gun. Defendant was placed in a drug program, but he escaped from custody. Defendant robbed a store in Humboldt County in September 1971. He was later arrested in Florida and brought back to Montana to complete his sentence.

In December 1971, while being transported in Montana, defendant grabbed a gun from one of the two transporting officers. After forcing the officers to drive to a remote location, defendant locked them both in the trunk of their patrol car and used the gun to force his way into the car of a passing motorist, John Digalis. Defendant told Digalis to drive to Idaho. Law enforcement officers stopped the car. Defendant pointed the gun at Digalis’s head and threatened to kill him if the officers approached. At defendant’s order, Digalis again began to drive, but the officers shot out a tire. Defendant eventually surrendered. He was convicted of inmate holding a hostage, a Montana felony.

Defendant was in San Quentin Prison in May 1978. Defendant came to the cell of fellow inmate Ricky Carpenter. He told Carpenter he was going to kill Leroy Banks, an African-American inmate, because Banks had been disrespectful to an AB member. Carpenter pointed out Banks. Defendant stabbed Banks 10 to 15 times in the chest. Banks died of his wounds.

Prison authorities found defendant in possession of stabbing instruments in October 1978 and May 1980. While in jail awaiting trial in this case, defendant struck jail guards on two occasions, and on another occasion he violently resisted being taken to court, hitting and biting the guards who were escorting him.

Testifying in his own behalf at the penalty phase, defendant said he had not testified at the guilt phase because the trial court had ordered him

*384

shackled in the courtroom. Because he had not yet been convicted, he had refused to appear before the jury in chains. He denied he was guilty of any of the charged offenses. He admitted that he knew Hickey. He said Hickey had asked him to sell her guns for her on consignment. The final arrangements were made during a telephone call from Hickey to the home of Rebecca Williams in Auburn. He said he received the guns on February 18, 1983, in Lakeport from a man named Kenny. He said he had supported himself between October 1982 and March 1983 by selling marijuana.

Defendant presented evidence of the harsh conditions of his imprisonment in Montana. A woman who had visited defendant during that time testified that he was a valuable friend. Joseph O’Rourke testified that defendant had been a valuable employee in his handyman business during the one month he had worked for him; O’Rourke refused to answer any questions about the AB or his relationship to it.

The defense presented evidence about the conditions of defendant’s confinement in jail pending the trial in this case. Defendant was confined apart from other prisoners. Because he refused to eat meat, a special diet was necessary. Defendant found the food unappetizing and lost 20 pounds. A nutritionist testified that the food provided was monotonous and nutritionally inadequate. A counselor appointed to meet with defendant each week testified that defendant found the conditions of his confinement humiliating and stressful, and that these conditions made him seriously depressed and adversely affected his ability to communicate. Fred Rosenthal, a psychiatrist, testified that defendant’s isolation in a dimly lit area caused sensory deprivation, leading to anxiety, depression, and hostility.

Defendant’s mother, sister, and brother testified that they loved defendant and did not want him to die.

Three officers who worked at Humboldt County jail and one who worked at San Quentin testified that defendant had been a respectful and cooperative inmate.

II. Guilt and Special Circumstance Issues

A.

Territorial Jurisdiction and Vicinage

Defendant contends that Humboldt County Superior Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try him for the murder of Richard Barnes, that trial of that offense in Humboldt County violated his right under the state and federal Constitutions to be tried by a jury drawn from the locality where the crime

*385

occurred, and that in any event the convictions for conspiracy and for Richard Barnes’s murder are invalid because the jury failed to find the required jurisdictional facts. We reject each of these contentions.

Defendant maintains that territorial jurisdiction to try him for the murder of Richard Barnes existed only in Los Angeles County, because it was there that Richard Barnes was fatally wounded and died, and there that his body was discovered. Defendant relies on section 790, which provides that a charge of murder may be tried in a county where the fatal injury occurred, the victim died, or the victim’s body was found. Defendant argues that section 790 gives him a state entitlement to be tried in Los Angeles County for the Barnes murder, and that deprivation of that entitlement denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.

Defendant recognizes that many cases have held that section 790 is not exclusive and that section 781 also applies to a charge of murder. (E.g.,

People

v.

Douglas

(1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 493-494 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640 ].) Under section 781, a public offense may be tried in a jurisdiction in which the defendant made preparations for the crime, even though the preparatory acts did not constitute an essential element of the crime.

(People

v.

Powell

(1967) 67 Cal.2d 32, 62 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ].) Defendant urges us to overrule decisions applying section 781 to the crime of murder because they failed to consider the argument that section 790, as a special statute providing for trial of the offense of murder, should take precedence over a statute of general application like section 781.

The rule of statutory construction cited by defendant applies only when two statutory provisions are inconsistent. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1859 [“when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former”];

International Assn, of Fire Fighters Union

v.

City of Pleasanton

(1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 959, 976 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 68 ].) Two statutes dealing with the same subject are given concurrent effect if they can be harmonized, even though one is specific and the other general.

(Acco Contractors, Inc.

v.

McNamara & Peepe Lumber Co.

(1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 292,295 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 717 ]; see also

People

ex rel.

Deukmejian

v.

County of Mendocino

(1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 487-488 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 683 P.2d 1150 ].) Because sections 781 and 790 are not inconsistent and can be harmonized, we decline to overrule, and instead reaffirm, the decisions of this court holding that both sections are proper sources of territorial jurisdiction for trying the crime of murder.

Under section 781, the courts of Humboldt County had territorial jurisdiction to try defendant for the murder of Richard Barnes. The prosecution’s

*386

evidence showed that defendant was instructed to go to Northern California to procure a weapon or weapons with which to kill Barnes, that defendant went to his former home in Humboldt County a month after his release from prison, and that he returned three months later with a revolver and a sawed-off shotgun. He arrived in the Los Angeles area with these weapons just days after the Moore weapons were stolen. Meyers testified that the shotgun found in defendant’s mother’s garage appeared to be the same one defendant brought with him to Los Angeles. This shotgun was the same model as the one taken from Moore. The jury could reasonably infer that the shotgun was Moore’s and that the revolver defendant brought back to Los Angeles was the one taken from Moore and never found. The jury could reasonably infer from these facts that defendant committed acts in Humboldt County that were preparatory to the murder of Barnes.

Defendant next argues that trial of the Barnes murder in Humboldt County deprived him of the right to be tried by a jury drawn from the locality or “vicinage” where the crime was committed, a right he contends is constitutionally guaranteed at both the federal (U.S. Const., Amends. VI, XIV) and state (see

People

v.

Powell

(1891) 87 Cal. 348, 355-360 [ 25 P. 481 ]; but see also

People

v.

Guzman

(1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 938 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 755 P.2d 917 ]) levels. The issue is not preserved for appellate review, however, because no objection on this ground was made in the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 225, subd. (a); former § 1060;

People

v.

Hernandez

(1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 340 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 763 P.2d 1289 ].)

Defendant contends that his trial counsel’s failure to object in the trial court on vicinage grounds constituted ineffective assistance in violation of his right to effective counsel under both the federal (U.S. Const., Amends. VI, XIV) and state (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15) Constitutions. We disagree.

A defendant seeking relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must show both that trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates, and that it is reasonably probable a more favorable determination would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings.

(People

v.

Fosselman

(1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ]; see also

Strickland

v.

Washington

(1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-696 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-699 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ].) Here, a reasonably competent attorney would have been aware that a Court of Appeal had held in 1974 that trial of a murder charge in a county in which the defendant performed preliminary acts did not violate the defendant’s vicinage rights even though the defendant completed the crime in a different county.

(People

v.

Powell

(1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 107, 123 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 109 ].) We have no occasion here to consider the soundness of that

*387

holding, but we conclude that a reasonably competent attorney might well have determined that an objection on vicinage grounds would have been futile in light of this precedent. Counsel does not render ineffective assistance by failing to make motions or objections that counsel reasonably determines would be futile.

Defendant next argues that we must set aside his convictions for conspiracy and the murder of Richard Barnes because the jury failed to make express findings of the jurisdictional facts. He asserts that the lack of such findings renders the guilt verdicts unreliable, thereby violating the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

A charge of conspiracy may be tried in “any county in which any overt act tending to effect such conspiracy shall be done.” (§ 182, subd. (a).) The information charged defendant with conspiring to commit robbery, grand theft, and murder “at and in the County of Humboldt.” The information alleged that defendant committed specified overt acts in Humboldt and Los Angeles Counties, and in Washoe County, Nevada. The jury found defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy as charged in the information. It made no findings as to the commission of particular overt acts.

Because the information charged defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy in Humboldt County, the jury’s general verdict convicting defendant of conspiracy as charged necessarily encompasses a finding that defendant committed the offense in Humboldt County. This in turn implies a finding that defendant committed at least one overt act in Humboldt County in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, the jury made a sufficient finding of the required jurisdictional fact.

Defendant disputes this conclusion, arguing that the general verdict convicting defendant of conspiracy did not establish the required jurisdictional fact because the jury was not instructed on the need to determine jurisdictional facts, and so it may not have focused on whether the conspiracy occurred in Humboldt County. Defendant cites no authority for this argument, and we are not persuaded that the court was required, absent a request, to instruct on the determination of jurisdictional facts, or that the lack of instructions provides a basis to challenge the verdict as a finding of territorial jurisdiction. (See

People

v.

Sering

(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 677, 687 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 507 ].)

The information charged defendant with the murder of Richard Barnes in the County of Los Angeles, and the jury found defendant guilty as charged. This verdict by itself does not establish territorial jurisdiction of the murder

*388

charge in Humboldt County. As we have seen, however, the jury also convicted defendant of conspiracy to commit murder. The evidence showed that the object of the conspiracy was the murder of Barnes, not the murder of Hickey. Because the jury found that defendant committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy in Humboldt County, it necessarily found that defendant committed acts preliminary to the murder in that county, and thus it found the facts necessary under section 781 to establish territorial jurisdiction in Humboldt County for the Barnes murder.

B.

The Motion to Sever

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his pretrial motion to sever the conspiracy and Barnes murder counts from the Hickey murder and burglary charges. He further contends that the denial resulted in unreliable guilt verdicts in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

As defendant concedes, the offenses charged in the information satisfied all statutory requirements for joinder. (See § 954.) Therefore, to establish abuse of discretion in the denial of the severance motion, defendant must make a clear showing of prejudice.

(Williams

v.

Superior Court

(1984) 36 Cal.3d 441, 447 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 700 , 683 P.2d 699 ].) To determine whether the court abused its discretion in denying severance, we examine the record before the trial court when it ruled.

(People

v.

Balderas

(1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 171 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 184 , 711 P.2d 480 ].)

The first step in the analysis is to determine whether evidence of the conspiracy and the Barnes murder would have been admissible in a separate trial of the Hickey counts.

(People

v.

Walker

(1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 622 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 765 P.2d 70 ].) If evidence of these offenses would have been so admissible, it is very unlikely defendant could have been prejudiced by their joinder.

(Ibid.)

When it denied the motion to sever, the trial court said it had concluded that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing supported a finding that defendant committed the Hickey and Barnes murders to further a single complex conspiracy. Defendant disputes this conclusion. He maintains that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was sufficient to establish only a simple conspiracy to kill Barnes, and that the Hickey offenses, because they occurred after the killing of Barnes, were necessarily unrelated to that conspiracy.

The preliminary hearing evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that a single conspiracy linked all the charged offenses. Michael Thompson

*389

testified that after the AB council decided to give defendant the contract to kill Richard Barnes, he and two other council members told defendant of the decision. They instructed defendant to “go to Northern California and by means of robbery, burglary or association with drug dealers, procure the weapons necessary to carry out the contracts in Southern California.” Although the only murder contract given to defendant at that time was for the killing of Barnes, the council intended that the weapons defendant was to steal would be available for other contracts as well. After defendant was released from prison, but before he killed Barnes, the council decided to give him two other murder contracts. A courier informed defendant of these additional contracts.

This evidence provided proof of an ongoing conspiracy to kill perceived enemies of the AB, or their relatives, and to commit robbery and other crimes for the purpose of obtaining money and weapons with which to accomplish these killings. This evidence would have been admissible in the trial of the Hickey counts to show motive. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The jury could reasonably have inferred that defendant killed Hickey because she knew how he came into possession of the Moore weapons, which might have been used in the Barnes killing, and also to obtain additional firearms from her residence. Evidence of the Barnes murder would have been admissible in a separate trial of the Hickey offenses to confirm the existence of the conspiracy and defendant’s participation in it, and thereby to further establish the motives for the Hickey offenses. The trial court could reasonably have concluded that the probative value of the conspiracy and Barnes murder was substantial enough to outweigh the prejudice to defendant resulting from evidence of these other crimes.

(Id.,

§ 352.)

Were we to conclude that evidence of the conspiracy and Barnes murder would not have been admissible in a trial of the Hickey burglary and murder, it would not follow that severance was required. Cross-admissibility of evidence in separate trials is but one of the factors the trial court must consider in determining whether potential prejudice requires severance.

(Frank

v.

Superior Court

(1989) 48 Cal.3d 632, 641 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 770 P.2d 1119 ].) To discharge his burden of showing prejudice, defendant must show, for example, that one of the offenses was substantially more inflammatory than the other or was supported by significantly stronger evidence.

(Ibid.)

Defendant has made neither showing here. The evidence that defendant killed Barnes was not significantly stronger than the evidence he killed Hickey. No eyewitnesses testified to either killing, nor did defendant confess to either. The prosecution’s case as to each was strong but not overwhelming. Nor was the Barnes murder significantly more inflammatory than the Hickey murder. The Barnes murder was an execution-style slaying

*390

of a person whose only offense was fathering a son believed to have betrayed a prison gang; the Hickey murder was an exceptionally brutal slaying of a young mother. Although different in their particulars, the two killings were equally abhorrent.

We conclude that defendant did not make a sufficiently compelling showing of prejudice to require severance. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the conspiracy and Barnes murder counts from the other charges in the information.

C.

The Motion for Change of Venue

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motions to change venue away from Humboldt County. He asserts that the error deprived him of these rights under the federal Constitution: his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury, his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial consistent with due process of law, and his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable guilt determination in this capital case.

When a defendant shows a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had in the county of original venue, a motion for change of venue must be granted. (§ 1033;

People

v.

Coleman

(1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 133 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 813 , 768 P.2d 32 ].) The most significant factors to be considered are the gravity and nature of the crime, the size and nature of the community, the extent and nature of the publicity concerning the crime, the status of the victim, the status of the accused, and “any indication from the voir dire of prospective and actual jurors that the publicity did in fact have a prejudicial effect.”

(Coleman, supra,

at p. 133 .) On appeal from a conviction after denial of a motion to change venue, a reviewing court makes an independent appraisal of these factors.

(Ibid.)

The charges against defendant included two counts of first degree murder, one with special circumstance allegations. Humboldt County is predominantly rural and is one of the state’s smaller counties, with a 1984 estimated total population of 108,024. Therefore, the first two factors favor a change of venue. Examination of the other factors and the voir dire, however, indicate that defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that, as a result of pretrial publicity, a fair trial was not obtainable in Humboldt County.

The record shows that publicity in this case began with accounts in April 1983 that defendant had been charged with the Hickey murder. Newspaper

*391

articles described Hickey as “a 22-year-old mother of two,” mentioned that her children were sleeping in another room of the house when she was killed, and related that she died “of multiple skull fractures from numerous blows to the head.” After these initial articles, there was a six-month hiatus in publicity until the first preliminary hearing in October 1983.

Accounts of the preliminary hearing, in addition to noting evidence implicating defendant, related that defendant’s fingerprints were not found in the Hickey residence; that defendant’s stepfather placed him in Reno, Nevada, on the night of the Hickey murder; that Petry, described as Hickey’s “live-in boyfriend,” had “admitted his anger at Hickey’s promiscuous behavior”; and that the defense was contending it was Petry who had killed Hickey. The accounts also mentioned that a cab driver said he frequently drove Hickey to two local bars, and that a truck driver remembered seeing her in one of these bars at midnight on the night she was killed.

In January 1984, the media reported on hearings on a habeas corpus petition through which defendant sought changes in the conditions of his confinement. They noted his successful request for a special diet because of a stomach condition and his complaints that his frequent shackling was unnecessary because he had “never assaulted any jail employee or police officer.”

In February 1984, the media reported that the prosecution was seeking to expand the charges against defendant to include allegations that he killed Richard Barnes “as part of a conspiracy he formed with other members of a prison gang called the Aryan Brotherhood.” They related allegations in a prosecution news release that the conspiracy included plans to steal weapons and to kill four people. In March 1984, the media reported that the prosecution had filed new charges against defendant, requiring a new preliminary hearing. These accounts mentioned that defendant’s prior preliminary hearing “was reputed to be the longest and most expensive in Eureka Municipal Court history” and that two supervisors had temporarily blocked payment of court costs “in what has become the most expensive criminal action in Humboldt County.”

4

The media reported on the second preliminary hearing in April and May of 1984. They related Michael Thompson’s testimony that the AB was “one of many prison gangs in which inmates of the same race band together” and

*392

“ ‘just short of being a white supremist

[sic]

organization,’ ” and that defendant was chosen to carry out murder contracts because of his “ ‘calculating nature,’ his past criminal record and ‘his mentality in general.’ ” They also related the testimony of defense witnesses Wendell Norris and Merlin Forbes that defendant was not an AB member, that the AB was more like a social club than a gang, and that the AB was never involved in any conspiracy to kill relatives of persons who had acted against the AB.

An article appeared in a Eureka newspaper in August 1984, based on an article printed in a San Francisco newspaper, alleging that the AB had become “a national crime organization with links to the Mafia,” and that it was “involved in criminal activities outside the prison system, including loan-sharking, wholesale narcotics dealing, extortion, arson and murder.” The article did not mention defendant or make any reference to the crimes charged in this case.

Coverage of the case by local radio and television stations, like the newspaper coverage, was intermittent rather than continuous. A Eureka television station, KIEM-TV, carried stories about defendant on its newscasts on just 10 days between March 3, 1983, and January 4, 1985. The average length of the broadcasts was less than one minute. Viewed as a whole, the media coverage was restrained and balanced, prominently featuring the defense evidence and arguments, and it abated almost entirely after the preliminary hearings.

The remaining factors, the community status of the victim and the defendant, do not demonstrate a necessity to change venue. Defendant was not a minority group member, nor was he a friendless outsider. Although the first newspaper articles described defendant as an Oregon resident, the media later reported that defendant’s mother lived in Humboldt County and that defendant had lived with her. Richard Barnes was not a resident of Humboldt County and was apparently unknown there. Elizabeth Hickey lived in the community, but she was not prominent. As a young mother she was undoubtedly a sympathetic figure, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that her death caused unusual emotion in the community. (See

People

v.

Edelbacher

(1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1002 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d 1 ].)

The defense filed its original motion for change of venue in January 1985. On March 12,1985, before jury selection had begun but more than two years after the Barnes and Hickey killings, the trial court denied the motion without prejudice. As the court remarked, there had been at that time “a nine-month span of near media blackout.”

Jury selection began on June 11, 1985. The defense filed a second motion for change of venue on August 21, 1985, in the midst of jury selection.

*393

Attached to the motion as an exhibit was an analysis of potential jurors’ responses to a questionnaire they were required to complete. According to this analysis, 76 percent of the potential jurors said they had not heard of defendant, 78 percent had not heard of Hickey, 94 percent had not heard of Richard Barnes, and 78 percent had not learned anything about the case from the media.

Jury selection was completed on October 30, 1985. The trial court heard and denied the second venue motion the next day. In denying the renewed motion, the court said that more than 730 prospective jurors had been examined on exposure to pretrial publicity. Of these, 484 said they had no knowledge of the case and no knowledge of the AB. Another 48 to 50 had knowledge of the AB but no knowledge of the case and could be fair. Thus, over 530 prospective jurors, or more than 72 percent, said they had no previous knowledge of the case. This is hardly the picture of a community in which knowledge of the case had become so deeply imbedded as to preclude a fair trial.

The record does not support defendant’s assertion that the jurors who determined the verdicts had significant pretrial familiarity with the case. Juror Stovall was familiar with the names of Price and Hickey, and recalled some discussion of the case at Areata Redwood, where both she and Petry had worked, but she said she did not know much about the case and had not formed an opinion. Juror Olivieri said that a coworker told him defendant had sued “the City,” and that it had “something to do with mistreatment when he was taken into custody,” but he was sure this would not affect his ability to be fair. Juror Gustafson said he had heard of defendant, but he apparently confused this case with another. Juror Kramer’s husband was a psychologist and was appointed by the court to examine defendant for competency, but there is no indication she discussed the case with her husband. Some jurors indicated acquaintance with one or more of the witnesses, but none said this would interfere with credibility determinations. None of the actual jurors demonstrated significant recall of the charged offenses.

Defense counsel was able to select a jury while using only 18 of his 26 peremptory challenges, and 6 of his 8 peremptory challenges to alternate jurors. The failure to exhaust peremptories is a strong indication “that the jurors were fair, and that the defense itself so concluded.” ( Balderas,

supra,

41 Cal.3d at p. 180 .)

Apart from the traditional factors, defendant maintains that a change of venue was required in this case because Juror Southworth was acquainted

*394

with the prosecutor’s wife and was herself prosecuted during the trial by the local district attorney’s office, Juror Kramer (as previously mentioned) was married to a psychologist appointed by the court to examine defendant for competency, and the local jail had inadequate facilities to house an inmate of defendant’s reputed dangerousness for an extended period of time. None of these facts was urged as a ground for changing venue, and none alters our conclusion that defendant has failed to demonstrate error in the denial of his motions to change venue.

D.

The Threatened Sanctions Against Defense Counsel

During jury selection, the trial court issued a written order denying without hearing a defense motion to dismiss the case for violation of defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights (§ 1382). In this order, the trial court criticized the two attorneys representing defendant for making repetitive motions and for including misleading and incomplete factual statements in their motion papers. The court cited specific instances of such conduct and said they were grounds for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

5

The court said it would hold a hearing after the trial to determine whether to impose sanctions under this section and would consider compliance with its ruling as a factor at that hearing.

Defense counsel moved to advance the date for the hearing regarding sanctions. Counsel requested a prompt resolution of the sanctions issue because, in counsel’s words, “[t]he mere knowledge that at the end of the trial the Court will impose financial sanctions, as well as perhaps other sanctions, against defense counsel is ... so threatening and intimidating that it reduces defense counsel’s ability to fully protect [defendant’s] rights, knowing that to protect those rights or vigorously defend [defendant] will only result in stronger sanctions.”

The trial court denied the motion at the next court session. In doing so, the court said its previous order meant only that there was a possibility of a posttrial hearing on sanctions, and that the court now believed a hearing might not be necessary. The court explained that it had referred to sanctions only to remind counsel of their ethical duties, not to curb vigorous advocacy. The court ordered counsel not to allow concern about possible sanctions to interfere with their representation of defendant.

*395

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in not promptly resolving the sanctions issue because the threat of possible sanctions may have inhibited counsel in forcefully advocating defendant’s cause at trial. He contends that the error deprived him of these rights under the federal Constitution: his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel, to present a defense, and to completely cross-examine witnesses; his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial consistent with due process of law; and his Eighth Amendment right to reliable guilt and penalty phase verdicts in this capital case.

We agree it is usually preferable for the trial court to promptly resolve any issue that arises regarding misconduct by counsel, rather than deferring hearing on possible sanctions until after the trial. Here, however, the trial court indicated it had not initiated sanctions proceedings and had mentioned sanctions only to impress upon counsel that certain practices, including making motions that duplicated motions already denied, were unacceptable. We do not find such warnings improper (see

People

v.

McKenzie

(1983) 34 Cal.3d 616, 632 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 668 P.2d 769 ] [attorney must respectfully yield to court’s rulings, whether right or wrong]), particularly where, as here, the court also emphasizes counsel’s duty to vigorously represent their clients by all legitimate and appropriate means. Counsel presumably knew that their due process rights to notice and hearing and their statutory rights to appellate review gave them effective protection against the unwarranted imposition of sanctions. We find no error and no prejudice.

E.

Defendant’s Competence to Stand Trial

During jury selection, the court held a hearing in camera, in the absence of both prosecutors and defense counsel, to permit defendant to express concerns about his legal representation. Defendant explained that his primary problems were the conditions of his jail confinement and the court’s rulings denying motions his counsel had made. He said the court’s comments in rejecting defense positions suggested to him that the court believed his counsel to be incompetent. In the presence of the prosecutors and defense counsel, the court announced it would appoint another attorney to advise defendant. Defendant protested that he would not trust anyone the court appointed.

After defendant had left the courtroom, a prosecutor suggested the court might wish to comment on defendant’s demeanor. The court replied that defendant was “extremely upset” and “[i]rritated with the whole process.” Referring to the section of the Penal Code dealing with competence to stand trial, the court said that it was “unclear at this point whether we have a 1368

*396

problem or not.” The court said it might “appoint someone to attempt to interview” defendant and added that it was “not at this point expressing a 1368 doubt.” The prosecutor commented that “defendant’s voice was shaking, as well as his body, hands, legs.” The court agreed that defendant was “apparently under a great deal of emotional stress.” Defense counsel, who represented that she was a state-certified social worker, said she shared the court’s concern about defendant’s competence. She added that “there is some question as to whether or not he is having a psychotic episode,” and that she had the impression he was suffering from delusions. Later that day, the court appointed Richard Kramer, a clinical psychologist, as a court’s expert to examine defendant on his competence to stand trial.

The next day, Dr. Kramer met with defendant for 30 minutes, after which he submitted a confidential report to the court. In his written report, Dr. Kramer said he found defendant to be depressed and anxious, but defendant’s thought processes were normal and there was no evidence of delusions or hallucinations. He found defendant to be “competent enough to comport himself in court,” but said he had insufficient information to determine defendant’s ability to rationally collaborate with his current counsel. The court noted that Dr. Kramer’s report was inconclusive. The court did not commence formal proceedings under section 1368 to determine defendant’s competence to stand trial.

Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to commence formal competency proceedings or, in the alternative, that it erred in failing to take further steps to determine whether such proceedings should be commenced. He contends that the error denied him his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to due process of law, fair trial, trial by jury, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, presentation of a defense, effective assistance of counsel, and reliable guilt verdict. We find no error and no constitutional violation.

If “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the judge is required to state the doubt on the record. (§ 1368, subd. (a).) This is the first step in initiating formal proceedings to determine a defendant’s competence to stand trial. Defendant does not contend that the record here contains substantial evidence of defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, and he concedes that the trial judge did not say he had a “doubt” about defendant’s competence. Indeed, the judge expressly said he was not expressing any such doubt. Defendant nonetheless argues that when the judge spontaneously raised the question of competence, this should be deemed the expression of a doubt. The law is otherwise. A trial

*397

court’s expression of preliminary concerns about competency does not require the commencement of competency proceedings.

(People

v.

Gallego

(1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 159, 162-163 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ].)

Defendant next contends that the trial court failed to take appropriate steps to resolve its preliminary concerns. We disagree. The court appointed its own expert to examine defendant and it alerted counsel to the potential issue. After reviewing the expert’s report, the court was apparently satisfied that there was no present incompetence and no need for finther examination. The expert found no impairment of defendant’s ability to think logically, to understand the case against him, or to express his views. He found defendant to be anxious and depressed, but these findings are hardly surprising in a defendant on trial for his life. At the expert’s suggestion, the court appointed a counselor to meet with defendant at the jail each week to provide him with emotional support. The court proceeded reasonably and in accordance with the law. We find no abuse of the court’s discretion.

F.

The Motion to Prohibit Reference to “Aryan Brotherhood”

Before trial, the defense made two motions under Evidence Code section 352

6

to preclude the prosecution from introducing any evidence of the name “Aryan Brotherhood.” The defense argued that the name was inherently prejudicial because the word “Aryan” was popularly associated with Nazism and other racist ideologies. The trial court denied the motion each time, ruling that the prosecution could not effectively present its case without using the name and that undue prejudice to defendant could be avoided by excusing for cause any potential jurors whose responses indicated they would be unduly prejudiced by the name.

We reject defendant’s contention that the ruling was an abuse of discretion and denied him his state and federal constitutional rights to an impartial jury, to due process of law, and to reliable verdicts in a capital case. In ruling on the pretrial motions, the court was guided by the preliminary hearing evidence. That evidence showed that defendant’s membership in the AB was central to the prosecution’s case, under which all of the charged offenses originated with a conspiracy by the AB leadership to murder the father of a defecting member. (See

People

v.

Frausto

(1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 129,140-141 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 314 ], and cases there cited.) The defense, on the other hand, appeared to dispute the AB’s very existence, defendant’s membership, and tibe AB’s character as a gang rather than a mere social club. To

*398

litigate the existence and character of an organization without naming it would have been a practical impossibility and might have caused the jury to speculate about why the name was being withheld. Also, voir dire provided an effective means to remove any jurors who might be so prejudicially influenced that they could not fairly try the case.

G.

The Sufficiency of the Pleadings and the Evidence to Support the Conviction for Conspiracy

Count 12 of the information charged defendant with the crime of conspiracy “at and in the County of Humboldt,” and it alleged that defendant committed 13 overt acts in support of the conspiracy. But the information alleged that defendant committed the conspiracy “on or about the months of April to September, 1982,” whereas the earliest date on which it alleged defendant committed any overt act was January 15,1983. Defendant contends that the information was fatally defective because it did not allege that defendant committed any overt act during the time of the conspiracy. Alternatively, he argues that there was no substantial evidence at trial that he committed any conspiracy in Humboldt County on the dates alleged in the information. These contentions are unavailing.

Any uncertainty caused by the wording of the information was dispelled by the verdict form, which recited that defendant was charged with a conspiracy “formed between April and September 1982, and ending in March 1983.” The verdict of guilty entered on this form is supported by substantial evidence. Michael Thompson testified that the AB leadership decided during the summer of 1982 to kill disloyal AB members or their immediate family, including Richard Barnes; that this assignment was given to defendant; that he was instructed to prepare for the assignment by obtaining weapons in Northern California; and that defendant accepted the assignment. The prosecution introduced other evidence to show that defendant committed various acts in Humboldt County in January and February of 1983 to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy.

By not demurring to the information’s conspiracy charge, the defense waived the claim that the conspiracy charge was ambiguous or uncertain.

(People

v.

Thomas

(1986) 41 Cal.3d 837, 843 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 718 P.2d 94 ];

People

v.

Jackson

(1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 490, 500 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 688 ].) Assuming the information was ambiguous, defendant could not have been misled. The preliminary hearing evidence gave defendant ample notice of the charge against which he was required to defend.

(People

v.

Paul

(1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 32, 43 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 431 ].)

*399

H.

Juror-challenge Issues

Defendant disputes various trial court rulings that denied defense challenges for cause, granted prosecution challenges for cause, and excused one sitting juror. He asserts that the rulings denied him these rights under the federal Constitution: the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law, and the Eighth Amendment right to reliable guilt and penalty determinations in a capital case. We find no error in these rulings.

1.

Juror Number Three

In January 1986, in the midst of the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor informed the trial court he had recently learned that Juror Number Three had been “far less than candid” during voir dire. In December 1963, Juror Number Three had begun serving a sentence in the Oregon State Correctional Institution for assault with a dangerous weapon. In 1967, he had been paroled to California, where he was supervised by Dick Wild, a prosecution witness in the current proceeding. In October 1972, the Governor of Oregon had granted Juror Number Three a full pardon. In December 1976, Humboldt County District Attorney John Buffington had charged Juror Number Three by complaint with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245). Juror Number Three had secured a dismissal of the Humboldt County charge before the preliminary hearing, after which he had filed an action, which the court eventually dismissed in 1983 for failure to prosecute, against District Attorney Buffington and others. Buffington was later appointed to the superior court; he was the trial judge in the current proceeding.

Juror Number Three had revealed none of this information during voir dire, even though all prospective jurors had been asked by questionnaire whether they had been involved in a criminal proceeding as a defendant or witness. Juror Number Three had responded to this question with the statement that he had once been a witness. When asked if he knew any of the prosecution witnesses, Juror Number Three said he knew Dick Wild through an organization called Toastmasters International; he never revealed that Wild had been his parole officer.

The trial court questioned Juror Number Three about the matter. The juror admitted he had been guilty of the Oregon offense, to which he had pleaded guilty, but he said he had relied on a legal interpretation he had received from the State of Oregon stating that a full pardon “totally obliterates” a conviction. He said he “saw no reason” to mention, when asked about his relationship with Wild, that Wild had been his parole officer because it was

*400

“over and done.” He said he was not guilty of the Humboldt County offense, and he had not thought it necessary to disclose the charge because it had been dismissed. He admitted that the Humboldt County charge had “ruined a military career” for him, but he denied harboring any grudges against the system. He said he could be fair and impartial to both sides in this case.

The prosecutor moved to disqualify Juror Number Three from the jury. Defense counsel opposed the motion.

7

The trial court excused Juror Number Three and substituted an alternate juror in his place, explaining that by concealing material information about the Oregon offense Juror Number Three had denied the prosecution the opportunity to intelligently exercise its peremptory challenges.

A sitting juror can be removed only for illness or other good cause. (§ 1089.) An appellate court reviews a trial court’s finding of good cause under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

(People

v.

Abbott

(1956) 47 Cal.2d 362, 371 [ 303 P.2d 730 ];

People

v.

Thomas

(1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1477, 1484 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 865 ];

People

v.

Goins

(1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 923, 926 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 655 ].)

When the trial court discovers during trial that a juror misrepresented or concealed material information on voir dire tending to show bias, the trial court may discharge the juror if, after examination of the juror, the record discloses reasonable grounds for inferring bias as a “demonstrable reality,” even though the juror continues to deny bias.

(People

v.

Farris

(1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 376, 386-387 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 45 ]; see also

People

v.

Hecker

(1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1238, 1244-1245 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 884 ].) Here, the information concealed

8

by Juror Number Three was material. When considered in light of the juror’s conduct in concealing it during voir dire, that information established substantial grounds for inferring that Juror

*401

Number Three was biased against the prosecution, despite his protestations to the contrary. (See

People

v.

Morris

(1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 183-184 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 807 P.2d 949 ] [“Concealment by a potential juror constitutes implied bias justifying disqualification"].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in discharging Juror Number Three and seating an alternate in his place.

2.

Denial of Defense Challenges for Cause

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying defense challenges for cause to 11 prospective jurors. Defendant is precluded from making this contention, however, by the failure to exhaust peremptory challenges.

The defense used peremptory challenges to remove 7 of the 11 jurors he now contends should have been removed for cause. Of the 4 remaining jurors, 2 were selected as regular jurors and 2 as alternates. When the defense accepted the jury, it had 8 peremptory challenges it could have used against the 2 regular jurors it had challenged for cause. When it accepted the alternates, the defense had 2 peremptory challenges it could have used against the 2 alternates it had challenged for cause. Because the defense had sufficient peremptory challenges remaining to remove each of the jurors unsuccessfully challenged for cause, defendant cannot have been prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to sustain the challenges for cause.

(People

v.

Morris, supra,

53 Cal.3d 152, 184 ;

People

v.

Stankewitz

(1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 103 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 793 P.2d 23 ];

People

v.

Coleman

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 770 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].)

Defendant argues that his failure to exhaust peremptory challenges is excused because the trial court used a jury selection system under which counsel knew the order in which prospective jurors would be called into the box. We rejected the same argument in

People

v.

Morris, supra,

53 Cal.3d 152 , reasoning that, regardless of the system used, “a party’s failure to exercise available peremptory challenges indicates relative satisfaction with the unchallenged jurors.” (At p. 185.)

As another excuse for the failure to exhaust peremptory challenges, defendant points out that the pool of 20 prospective jurors remaining after the jurors and alternates had been accepted included 6 more prospective jurors the defense had unsuccessfully challenged for cause. We reject this excuse for the same reason. Defendant has not shown that exhausting his remaining peremptories would necessarily have resulted in the seating of a juror who ought to have been removed for cause. In this situation, his failure

*402

to exhaust peremptories waived the contention that defense challenges for cause were erroneously overruled.

3.

Granting Prosecution Challenges for Cause

Defendant contends the trial court erroneously excused two prospective jurors, on prosecution challenges for cause, because of the jurors’ death penalty views.

In a capital case, a prospective juror may be excluded if the juror’s views on capital punishment would “prevent or substantially impair” the performance of the juror’s duties.

(Wainwright

v.

Witt

(1985) 469 U.S. 412,424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ];

People

v.

Ghent

(1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 767 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 82 , 739 P.2d 1250 ].)

During the voir dire, prospective juror Janet Ohligschlager answered “correct” when asked if her opinion concerning the death penalty was such that she would be unable to vote for it even though the evidence indicated it was a proper punishment. Under questioning by the defense, she said she could try to put aside her personal feelings about the death penalty and consider the evidence presented by both sides. When again questioned by the court, Ohligschlager said she did not think she could conceive of any situation in which she would vote for the death penalty.

Prospective juror Sandy Natt also expressed serious reservations about his ability to return a verdict of death. As he put it, “. . . to take a life, I don’t know if I could handle that.” Asked whether he would be able to vote for death, he said, “I don’t think I could.” He also indicated, in response to defense questioning, that he could consider the evidence presented by both sides. Asked by the prosecutor whether he could return a verdict of death, Natt said, “Might be—if he had enough real bad stuff about him, maybe I could. But I don’t really think I could.”

We find no error in the rulings sustaining the challenges for cause to these prospective jurors. Each juror gave answers showing substantial impairment of the juror’s ability to fairly decide the issue of penalty. To the extent the jurors’ other answers were conflicting or ambiguous, the trial court’s implied determination as to their states of mind is binding upon this court.

(People

v.

Daniels

(1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 875 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ].)

I.

Shackling of Defendant

On November 21, 1985, shortly after the guilt phase of the trial had begun, the trial court ordered that during all further court proceedings

*403

defendant would be secured to his chair in the courtroom by a single belly chain that would not be visible to the jury. The order followed a two-day hearing out of the jury’s presence. Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, the court found that defendant had struck correctional officers at the jail on several occasions, that the frequency of the assaults had “increased dramatically within the last month for some unknown reason,” and that this conduct had caused the court to have concern for the safety of court attaches, jurors, and witnesses.

Defendant contends that the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence received at the hearing and that by making the shackling order the trial court abused its discretion. He asserts that the ruling violated these rights under the federal Constitution: the Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and the Eighth Amendment right to a reliable guilt verdict in this capital case.

A criminal defendant may be shackled at trial only as a last resort and only upon a showing of manifest need.

(People

v.

Duran

(1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-292 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 545 P.2d 1322 , 90 A.L.R.3d 1 ].) A trial court’s decision to require that a defendant be shackled is reviewed on appeal under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

(People

v.

Stankewitz, supra,

51 Cal.3d 72, 95 .) Because the record adequately shows a manifest need to have defendant shackled during courtroom proceedings, we find no abuse of discretion in this case.

On October 26, 1985, about four weeks before the shackling order, two correctional officers went to an exercise and recreation area at the jail to escort defendant to his cell. Officer Silvia was standing near defendant as defendant was dressing. Defendant brought his face close to Silvia’s face, blew cigarette smoke in Silvia’s face, and flicked cigarette ash on Silvia’s pants. Addressing Silvia with a derogatory racial epithet, defendant said Silvia owed him an apology, and he dared Silvia to report the incident. When Silvia said he would report it, defendant struck Silvia on the left side of the jaw.

On Sunday, November 17, 1985, at 9:30 a.m., Officer Silvia told defendant it was time for lock-down. Defendant told Silvia not to speak to him in an angry manner. Defendant said if Silvia met him in an angry manner, defendant would meet Silvia in an angry manner. If Silvia pushed him, defendant would push Silvia. Silvia told defendant he had already had 10 minutes over the allotted hour and said he was asking defendant to lock down. Defendant responded with a sexual taunt.

On November 19, 1985, at 7:45 a.m„ Officer St. Denis gave defendant a notice of disciplinary violation relating to the incident that occurred two

*404

days earlier. Shortly after 8 a.m., as he was taking his shower in an area near his cell, defendant called to Officer Wolf, asking him to get Sergeant Gray and Officer St. Denis. Officer Wolf entered the shower area because he was not able to hear defendant clearly from outside. Defendant asked Wolf to remain outside. When Wolf did not immediately comply, defendant rushed at Wolf and either struck him or pushed him out of the shower room. Defendant then called Wolf derogatory names.

About an hour later, correctional officers shackled defendant in the usual manner for transportation to the courtroom. The restraints consisted of handcuffs, belly chain, and leg irons. After walking about 20 yards, defendant turned his back to the wall and complained that one of the leg iron cuffs was too tight. The officers escorting defendant asked him to turn so his side was toward the wall.

9

Defendant refused three times. The officers then moved defendant across the hall so he faced the opposite wall. Defendant resisted, striking at the officers with his elbows and feet and biting one officer on the arm. The officers returned defendant to his cell. About an hour later, when Lieutenant Doane asked him whether he was willing to go to court, defendant responded with profanity and insults.

The evidence thus established that defendant had committed multiple acts and threats of violence against officers at the jail or while being transported to court. The two separate violent incidents on the morning of November 19 were particularly disturbing. The trial court could reasonably infer that defendant was experiencing increasing difficulty in controlling his violent impulses. Under these circumstances, the trial court had grounds for concluding that, unless restrained physically, defendant would resort to violence in the courtroom if he became irritated or frustrated with the proceedings.

10

Correctional officers testified that defendant is very strong, and that he is difficult to handle when violent. The hearing evidence thus established a manifest need for the trial court’s order requiring that defendant be restrained in the courtroom by a single concealed belly chain.

J.

Waiver of Presence During Guilt Phase of Trial

After the court made its ruling that defendant would be chained in the courtroom during further proceedings, defendant said he would rather be

*405

absent from the trial than appear before the jury in chains. The trial court allowed defendant to leave the courtroom and return to the jail, after informing defendant that his leaving would be construed as a voluntary waiver of presence. After giving the matter further thought, the court directed jail officers to bring defendant back to the courtroom, but defendant refused to dress in civilian clothing for the court appearance. The court then concluded that defendant had effectively waived his presence. The remainder of the guilt phase proceeded in his absence.

We reject defendant’s contention that the right of presence during the guilt phase of a capital trial is of such fundamental importance that, as a matter of state or federal constitutional law, it may not be waived. The United States Supreme Court has never held that a defendant cannot waive the constitutional right to be present at critical stages of even a capital trial, and this court has concluded, as a matter of both federal and state constitutional law, that a capital defendant may validly waive presence at critical stages of the trial.

(People

v.

Lang

(1989) 49 Cal.3d 991,1026 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 ];

People

v.

Robertson

(1989) 48 Cal.3d 18, 59-62 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 767 P.2d 1109 ]; see also,

People

v.

Sully

(1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1238-1240 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 812 P.2d 163 ].) We find no constitutional infirmity in the trial court’s decisions in this case to accept defendant’s actions as a voluntary waiver and to proceed with the guilt phase in defendant’s absence.

Defendant also argues that the trial court, by holding the trial in defendant’s absence, violated section 1043, subdivision (a), which provides that in a felony case the defendant “shall be personally present at the trial.” Although section 1043 provides for certain exceptions to the presence requirement, defendant maintains that none applies in this case. The provision that a trial may proceed when a defendant is “voluntarily absent” is inapplicable, he argues, because this exception by its terms applies only in noncapital cases. (§ 1043, subd. (b)(2).) The provision that a defendant may “waive his right to be present in accordance with Section 977” (§ 1043, subd. (d)) is inapplicable, defendant argues, because section 977 by its terms does not permit a defendant accused of a felony to waive personal presence at “those portions of the trial when evidence is taken before the trier of fact.” Finally, defendant recognizes that a trial may proceed in the absence of a defendant who has been removed for disruptive behavior (§ 1043, subd. (b)(1)), but he maintains that this did not occur.

The trial court did not violate section 1043. In addition to finding that defendant had voluntarily waived his presence, the trial court found that defendant’s conduct “has disrupted and continues to disrupt the procedure of

*406

this Court.” The record amply supports this finding. After announcing that he would not appear before the jury in chains, defendant walked out of the courtroom and declined to dress in civilian clothes to be returned to the courtroom. Because defendant had recently assaulted officers during transportation to the courtroom, the trial court could reasonably anticipate that any effort to bring defendant to the courtroom against his will would endanger the safety of the transporting officers and of persons in the courtroom. A trial court need not wait until actual violence or physical disruption occurs within the four walls of the courtroom in order to find a disruption within the meaning of section 1043.

K.

Presence at Other Hearings

Defendant contends he was denied his statutory and constitutional right to be present at various hearings that occurred both before and after the events discussed in the preceding section. We conclude that defendant’s presence was either validly waived or not required at each of these proceedings.

1.

Voir Dire

Defendant was absent from jury voir dire during the morning of July 31, 1985, and again on August 5, 1985. Each time, defendant sent a note to the court explaining his absence and signed a waiver form. On July 31, defendant said in the note that he preferred to use the morning for a doctor’s appointment and for court-ordered recreation at the jail. On August 5, defendant said in the note he preferred to use the time for exercise. Although the waiver forms were not executed in open court and did not use the precise language of section 977, they substantially complied with that provision. Accordingly, the waiver was valid under sections 977 and 1043, subdivision (d).

Defendant maintains the waiver was involuntary because recreation and exercise were necessary to his physical and mental health and he could obtain them only by waiving his right to be present in court. We find insufficient support in the record for these factual assertions. The trial court had previously ordered that jail authorities provide defendant with five hours of exercise or recreation each week. If jail authorities interpreted or implemented this order in a manner that unreasonably interfered with defendant’s right to be present during critical stages of the trial proceedings, defendant’s remedy was to apply to the trial court for a further order. Having failed to exhaust this avenue of relief, defendant cannot claim that his decision to remain absent from a small portion of the jury selection proceedings, a decision in which his counsel concurred, was other than voluntary.

*407

2.

Requests to Relieve Defense Counsel

On February 11, 1986, during the guilt trial and after defendant had waived his presence, defendant sent the court a memorandum purporting to be a motion to relieve Anna Klay, one of the two attorneys representing him. Defendant did not express any dissatisfaction with Klay’s performance as his counsel. Rather, defendant sought to discharge her so she could testify to prior inconsistent statements of prosecution witness Clifford Smith without violating the rule that forbids an attorney to be both advocate and witness in the same proceeding (see rule 5-210 (formerly rule 2-111(A)(4)), Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar;

Comden

v.

Superior Court

(1978) 20 Cal.3d 906 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 576 P.2d 971 , 5 A.L.R.4th 562 ]). After an in camera hearing, the trial court deferred ruling on the motion. Ten days later, the trial court again discussed the motion with counsel, and it again declined to rule, finding the motion premature.

On March 6, 1986, the court recited certain events that had occurred off the record. The previous day, Bernard DePaoli, the other attorney representing defendant, had received a card signed by defendant that read, “You’re fired.” At the court’s request, DePaoli attempted to discuss the matter with defendant, but defendant refused. The court then sent defendant a note saying he would have to give the court reasons before the court would discharge DePaoli. Defendant responded with a note that read, in relevant part: “I have no comment. If you . . . now or anytime in the future have need . . . , please feel free to, as you have in the past, set up court on my tier in front of my cell. I will never set foot in your court, jury or not, ever again of my own free will.” Having recited these events, the court concluded that because defendant had never made a request to the court to substitute counsel, and because he had declined to state reasons for his apparent dissatisfaction with DePaoli, the court would proceed with the trial.

11

Throughout this entire period, the trial court advised defendant daily by note that he was welcome to come to court and would be brought to court if he donned civilian clothing and agreed to be shackled in the courtroom. By his conduct and by his written replies, including the note quoted in the preceding paragraph, defendant waived his presence in a manner that substantially complied with section 977.

Moreover, a defendant does not have a right to be present at every hearing held in the course of a trial. “During trial, a defendant is not entitled

*408

to be personally present at the court’s discussions with counsel occurring outside the jury’s presence on questions of law or other matters unless the defendant’s presence bears a reasonable and substantial relation to a full opportunity to defend against the charges. [Citation.] A defendant claiming a violation of the right to personal presence at trial bears the burden of demonstrating that personal presence could have substantially benefited the defense. [Citation.]”

(People

v.

Lang, supra,

49 Cal.3d 991, 1027 ; see also

People

v.

Medina

(1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 902-903 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 ].)

At the hearings held on February 11 and 21, the court and counsel discussed a variety of legal issues posed by Attorney Klay’s apparent knowledge of prior inconsistent statements by a prosecution witness. No evidence was taken and the court made no rulings. Defendant’s presence at these hearings could not have assisted his defense. At the hearing on March 6, the court merely recited certain developments that had occurred and concluded these developments did not require any ruling or other action by the court. Because defendant expressly refused to comment on his reasons for wishing to discharge Attorney DePaoli, his presence could not have assisted his defense.

3.

Motion for Acquittal and Rulings on Exhibits

On March 20 and 24, 1986, the court conducted a hearing outside the jury’s presence on a defense motion for acquittal (§ 1118.1) and determined the admissibility of guilt phase exhibits. On June 26, 1986, the court conducted a similar hearing on the admissibility of penalty phase exhibits. Defendant was not personally present at these hearings. Because defendant has not shown that his personal presence at these hearings would have substantially benefited the defense, the trial court did not err in conducting them in his absence. (See

People

v.

Medina, supra,

51 Cal.3d 870, 902-903 ;

People

v.

Harris

(1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 955 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 623 P.2d 240 ].)

L.

Probable Cause to Arrest

Defendant brought a motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) in superior court. One of the several grounds defendant urged for suppressing evidence was that it had been seized as a direct result of an illegal arrest. The parties stipulated the court could consider transcripts of testimony previously given in deciding this aspect of the motion. After reviewing the evidence, the court denied the motion to suppress in its entirety. The court concluded, among other things, that the officer who had arrested defendant had possessed

*409

sufficient cause to do so. Defendant challenges this ruling on statutory and constitutional grounds.

Determining whether an officer had cause to arrest requires two analytically distinct steps, each with its own standard of review. First, the court ascertains when the arrest occurred and what the arresting officer then knew; second, the court decides whether the officer’s knowledge at the time of arrest constituted adequate cause. On appeal, a reviewing court must accept the trial court’s express or implied findings on disputed factual issues in the first step of the inquiry if they are supported by substantial evidence, but a reviewing court must use its independent judgment to review the second step of the inquiry.

(People

v.

Duncan

(1986) 42 Cal.3d 91, 97 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 720 P.2d 2 ];

People

v.

Leyba

(1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ].)

David Douglas, a City of Eureka police detective, arrested defendant on March 3,1983, for the armed robbery at the Triplex Theater on February 19, 1983 (hereafter the Triplex robbery). Douglas’s knowledge at the time of the arrest determines its legality. Douglas obtained most of his information about the Triplex robbery from fellow Detective Pat Freese.

Freese was assigned to investigate the Triplex robbery on February 21, 1983. On that day, he reviewed the initial investigation report, which included composite drawings prepared by witnesses and a generalized description of the robber as a White male in his 20’s, height 6 feet 2 inches, weight about 160 pounds, with blond hair. Freese also reviewed an officer safety bulletin prepared by Richard Walton, a Humboldt County deputy sheriff, about an incident on January 23, 1983.

Walton had been driving a patrol car in McKinleyville about 4:30 p.m. when he noticed a car parked diagonally in the middle of a parking lot. When he returned to the area 30 minutes later, the car was in the same location. Walton parked behind the suspect car. The sole occupant was defendant, who said he had stopped there because the wind was blowing too hard to drive. Walton was not satisfied with this explanation because the wind was only moderate in intensity and he had experienced no difficulty controlling his patrol car. Walton observed a pair of binoculars between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat. Defendant’s car was facing a gas station located across the intersection and Walton suspected defendant might be planning to rob it. The bulletin prepared by Officer Walton described defendant as a White male, 35 years old, height 6 feet, weight 170 pounds, with brown hair. Attached to the bulletin were a Department of Corrections photograph of defendant and a copy of defendant’s arrest and conviction record.

*410

After reviewing these materials, Detective Freese concluded that defendant was a suspect in the Triplex robbery. He prepared a display card containing defendant’s photograph along with those of five other men. He showed the display to six of the Triplex robbery witnesses. Although none of them positively identified anyone, five of the six made remarks to the effect that defendant’s face was similar to the robber’s and more like the robber’s than anyone else portrayed in the photographs.

12

Before he arrested defendant, Detective Douglas discussed the Triplex robbery with Detective Freese. He looked at the composites prepared by the Triplex robbery witnesses and reviewed the bulletin prepared by Officer Walton, including defendant’s arrest and conviction record. He knew defendant was an AB member, had been charged with armed robbery in Humboldt County some years earlier, and had once disarmed and kidnapped two officers in their patrol vehicle. He learned from Detective Freese that several of the Triplex robbery witnesses thought defendant looked very similar to the person who committed that crime. When he arrested defendant, Douglas personally felt that defendant’s features matched the composites prepared by the Triplex robbery witnesses.

Cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the arresting officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person arrested is guilty of a crime.

(People

v.

Harris

(1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 389 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 536 , 540 P.2d 632 ]; see also, § 836, subd. 3.) We conclude that Detective Douglas had adequate cause to arrest defendant.

Although none of the witnesses could positively identify defendant as the robber, the robber had concealed much of his face with dark glasses and a knit watchcap, and the photograph of defendant shown to the witnesses had been taken almost six years earlier. Allowing for the difficulty of making any identification under these conditions, it is significant that all but one of the witnesses remarked that defendant’s facial features resembled the robber’s and that he was more like the robber than any of the other men shown in the photographs. It is also significant that defendant’s height and weight as shown on his driver’s license were very close to the estimates given by the robbery witnesses. Although the robber was described as being in his 20’s, whereas defendant was 35, witness Marcie Conn thought defendant looked

*411

about 25 when she saw him in court in April 1984. Accordingly, it appears that defendant looked more youthful than he was, a fact that would have been apparent to Douglas at the time of arrest.

Defendant had been charged with robbery in the past, had disarmed and kidnapped two officers, and had served time in prison. An experienced officer had formed the opinion that defendant was planning a gas station robbery when observed about four weeks before the Triplex robbery. We conclude that the facts known to Detective Douglas were sufficient to cause a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that defendant was guilty of the Triplex robbery.

M.

Exclusion of Defense Evidence Offered to Prove That Petty Killed Hickey

Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining prosecution objections to various items of evidence offered by the defense to prove that prosecution witness Berlie Petty killed Elizabeth Hickey, and that the erroneous rulings denied him various rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. As we explain, none of these contentions is well founded.

1.

Petty’s Writings

Before Petty testified, the prosecution made a general objection to all writings prepared by Petty. The trial court deferred ruling. During cross-examination, the trial court permitted defense counsel to question Petty about the documents and to read excerpts for the jury. Eventually, the trial court admitted two of the documents into evidence and excluded the rest. Defendant attacks the ruling on various grounds.

Defendant argues that parts of some excluded documents were admissible as prior inconsistent statements (Evid. Code, § 1235). In all but one of the instances defendant cites, the trial court permitted defense counsel to question Petty fully about the inconsistent statement and to read it for the jury. Having concluded that these portions of the documents were admissible as prior inconsistent statements, the trial court erred in not admitting the relevant parts of the documents themselves.

13

The error was not prejudicial, however. Because the inconsistent statements were

*412

read in open court, the jury was fully aware of them. It is not reasonably probable that placing the statements before the jury also in the form of exhibits would have resulted in a verdict more favorable to defendant.

(People

v.

Watson

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].)

One inconsistent statement cited by defendant was not read to the jury. Petty said he did not remember that Hickey ever accused him of molesting or abusing her children. Defense counsel was not permitted to read a writing by Petty, apparently intended for Hickey, in which he said, “So mainly what I have gotten in-returned

[sic]

for my personal struggled

[sic]

from day to day for being myself a man is mainly cussed at, ignored, conned, scorned, left with the children then accused of child abuse and with the acusation [sic] of being a potential child molester.” The trial court concluded that the statement should not be admitted because there was no evidence to establish when it was written.

As defendant correctly observes, this statement was inconsistent with Petty’s testimony no matter when it was written and satisfied all requirements for a prior inconsistent statement. Yet the trial court has discretion to exclude impeachment evidence, including a prior inconsistent statement, if it is collateral, cumulative, confusing, or misleading.

(People

v.

Douglas, supra,

50 Cal.3d 468, 509 .) Defendant introduced ample evidence that Petty’s relationship with Hickey was strained and painful for him, and that Petty’s testimony was inaccurate and incomplete in many details. Absent evidence that Petty made the writing in question shortly before Hickey was killed, the trial court could reasonably conclude that its vague reference to accusations of child abuse was collateral and cumulative impeachment evidence. Moreover, even assuming that the trial court should have admitted this portion of the document, defendant was not prejudiced. Nothing in the document suggests that the accusation of child abuse and being a “potential child molester” was particularly upsetting to Petty in the context of the many other grievances he held against Hickey about which the jury was fully informed.

Next, defendant contends that the trial court should have admitted Petty’s writings as evidence of his mental condition. The only writings offered on this basis were two works of fiction, one handwritten and the other typed. They were offered to show that Petty was more intelligent than he appeared. Petty testified that the handwriting was his, but he denied typing any of his stories. The trial court admitted the handwritten document

*413

and excluded the typewritten one. Exclusion of the typewritten document was correct because the defense did not authenticate it as a document written by Petry. (Evid. Code, § 1401.) Had the defense authenticated it, moreover, the trial court could properly have excluded it as cumulative.

Finally, defendant argues that all the writings should have been admitted because Petry’s claimed inability to recall having written them was so inherently incredible as to undermine his general credibility as a witness. The argument, as we understand it, is that the writings displayed such intense emotion and morbid preoccupation that it would be impossible, in the space of a few years, to forget having written them. We are unpersuaded. Although the human mind often retains vivid memories of intense experiences, it may also block out memories of experiences that are painful. For this reason, Petry’s credibility in this as in other matters was for the jury to determine. The trial court admitted enough of the writings to permit the jury to make this determination. For this purpose, the excluded writings were cumulative.

2.

The Interview Tapes

The police interviewed Petry on the day he discovered Hickey’s body and again a few days later. These interviews were recorded on tape and transcripts were prepared. During cross-examination of Petry at the trial, the defense asked the court to make a finding that Petry was being untruthful when he testified he did not remember many details about his relationship with Hickey. A finding to this effect would have permitted the defense to use the interview tapes as prior inconsistent statements whenever Petry claimed lack of memory of a fact he had related during the interviews, rather than only in those instances when he testified to facts inconsistent with his interview statements. (See

People

v.

Green

(1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 988 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 988 ].) After reviewing the tapes and transcripts, and comparing them to defendant’s testimony at trial, the trial court found that Petry’s inability to recall was not feigned but genuine. Defendant challenges this finding.

When the admissibility of evidence depends upon determinations of fact, the trial court’s findings, and in particular its credibility determinations, are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (See

People

v.

Leyba, supra, 29

Cal.3d 591, 596.) Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Petry was truthful when he testified he could not remember many facts about his relationship with Hickey. As the trial court remarked, Petry’s lack of memory was neither total nor suspiciously selective, and his testimony in general outline was consistent with the

*414

interview tapes and with his testimony at the two preliminary hearings. Although his lack of memory of so many facts was unusual, the trial court attributed this to Petry’s limited intellect and the emotional trauma he suffered as a result of Hickey’s brutal murder. We perceive no basis to disturb the trial court’s finding.

Eventually, near the end of the guilt phase, the trial court ruled that copies of the interview tapes, edited to remove references to polygraphs, would be received in evidence. The tapes were not played for the jury on the record, although portions of them were played by counsel during argument to the jury. When the jury requested the tapes during its deliberations, the court sent the tapes and a tape player into the jury room. Defendant contends the trial court erred in not playing the entire tapes on the record and in not notifying counsel of the jury’s request for the tapes.

Under the facts presented here, the court was not required to have the tapes played on the record. During the cross-examination of Petty, defense counsel requested that the entire tapes be received in evidence and played for the jury, but the trial court properly denied this request because the defense had not then established that the entire tapes, as opposed to particular inconsistent statements, were admissible. At a later point, for reasons not clear from the record, the trial court placed edited copies of the tapes in evidence as court’s exhibits. The record does not show that either party requested the playing of the tapes after they were received in evidence. Absent such a request, we infer that the procedure adopted was acceptable to the parties.

When a jury during deliberations requests an exhibit, the trial court must notify counsel of the request before giving the exhibit to the jury, because the request “is a critical stage of the prosecution during which the right to counsel applies.”

(People

v.

Hogan

(1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 849 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 647 P.2d 93 ]; see § 1138.) Although the record does not show that the trial court advised defense counsel before sending the interview tapes to the jury, the record does show that the next day, in response to a jury request to hear testimony about where in the Hickey residence a rifle barrel had been found, the court told the jury in open court, with counsel present, that this matter was mentioned in one of the interview tapes “on the second side near the beginning.” Counsel was therefore made aware by the next day at the latest that the jury had been given the interview tapes. Because counsel did not object to the court’s failure to provide earlier notice or to the manner in which the court responded to the jury’s request, we conclude that the defense waived the trial court’s apparent error in failing to notify counsel before sending the interview tapes to the jury. (See

People

v.

Chagolla

(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 422, 432-433 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 711 ].)

*415

3.

The Preliminary Examination Transcripts

Defendant contends that if, as the trial court ruled, Petry’s lapses of memory were genuine, the trial court should have ruled that he was unavailable as a witness and that the transcripts of Petry’s preliminary hearing testimony were therefore admissible under the hearsay exception for prior testimony (Evid. Code, § 1292). This theory of admissibility was never urged at trial, and even if we assume that a total lack of memory could make a witness unavailable within the meaning of the Evidence Code (see Evid. Code, § 240), Petry’s lack of recall was far from total. As the trial court remarked, Petty “has consistently cooperated in telling and retelling the same basic story.” Although his memory of certain details was weak, he recalled far too much to justify a finding that he was unavailable as a witness.

4.

Testimony of Dr. Blinder

During presentation of its case, the defense moved to admit the expert testimony of Dr. Martin Blinder, a forensic psychiatrist, that the killing of Hickey appeared to be a “classic crime of passion” committed by a person with a close emotional attachment to the victim. Dr. Blinder testified outside the jury’s presence as an offer of proof. The court said that although defendant was entitled to have Dr. Blinder explain for the jury the domestic homicide syndrome, permitting him to relate the syndrome to the facts of the case could lead to the disclosure of otherwise inadmissible hearsay materials that Dr. Blinder had considered in forming his opinions. The court concluded that Dr. Blinder could be questioned about any evidence that was before the jury, but nothing else. The court then asked defense counsel whether this material could be presented to Dr. Blinder in the form of hypothetical questions. Defense counsel accepted this suggestion.

In his testimony to the jury, Dr. Blinder defined domestic homicide as the killing of one with whom file killer has an intimate relationship. He had studied 254 such killings. He found that in these cases the killer and victim “are locked into a special kind of love relationship” characterized by passion, anger, and masochistic dependency. A homicide was more likely to occur if an angry person was unable to feel or express anger comfortably. The victims of domestic homicide frequently rebel at the other person’s controlling behavior and seek to bolster their low self-esteem by activities with persons outside the relationship. In response to hypothetical questions, Dr. Blinder testified that the following circumstances would be consistent with a domestic homicide: before the homicide, the killer had hit the victim but had denied doing so and had written passionately about his feelings for

*416

the victim; during the homicide, the killer inflicted extensive trauma on the victim’s face and inflicted puncture wounds near the victim’s breasts. Defense counsel requested permission to question Dr. Blinder about two of Petry’s writings that had been received in evidence, but the court denied permission, stating “I’ve tried to keep away from the psychoanalysis or psychiatric diagnosis of all these people specifically in this case.”

Defendant contends the trial court erred both in the earlier ruling precluding mention of hearsay materials that had not been received in evidence and in the later ruling precluding questioning about two of Petry’s writings that had been received in evidence, and that the errors deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a fair trial. We find no error.

On direct examination, an expert may give the reasons for an opinion, including the materials the expert considered in forming the opinion, but an expert may not under the guise of stating reasons for an opinion bring before the jury incompetent hearsay evidence.

(People

v.

Coleman

(1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 92 [ 695 P.2d 189 ].) A trial court has considerable discretion to control the form in which the expert is questioned to prevent the .jury from learning of incompetent hearsay.

(Ibid.)

Here, the restrictions imposed on counsel’s examination by the trial court’s rulings, which permitted the main features of the case to be presented in the form of hypothetical questions, were reasonable and within the court’s discretion.

5.

State of Mind Evidence

During direct examination of defense witness Zelna Hunsinger, the prosecution objected to a question asking whether Hickey.had ever told the witness she was afraid of Petry. The court held a hearing outside the jury’s presence, during which it said that the proposed testimony was hearsay, and although it would show Hickey’s state of mind, her state of mind was not at issue. The prosecution argued that the defense was being inconsistent because it had successfully objected to evidence that Hickey had said she was afraid of a man named “Curt.” Defense counsel then withdrew the question, noting it would open the door to the previously excluded prosecution evidence. The court said it had made no ruling and was willing to consider any authority the defense offered on the issue.

The matter was again raised when the defense called Kenneth L. Barney, a psychotherapist who had seen Hickey on three occasions about nine months before her death. Once again the court held a hearing outside the jury’s presence, after which the court ruled that it would not permit the

*417

defense to introduce evidence of Hickey’s statements to Barney expressing fear of Petty to prove that Petty rather than defendant had killed her. The court said that the defense was offering the evidence to prove Hickey’s state of mind, but that Hickey’s state of mind was not at issue in the case. Defendant now challenges this ruling.

Defendant argues that evidence of Hickey’s fear of Petty was admissible to prove or explain her conduct in giving defendant her guns to sell on consignment. Because she was afraid of Petty, defendant argues, Hickey could leave him only if she could move far away to establish a new life. According to defendant, Hickey’s urgent need for money to relocate herself and her children explains why she would entrust her guns to defendant, a relative stranger, for sale on consignment.

14

Defendant acknowledges that the defense never urged this theory in the court below (see Evid. Code, § 354 [verdict shall not be set aside for erroneous exclusion of evidence unless purpose and relevance of evidence was made known to the court]), but he argues that in a capital case technical insufficiencies in objections or offers of proof should be disregarded (see

People

v.

Frank

(1985) 38 Cal.3d 711, 729, fn. 3 [ 700 P.2d 415 ]),

15

and that counsel’s failure to argue this theory deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Assuming for argument’s sake that the issue has been preserved for appeal, the theory defendant now argues does not provide a valid basis for admitting the evidence under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1250). To be relevant and therefore admissible, evidence must tend to prove or disprove a “disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) Here, the prosecution did not dispute that Hickey made or attempted to make some sort of business arrangement with defendant for the sale of her guns. Indeed, the prosecution introduced in evidence a note apparently written by Hickey stating “Call Curt. . . about money for guns.” The prosecution theorized that defendant, despite what he may have promised Hickey, never intended to pay for the guns and killed Hickey to prevent her from protesting the lack of payment or testifying to defendant’s possession of the guns. Because Hickey’s attempted sale of her guns to defendant was not a disputed fact, the trial court could properly exclude as irrelevant any evidence offered to prove that Hickey had a reason to give her guns to defendant for consignment sale.

*418

6.

Videotape of Hickey Children’s Bedroom

On the morning that Hickey’s body was discovered, the police made a videotape showing the condition of the Hickey residence. The last portion of the tape showed the bedroom occupied by Hickey’s two young children. The children were not present. The bedroom contained dilapidated mattresses and bedding. The mattresses were soaked with urine; fecal matter was smeared on the walls.

The prosecution brought a motion

in limine

to exclude the portion of the tape showing the children’s bedroom. The defense argued in response that the motion was premature because the prosecution had failed to show that any portion of the videotape was admissible, but it also argued that if the court did admit any of the videotape, it should admit the portion showing the children’s bedroom. The court declined to rule on the motion, saying it did not know whether the tape would be received in evidence. The court remarked that the tape would probably be admissible insofar as it showed the condition of the crime scene when the body was discovered, but that it did not see any relevance in the portion of the tape showing the children’s bedroom. The court advised the parties not to mention the tape during voir dire.

Some days later, the prosecutors indicated their intention to use the videotape, edited to delete the children’s bedroom, during opening statement. The defense argued that the entire tape should come into evidence. The trial court granted the prosecution’s request to use the edited tape during opening statement, but it emphasized that it was not precluding the defense from establishing at a later time a basis for admission of the excluded portion of the tape.

Contrary to what defendant now argues, the court did not err in excluding the portion of the tape showing the children’s bedroom. The prosecution used the videotape to show the place where Hickey was murdered and the guns were stolen. Because no part of these crimes was committed in the children’s bedroom, the prosecution could reasonably omit that portion of the tape. Defendant now argues that the evidence was relevant “to dispute Petry’s claim of a happy household and a loving family relationship.” But Petty had not testified when the court ruled, the ruling was expressly made without prejudice, and the defense never raised the issue again. Defendant’s present description of the evidence as “crucial to the defense” is an exaggeration. During the course of the trial, the defense amply established, and the prosecution effectively conceded, that the relationship between Petty and Hickey was marked by deep conflicts and unhappiness on

*419

both sides. Defense counsel could reasonably conclude that it had sufficiently established this point and that further evidence, including the videotape showing the deplorable condition of the children’s bedroom, was unnecessary.

7.

Polygraph Evidence

Three days after the death of Elizabeth Hickey, the police gave Berlie Petry a polygraph examination. The officer who gave the examination concluded that Petry was deceptive in his responses to several questions, including a negative response to a question asking if he had killed Hickey. An investigator for the district attorney gave Petry another polygraph examination a few weeks later, with similar results.

At trial, the defense moved to admit the results of these examinations. The trial court denied the motion, relying on Evidence Code sections 351.1 (making polygraph test results inadmissible absent a stipulation for admission) and 352 (giving the trial court discretion to exclude evidence when its probative value is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice). Because the defense did not offer to prove that the polygraph had been accepted in the scientific community as a reliable technique,

16

the ruling excluding the evidence was correct.

(People

v.

Morris, supra,

53 Cal.3d 152, 193 .)

Citing

United States

v.

Hart

(E.D.N.Y. 1971) 344 F.Supp. 522 , defendant contends that proof of reliability is unnecessary when the defense seeks to use the results of a prosecution-administered polygraph examination to impeach the testimony of a prosecution witness. The

Hart

court reasoned that because the prosecution has a duty to disclose any evidence that may tend to exculpate a defendant

(Brady

v.

Maryland

(1963) 373 U.S. 83 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 215 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 ]), the government should be required to convince the jury that the test it used to evaluate the witness’s credibility was not significant. We agree with another federal court’s observation that this reasoning requires an “incorrect logical leap.”

(U.S.

v.

MacEntee

(E.D.Pa. 1989) 713 F.Supp. 829, 831 .) Although the prosecution has a duty to inform

*420

the defense of polygraph results that cast doubt on the credibility of a prosecution witness, the existence of this duty does not make the results admissible.

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that excluding evidence of the polygraph test results denied him his due process right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A party has no due process right to present evidence of test results if the tests used scientific techniques not generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

N.

Exclusion of Other Defense Evidence

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding various items of defense evidence, and that these rulings excluding evidence denied him various rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.

1.

Defense Expert on Prison Gangs

At trial, the defense proposed to call Dr. Richard Korn, a social psychologist and criminologist, as an expert witness on prison gangs in general and the AB in particular. Dr. Korn testified out of the jury’s presence as an offer of proof. He said the AB was the least organized of the prison gangs, that its members would not take orders and were not parliamentary, and that it had no acknowledged leaders. He said that he had reviewed the testimony of Thompson and Smith about the AB’s structure and procedures and that he agreed with some parts of that testimony and disagreed with other parts. He agreed that in 1982 an attempt was made to change a relatively unstructured, inefficient organization into a criminal organization modeled on the Mafia, but he did not believe that the attempt succeeded to the extent that a vote by inmates in institutions far removed from each other was taken and tallied within a matter of weeks to determine who would be on the AB’s leadership council. His opinion about the AB’s structure, or lack of it, was based on interviews with self-identified AB members and former members. He would not reveal the names of these persons without their permission, and he had not obtained that permission.

The court declined to admit the testimony. It explained that Dr. Korn’s opinions were not based on matters perceived or personally known to him, but that they were based instead largely on conversations with self-identified AB members whose identities Dr. Korn was unwilling to disclose, thereby substantially impairing the prosecution’s ability to effectively cross-examine

*421

him. The court also questioned whether there was “any degree of scientific reliability” to the testimony.

Defendant contends that the court erred in excluding this expert testimony and that the error deprived him of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a defense and to a fair trial in accordance with due process of law.

The ruling was not error. Courts have given parties wide latitude in the cross-examination of experts to test their credibility.

(People

v.

Coleman, supra,

38 Cal.3d 69, 92 .) If a witness frustrates cross-examination by declining to answer some or all of the questions, the court may strike all or part of the witness’s testimony.

(People

v.

Daggett

(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 751, 760 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) From this rule it follows logically that if, as here, the court determines in advance that the witness will refuse to answer such questions, the court may decline to admit the testimony in the first instance. Accordingly, the trial court did not exceed its discretion when it concluded that Dr. Korn’s unwillingness to reveal the names of the persons whose statements formed the basis of the opinions he proposed to give on direct examination would impair effective cross-examination to such an extent that the testimony should not be admitted.

2.

Jury View

Prosecution witness Tina Ransbottom testified that she had been living across the street from Hickey’s residence when Hickey was killed. During the two weeks before the killing, the witness saw a brown car parked nearby on about five occasions. On one of these occasions, she saw Hickey get out of the brown car and enter her apartment with a man. Another time she saw Hickey enter her apartment with the same man. The witness made all these observations between midnight and 2 a.m. She made some of them from the street as she was walking to her residence;, others she made from a window of the residence. During the trial, Ransbottom was shown a photo lineup; she selected defendant’s photograph and identified him as the man she had seen with Hickey.

The defense requested a jury view, between the hours of midnight and 1 a.m., of the scene where Ransbottom testified she had seen defendant with Hickey. (See § 1119.) The trial court denied the request. It stated that there was insufficient evidence of the conditions under which Ransbottom made the observations and of any changes that may have occurred since that time. Defendant contends that the denial of the jury view request was an abuse of discretion and that it violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial, to present a defense, and to meaningfully confront the witnesses against him.

*422

The standard of review for a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a request for a jury view is abuse of discretion.

(People

v.

Keltie

(1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 773, 782 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 243 ].) When the purpose of the view is to test the veracity of a witness’s testimony about observations the witness made, the trial court may properly consider whether the conditions for the jury view will be substantially the same as those under which the witness made the observations, whether there are other means of testing the veracity of the witness’s testimony, and practical difficulties in conducting a jury view.

(Ibid.; People

v.

Mooring

(1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 453, 460 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 71 ].)

Although Ransbottom described in general terms the lighting at the scene and the position of the people she observed, her testimony was far from exact on these points and she was not asked about subsequent changes. Moreover, her testimony could have been tested by other means, such as by having an impartial observer view the scene at night and then testify about the ease or difficulty of making an identification under those conditions. Finally, of course, the court could properly consider the substantial inconvenience of conducting a jury view at the hour requested. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the request for a jury view.

3.

Inducements to Prosecution Witness

Prosecution witness Clifford Smith testified that the prosecution had promised to protect his family if he testified against defendant. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked which family members the promise covered, whether it meant that they would be relocated to another part of the state, and whether the prosecution had paid to move any member of the witness’s family. The prosecution objected to each of these questions for lack of relevance, and the trial court sustained each objection. Defendant contends that the rulings were erroneous and that they denied him his state and federal constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him.

The rulings were erroneous. In determining the credibility of a witness, the jury may consider, among other things, “[t]he existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive” for giving the testimony. (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (f).) In a criminal case, therefore, the defense is entitled to explore the nature of any promises the prosecution has made or inducements it has offered to its witnesses.

(People

v.

Duran, supra,

16 Cal.3d 282, 294 .) Although trial courts retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on defense inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness

(Delaware

v.

Van Arsdall

(1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 683 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 ]), the trial court here erred in precluding

all

inquiry into the nature and

*423

extent of the promised protection, particularly when the only objection made was on grounds of relevance.

But defendant was not prejudiced by the erroneous rulings. First, the jury was informed that the promise of protection was made, and Smith eventually testified that his mother had been relocated. Thus, the most essential facts were revealed. Second, the evidence had only slight value for impeachment because it is unlikely that a witness would testify falsely to obtain protection for family members when the protection is needed only because of the testimony. A promise is unlikely to be a significant inducement if its primary effect is to eliminate a negative consequence of the testimony rather than to provide a positive benefit. Here, it appears that the danger to the witness’s family, against which the prosecution promised protection, was largely or even entirely a result of the witness’s agreement to cooperate. Third, the defense presented evidence of other and stronger inducements. Smith testified that in exchange for his testimony he was promised immunity from prosecution for any offense related to the Barnes killing. Smith said he was then serving a sentence of 25 years to life, with his first parole hearing scheduled for 2007. Smith’s mother was seriously ill with emphysema. She told Smith that she had talked to a law enforcement agent who said that AB members faced future prosecutions and that cooperating with law enforcement would provide him with his only chance to be released before she died. Smith testified that before he decided to cooperate with the prosecution, he had believed he would die within seven years, either as a result of conviction and execution for a capital crime or as a result of prison violence. Because of his decision to cooperate, Smith believed he now had “something to look forward to.” Given these more substantial benefits flowing from the promise of immunity, evidence of the cost and the extent of the protection provided to the witness’s family would have had only slight value for impeachment. Accordingly, we are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.

(Delaware

v.

Van Arsdall, supra,

475 U.S. 673, 684 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-687 ].)

4.

Prior Testimony of Steven Barnes

Outside the jury’s presence, the defense informed the court that it intended to present evidence that Steven Barnes, the son of murder victim Richard Barnes, had testified in a previous case that he was not an AB member. The prosecution raised a hearsay objection, which the trial court sustained. Defendant contends that the ruling was error because the evidence was admissible under the hearsay exception for prior testimony (Evid. Code, § 1291), and that the error denied him his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a fair trial and to present a defense.

*424

The proponent of evidence offered under the prior testimony exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of showing that the declarant is unavailable to testify in the current proceeding, and this showing must be made by competent evidence.

(People

v.

Enriquez

(1977) 19 Cal.3d 221, 235 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 561 P.2d 261 , 3 A.L.R.4th 73 ].) Unavailability may be established by evidence that the declarant is “[a]bsent from the hearing and the proponent of his or her statement has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his or her attendance by the court’s process.” (Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (a)(5).) This court has not decided the standard of review for a trial court’s determination on the issue of reasonable diligence (see

People

v.

Hovey

(1988) 44 Cal.3d 543, 563 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 121 , 749 P.2d 776 ]), and the Courts of Appeal are divided on this issue (see

People

v.

Robinson

(1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1581, 1585 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 504 ], and cases cited).

We need not determine the standard of review in this case because the defense did not present any competent evidence of due diligence, nor did it make an offer of proof. In seeking admission of the prior testimony, and in responding to the prosecution’s hearsay objection, defendant’s counsel did not cite the hearsay exception for prior testimony, nor did they claim they had exercised due diligence to procure Barnes’s attendance at the trial. One of defendant’s attorneys said, “I don’t have the time to get Mr. Barnes here.” The other defense attorney added, “We don’t know where he is. The prosecution will not reveal that.” Defendant argues that the latter statement is a sufficient showing of due diligence because it was obvious that the declarant could be located only with the assistance of the prosecution. We disagree. The record does not show that Steven Barnes was then in hiding, that he could not have been located by conventional search methods, or that the prosecution knew or should have known where Steven Barnes was then living or how he could be contacted. Defense counsel’s unelaborated statements do not establish due diligence.

O.

Admission of Prosecution Evidence

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in various rulings admitting prosecution evidence, and he again makes boilerplate assertions that the rulings deprived him of various rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.

1.

Defendant’s October 1982 Detention

Prosecution witness Janet Myers testified on cross-examination that defendant, after his release from prison, worked with Joseph O’Rourke in a

*425

building maintenance and janitorial business located in the Lakewood area of Southern California. Other prosecution evidence identified Joseph O’Rourke as an AB member who sat on its governing council. Asked how long the business association continued, Myers said defendant worked in the business until O’Rourke was arrested, but she was unable to recall the date of his arrest.

Over defense objections on grounds of relevance and Evidence Code section 352, Sergeant Barnett of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department later testified that O’Rourke was arrested on October 12, 1982, and that on the evening of the arrest he went to O’Rourke’s residence to conduct a parole search and was present when two uniformed deputies found defendant “in the back yard of the residence up near a wall amongst the bushes.” Defendant, who told the officers he was waiting for O’Rourke, was allowed to leave after a brief detention. The court admonished the jury that this testimony was admitted solely to determine the credibility of other witnesses and that it was not to consider the testimony as evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Barnett’s testimony corroborated Janet Myers’s testimony that defendant was in contact with O’Rourke after defendant’s release from prison and before O’Rourke’s arrest, and Barnett’s testimony clarified Myers’s testimony by fixing the date of O’Rourke’s arrest. Because the defense itself elicited essentially the same evidence from Myers, defendant cannot complain that evidence of defendant’s association with O’Rourke at the time of O’Rourke’s arrest was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial. Moreover, the jury was instructed that it was not to consider the testimony as independent evidence of defendant’s guilt, but only to determine the credibility of other witnesses. Under the circumstances, there was neither error nor prejudice.

2.

Deputy Walton’s Questioning of Defendant

The defense requested a protective order to preclude the prosecution from calling Richard Walton, a deputy sheriff for Humboldt County, to testify to his encounter with defendant on January 23, 1983. The defense argued that the evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code, § 352), and that it amounted to inadmissible evidence of general criminal character or propensity

(id.,

§ 1101). After hearing Officer Walton’s testimony out of the jury’s presence, the trial court ruled that Deputy Walton could testify to his observations and could mention defendant’s statement explaining why he had stopped, but that he was not to give his opinion that defendant was casing robbery targets, nor was he to name the businesses in the area or indicate the distance from defendant’s vehicle to those businesses.

Officer Walton then testified before the jury that on January 23, 1983, he was on patrol duty in McKinleyville at 4:30 p.m. when he observed a brown

*426

automobile with one occupant in the parking lot of a vacant building at the edge of a business district. The car was in the same place 30 minutes later, so Officer Walton pulled behind it and contacted the occupant, who produced a driver’s license identifying him as defendant, with a Eureka address. Defendant said he was waiting because the wind was blowing too hard for him to drive. Deputy Walton had encountered no difficulty with wind resistance. There was a pair of binoculars on the front seat of defendant’s car. The prosecution introduced photographs of the area showing that from the location where the brown car was parked defendant could conveniently watch a gas station and a mini-mart.

Later during the trial, over defense objection, Detective Pat Freese of the Eureka Police Department testified that he discussed this incident with defendant after defendant’s arrest and that defendant said he had been watching the hillside with the binoculars when Deputy Walton contacted him. Based on this testimony by Officer Walton and Detective Freese, the trial court instructed the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 2.03 (4th ed. 1979; all references to CALJIC instructions are to this edition unless otherwise stated) that it could consider false statements by defendant as a circumstance tending to prove consciousness of guilt, and the prosecutor argued to the jury that it was “conceivable” that defendant was “checking out those two business establishments because he was thinking about another robbery.”

On appeal, defendant does not contend that the evidence of Officer Walton’s encounter with defendant was completely lacking in relevance. He concedes that the prosecution could use the evidence at least to establish defendant’s presence in Humboldt County close to the dates on which certain charged offenses were committed. He does contend, however, that the evidence was not admissible to show that defendant was casing robbery targets, that the trial court should have excluded those portions of the testimony having no relevance other than to establish casing, that the trial court should not have permitted the prosecutors to argue to the jury that the evidence showed casing, and that the jurors should not have been permitted to infer that the statements defendant made to Deputy Walton and Detective Freese supported a finding of consciousness of guilt.

One of the charges against defendant was conspiracy. Prosecution witnesses testified that, as part of the conspiracy, AB leaders instructed defendant to go to the northern part of the state to gather weapons and money, and that they authorized him to commit robberies if necessary to accomplish these tasks. Accordingly, evidence that defendant was casing robbery targets during the time the conspiracy was alleged to have existed was relevant to

*427

prove that defendant was following the instructions the AB leaders had given him, and thus to prove the conspiracy charge. Evidence that defendant gave Deputy Walton an implausible explanation for his presence, and that he gave Detective Freese a different and arguably inconsistent explanation, was admissible to prove defendant’s consciousness of guilt—that is, that defendant was casing robbery targets as a part of a criminal conspiracy. Therefore, we reject defendant’s claims of error.

3.

Defendant’s Admission of AB Membership

During the trial, the defense moved to bar the prosecution from introducing evidence of defendant’s 1981 testimony, in another case, admitting he was an AB member. The defense argued that the evidence was unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code, § 352), and that it constituted inadmissible evidence of bad character and criminal propensity

(id.,

§ 1101). The trial court denied the motion, and the prosecutor presented the evidence to the jury by reading from the transcript of defendant’s prior testimony. The prosecutor told the jury that defendant gave the testimony on January 21, 1981, but he did not describe the earlier proceeding, except to say that it “took place in the Superior Court of a sister county” and that the questioner was “David Mayer, a San Francisco attorney.”

Defendant contends the court erred in rejecting the defense challenge to the evidence. He argues that the evidence carried a strong risk of undue prejudice because the jury would have speculated that the prior proceeding in which he admitted AB membership must have been a criminal prosecution resulting from AB activities. He further argues that the court erred in preventing the defense from showing the context in which he made the admission, and that the probative value of the evidence was weak because he made the admission more than two years before the robberies and murders charged in this case and there was ample other evidence that defendant was an AB member.

Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive. We do not agree that the jury would engage in improper speculation as to the nature of the prior proceeding. Nor do we find any basis in the record for the assertion that the trial court prevented the defense from showing the context in which the admission was made. To avoid unnecessary prejudice to defendant, the trial court did not permit the prosecutor to read as much of the transcript as he wished to read, but the trial court made no ruling restricting use of the transcript by the defense, nor did it make any ruling excluding any other evidence offered by the defense to provide context to defendant’s prior admission of AB membership. Finally, the evidence had significant probative value. Defendant’s own admission was stronger evidence than any of the other forms of

*428

evidence (primarily the testimony of Smith and Thompson) that the prosecution presented to prove defendant’s AB membership. The admission occurred less than two years before the date on which, according to the prosecution, defendant accepted the assignment to kill Richard Barnes for the AB. This can hardly be regarded as remote in time, particularly in light of the testimony of Smith and Thompson that allegiance to the AB was not something lightly made or lightly abandoned.

4.

Clifford Smith Polygraph

During cross-examination, prosecution witness Clifford Smith said he was removed from prison and taken to a substation in Los Angeles County immediately after he told prison authorities he would provide information about the AB. Defense counsel then asked whether Smith had stayed there for debriefing. Smith replied: “That’s where I done the whole thing. I talked to Tulleners, I talked to Barnett, I took lie detector tests, I talked to the SSU, talked to the Department of Justice.” Defense counsel did not move to strike the nonresponsive reference to polygraphs and continued with cross-examination. After the next recess, however, the defense moved for a mistrial on the ground that Smith’s reference to having taken polygraphs had seriously prejudiced the defense case by giving Smith’s testimony a false aura of credibility. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial but strongly admonished the jurors to disregard Smith’s mention of polygraphs because polygraph results are both scientifically unreliable and legally inadmissible in evidence. Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying the mistrial motion.

A trial court’s ruling denying a motion for mistrial is reviewed under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

(People

v.

McLain

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 113 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ].) Applying that standard, we find no abuse of discretion. The mention of polygraphs in Smith’s testimony was brief and nonresponsive. He did not state what questions he was asked or what the examiner concluded about his truthfulness. The admonition the court gave was thorough and forceful; it was sufficient to prevent any prejudice to defendant.

5.

Lack of Testing of Defendant’s Blood Type

During the redirect examination of prosecution witness John Boyd, a criminalist employed by the California Department of Justice, the prosecutor asked Boyd whether he had ever received a sample of defendant’s blood. Defendant raised a relevance objection, which the court considered out of the jury’s presence. Defense counsel argued to the court that defendant’s

*429

blood type was irrelevant because all the blood found at the Hickey murder scene was consistent with Hickey’s blood type. The court observed that defense counsel in open court had previously refused to provide a sample of defendant’s blood without a warrant, and that the jury could infer consciousness of guilt from this refusal. The court’s only ruling, however, was that the witness would be allowed to say whether or not he had received a sample of defendant’s blood. The prosecutor then asked whether the witness had ever received a specimen of blood from defendant, and the witness said he had not.

We agree with defendant that the challenged evidence lacked relevance. Because analysis of evidence taken from the scene of the Hickey killing did not reveal the presence of any blood inconsistent with the victim’s blood type, evidence of defendant’s blood type could not have tended to incriminate or exonerate him. The lack of such evidence was likewise meaningless on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. We need not determine whether evidence of defense counsel’s refusal to voluntarily provide a blood sample would have been admissible to show consciousness of guilt by defendant because no such evidence was ever presented to the jury, nor did the prosecutor urge such an inference in argument to the jury. Although evidence that the prosecution’s criminalist had not received a sample of defendant’s blood was not relevant, its admission did not prejudice defendant. Absent evidence that defendant was ever asked to provide a blood sample, the jury would have no reason to infer consciousness of guilt, and blood type in itself was simply not an issue in this case. Had the challenged evidence been excluded, there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to defendant.

(People

v.

Watson, supra,

46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .)

6.

Impeachment of Alibi Witness

Defense witness Rebecca Williams testified that defendant was with her at her residence in Auburn, California, close to the time when the Hickey murder was committed in Humboldt County. Apparently in anticipation of her testimony, the prosecution introduced evidence during its case-in-chief that on August 22, 1984, she had declined to discuss the case with Barry Brown, an investigator for the Humboldt County District Attorney. The prosecution also cross-examined her on her failure to volunteer her exculpatory information to the police or to testify at defendant’s preliminary hearing.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling defense objections to both forms of impeachment because the prosecution failed to establish the

*430

required foundation for such evidence. Defendant relies on dictum in

People

v.

Ratliff

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 696, 701 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 502 ], stating that before impeaching a defense witness with evidence that the witness failed to volunteer exculpatory information to the police, the prosecution must establish that the witness knew charges were pending and the information was exculpatory, had reason to make the information available, was familiar with the means of reporting it, and was not asked by the defendant or defense counsel to refrain from doing so.

We need not decide whether the factors mentioned by

Ratliff, supra,

189 Cal.App.3d 696 , are requirements for admissibility or simply matters affecting the weight to which the impeaching evidence is entitled. (See

People

v.

Santos

(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 723, 737 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 811 ].) Even assuming that the

Ratliff

factors are foundational requirements, defendant’s contention fails because defense counsel did not object at trial on the specific ground urged on appeal.

(People

v.

Gordon

(1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1255 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 451 , 792 P.2d 251 ].)

The only objection to the testimony of prosecution witness Barry Brown was a hearsay objection to evidence that Williams declined to speak to Brown after a telephone conversation with one of the attorneys appointed to represent defendant. The trial court sustained the objection, and Brown made no mention of Williams’s telephone conversation with defense counsel. And, although the defense raised various objections to the cross-examination of Williams on her failure to volunteer information to the prosecution, there was no objection for lack of foundation. Defendant may not challenge on appeal the admission of evidence on grounds not urged in the trial court.

7.

Length of Defendant’s Prior Incarceration

Prosecution witness Pat Freese, a detective for the Eureka Police Department, testified that he asked defendant, shortly after his arrest, where he had been on the evening of the Triplex robbery. Defendant answered that he was not sure and that “most of his days had run together” because he had been “in prison for the past eleven years.” Defense counsel did not object or move to strike the answer, but counsel later moved for a mistrial. The trial court did not grant a mistrial, but it did instruct the jury that it was not to consider evidence that defendant had been in prison “in determining his guilt in this particular trial or to determine that he’s a bad person.” Defendant contends that the court erred in denying a mistrial and that the admonition was insufficient to cure the harm.

As we have already mentioned, a trial court’s ruling denying a motion for mistrial is reviewed under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

(People

v.

McLain, supra,

46 Cal.3d 97, 113 .) We find no abuse of discretion

*431

here. Because of the nature of the charges, evidence was properly admitted to prove that defendant had been in prison and was an AB member. Although additional details about defendant’s prior prison term were not directly relevant on the issue of guilt, the jury was entitled to consider the plausibility of the explanation defendant offered for his claimed inability to remember where he had been at the time of a charged offense. Assuming the evidence should have been excluded as being more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, § 352), the prejudice to defendant was not incurable by admonition or instruction. (See

People

v.

Haskett

(1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ].)

Defendant complains that the trial court’s admonition was inadequate because it did not specifically advise the jury to disregard the length of his previous imprisonment. The criticism is unwarranted. The admonition not to consider the prior imprisonment at all to prove defendant’s guilt or to prove he was a bad person necessarily included an admonition to disregard the length of that imprisonment. Defendant was not harmed by the admonition being more inclusive than it needed to be.

8.

Conduct of Mary Markley

Beverly Lloyd, defendant’s mother, testified as a prosecution witness. During redirect examination, the prosecution asked her about the time when Barry Brown, an investigator for the Humboldt County District Attorney, served her with a subpoena. Specifically, the prosecutor asked whether a woman named Mary Markley was present and whether Brown was “ordered off” her property. The trial court overruled a defense objection, and the witness answered that she did not remember that Markley ordered Brown off the property. She added, “I know she was protecting me because I was so dumb I didn’t know that I didn’t need to talk to him.”

Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. He argues that Markley’s conduct was irrelevant because she was not a witness and her actions had no bearing on Lloyd’s credibility. We disagree. The alleged incident occurred on Lloyd’s property and in Lloyd’s presence. Markley could not have ordered anyone to leave without Lloyd’s approval or ratification. Thus, the inquiry was proper to explore Lloyd’s bias against the prosecution. In any event, the witness testified she did not remember whether Markley had ordered Brown to leave, and the incident was not mentioned again. We find neither error nor prejudice.

*432

9.

AB Activities Outside California

Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it permitted prosecution witness Michael Thompson to testify, over defense objection, that the AB had members in prisons nationwide and that it was affiliated with certain organized crime groups. We reject the contention.

Thompson testified that beginning in 1981 AB members held meetings at Palm Hall, the adjustment center of the Chino prison, to formulate plans to restructure the AB. Without objection, he testified that in 1982, as a result of these meetings, the AB held a vote to elect a governing body. The trial court overruled a defense objection on relevance grounds to a question asking where the vote had taken place, and the witness answered that it was taken at “Palm Hall, Folsom, San Quentin, [and] federal institutions through [sic] the nation.” Over another defense objection on relevance grounds, the witness testified that the AB was “nationwide” and that it existed in Arizona, New York, Nevada, Illinois, and Michigan. The court explained it was admitting the testimony only because Thompson had testified that a vote was taken.

The ruling was correct. Defendant was charged with a conspiracy to murder under orders of a prison gang’s leadership. Evidence of the size and nature of the gang and the manner in which the leadership derived its authority was relevant to prove the charge. The trial court recognized that the subject carried a risk of undue prejudice (see Evid. Code, § 352), and when defense counsel made timely and appropriate objections, it confined the prosecution within reasonable limits. For example, the court sustained a defense objection to a question concerning the AB’s membership in 1979 and instructed the prosecutor to restrict his inquiry to the time of the charged conspiracy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed brief testimony on the distribution of the AB membership, shortly before the formation of the charged conspiracy, to explain how the AB leaders had acquired their authority.

Thompson later testified, without objection, that one of the aims of the AB reorganization was to become “more involved within the community of organized crime as opposed to a prison gang whose primary motivations were racial violence and drug abuse.” He said that the leadership group adopted policies to achieve this goal. Asked for examples of the policies, Thompson said, “The Aryan Brotherhood is associated with the Mexican Mafia or the Hell’s Angels or—for instance, in Federal penitentiary, we’re with the Italian Mafia.” Defense counsel objected belatedly and moved to strike, apparently on relevance grounds. The trial court responded: “I don’t know whether we need an example of the policies. It has nothing to do with

*433

the facts of this case. Let’s get to the policies we’re concerned about the facts of the case [sic].”

Defendant complains that the trial court should have stricken as irrelevant the testimony about the AB’s affiliation with organized crime groups. We agree that the evidence had little if any relevance to the charges against defendant and that it should have been stricken, but defendant has not demonstrated prejudice. The witness had already testified, without objection, that the AB was a prison gang, that prisoners were required to shed someone’s blood to become AB members, and that the AB was seeking to expand its organized crime activities, including drug dealing, extortion, and murder. The jury was also well aware that the charge in this case involved a conspiracy to murder. Under these circumstances, the jury was unlikely to be shocked or influenced by testimony that the AB had affiliated with known organized crime groups. Moreover, the trial court, although it did not strike the testimony, advised the jury that the testimony had “nothing to do with the facts of this case.” Had the court stricken the challenged testimony, there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to defendant.

(People

v.

Watson, supra,

46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .)

10.

Physical Evidence

Defendant contends that several items of physical evidence were admitted over defense objection even though they had little or no probative value and were unduly prejudicial. We consider each such item in turn, bearing in mind that physical evidence may be admitted to substantiate and illustrate a witness’s testimony

(People

v.

Madison

(1935) 3 Cal.2d 668, 679 [ 46 P.2d 159 ];

State of Cal.

ex rel.

Dept. of Water Resources

v.

Natomas Co.

(1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 547, 561 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 64 ]), and that we use the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to review a trial court ruling admitting an exhibit over an objection that it is inflammatory or unduly prejudicial

(People

v.

Madison, supra,

at p. 679 ).

(a)

Ammunition Found in the Reno Storage Locker

Sergeant Duane Fredrickson of the Eureka Police Department testified that he participated in the search of the ministorage unit in Reno, Nevada, during which he recovered various weapons taken from the Moore and Hickey residences. He testified that the weapons were loaded when found. Over defense objection on grounds of relevance and undue prejudice (Evid. Code, § 352), the prosecution introduced in evidence the ammunition taken from the seized guns.

The testimony of Berlie Petty and Richard Moore established that the weapons had originally been unloaded. The evidence that they were

*434

found loaded was more consistent with the prosecution’s theory, that the weapons were obtained for use by the AB to commit robberies and murders, than with the defense theory, that defendant obtained the weapons for sale on consignment.

17

The defense impliedly conceded this relevance when it interposed no objection to Sergeant Fredrickson’s testimony that the weapons were found loaded. The ammunition taken from the weapons was properly admitted in evidence to substantiate and illustrate this unchallenged testimony. In the context of this case, the evidence was unlikely to inflame the jury. The ruling admitting the evidence was well within the trial court’s discretion.

(b)

Shotgun Shell Bandolier

Sergeant Fredrickson also testified, without objection, that he seized a bandolier holding shotgun ammunition from the garage of defendant’s mother’s residence, along with other items apparently belonging to defendant. Defense counsel did object, however, when the prosecutor moved to have the bandolier received in evidence. Defendant now contends that the trial court erred in overruling the objection.

The physical evidence substantiated and illustrated the witness’s unchallenged testimony. Although the relevance of that testimony was comparatively weak, defendant’s possession of shotgun ammunition at his mother’s residence did have some tendency in reason to establish his possession of the shotguns seized from the Reno storage locker, and to support the prosecution’s theory that the weapons were possessed for use by the AB rattier than for sale. Given the other properly received evidence, the bandolier was not inflammatory. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

(c)

Photographs of Guns

Robert Christansen, a firearms identification examiner for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, testified about the different makes and models of guns that could have fired the bullet that killed Richard Barnes. The witness used photographs of various guns to illustrate his testimony. Over defense objection, these photographs were received in evidence.

We find no error. The photographs could properly be used to illustrate the witness’s unchallenged testimony and they were not inflammatory.

*435

(d)

Bloodstained Glove

John Boyd, a criminalist for the California Department of Justice, testified that he examined a pair of gloves for bloodstains and found a small stain on the index finger of one glove that proved to be human blood. He was unable to determine the blood type, however, or whether the stain had been applied to the inside or the outside of the glove. The trial court overruled a defense objection on grounds of relevance and undue prejudice. Sergeant Fredrick-son later testified that he seized these gloves from the bottom of the closet in the bedroom defendant had occupied in his mother’s residence.

Evidence that a defendant possessed clothing stained with human blood is relevant to prove the defendant’s presence at the scene of a homicide involving substantial bloodshed.

(People

v.

Burgener

(1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 527 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ].) Here the defendant’s apparent possession of the bloodstained glove was relevant to the charge that he committed the bludgeon murder of Elizabeth Hickey. Because the blood type of the stain could not be determined, and because the gloves were apparently women’s gloves, the relevance of the evidence was comparatively weak. The evidence was not likely to inflame the jury, however, and defendant’s argument that it was unduly prejudicial is, at bottom, simply distrust of the jury’s ability to accurately gauge relevance. The trial court’s ruling admitting the evidence was not an abuse of discretion.

(e)

Removal Order

Prosecution witness Clifford Smith testified that the AB leaders arranged to have defendant brought to Palm Hall from a prison in Montana to receive the order to kill Richard Barnes. The leaders selected defendant in part because they knew he would soon be released without parole. To substantiate this testimony, the prosecution offered a court order directing the Sheriff of San Bernardino County to take temporary custody of defendant from the Montana State prison, to house him at Palm Hall, and to transport him to court to testify as a defense witness in the joint trial of two defendants whom Smith had identified as AB leaders. The prosecution also offered a letter from the warden of the Montana State Prison to California prison authorities confirming that defendant had been removed from Montana on August 24, 1982, and that he would complete his Montana term on September 10,1982, and could be released at that time. Over defense objections on grounds of relevance and undue prejudice, the trial court received the documents in evidence.

The documents were properly received to substantiate the witness’s testimony. Although defendant maintains the documents were prejudicial,

*436

they revealed nothing not revealed by the testimony. They did not show the offense for which defendant was imprisoned in Montana, the term of imprisonment, or his conduct as a prisoner. The trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

11.

Impeachment of Defense Witness Stinson

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling defense objections to questions the prosecutor asked of defense witness John Stinson regarding acts of misconduct Stinson had committed in prison. Defendant contends that the prosecutor violated the rule that a party may not cross-examine a witness on irrelevant matters for the purpose of eliciting something to be contradicted.

(People

v.

Lavergne

(1971) 4 Cal.3d 735, 744 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 484 P.2d 77 ].) The rule does not apply here, however, because the prosecutor’s questions related directly to relevant matters raised on direct examination.

On direct examination, Stinson testified that he was an inmate of San Quentin Prison and had previously been convicted of murder, robbery, and burglary. In his opinion, the AB did not and never had existed as an organization; it was “just ... a tag that the administration puts on people that it wishes to segregate from the general [prison] population . . . .” He said this had happened to him “several times.” He was placed in the general prison population in 1984 after an administrative determination that there was insufficient evidence he was an AB member, but at the time of his testimony prison officials considered him to be an AB member.

On cross-examination, Stinson testified he was then segregated from the general prison population in a security housing unit. He said the reason for this segregation was that prison officials still linked him to the AB. Over defense objections on relevance grounds, the prosecutor then asked whether Stinson had “swung at or hit” a deputy sheriff in September 1980, whether he had been present with other reputed AB members when inmates were stabbed in separate incidents in November 1980 and February 1981, whether a six-inch knife blade had been found in his shoe in July 1981, and whether any of these incidents was responsible for his segregated prison housing.

18

The trial court properly overruled the defense objections. The questions were proper cross-examination in view of Stinson’s testimony on direct examination that prison officials had used his alleged AB membership several times to justify the restrictions they imposed on him, including segregation from the general prison population. The challenge to this testimony also undermined Stinson’s broader claim that the AB did not exist as an organization

*437

but was merely a label invented by prison authorities to justify restrictions imposed on certain prisoners.

12.

The Grijfen-Stinson Letter

During cross-examination, the prosecution questioned Stinson about a two-page letter. The first page and a half, addressed to “Bobby,” was signed “Blinkey.” The bottom half of the second page, also addressed to “Bobby,” was signed “John.” The defense conceded that the two portions constituted but one letter. Stinson admitted authoring the second part of the letter. The defense did not object to this portion; on the contrary, it moved that it be received in evidence and shown to the jury. The prosecutor asked Stinson only one question about the content of the first part of the letter, and he withdrew the question when the defense objected. The prosecutor stated he intended to call further witnesses to establish the a

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.