# People v. Redd

> California Supreme Court · April 29, 2010 · 48 Cal. 4th 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2387024

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN MORELAND REDD, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 29, 2010
- **Citations:** 48 Cal. 4th 691; 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192; 229 P.3d 101; 2010 Cal. LEXIS 3749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by George
- **Judges:** George
- **Cited by:** 317 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2387024

## Opinion text

Opinion
GEORGE, C. J.
A jury convicted Stephen Moreland Redd of the first degree murder of Timothy McVeigh (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), the attempted murders of James Shahbakhti and Chris Weidmann (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and two counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).
1
The jury found true the special circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of robbery and of burglary. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (G).) The jury also found true the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of each of the seven crimes (§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that defendant, with the specific intent to inflict such injury, personally inflicted great bodily injury upon James Shahbakhti (§ 12022.7). The jury also found that defendant previously had been convicted of five serious or violent felonies. (§ 667.) Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. Defendant moved for a new trial (§ 1181) and for modification of the penalty to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (§ 190.4, subd. (e)). The trial court denied these motions and sentenced defendant to death. The court also sentenced defendant to a term of 111 years to life in prison with respect to the other charges of which he was convicted, and ordered restitution in the amount of $10,000. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.
*698
I. FACTS
A.
Guilt phase evidence
1.
The prosecution case
a.
Burglary and robbery at Sav-on drugstore
On March 13, 1994, Dean Bugbee was working as a supervisor at a Sav-on drugstore in the City of Orange. Bugbee testified that he was counting currency in the store’s safe at approximately 10:50 p.m. when defendant approached the safe, stated “it’s time for a till audit,” and held a gun over the door of the safe. Bugbee stood up and faced defendant, with a distance of approximately two feet between them. According to Bugbee, defendant removed between $2,000 and $3,000 from the safe, placed it in his pocket, and exited from the store.
Bugbee confirmed that he described defendant to law enforcement officials as a White male, 32 to 38 years of age, approximately five feet eight inches tall, and approximately 210 pounds in weight, with dark brown hair. Bugbee recalled that defendant was wearing sunglasses, light blue jeans, a dark blue zip-up sweat jacket with a hood, and a baseball cap. The hood was over defendant’s head when he entered the store, and Bugbee could not discern whether the hair he saw was natural or a wig. He confirmed at trial that defendant’s weapon had a chrome surface, and that he described it at the time of the events as possibly a .45 semiautomatic pistol.
On June 16, 1994, Bugbee met with representatives of the Orange Police Department, who showed him photographs of six individuals. Bugbee confirmed he told the police that “number three looks the closest by the shape of his face. If he was to put dark glasses on I would say it was him.” He acknowledged that, unlike the person who robbed him, the individual in the third photograph had a beard and mustache, but confirmed that he “felt this was the person.”
2
b.
Attempted murders outside Vons market
On May 31, 1994, James Shahbakhti was working as a uniformed but unarmed officer for a private security company. He testified that at approximately 10:40 p.m., his dispatcher requested that he respond to a report of a
*699
transient harassing customers at a Vons market in the City of Orange. When he arrived at the shopping center in which Vons was located, a person who appeared to be a transient attracted his attention. The individual was approximately 70 or 80 yards from Vons, near a karate studio situated to the right of Vons and the Sav-on drugstore. Shahbakhti testified that he drove his marked security vehicle past the individual and circled around, to give himself an opportunity to observe the individual and to request the assistance of another private security officer. He then left his vehicle and approached the individual, who, at this point in time, was in the front of the Vons market. Shahbakhti testified that he asked the man what he was doing there and, when the man did not respond, asked him for identification. The man replied that he did not have any identification, and that he would leave the area. Shahbakhti then asked the man to remain where he was.
Chris Weidmann, who was Shahbakhti’s backup private security officer and also unarmed, arrived at the scene in a marked patrol vehicle. Shahbakhti testified that as Weidmann exited from his vehicle, the man removed a gun from his jacket pocket and pointed it at Shahbakhti’s face. Shahbakhti estimated that he and the man were standing two to three feet apart, and he testified that he could see the man’s face clearly. Shahbakhti next recalled seeing Weidmann running toward Shahbakhti’s vehicle, and then seeing the man fire one or two shots at the vehicle, from which Weidmann was attempting to retrieve a cellular telephone. Shahbakhti further testified that as the man fired at Weidmann, Shahbakhti began running away from the man. As he ran, he heard three to five more shots and was struck in the back. Shahbakhti also testified that the bullet entered his shoulder muscle, hit a bone, tore cartilage, collapsed one of his lungs, and hit his clavicle.
The next day, Shahbakhti was interviewed by Detective Michael Harper of the Orange Police Department, who showed him the same photographic lineup viewed by Bugbee. (See,
ante,
fn. 2.) Shahbakhti testified that one of the six photographs “looked just pretty much like who the individual was.” He confirmed that he told Harper “I can’t be one hundred percent, but I’d say number three,” and he was “90 to 95 percent sure” that the third photograph was of the man he encountered at the Vons market. Shahbakhti also confirmed that the man wore a dark blue hooded sweatshirt with a front zipper, a black or navy blue watch cap, blue jeans, and what appeared to be a woman’s dark-colored shoulder-length wig. Finally, he testified that the man’s weapon was a chrome semiautomatic handgun.
Chris Weidmann testified that as he approached Shahbakhti and the man with whom Shahbakhti was speaking, he heard the man state that he was leaving, and Shahbakhti telling the man that he needed some information from him. Weidmann walked around a large pillar in front of the Vons market
*700
as he approached them, and encountered the man as the man walked around the pillar. Weidmann could not see Shahbakhti, who was behind the pillar, and did not see the man’s gun until the man pointed it at Weidmann’s forehead. Weidmann recounted that he raised his hands and said to the man, “you’re the boss,” and the man then lowered his gun and turned back toward Shahbakhti. Weidmann testified that he then ran to Shahbakhti’s vehicle, because it had a cellular telephone inside. After Weidmann entered 911 and pressed the “send” button, he looked up and saw the man standing by the passenger side of the vehicle, pointing his gun at Weidmann’s head. Weidmann testified that the man rapidly fired three shots, all of which struck the vehicle occupied by Weidmann. Weidmann explained that when he felt broken glass from the windshield strike his face, he grabbed his face to make it appear that he had been hit by gunfire, rolled out of the vehicle, and pretended to be dead. He testified that he heard four additional shots from the same gun but, until the man fled, he was unaware Shahbakhti had been shot.
Weidmann testified that he was unable to identify in photographs the man who shot at him, but confirmed that the man was wearing a woman’s brown shoulder-length wig and a blue or purple hooded sweatshirt. He described the man’s gun as a chrome nickel-plated automatic weapon that he thought to be a nine-millimeter firearm.
Joseph Loya testified that on May 31, 1994, at 10:45 p.m., he was parking his vehicle approximately 100 yards from the back parking lot of the Vons market when he saw a man wearing dark clothing and a zippered sweatshirt with a hood jog out of an alley. The man stopped next to what appeared to Loya to be a light blue 1984 Ford Tempo. Loya testified that the man removed a mask, or perhaps a hat and a wig, exposing a white face and clean-shaven head. The man then entered the light-blue vehicle and departed, driving in a normal manner. Loya followed the man’s vehicle in his own vehicle, and recorded the vehicle’s license plate number. Loya followed the vehicle for approximately three minutes, during which time the man began speeding and driving erratically, and then Loya contacted the Orange Police Department and reported what he had witnessed.
Detective Harper testified that the vehicle with the license plate number provided by Loya was a blue Mercury Topaz, which is “basically the same model” as a Ford Tempo, and that the vehicle was registered to defendant. Harper testified that he requested the Fullerton Police Department to look for defendant at an apartment complex in the City of Fullerton.
Linda King, a police officer with the City of Fullerton, testified that at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 1, 1994, she received a request to travel to an address on Deer Park Avenue in the City of Fullerton with the objective of
*701
locating defendant’s vehicle. She recalled that as she was driving on Deer Park Avenue, she saw a white male exit from a driveway, cross behind her patrol unit, and walk into the apartment complex across the street. She made eye contact with the individual and kept driving. After approximately five minutes, she saw in a carport a vehicle bearing the license plate number she had been provided. Thereafter, she was shown a photograph of defendant, and recognized him as the person who had crossed the street as she drove on Deer Park Avenue.
King testified that police officers then approached defendant’s apartment and observed that the door was open, all the lights were on, and defendant was not present. Thereafter, Detective Harper searched defendant’s apartment. Harper testified that he collected various items, including a brown wig and two live rounds of ammunition for a .380-caliber pistol. He confirmed that a .380-caliber weapon had been used to shoot Shahbakhti, and that the ammunition found in defendant’s apartment was of the same type and brand as was found at the Vons market. Harper explained that he also was investigating the robbery of Dean Bugbee, and collected evidence that he thought might be related to that crime, including a blue baseball-type cap. He also found two empty boxes, each of which previously had held a laser sight designed to be attached to a firearm, and receipts for two magazines for a .380-caliber handgun. Finally, in the blue Mercury Topaz that King located in a carport at the apartment complex, Harper found a watch cap and a bill of sale for the vehicle, listing defendant as the purchaser.
c.
Burglary, robbery, and murder at Alpha Beta market
Brenda Rambo testified that she was working at a cash register in an Alpha Beta market on July 18, 1994, at approximately 10:40 p.m., when she observed a man enter the store wearing a woman’s wig. The only other employee on duty at that time was Rambo’s supervisor, Timothy McVeigh. Rambo testified that the man looked at her, walked around behind her checkout stand, and then came into her checkout aisle and set down a pack of gum. She related that “[a]fter I rang it up he threw down a dollar and told me that I’d have to break it.” She turned to put the dollar in the cash register, and “[t]he next thing I know I had a gun at me.” According to Rambo, the man did not say anything, but reached across the conveyor belt, removed a tray of money from the cash register’s drawer, and set it on the belt. He began removing money with his left hand, as he held the handgun in his right hand. Rambo testified that the robber did not appear to be nervous.
Rambo testified that during the time defendant was removing money from the cash tray, she said “Tim.” She recalled that several seconds passed, and then McVeigh appeared at her checkout stand. She related that McVeigh
*702
grabbed the man’s left wrist and placed his other hand around the man’s shoulder. The man turned toward McVeigh, and the two men struggled for a short period of time. Rambo then heard the gun discharge. The two men let go of each other, and McVeigh stepped back and fell a few feet away from where the struggle occurred. Rambo recalled that the man again pointed the gun at her, and she knelt down and “asked him please don’t.” She described the man as “calm” after McVeigh was shot, and testified that he turned and left the store with the money he had removed from the tray.
Rambo testified that the robber wore a wig, a baseball hat, clear-framed dark plastic glasses, a purple-pinkish long-sleeved shirt, and jeans. She confirmed that on July 21, 1994, she was asked by Detective Brakebill of the City of Brea Police Department to review a photographic lineup of six individuals. She selected the second photograph, which is identical to the photograph of defendant that appeared in the third position in the lineups shown to Bugbee and Shahbakhti. Rambo testified that the person in the second photograph “appeared to be similar, very similar to the person” who robbed her. She confirmed that the only significant differences between the person in the photograph she chose and the person who robbed her was that the latter did not have a beard or mustache.
Kelly Carpenter, a City of Brea police officer, testified that he received a request for emergency assistance at approximately 10:40 p.m. on July 18, 1994. When he arrived at the Alpha Beta market four minutes later, he saw a man lying on the floor and Brenda Rambo standing beside the man, screaming and crying. At trial, he reviewed his police report setting forth Rambo’s description of the events on the evening of the incident, which was substantially similar to Rambo’s testimony at trial. Carpenter also testified concerning the crime scene, including the open cash drawer, the money tray and gum on the conveyor belt, a shell casing in the aisle from a .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun, and a pair of glasses Carpenter found in the store parking lot.
Paul Diersing testified that he was the manager of the Alpha Beta market where McVeigh was shot. He conducted an inventory after the incident, and determined that $156 was missing.
Richard Fukumoto, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy upon McVeigh, testified that the cause of death was acute hemorrhaging that resulted from a gunshot wound through the victim’s abdominal aorta and stomach. According to Fukumoto, the entry wound reflected that the firearm was discharged within three inches of the victim. He further explained that the bullet entered the front of the victim’s body, traveled from the victim’s left to right side, front to back, and downward, and was recovered from the victim’s right back side. He confirmed that the wound was consistent with
*703
testimony indicating that two men were grappling and a gun discharged in close proximity to the victim.
d.
The apprehension of defendant and search of his vehicle
Robert Jansing, a police officer with the United States Park Police in San Francisco, testified concerning his arrest of defendant on March 6, 1995. He explained that he noticed the registration tag was affixed poorly to the license plate of a vehicle in which defendant was seated, and he asked his dispatcher to investigate whether the vehicle was registered. When Jansing learned that the vehicle’s registration had expired, he requested that defendant produce his vehicle registration and driver’s license. After defendant failed to produce either, Jansing asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, which he did, and Jansing placed him in handcuffs. Pursuant to the arrest, Jansing searched defendant and found defendant’s driver’s license. Jansing informed his dispatcher that the individual’s name was Stephen Redd, and learned that defendant was wanted for murder and robbery in Orange County. Jansing testified that he received permission from his supervisors to impound the vehicle, and he then conducted an inventory search. Among the items he found in the trunk of the vehicle were a .380-caliber semiautomatic pistol with a laser sight attached, an AR-15 rifle with a laser sight attached, and wigs.
3
Dennis Fuller, a forensic scientist with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s crime laboratory, testified that he analyzed the six bullet casings and the two bullets recovered from the scene of the Vons market assaults, the bullet casing recovered from the Alpha Beta market, and the bullet recovered from Timothy McVeigh’s body. His analysis led him to conclude that all of the bullets and casings were fired from the .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun recovered during the arrest of defendant. Fuller also testified that his testing established the weapon operated properly, would not fire when the external safety mechanism was placed in the position to prevent the weapon from firing, would not fire without someone pulling on the trigger, and did not have a “hair trigger.”
Jerry Brakebill, an officer with the City of Brea Police Department, was the primary detective assigned to investigate the murder of Timothy McVeigh. He testified concerning the items found in defendant’s vehicle at the time of the arrest. These items included: two magazines for .380-caliber ammunition; .380-caliber ammunition; two sights that matched the empty sight boxes found in defendant’s apartment and that were attached, respectively, to a
*704
.380-caliber weapon and an AR-15 firearm; a blue “beanie” cap; a baseball cap; a purple hooded sweater with a zipper; sunglasses, and women’s wigs, two brown and one blond.
4
2.
The defense case
Defendant presented no evidence at the guilt phase.
B.
Penalty phase evidence
1.
The prosecution case in aggravation
The prosecution presented testimony concerning five armed robberies committed by defendant in 1982. Gay Swanberg testified that defendant robbed her on September 30, 1982, as she worked as a cashier at an Akron store in the City of Orange, and that he “seemed very calm, matter of fact.” Dennis Misko and Laura Meraz testified that defendant robbed them on October 2, 1982, as they worked at a Federated store in Santa Ana. Gilbert Quihuiz testified that defendant robbed him and other bank tellers on October 6, 1982, at a Bank of America branch in Santa Ana. According to Quihuiz, as defendant was leaving, he said, “No one should follow me out the door, I shoot people,” “My landlord is going to love me,” and “You all have a nice day because I’m going to have a great one.” Gary Stewart testified that defendant robbed him and other bank tellers on October 27, 1982, at Southern California Bank in the City of Orange. According to Stewart, before defendant left he said: “Unemployment is great. I used to be poor. Now I’m rich. I do this all the time.” As he left, he said “Have a good day.” Everett Caldwell, a customer who was inside the Southern California Bank during the robbery, testified that defendant was “a very calm person,” seemed “jovial,” and appeared to be having a good time. According to Caldwell, defendant told the persons in the bank to wait ten minutes before leaving or he would
*705
“blow them away.” Finally, Michael Canzoneri, Sharon Snowden, and Jacquelyn Coffery testified that defendant robbed them on November 10, 1982, as they worked as tellers at the East La Habra branch of Security Pacific Bank. Canzoneri recalled that defendant was “extremely calm” until Snowden informed him that she was not open and that he should go to another window. Snowden testified that defendant pounded on her counter, demanded that she come to her window, and told her, “You bank tellers are an endangered species.” She also recalled that when defendant left, he said, “Have a nice day.” Coffery testified that defendant pushed a customer aside to get to Coffery’s window, made threatening remarks, and did not seem nervous.
Six police officers testified concerning their pursuit and apprehension of defendant as he fled Security Pacific Bank on November 10, 1982. Officer John Reese arrived at the bank in uniform and pursued defendant on foot. Reese testified that defendant stepped out of a bush where he was hiding and fired “a burst of gunfire” in Reese’s direction, hitting Reese in the leg. Defendant then ran down a dead-end alley, and a brown vehicle drove out of the alley. Officers John West and Raymond Breuer testified that as they pursued the brown vehicle in their marked police vehicles, defendant fired shots out of the back window of the vehicle. One bullet hit West’s windshield, and bullets hit Breuer’s headlight frame and a tire. The pursuit continued onto freeways, at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. West estimated that 15 to 20 police vehicles were involved in the pursuit, and Breuer estimated that the pursuit continued for 45 to 50 miles, with sporadic gunfire throughout. Officer Jose Talavera testified that when the brown vehicle turned around and came back toward his marked police vehicle on the freeway, defendant made eye contact with Talavera, waved at Talavera, and appeared to be smiling. Officer Mike Cordua testified that he pursued the brown vehicle in a helicopter, fired a single round, and hit the driver’s side mirror. After the helicopter circled around, Cordua saw that the vehicle was parked and the driver was holding both of his arms out the window.
Officer John Rees (not the Officer John Reese previously referred to) testified that he searched defendant’s vehicle and home after defendant was apprehended on November 10, 1982. Rees found four weapons in the front passenger compartment that were loaded and capable of being fired—an AR-7 Explorer .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, a Browning high-power nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol, a Ruger Mini-14, .223-caliber “converted to full automatic” rifle and a .308-caliber rifle. He also found evidence of at least 22 expended casings from a .223-caliber weapon and a nine-millimeter weapon. In defendant’s home, Rees found two more firearms—a seven-millimeter mag rifle and a Tager, AP-75, .22-caliber, semiautomatic rifle—as well as abundant amounts of ammunition, including 17 20-round boxes of
*706
.223-caliber ammunition, 96 .22-caliber rounds, 85 nine-millimeter rounds, and 39 seven-millimeter rounds. He also found four wigs.
Peter De Bemardi, a California Highway Patrol officer, testified that he issued a speeding citation to defendant on November 8, 1982. Although defendant had been traveling at a speed in excess of 75 miles per hour, De Bemardi’s citation stated that defendant had been traveling 60 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone. Approximately seven months later, De Bemardi received a letter from defendant, with a return address of the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. The letter informed De Bemardi that defendant had not shot him because De Bemardi was a “pleasant sort of guy.”
5
Timothy McVeigh’s immediate family testified concerning their loss. His sister, Cheryl McVeigh, who was one year younger than the victim, described him as a “great brother” and her “best friend.” He enjoyed fishing and building model airplanes. As an adult, he helped Cheryl, who was a single mother, with her three children, and took them on outings. He spoke about having children, and she joked with him that she would spoil his children the way he spoiled hers. She testified that she could speak with him about anything, and missed hugging him and hearing his encouraging words. She described receiving a telephone call informing her that her brother had been shot, and learning from the surgeons that he had died.
The victim’s brother, Michael McVeigh, who was four years younger than him, testified that his older brother took him along as a child to his school activities and let him borrow his car for the senior prom. Michael remembered watching his brother caring for Michael’s young daughter, and looking forward to the day when Timothy also had a family. Michael testified that his brother cared for his mother and his grandfather, and Michael described the horror of realizing he no longer had a brother.
*707
Timothy’s father, James McVeigh, a retired police officer, described Timothy as “a good boy,” “a fun kid,” and “just a nice guy to be around.” He stated there is a hole in his heart that will never be filled, and not a day goes by that he does not think of his son.
The victim’s mother, Carol McVeigh, testified that she and her son had been close throughout his life. He had a gift of humor and loved to tease. He was active in drama in high school and represented the school at The American Legion California Boys State in Sacramento. They took trips together, and he frequently called and visited her. He loved to read, and “we could talk and share so many different things.” He had taken flying lessons in his spare time, and had earned his certification as a jet pilot. He was a hard worker, and she “couldn’t ask for a better [son].” On the night he was shot, he had spoken to her on the telephone at 8:00 p.m., but had been called away. When the telephone rang later that evening, she thought it was him calling back, but instead she learned he had been shot. Upon hearing this, she felt as if she had died inside. She stated she wanted to hold him one more time, and regretted she did not have an opportunity to say goodbye to him.
2.
The defense case in mitigation
Defendant’s mother, brother, and three children testified concerning their relationships with defendant. His mother, Rosemary Redd, testified that she was a stay-at-home mother, and defendant was her first-bom child. The family was “intact” and “close” while defendant was growing up, and defendant had “a regular happy childhood.” His grandparents lived nearby and had a close relationship with defendant. Defendant was ambitious and, at 12 years of age, began shining shoes to earn money. He performed well in school and had no significant behavior problems. He graduated from high school in 1963, resided at home while attending junior college, moved out of the family home in 1965 when he married, worked with his father and grandfather in the real estate business, and in 1967 attended the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Academy. His mother regularly visited defendant in prison in the 1980’s, and had “constant” correspondence with him during his imprisonment. Defendant continued to write to her at the time of the trial proceedings in the present case.
Richard Redd, defendant’s brother, testified that he and defendant grew up with their parents and maternal grandparents on an acre of land that contained an orchard and a swimming pool. Their paternal grandparents resided nearby, and the family was close. He recalled that defendant was very popular and had many friends. He also testified that defendant was proud when he became a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy, and initially enjoyed his occupation. Thereafter his personality changed, and he became “tougher” and “more
*708
macho,” especially after he was assigned to the Firestone Station. He recalled that defendant separated from his wife shortly before or at the same time that he resigned from his employment with the sheriff’s department, and that the breakup of his marriage and the termination of his employment “hit [defendant] pretty hard.” He testified that after leaving the sheriff’s department, defendant worked hard—sometimes 16 hours a day—constructing homes, apparently with an understanding that he would receive a percentage of the profits upon the sale of the homes. According to Richard, defendant could “build everything,” but was “not too good” as a businessman and ended up with little at the conclusion of these construction projects. When defendant had no more funds and could not find employment, he resided with their grandmother in Willits and with Richard in Whittier. While residing with Richard, defendant possessed firearms, read “macho” literature, and talked of “going off to war.” Richard testified that he was shocked when he saw defendant on the television news after defendant was pursued by police officers through four counties. Richard also testified that after defendant was released from prison, he resided with Richard and sought employment, but defendant was required to inform potential employers that he had been in prison. Richard stated that defendant had saved Richard’s life when the family’s house had filled with gas, and defendant opened a window, put Richard’s head out the window, and pounded on Richard’s back. Richard confirmed that he had “very strong personal feelings” for defendant.
Michael Redd, defendant’s older son, testified that his parents divorced when he was approximately six years of age. For most of his life, Michael resided with his mother, but for approximately three years, when he was nine to 12 years of age, he resided with defendant. Defendant taught his two sons construction skills as he worked on the family dwelling. He also taught them to ski and surf, and they played chess and had pillow fights. At 12 years of age, Michael moved with his mother to Willits. Michael testified that defendant visited the family in Willits and resided and worked for a time in that community, but that employment “was pretty scarce.” Michael maintained some contact with defendant when defendant went to prison in 1983, but had seen him on only three occasions during the 15 years that preceded the trial in the present case. When asked to describe the value of his relationship with defendant, Michael testified that defendant “taught me how to work. I wouldn’t be in charge of a [grocery store’s night] crew if it wasn’t for [defendant].” He added that “if we ever needed [defendant], he would be there” and “wanted to do good for us,” and that defendant “did his best to do what he could.” He confirmed that he loved defendant very much.
Sean Redd, defendant’s younger son, testified that he learned his work ethic from defendant, and that there was “a lot of love in our family.” He recalled the three years during which he and his brother resided with defendant, and helped work on a house, as a time when “money was tight”
*709
but defendant “did everything he could for us.” Defendant visited and wrote to the family when they were in Willits, and continued to write occasionally. Sean, who had been in the military for 10 years at the time of the trial in 1996, estimated that he had seen defendant on four or five occasions since 1980. He stated that his relationship with defendant has value, that he loves defendant very much, and “it’s just hard on the family.”
Melissa Redd, defendant’s daughter, testified that she resided with defendant for approximately two weeks during her childhood. She recalled that he let her help build his house and took the children to the movies and to the beach. He was nice to her and would not let her brothers pick on her. She recalled that he resided in Willits for a time with her grandmother, but was unable to find work in that community. She stated she had not seen defendant frequently during the preceding 14 years, but he wrote letters to her and drew pictures for her children. She stated she still loved defendant, and “what I did know of him, he was a positive figure in my life.”
Two witnesses testified concerning defendant’s activities between the time of McVeigh’s murder and defendant’s arrest. Eugene Lin testified that he met defendant when defendant was picking up cans and bottles from the trash by Lin’s hotel. Lin offered defendant (who identified himself by his true name) employment performing maintenance on the hotel. Defendant resided in Lin’s hotel and worked for Lin from September 17 to October 3, 1994. Defendant left suddenly, without collecting $80 that was due him. On May 9, 1995, Lin received a letter from defendant, asking that Lin send the money to defendant’s mother. Richard Lum, who worked at a recycling center in San Francisco, recalled that during a period of eight months or longer, in late 1994 and early 1995, defendant redeemed cans and bottles at the
center at
least twice a week. Lum testified that defendant used the name “Redd.”
Three former deputies- with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department testified concerning their experiences working with defendant in the department. Allen Campbell and defendant served together for most of the three years that Campbell was assigned to the Firestone Station, and subsequently for a year or longer at the West Hollywood Station. Campbell described the area served by the Firestone Station as a “war zone,” and stated that four deputies were killed there in a period of two or three years. He testified that the violence he encountered as a sheriff’s deputy affected his marriage and affected him physically, and that he retired on disability in 1980.
Wiley Newman also worked at the Firestone Station, which he described as a “combat zone.” He testified that he was shot while assigned to that location, and did not receive counseling. He and defendant were partners for approximately one week while they served at Firestone. During that week, they responded to a fire at a residence. Newman ran into the burning home to save
*710
an occupant, despite being told by the fire department that it was too hot to enter. Defendant remained outside. They both received Medals of Valor for saving the occupant.
Thomas Grant testified that he was employed with defendant at the West Hollywood Station in 1970 or 1971. He recalled that defendant was at the scene of a vehicle fire in which an occupant of the vehicle perished. The next day, at a station meeting, defendant told his colleagues the vehicle door was jammed, and that he had retreated because of the heat and had watched a conscious passenger bum to death. According to Grant, defendant cried while describing the events and told his colleagues it occurred to him later that he could have broken the window with his flashlight or the butt of his gun. According to Grant, defendant “felt this man died because of him because he had panicked.” Grant stated he never had seen an officer cry.
Robin Klein, a clinical psychologist, testified that law enforcement officers are exposed to many traumatic events, and that there is peer pressure within that profession to be strong and not to obtain counseling. According to Klein, law enforcement agencies in Southern California, prior to 1975, did not provide meaningful psychological assistance to officers. He stated that officers “have a much higher rate of suicide than the average person,” as well as “a significant level of divorce.” He stated that he would expect a “horrendous” psychological impact upon a person who witnessed someone die in a fire, particularly if the person is “paid to rescue people,” and that it is not unusual for an officer “to resign usually within a couple of years after having been involved in a major traumatic incident.”
Michael Mantell, a clinical psychologist, reviewed records concerning defendant, including school records, his application to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the department’s background investigation. Mantell testified he found nothing indicating any underlying psychological problems. Evaluations of defendant at the Firestone Station in 1969, 1970, and 1971 indicated that his performance was “competent.” His first evaluation at West Hollywood Station, in October 1971, reflected that his performance was between “outstanding” and “competent.” Defendant again was found “competent” in his 1972 evaluation, but the report noted some inadequacies in his compliance with rales, a failing that the report attributed to personal problems. Defendant voluntarily resigned on October 8, 1973, the day after the West Hollywood Station commander recommended that he undergo psychiatric evaluation. Mantell testified that a document dated October 19, 1973, indicated that defendant’s conduct had become undependable, and that defendant required “constant and significant supervision.” The document also stated that he was “visibly depressed.” Mantell perceived a correlation between defendant’s having witnessed the vehicle fire and his job
*711
performance. Mantell also noted that defendant’s divorce proceeding was pending from November 1972 to August 1973, and opined that “a psychological deterioration ha[d] been taking place, . . . through and including the divorce.” Mantell testified that he would be surprised if any police department would hire a person with defendant’s record at the sheriff’s department. Finally, Mantell explained the term “anniversary reaction” as describing psychological symptoms that may develop one year, or many years, after a traumatic event. According to Mantell, it appeared that an incident of indecent exposure committed by defendant occurred approximately one year after he resigned from the sheriff’s department and approximately two years after he witnessed the vehicle fire.
Norman Morein, a sentencing consultant, was retained to review documents related to defendant’s previous imprisonment, from April 1983 to April 1993, and to evaluate defendant’s adjustment to prison. He testified that defendant had “one of the best records I’ve ever seen,” except for an escape attempt in 1986, when defendant cut through the bars of his cell, reached the prison compound, scaled one fence, began to scale a second fence, and was shot in the shoulder by a prison guard after ignoring the guard’s command to halt and the guard’s warning shot. According to Morein, defendant had no record of any assaultive or disrespectful conduct. In addition, defendant performed well at his work assignments, participated in vocational training in electronics and machine shop, and earned good grades in community college courses. Defendant was elected by inmates to the “Men’s Advisory Council,” which represented inmates in meetings with prison staff. Morein testified that defendant did not receive any psychiatric or psychological counseling while in prison, but was counseled for anger management beginning in December 1993. Morein confirmed on cross-examination that defendant has an IQ of 123, which he described as “in the superior range.”
n. DISCUSSION
A.
Pretrial Issues
1.
The detention and arrest of defendant, and the search of his vehicle
Defendant moved in limine to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search and seizure conducted by United States Park Police Officer Robert Jansing on March 6, 1995, in San Francisco. The trial court denied the motion, without making express findings. Defendant contends his detention and arrest, and the subsequent search of his vehicle, violated his
*712
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that the evidence seized should have been excluded at trial.
6
a.
Facts
As recounted above, defendant was arrested on March 6, 1995, by Officer Jansing of the United States Park Police (Park Police). At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, Jansing testified that he was assigned that day to patrol the northern end of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which includes Aquatic Park and Fort Mason. When on duty, Jansing drove his marked Park Police vehicle through the parking area of Gashouse Cove, a marina near Fort Mason. He testified that the parking area was owned by the San Francisco Recreation and Park District and was “mainly ... for the yacht harbor,” which was “right next to” the national recreation area. Jansing related that as he drove through the parking area, he noticed that the registration tag on the license plate of a brown Datsun sedan was not fiat on the plate, indicating to Jansing that the tag might not belong to the plate to which it was affixed. Jansing estimated that the Datsun was parked approximately 100 yards from property owned by the federal government. As Jansing circled the parking area, he contacted his dispatch office to check the registration of the Datsun’s license plate. In response, he was informed that the registration had expired in March 1994.
Jansing testified that he returned to the Datsun and parked his patrol car behind it. He then exited from his vehicle and asked defendant, who was in the driver’s seat of the Datsun, for his driver’s license and vehicle registration. Jansing testified that he informed defendant his registration was expired, and defendant responded that he recently had purchased the vehicle and did not know the source of the 1995 registration tag. According to Jansing, defendant also stated that he had a valid driver’s license but did not have it in his possession. Defendant provided Jansing with what Jansing described as “some type of paperwork for the vehicle . . .—either a bill of sale—might have been an old registration showing that [the Datsun] was still in the name of somebody out of Canoga Park.” Jansing testified that defendant told him he did not have any photographic identification with him, but he gave Jansing a birth certificate in the name of “Richard Redd” and said that was his name. Standing next to the driver’s door of defendant’s vehicle and using his portable police radio, Jansing contacted his dispatch office to determine whether “Richard Redd” had a valid driver’s license. Jansing was informed that there was no record of such a license.
Jansing related that he informed defendant he believed defendant was not being truthful with respect to his name and that he wanted defendant’s correct
*713
name, but defendant continued to claim his name was “Richard Redd.” Jansing testified that he then asked defendant to step out of his vehicle and put his hands behind his back. According to Jansing, he then placed handcuffs on defendant and informed him that Jansing would find out who he was. When asked at the hearing his reason for putting handcuffs on defendant at that point, Jansing responded that he was arresting defendant for three violations—providing a false name, having no driver’s license, and having an expired vehicle registration. When asked why he took defendant into custody, Jansing testified that the only way to determine defendant’s identification to a certainty was to transport him in order to have his fingerprints checked.
Jansing testified that after placing handcuffs on defendant, he searched defendant, discovered a wallet in his back pocket, and found inside the wallet a driver’s license in defendant’s name. Using his police radio, Jansing informed his dispatch office of the name on the driver’s license. Jansing learned from the dispatch office that there were arrest warrants for defendant related to murder, attempted murder, robbery, and a parole violation. Jansing requested and received confirmation of the warrants, and then requested that defendant’s vehicle be impounded, which his shift sergeant approved. Jansing testified that he impounded the vehicle because the owner was unknown and could not be contacted, the registration was expired, and Jansing did not know whether the vehicle had been stolen. The officer acknowledged that the circumstance that defendant had been arrested also was a factor in deciding whether to impound the vehicle.
According to Jansing, Park Police General Order No. 2501 required that an inventory of an impounded vehicle be conducted. He stated that General Order No. 2501 was applicable to all federal Park Police officers, “regardless of the property they’re on, as long as they’re in the course of their official duties, impounding a vehicle pursuant to their arrest authority.” Jansing identified the principal reason for the inventory requirement as potential liability for anything that might be in the vehicle. Pursuant to his understanding of what was required by Park Police policy, Jansing conducted a full inventory, including searching any compartments or closed containers, and also inspected the vehicle for damage. Jansing testified that, in the course of searching the vehicle, he found weapons and ammunition, which could not be allowed to remain in the vehicle while it was impounded. He also testified that because one of the arrest warrants had been issued on application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the FBI had a local presence, the Park Police requested that FBI agents respond to the scene, and the Park Police turned over the weapons and ammunition to the FBI to be stored in a secure facility. Other items were left inside the vehicle, and an FBI agent directed that it be stored in the United States General Services Administration’s secure facility.
*714
After the vehicle, weapons, and ammunition were transferred to the FBI, Jansing transported defendant to the San Francisco County Jail, where defendant was booked on the arrest warrants. Although Jansing had prepared a citation relating to the Vehicle Code violations, he testified that he decided “it wasn’t worth it,” because he believed officials in San Francisco would not file charges on these less serious matters in light of the circumstance that defendant would be transferred to another county to face more serious charges.
Jansing also testified that he had received training to qualify him as a peace officer under section 832. He stated that he took an “832 course” through Santa Rosa Junior College, and produced his certificate of completion of the course. Jansing further testified that on the date he arrested defendant, he was authorized to act as a peace officer in San Francisco. He produced a letter from San Francisco’s Chief of Police, Tony Ribera, conferring authority upon all Park Police officers, under section 830.8, subdivision (b), to act as peace officers in San Francisco.
Defendant testified at the hearing on his motion to suppress evidence that he had purchased the Datsun in early December 1994, and that he owned it at the time he was arrested. He also testified that after he gave Jansing the birth certificate, and after Jansing contacted someone on his radio, the officer demanded additional identification. In response, defendant testified, he looked through his wallet for some form of identification that would satisfy Jansing, “at which time [Jansing] snatched [the wallet] out of my hand and went through the wallet on his own volition.” Defendant did not recall whether Jansing took the wallet before or after he ordered defendant out of the vehicle, but recalled that Jansing took it before handcuffing defendant, and that the wallet had been in defendant’s hand, not in his back pocket. Defendant also testified that he gave Jansing other documents in addition to those that were presented in court, and that defendant’s name was on a handwritten bill of sale that was among the documents he gave to Jansing.
Charles Trebbien, a parole agent with the California Department of Corrections, testified at the hearing that he was defendant’s assigned parole agent from November 1993 to March 1995. Trebbien testified that defendant was involved in an incident in the City of Orange on May 31, 1994, in which a security guard was injured (presumably, the shooting of James Shahbakhti in front of the Vons market), which led Trebbien to request that a warrant be issued for defendant’s arrest. On June 1, 1994, the Board of Prison Terms issued a warrant for defendant’s arrest.
Jerry Brakebill, a police officer with the City of Brea, testified at the hearing that he was the detective assigned to investigate the homicide of
*715
Timothy McVeigh on July 18, 1994, at the Alpha Beta market. On that date, he obtained a warrant for defendant’s arrest in connection with the homicide. On March 6, 1995, the FBI notified Brakebill that defendant had been arrested in San Francisco. On March 7, 1995, a warrant to search the vehicle was issued in the County of Orange, and Brakebill traveled to San Francisco and searched the vehicle and its contents that same day.
b.
Analysis
i.
Jansing’s authority to arrest defendant
Defendant contends Jansing, as a federal officer, lacked authority to detain and arrest defendant on property owned by the City and County of San Francisco. We disagree, concluding that Jansing acted within the authority set forth in section 830.8, subdivision (b): “Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street, sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose jurisdiction the property is situated.”
Defendant urges us to reject the application of section 830.8 on four grounds: (1) the prosecution did not attempt to justify the seizure on the ground that it occurred “adjacent” to federal property, and therefore cannot rely upon this theory on appeal (2) the arrest did not occur on property “adjacent” to federal property, (3) the prosecutor failed to prove that the head of Jansing’s agency certified Jansing’s relevant training, and (4) Jansing did not have authority to use a marked police vehicle to enforce state laws.
First, it is clear the prosecution contended that the arrest was effected on property “adjacent” to federal property, as authorized by section 830.8, subdivision (b). In its opposition to the motion to suppress, the prosecution stated that Jansing had peace officer status because he had completed the training under section 832, and that the Park Police had the written consent of the chief of police to act as peace officers in San Francisco. In support of this contention, the prosecution cited section 830.8, subdivision (b). It was not required that the prosecution address in the trial court every factor set forth in subdivision (b) in order to rely upon this provision on appeal.
Second, defendant contends the parking lot in which he was arrested is not “adjacent” to federal property, because the parking area is separated from Fort Mason by a yacht harbor, and because the driving distance between the entrance to Fort Mason and the location where defendant was arrested is,
*716
according to counsel’s calculations on appeal, 595 yards. He asserts “[t]he Legislature’s intent was to limit the reach of federal officers to streets, sidewalks and similar property where offenders might stand and do damage to federal property.” Defendant did not challenge Jansing’s authority on this basis in the trial court. Therefore, he has forfeited this issue. (See
People
v.
Williams
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 129 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ] (Williams) [“when defendants move to suppress evidence under section 1538.5, they must inform the prosecution and the court of the specific basis for their motion”].)
Even if defendant had preserved this contention, his argument would fail. The legislative history of section 830.8, subdivision (b), establishes that the term “adjacent” was not intended to restrict the area within which duly authorized federal employees act as peace officers to locations on nonfederal property that are within “striking” distance of federal property. The extension of federal officers’ authority to “adjacent” property was proposed in Assembly Bill No. 3874 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 3874) during the 1984 legislative session. A report of the Senate Committee on Judiciary concerning this proposed legislation stated that “[t]he purpose of the bill is to allow U.S. Park Police officers patrolling the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to make valid arrests in the surrounding community.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Assem. Bill 3874 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 6, 1984, p. 2.) The report explained that “[t]he U.S. Park Police patrolling the Golden Gate National Recreation Area spend a considerable amount of time driving on city streets and highways in marked police vehicles. Consequently, these officers are often called on for assistance by the general public and have many times apprehended criminal suspects outside of their primary area of responsibility—i.e., the federally-owned property.”
7
(Sen. Com. on Judiciary Rep. on Assem. Bill 3874, supra, at pp. 2-3.) Based upon Jansing’s testimony that the parking area where he arrested defendant served Gashouse
*717
Cove, which was “right next to” the national recreation area, the arrest clearly was made on property “adjacent” to federal property within the meaning of section 830.8.
8
In a related contention, defendant asserts that section 830.8, subdivision (b) is unenforceable because the term “adjacent thereto” is vague. He relies upon the statement in
Kolender
v.
Lawson
(1983) 461 U.S. 352 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 903 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 ], that “[w]here the legislature fails to provide . . . minimal guidelines [to govern law enforcement], a criminal statute may permit ‘a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections.’ [Citation.]”
(Id.
at p. 358.)
Kolender
was referring to minimum guidelines concerning the elements of a crime. As
Kolender
explained, “the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute
define the criminal offense
with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. [Citations.]”
(Id.
at p. 357, italics added.) In the present case, the alleged vagueness is unrelated to the definition of any crime.
Third, defendant complains that the prosecution failed to prove that Jansing was “certified by [his] agency head[] as having satisfied the training requirements of Section 832 . . . .” (§ 830.8, subd. (a).) Although defendant asserted in his motion to suppress that the prosecution was required to establish that “Jansing has satisfied the training requirement or its equivalent of both §§ 830.8(a) and (c),” he raised no issue concerning certification by Jansing’s agency head. Therefore, defendant has forfeited this issue. (See
Williams, supra,
20 Cal.4th at p. 129 .)
Even if defendant had preserved this contention for appeal, it would fail. The requirement that the agency head certify that the officer has satisfied the training requirements is found in subdivision (a) of section 830.8, which sets forth various circumstances under which federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officials “may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer . . . .” As explained above, Jansing was authorized to act pursuant to subdivision (b), which provides that duly authorized federal employees “are
*718
peace officers” when they enforce state and local laws in specified areas. As originally enacted, subdivision (b) applied only where the enforcement of state or local laws occurred
on property owned or possessed by the federal government,
with the written consent of the local sheriff or chief of police; the original version did not include any training requirement. When the Legislature amended subdivision (b) to extend its reach to federal employees who engage in law enforcement on property
adjacent to
federal property, the Legislature restricted the subdivision’s reach to federal employees “who comply with the training requirements set forth in Section 832 . . . .” It did not, however, include the requirement imposed in the circumstances addressed in subdivision (a)—that the investigators and officers “shall have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section 832 . . . .” Thus, in order to establish Jansing’s status as a “peace officer” under subdivision (b), the prosecution was not required to establish that his agency head certified he satisfied the training requirements set forth in section 832.
9
Fourth, defendant contends Jansing did not have authority to use a marked police vehicle to enforce state laws, citing an opinion of the Attorney General. ( 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 297 (1997).) Defendant did not advance this contention in the trial court, and therefore has forfeited it. (See
Williams, supra,
20 Cal.4th at p. 129 .) Even if defendant had preserved this contention on appeal, it would fail. The Attorney General opinion upon which defendant relies focused upon subdivision (a) of section 830.8, and concluded that Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers “are not peace officers as that term is defined in sections 830 to 832.9. (§ 830.8, subd. (a).) Nothing in section 830.8 authorizes FPS officers to use marked police vehicles or other emergency equipment when enforcing state or local laws.” (80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 305.) As noted above, Jansing was not merely exercising arrest powers under section 830.8, subdivision (a); rather, he was a “peace officer” under subdivision (b). Furthermore, as the legislative history set forth above reflects, a principal focus of the amendment was federal officers who “spend a considerable amount of time driving on city streets and highways
in marked police
vehicles.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Assem. Bill 3874,
supra,
pp. 2-3, italics added.) Accordingly, it is clear that among the federal
*719
employees whose actions were to be ratified by the amendment to subdivision (b) were those who carried out their duties in marked police vehicles. For these reasons, we reject defendant’s contention.
Because we conclude Jansing had authority under section 830.8, subdivision (b), to act as a peace officer when he arrested and searched defendant, we need not address whether Jansing also may have acted properly pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 830.8, or as a private citizen.
ii.
Validity of the arrest and search
A defendant may move to suppress evidence on the ground that “[t]he search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.” (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) A warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable, and the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating a legal justification for the search.
( Williams, supra,
20 Cal.4th 119, 127 .) “The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. [Citations.]”
(People v. Glaser
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 425 , 902 P.2d 729 ]
(Glaser);
see
People v. Laiwa
(1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 718 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ].)
10
As explained below, we conclude the prosecution established that the search of defendant and his vehicle was reasonable.
“Vehicle Code sections 4462 and 12951 long have required that the person in the immediate control of an automobile present evidence of registration and a driver’s license upon proper command of a peace officer.”
(In re Arturo D.
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 60, 67 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 38 P.3d 433 ], fn. omitted.) Upon defendant’s failure to provide a valid registration and his provision of false identification of himself as “Richard Redd,” Jansing had authority to place defendant under arrest. (See § 148.9, subd. (a) [any person who falsely identifies himself to a peace officer upon lawful detention or arrest to evade his proper identification by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor]; Veh. Code, § 4000 [no person shall leave standing in an offstreet public parking facility any vehicle unless it is registered].) Moreover, Jansing had authority to search defendant incident to this arrest.
(United States v. Robinson
(1973) 414 U.S. 218, 235 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 427 , 94 S.Ct. 467 ] [“A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a
*720
reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.”].)
11
Defendant asserts, however, that Jansing’s testimony concerning the arrest was not credible, and that this court should accept defendant’s version of the events, “which established that Jansing seized the wallet before checking on the identification offered by appellant.” Defendant’s testimony does not establish defendant’s version of the events.
12
Instead, defendant bases his assertion upon trial counsel’s calculation that only 26 seconds elapsed between the time the dispatch office stated that there was no record of “Richard Redd,” and the time Jansing informed that office of defendant’s true identity and driver’s license number. Because 26 seconds assertedly was too short a period of time for Jansing to have ordered defendant out of his vehicle, placed him in handcuffs, found defendant’s driver’s license in his pocket, and relayed the information to the dispatch office, defendant concludes Jansing must have seized the wallet before Jansing learned there was no record of a driver’s license for “Richard Redd” and before he arrested defendant.
In light of the circumstance that Jansing was communicating with the dispatch office by way of a portable radio while he stood next to the door of defendant’s vehicle, we do not find it incredible that only 26 seconds (according to trial counsel’s calculations) may have elapsed between the time Jansing ordered defendant out of his vehicle and the time he radioed defendant’s true name to the dispatch office. We also reject defendant’s contention that we should question Jansing’s credibility because he could not recall various facts, such as whether other vehicles in the parking area were occupied, whether he used a key to open the vehicle’s trunk, and whether he contacted the FBI before opening the trunk. None of these asserted lapses of
*721
memory suggests that Jansing was untruthful with respect to the facts he recalled. Therefore, we accept the trial court’s implied finding that the search was conducted during or after the arrest, a finding supported by Jansing’s testimony. (See
Glaser,
supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 362 [“We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.”].)
In any event, even if Jansing had seized the wallet before he began effecting the arrest, the evidence thereby obtained would not be subject to exclusion. It is undisputed that Jansing already had contacted his dispatcher concerning the birth certificate. Therefore, Jansing would have learned, without the information gained from the wallet, that defendant was not Richard Redd. Thus, the wallet inevitably would have been discovered in the search of defendant incident to the arrest that Jansing effected based upon the Vehicle Code violations and defendant’s having provided a false name.
(Nix v. Williams
(1984) 467 U.S. 431, 444 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 ].) Accordingly, even under defendant’s factual theory on appeal, the exclusionary rule would not apply.
Because Jansing had arrested defendant, and because the vehicle’s registration had expired more than six months earlier, Jansing had authority under state law to impound defendant’s vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 22651, subds. (h)(1) [an officer may remove a vehicle when the officer effects a valid arrest of the person in control of the vehicle] & (o)(l) [a peace officer may remove a vehicle found on an off-street parking facility with a registration expiration date in excess of six months prior to the date the vehicle is found].) Having impounded the vehicle, Jansing had authority to conduct an inventory of the vehicle’s contents “aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents.”
(South Dakota v. Opperman
(1976) 428 U.S. 364, 373 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 ].)
13
The record establishes that Jansing’s inventory was conducted for the purpose of securing and protecting the vehicle’s contents. Jansing testified that he followed Park Police General Order No. 2501, which states: “Inventory procedures serve to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the Force, to ensure against claims of lost, stolen or vandalized property, and to protect officers from danger. A vehicle should not be released to a crane service until it has been inventoried. The impounding officer shall conduct a thorough inventory of the vehicle as soon as possible after it is impounded. The officer shall open closed containers whose contents the officer is unable to ascertain from the container’s exterior and characteristics.”
(Id.,
§ 2501.06(A), p. 6.) This testimony also established that the inventory was conducted pursuant to standard criteria, and that Jansing was
*722
“not allowed so much latitude that [the search could turn] into ‘a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime,’ [citation].”
(Florida
v.
Wells
(1990) 495 U.S. 1, 4 [ 109 L.Ed.2d 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 ]
(Wells)-,
see also
Colorado v. Bertine
(1987) 479 U.S. 367, 374, fn. 6 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ]
(Bertine)
[“Our decisions have always adhered to the requirement that inventories be conducted according to standardized criteria.”].)
Defendant asserts that because the search occurred on city and county property, the People were required to establish that the local authorities had a property inventory search policy and that Jansing complied with that policy. He fails to cite any pertinent authority in support of this contention. Moreover, the reasons supporting the requirement that an inventory search be conducted pursuant to an established policy support the conclusion that Jansing satisfied this constitutional requirement by following the policy of the Park Police. The requirement of established procedures “is based on the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory.”
(Wells, supra,
495 U.S. at p. 4 .) In addition, in rejecting an argument that the police should weigh whether a thorough inventory is appropriate, the United States Supreme Court has observed that “ ‘ “[a] single familiar standard is essential to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront.” ’ [Citation.]”
(Bertine, supra,
479 U.S. at p. 375 .) The purpose of countering “general rummaging” does not require that the Park Police follow the policy of the jurisdiction in which they temporarily act as peace officers; the purpose of providing “a single familiar standard” is served by a rule requiring that the Park Police follow the federal policy in all circumstances. Defendant provides no reason to impose a different requirement.
Because the warrantless arrest and search of defendant and the warrantless search of his vehicle were lawful, we need not address the question whether the affidavit supporting issuance of the search warrant obtained the following day by the Brea police would have supported issuance of a search warrant, absent the information obtained through Jansing’s search. In light of our conclusion that Jansing’s actions were a lawful response to defendant’s failure to provide a valid driver’s license and vehicle registration, we need not address whether the officer’s actions also were justified by defendant’s parole status.
*723
2.
Defendant’s motion for a lineup
On July 19, 1996, defendant moved for an order compelling the attendance of Dean Bugbee at a pretrial lineup.
14
On appeal, he contends the trial court’s denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion and violated his right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
We concluded in
Evans v. Superior Court
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 617 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 121 , 522 P.2d 681 ]
(Evans)
that “due process requires in an appropriate case that an accused, upon timely request therefor, be afforded a pretrial lineup in which witnesses to the alleged criminal conduct can participate. The right to a lineup arises, however, only when eyewitness identification is shown to be a material issue and there exists a reasonable likelihood of a mistaken identification which a lineup would tend to resolve.”
(Id.
at p. 625.) We also concluded that “[t]he questions whether eyewitness identification is a material issue and whether fundamental fairness requires a lineup in a particular case are inquiries which necessarily rest for determination within the broad discretion of the magistrate or trial judge.”
(Ibid.)
Finally, with respect to whether such a motion is timely, we stated that the “motion should normally be made as soon after arrest or arraignment as practicable. We note that motions which are not made until shortly before trial should, unless good cause is clearly demonstrated, be denied in most instances by reason of such delay.”
(Id.
at p. 626.)
In the present case, the trial court denied the motion for a pretrial lineup on the grounds that there did not exist a reasonable likelihood of mistaken identification, and that the motion was untimely. As explained below, the record supports these conclusions, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling.
Defendant was arrested on March 6, 1995, and made his first court appearance on March 13, 1995, at which time the public defender was appointed to represent him. At the preliminary hearing conducted on June 9, 1995, Detective Sergeant Larry Pore of the Orange Police Department testified concerning Dean Bugbee’s identification of defendant in a photographic lineup held on June 16, 1994, in connection with the robbery of
*724
Bugbee at the Sav-on drugstore in March 1994. Defense counsel cross-examined Pore concerning Bugbee’s photographic identification and requested that the original photographic lineup be made available, stating, “I’m unable to assess whether there’s any suggestiveness within the spread” by viewing only the copy available at the preliminary hearing.
On July 19, 1996, more than a year after these preliminary proceedings, defendant filed his motion for an order requiring that Bugbee appear at a lineup. The motion stated that “the identification procedures used previously by law enforcement create a reasonable likelihood of mistaken identity.” The supporting declaration of counsel stated that Sav-on employee Eric Tomsons provided a description of the crime similar to the description provided by Bugbee, but Tomsons did not identify defendant when shown a photographic lineup. The declaration also described Bugbee’s identification of defendant’s photograph as “the closest,” based upon the shape of the face and Bugbee’s statement that if dark glasses were added, he would state the subject was the person who robbed him. The declaration also recited that Bugbee indicated he could positively identify the suspect if he were to see him in person.
The hearing on the motion was held on August 16, 1996, less than two months before the October 7 trial date. In response to the prosecution’s contention that the motion was untimely, defense counsel stated there was a large amount of discovery, and “as a practical matter the defense could not have sifted through that discovery and made a request [for a lineup] on time.” Counsel also theorized that “timeliness [is] a relative thing because the case was so old by the time it actually started its journey through the court system, my position would be that the additional delay to this point doesn’t really change things.” In other words, according to counsel, Bugbee’s identification would not have been more accurate at the time of arraignment than when the motion for a lineup was heard. Counsel also claimed that “we do not have any other evidence that links [defendant] to this crime in terms of physical findings, ballistics, anything of that nature.” The prosecution disputed the contention that it had been impracticable to request a lineup earlier, and asserted that circumstantial evidence also demonstrated that defendant committed the crime.
The court concluded Bugbee was a material witness, but denied the request for a lineup, stating: “I cannot make a finding there exists a reasonable likelihood of mistaken identification.” The court cited as another basis for its decision the circumstance that there had been sufficient opportunity for defendant to request the lineup at an earlier time. Finally, it noted the approaching trial date.
Defendant does not address the trial court’s conclusion that there was no reasonable likelihood of mistaken identification. In any event, the trial court
*725
did not abuse its discretion in so concluding. As set forth in defense counsel’s declaration, Bugbee picked defendant’s photograph from the lineup, said that if dark glasses were added he would state the subject was the person who robbed him, and indicated he could positively identify the suspect if he saw him in person. The circumstance that another employee, who was not robbed by defendant, could not identify defendant from the photographs did not compel the trial court to conclude there was a reasonable likelihood of mistaken identification by Bugbee. In the absence of a reasonable likelihood of a mistaken identification, defendant had no right under
Evans, supra,
11 Cal.3d at page 625 , to a lineup.
In addition, defendant fails to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the motion to be untimely. He notes our statement in
Evans
that “[dilatory or obstructive tactics made under the guise of seeking discovery but which tend to defeat the ends of justice will necessarily be weighed heavily on timeliness grounds against the granting of the motion within discretionary limits”
(Evans, supra,
11 Cal.3d at p. 626 ), and states there was no evidence of dilatory or obstructive tactics. But
Evans
does not require evidence of such tactics. Rather, we stated that a motion for a lineup “should normally be made as soon after arrest or arraignment as practicable.”
(Ibid.)
Here, the trial court reasonably concluded that the motion could have been made earlier. We also stated in
Evans
that “motions which are not made until shortly before trial should, unless good cause is clearly demonstrated, be denied in most instances by reason of such delay.”
(Ibid.)
Here, the motion was made shortly before trial, and defendant did not clearly demonstrate good cause for his delay. For all of these reasons, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a lineup.
B.
Guilt Phase Issues
1.
Defense counsel’s reference to defendant during his opening statement
Defendant contends that during defense counsel’s opening statement, counsel conceded defendant’s guilt with respect to the charges of attempted murder of Shahbakhti and Weidmann, and thereby provided ineffective assistance of counsel. As explained below, the record establishes that counsel did not concede defendant’s guilt, and that counsel’s reference to defendant during his opening statement did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
In the course of his opening statement, defendant’s counsel reviewed some of the factual allegations surrounding the charges. First, he described the robbery of Dean Bugbee at the Sav-on drugstore, highlighting circumstances
*726
that would have impeded a clear identification of “the robber,” and discrepancies between Bugbee’s description of defendant’s height and age and defendant’s actual height and age. Next, he described the incident in front of the Vons market, in which James Shahbakhti was shot, stating that “[a] fellow pulled up in a vehicle and drove through the complex. At first he noticed a man later identified as Stephen Redd walking in a different part of the strip mall over in front of a karate studio. [][] Eventually after a few minutes
Mr. Redd is observed walking in front of the Von’s store.
At that point in time the unarmed security guard accosted him, stops him. Apparently the subject is just walking through and he stops the person. [][] The person says hi, leave me alone. The security guard demands he stay there.” (Italics added.) Throughout the rest of this description, defense counsel referred to the individual as “the person,” “the stopped person, “that person,” “him,” “that subject,” “he,” “the subject,” and “the gunman.”
15
Defense counsel then described the robbery and homicide at the Alpha Beta market, referring to the perpetrator as “a man,” “the man,” “he,” “the robber,” “that subject,” and “the gunman.”
In support of his contention that counsel conceded his guilt, defendant relies in part upon the prosecutor’s related comments during his opening argument. After reviewing how he had laid out his case during his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that he had listened closely to the defense’s opening statement to hear what the defense would be. He stated that defense counsel carefully had avoided stating who had committed the crimes, but when counsel had reviewed the attempted murder counts, “he started off by saying that Mr. Redd was by a karate studio and he came up and was talking to security guards, but then he changed what he said about the shooting. He said—he started calling him this person and that person, never saying it was Mr. Redd. ... [][]... He says the gunman rips off a number of shots. He
*727
never says that it’s Mr. Redd. He always says it’s a gunman, that person.” The prosecutor then stated, “Well, I was wondering are they saying it’s the defendant or not.” He then observed that in reviewing the Alpha Beta incident, defense counsel “[n]ever [said] it was Mr. Redd.” The prosecutor concluded, “So I don’t know what the defense is in this case. I don’t know if they are saying now it’s Mr. Redd now that all this evidence has come in or if they are still saying it’s some robber, we don’t know who it is . . . .” The prosecutor then undertook “to show you why what the attorneys say is not evidence,” and reviewed various statements defense counsel had made during his opening statement that, according to the prosecutor, were not established by the evidence. Subsequently, in the course of reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor stated, “So I think the defense is going to say he didn’t do it.”
Viewed in context, defense counsel’s reference to the presence of “Mr. Redd” in front of the Vons market was not a concession that defendant was the individual involved in that incident. Defense counsel had noted that the individual seen in front of the karate studio had been identified subsequently as defendant, and counsel’s reference to “Mr. Redd” in the next sentence reflected that this was the same individual who was seen in front of the Vons market. Counsel then returned to his practice of referring to the perpetrator of the charged crimes without identifying him. As the prosecutor emphasized in his opening argument, the defense was careful not to state that defendant was the perpetrator. The prosecutor’s arguments did not claim defense counsel had conceded guilt; rather, the comments highlighted what the prosecutor believed to be uncertainty with respect to the defense to the charges. Following the prosecutor’s opening argument, defense counsel’s argument emphasized flaws and discrepancies in the description and identification of the gunman in connection with the shooting in front of the Vons market, and continued to refer to the gunman generally, without identifying him as defendant. We also note that the jury repeatedly was informed that the statements of counsel are not evidence.
16
In these circumstances, it is doubtful that a reasonable juror would have understood counsel’s statement to be a concession that defendant was the individual involved in the incident that took place in front of Vons market. In addition, even if a reasonable juror had understood the comment as conceding defendant was the gunman, the concession would have made no difference to the outcome, because the evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator
*728
was overwhelming. Not only did Shahbakhti identify defendant, but Joseph Loya witnessed defendant’s vehicle leaving the area; Officer King saw defendant in the vicinity where defendant’s vehicle was parked; Detective Harper found bullets in defendant’s apartment that matched the type used in the Vons market shooting, and the firearm found in defendant’s vehicle matched the shell casings and bullets recovered at the scene. Therefore, counsel’s performance in this respect was neither deficient nor prejudicial.
(Strickland
v.
Washington
(1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ].)
2.
Out-of-court identifications
Defendant contends the admission of the out-of-court identifications violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Evidence Code section 1238.
As set forth above, Dean Bugbee, James Shahbakhti, and Brenda Rambo testified at trial concerning their out-of-court identifications of defendant in photographic lineups. When the prosecutor asked Bugbee which of the photographs he had selected, defense counsel stated, “[objection under section 1238, not adequate foundation.” The court overruled the objection. Defendant did not object to the subsequent testimony of Shahbakhti and Rambo concerning their out-of-court identifications of defendant.
Evidence Code section 1238 establishes an exception to the hearsay rule for a statement that identifies a party or other person as a participant in a crime or other occurrence, “if the statement would have been admissible if made by [the witness] while testifying . . . .” The statute requires that the statement have been made when the crime was fresh in the witness’s memory, and that “[t]he evidence of the statement is offered after the witness testifies that he [or she] made the identification and that it was a true reflection of his [or her] opinion at that time.” (Evid. Code, § 1238.)
17
Defendant complains that “[n]one of the witnesses testified, prior to the introduction of the out-of-court identifications that he or she
‘made the identification and that it was a true reflection of his [her] opinion at that
*729
time.'
” (Italics as added by defendant.) Our review of the record, however, reflects that the italicized requirements were met. The prosecutor asked Bugbee, “were you able to make an identification of any of the individuals as being ... the person who committed the robbery?” Bugbee responded, “Yes.” In the course of reviewing Bugbee’s out-of-court identification, the prosecutor noted that the person in the photograph had a beard and mustache, and asked, “But yet you felt this was the person, number three?” Bugbee responded, “Yes.” The prosecutor also asked, “when you made this identification were you trying to be as accurate as possible in pointing this person out to the police?” Again, Bugbee answered, “Yes.” Finally, the prosecutor asked, “Would you have made this identification if you didn’t feel this was the person.” Bugbee responded, “No, I wouldn’t.”
Defendant did not object to the testimony of Shahbakhti and Rambo concerning their out-of-court identifications, and therefore forfeited his contention as to these witnesses. (Evid. Code, § 353; see
People v. Dykes
(2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 756 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 , 209 R3d 1]
(Dykes)
[“numerous decisions by this court have established the general rule that trial counsel’s failure to object to claimed evidentiary error on the same ground asserted on appeal results in a forfeiture of the issue on appeal”].)
18
These claims also would fail on the merits, because the record establishes that each of these witnesses testified that he or she made an identification and that the identification reflected his or her opinion at that time. The prosecutor asked Shahbakhti, “After being shown a series of six photographs, were you able to focus your attention on one of those individuals?” Shahbakhti responded, “Yes, one looked just pretty much like who the individual was.” The prosecutor also asked him, “And the person that you were 90 to 95 percent sure of was photo number three in exhibit ten; is that accurate?” Shahbakhti responded, “That’s correct.” Similarly, the prosecutor asked Rambo, “After you looked at these photographs, did you then circle and date and put your initials on an individual who you selected as a person being either the person
*730
or similar looking to the person who had robbed you?” Rambo responded, “Yes.” The prosecutor also asked, “And when you circled that, who did you circle that to represent? Who was that person that you selected?” Rambo responded, “The man that robbed me.”
To the extent defendant’s challenge rests upon
the sequence
in which the testimony was admitted—the trial court admitted the hearsay statements
before
it required the declarant to testify that he or she “made the identification and that it was a true reflection of his [or her] opinion at that time” (Evid. Code, § 1238, subd. (c))—the error was harmless, because it is not “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error”
(People v. Watson
(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]
(Watson)).
The order in which the evidence concerning the out-of-court statements was admitted could not have made any difference in the outcome.
Defendant also contends that the admission of out-of-court identifications violates a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses, even when the declarant testifies. He did not raise an objection below based upon the confrontation clause, and therefore has forfeited this claim.
(Dykes, supra,
46 Cal.4th at p. 756 ;
People v. Raley
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ] [a hearsay objection did not preserve a claim under the confrontation clause].)
19
Even if the claim had been preserved, it would fail. As the United States Supreme Court reiterated
*731
in
Crawford
v.
Washington, supra,
541 U.S. 36 , “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements. See
California v. Green, 399
U.S. 149, 162 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 489 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 ] (1970).”
(Id.
at p. 60, fh. 9.) Defendant predicts that the United States Supreme Court will reject this principle of law. Unless and until the high court alters its position, we apply the long-standing principle reiterated in
Crawford
and therefore reject defendant’s claim on the merits.
3.
Victim-impact evidence at the guilt phase
Defendant contends victim-impact evidence was admitted at the guilt phase in violation of his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and article I, sections 7, 15, 17, and 24 of the California Constitution.
During the guilt phase, after questioning Shahbakhti concerning the circumstances of the shooting that took place in front of the Vons market, and concerning his resulting injuries and medical treatment, the prosecutor inquired: “Ha[ve] there been any lasting health problems associated with—or any psychological problems that you have as a result of this gunshot wound?” The defense objected to the question as compound. After the court overruled that objection, defense counsel stated, “Objection, relevance as to a portion of the question.”
20
The court overruled that objection. Shahbakhti then responded, “I still see a psychiatrist because of post-traumatic disorder, which is anxiety, and, yes, I’m permanently disabled. I will never get the entire full function of my right arm back.”
Shahbakhti’s testimony that he was permanently disabled and never would regain the full function of his arm was relevant to the allegation of infliction
*732
of great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7.) The sole aspect of this testimony that was irrelevant at the guilt phase was the statement that “I still see a psychiatrist because of post-traumatic disorder, which is anxiety . . . .” The admission of this evidence was harmless error, however, because it is not “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error.”
(Watson, supra,
46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .)
21
As noted above, in part H.B.I., the properly admitted evidence establishing that defendant was the individual who committed the crimes at the Vons market was overwhelming. In addition, Shahbakhti’s and Weidmann’s descriptions of the circumstances of the shooting were undisputed. Finally, the jurors reasonably would expect that an individual who was shot and disabled, as Shahbakhti was, would experience anxiety. Thus, it is not reasonably probable that this brief reference to Shahbakhti’s psychological injuries affected the verdicts or any findings made at the guilt phase.
4.
Rejection of an instruction on lesser included offenses
Defendant contends the trial court should have instructed the jury concerning second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter in connection with the charge of the murder of Timothy McVeigh.
“[I]t is the ‘court’s duty to instruct the jury not only on the crime with which the defendant is charged, but also on any lesser offense that is both included in the offense charged and shown by the evidence to have been committed.’ [Citation.]”
(People v. Gutierrez
(2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 826 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 200 P.3d 847 ].) “[W]hen the evidence unquestionably establishes that the defendant is guilty of a serious, violent offense—but leaves some doubt with respect to an element that would justify conviction of a capital offense—the failure to give the jury the ‘third option’ of convicting on a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction, [f] Such a risk cannot be tolerated in a case in which the defendant’s life is at stake.”
(Beck
v.
Alabama
(1980) 447 U.S. 625, 637 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 392 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 ].)
“To warrant [an instruction on a lesser included offense], there must be substantial evidence of the lesser included offense, that is, ‘evidence from
*733
which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the defendant committed the lesser offense. [Citation.] Speculation is insufficient to require the giving of an instruction on a lesser included offense. [Citations.] In addition, a lesser included instruction need not be given when there is no evidence that the offense is less than that charged. [Citation.]”
(People
v.
Mendoza
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 174 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 6 P.3d 150 ].)
Defendant fails to identify any evidence that would support a finding of either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. Instead, he relies upon the circumstance that
the prosecutor
requested instructions concerning second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter “to protect the record.” When pressed by the court to explain how the jury might find these offenses, the prosecutor expressed concern that a juror might conclude that defendant did not enter the Alpha Beta market to commit a burglary, or defendant did not take any money. The trial court stated that it would not give the requested instructions, based upon its assessment of the evidence.
According to defendant, the prosecutor’s statement “was not speculation—it was the opinion of the man prosecuting the case,” and “[i]t was not speculation for [the prosecutor] to opine that the jury might believe that a robbery had not taken place or that if it had, it was incidental to the murder.” The prosecutor’s opinion, however, is not evidence, and there is no evidence in this case to support a conclusion that the individual who entered the store wearing a wig, and who quickly proceeded to a cash register and pointed a gun at the clerk, did not enter the store with a felonious intent, or a conclusion that the individual did not rob Rambo, or a conclusion that the killing of McVeigh did not occur in the course of these felonies. The only issue was whether defendant was the individual who killed McVeigh in the course of these felonies, because whoever was the perpetrator was guilty of felony murder. (§ 189.) Therefore, there was no evidence to support the giving of instructions on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
5.
Asserted prosecutorial misconduct
Defendant contends numerous statements made by the prosecutor during his opening and closing arguments constituted misconduct.
“ “The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. ‘ “A prosecutor’s . . . intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct ‘so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.’ ” ’ [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial
*734
misconduct under state law only if it involves ‘ “ ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ”” [Citations.]”
(People v. Abilez
(2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 494 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 , 161 P.3d 58 ].) “To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a defendant must object and seek an admonition if an objection and admonition would have cured the harm.”
(People v. Kennedy
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 595, 618 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 , 115 P.3d 472 ].) The objection must be made on the same ground upon which the defendant now assigns error.
(People v. Jones
(2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1260 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 468 , 64 P.3d 762 ].)
a.
Denigration of defense counsel
When the prosecutor began his opening argument, he stated that “Nothing I say this morning or ever in this trial is meant to reflect poorly on the defense attorneys.” He added that he had “to be willing to get in there and hit hard, I cannot be namby-pamby and do my job, but I won’t be critical of them.” He further explained that “I will be critical of defense position. I’ll be critical of [defendant’s] conduct, but nothing I say is meant to reflect on [defense counsel], [f] I want to get that straight from the start but they know, they are both big boys and they know I’ll hit them hard and I expect them to hit me hard, [f] We know these type of cases, murder cases, death penalty cases are going to be very hotly contested so I expect them to let me have it. I want them to give me their best shot. That’s what makes the system work. [][] They are here to be diligent advocates. I appreciate that and I’m here to do the same thing. No hard feelings. After this we shake hands and go on to our next cases.”
Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s statements, and therefore has forfeited his challenge to these comments. His claim also fails on the merits. Defendant asserts that “[t]his argument made fun of defense counsel and denigrated their roles as advocates.” “A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel. [Citations.]”
(Hill, supra,
17 Cal.4th at p. 832.) Nothing in the prosecutor’s comments, however, may be understood to be an attack on the integrity of counsel or to cast aspersions on counsel.
Defendant also perceives denigration in comments by the prosecutor concerning discrepancies between defense counsel’s statements and the evidence. The prosecutor asserted that statements by counsel concerning the events were speculation, such speculation was intended to aid their client, and the jury should consider the source of any inferences it drew, in order to ensure that the inferences were based upon evidence rather than upon
*735
impermissible speculation.
22
The trial court properly overruled defendant’s objection to these comments. “[T]he prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account. [Citations.]”
(People
v.
Bemore
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840 , 996 P.2d 1152 ]
(Bemore).)
For example, we concluded in
People v. Medina
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 694 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165 , 906 P.2d 2 ] that it was unobjectionable for the prosecutor to state that “ ‘any experienced defense attorney can twist a little, poke a little, try to draw some speculation, try to get you to buy something ....’”
(Id.
at p. 759.) Similarly, the prosecutor’s comments in the present case concerning defense counsel’s speculation “[did] not amount to a personal attack on counsel’s integrity. [Citations.]”
(Ibid.)
In addition, these comments focused the jury upon the evidence rather than distracting it from its task. (Cf.
Bemore, supra,
22 Cal.4th at p. 846 [attacks on counsel “risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters . . .”].)
Defendant again perceives denigration of his counsel in the prosecutor’s comments regarding defense counsel’s discussion of the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecutor stated, “the easy thing to do would be to read to you from the instructions, like I did. I wrote the instructions out word for word, [f] But [defense counsel] didn’t do that. He decided to create his own chart. Something from his mind. The judge is not going to give you a chart like this.” Defense counsel objected and “ask[ed] that counsel be restricted to the scope of my argument and the facts and the law.” The court overruled the objection. The prosecutor then commented that the chart, with a line representing the “preponderance of the evidence” standard at 51 percent and a line “twice as far up,” implied that the People were required “to prove their case beyond a hundred percent.”
*736
Even if we assume counsel’s objection encompassed the claim now asserted by defendant, we find this claim lacking in merit. The prosecutor’s comments fell well within the latitude allowed in commenting upon deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics. (See
Bemore, supra,
22 Cal.4th at p. 846 ; see also
People v. Taylor
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1166-1167 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 34 P.3d 937 ] [prosecutor’s references to defense “tricks” or “moves” was not misconduct].) There was nothing deceptive or reprehensible in the prosecutor’s comments; rather, they reflected an attempt to clarify the People’s burden of proof.
After referencing Officer King’s testimony concerning her efforts to locate defendant and his vehicle at his apartment immediately after the shooting at Vons market, the prosecutor noted that defense counsel had asked King about how “tough” it was to be a police officer, and whether she was afraid when she was in her patrol car alone. The prosecutor then stated, “Why was he asking those questions? Does anybody have any idea? What does that have to do with whether or not his client committed attempted murder that night. What was that about? What is the purpose of patronizing her. Why are you sitting there—.” The defense “objected] to that remark as being improper, patronizing an officer.” The court overruled the objection, and the prosecutor stated, “Well, call it what you like. If that offends [defense counsel], I’m sorry, I take it back. What is the point of those questions.” Again, these statements fell well within the latitude allowed for comment upon deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics. (See
Bemore, supra,
22 Cal.4th at p. 846 .) In addition, in context, the prosecutor’s comments were intended to persuade the jury to reject any implication that King’s testimony should be discounted because of emotions she might have felt while being placed in a dangerous situation, and there is no reasonable likelihood that jurors would view the remark as a personal attack on counsel. (See
People v. Young
(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1192 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 ] [a review of the entire argument persuaded the court that the prosecutor’s comments describing defense counsel’s discussion of the law as “unintelligible gibberish” and “garbage” were not misconduct; the prosecutor “was merely determined to correct” defense counsel’s erroneous description of the law, and “[t]here [was] no reasonable likelihood that the jury would interpret this remark as a personal attack on the integrity of counsel”].)
In reviewing the testimony of Paul Diersing, the prosecutor stated that defense counsel had asked Diersing “the question that I found very curious. He asked him, well, is it company policy to just give [a robber] what he wants. [1] And I started thinking about that because it bothered me that he asked that question and I guess the inference to that question is somehow Mr. McVeigh got what he deserved for trying to help his friend.” Defendant objected; the court overruled the objection, and defendant requested a sidebar conference. At that conference, defense counsel asserted that the prosecutor
*737
exceeded the latitude allowable in permissible argument “when he attributes comments to [defense counsel], some attempt to blame a victim.” Defense counsel acknowledged that the prosecutor was “entitled to argue that such an inference would be false and misplaced. . . . But it’s his reference to the state of mind of the attorneys that’s inappropriate.” The prosecutor responded, “I don’t think I said it that way, but the question which was asked of the witness by the defense is was he following company policy. I don’t know what was the relevance of that question, what the purpose of the question was other than Mr. McVeigh did something wrong and got shot because of it.”
The court responded that defense “counsel’s concerns are well taken,” and suggested that the prosecutor “refrain from doing that.” The court also stated that it would not admonish the jury “at this stage,” but would consider doing so “at the conclusion of all the arguments.” Nonetheless, immediately following the sidebar conference, the court explained to the jury that the court gave wide latitude to counsel, but the jury should focus upon the evidence and the law, and “the conduct and thoughts of counsel is not something for you to be looking at and focusing on.” Following these comments, the prosecutor stated: “I’m not criticizing [defense counsel]. It’s the evidence they are eliciting, the question which was asked of that witness Mr. Diersing[,] was he following company policy, [f] Well, that question, what is that to lead us to believe, that somehow Timothy McVeigh did something wrong, and because he did something wrong he was killed. That is ludicrous.”
Not only did the court admonish the jury immediately following the sidebar conference, it also addressed this point at the conclusion of the prosecutor’s opening argument, stating that “[t]he district attorney is allowed to comment on the questions of witnesses that have testified before you and those questions were put to the witness by counsel for defendant. He’s entitled to comment on those answers. I think that was the thrust of his comments. [][] However, I have to be careful to caution you that the thought processes of the attorneys, whatever those are, the intent of the attorneys, I don’t want you speculating about that. That’s just something that is not within the ambit of the evidence for your consideration.” In addition, in his argument, defense counsel explained what he believed to be the relevance of Alpha Beta’s policy that employees comply with a robber’s demands and thereby enhance the safety of employees. Counsel stated: “Did [McVeigh] run up and grab a gunman, seeing a gun? No, that’s not what happened. He’s been trained, he knows the store policy. If he’d seen the gun, he wouldn’t have done that. That’s what this testimony was about.”
There is no merit in defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s comments concerning the question posed to Diersing had the effect of denigrating counsel. The prosecutor’s comments focused upon the inference to be drawn
*738
from the question, not upon defense counsel’s state of mind or intent. A prosecutor is not prohibited from challenging an inference raised by a question merely because defense counsel thereby may be cast in a poor light for having posed the question. The prosecutor’s statement that “it bothered me that he asked that question” did not add anything to the prosecutor’s commentary upon the evidence that was not implicit in his observation that defense counsel’s question seemed to raise an unfair inference.
23
In addition, even if a juror initially might have construed the comments as critical of defense counsel, the court’s admonitions clarified that the prosecutor’s statements were relevant only as commentary upon the evidence, and that the jurors were not to speculate concerning counsel’s thought process or intentions. (See
People v. Friend
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 31 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 211 P.3d 520 ]
(Friend)
[the court’s admonitions “insured that the jury understood that [the prosecutor’s] comments were irrelevant to its consideration of the case”].)
b.
Shifting the burden of proof
At various times, the prosecutor expressed confusion and lack of understanding concerning the nature of the defense. Based upon these comments, defendant claims the prosecutor’s statements shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. As noted above, in part H.B.I., the prosecutor observed during his opening argument that in defendant’s opening statement, defense counsel had avoided stating who had committed the charged crimes, but had referred to defendant twice by name when discussing the incident at the Vons market. The prosecutor then stated, “So I don’t know what the defense is in this case. I don’t know if they are saying now it’s [defendant,] now that all this evidence has come in[,] or if they are still saying it’s some robber, we don’t know who it is, but there’s some other interesting things he talked about in his opening statement. I want to point it out to you to show how the defense tenor has changed during the point of this trial.” Defense counsel then objected, “This is not a comment on the facts or the law.” The court overruled the objection.
Similarly, after reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor stated: “So I think the defense is going to say he didn’t do it. I don’t know. I’ll have to wait. I do not know what the defense is to this case yet. I’m waiting to hear.” Defendant did not object.
*739
When the prosecutor began to discuss the witnesses’ identification of defendant, the prosecutor stated: “Now just a couple things about identification because I don’t know what the defense is going to say when they get up here. I don’t know if they are going to concede [defendant] committed these crimes or not, but you’ll be given an instruction on how to consider eyewitness testimony.” Defendant did not object.
As he reached the end of his opening argument, the prosecutor told the jurors that he wanted to talk about the defense. He stated: “I have a blank paper because I’m not sure exactly what the defense is yet. I’m going to sit here like you and listen to [defense counsel], I don’t know what he’s going to say.” The prosecutor then identified a number of questions he would be waiting to hear answered by defense counsel—Did defendant rob Bugbee? Did defendant fire a handgun at Weidmann and Shahbakhti? Why did defendant leave his apartment on May 31, 1994, with the door open, and the lights on? Why did defendant possess a .380-caliber handgun and ammunition, sunglasses, a purple hooded sweatshirt, laser sights, and wigs? Was defendant “guilty of special circumstance murder of Timothy McVeigh[?]” Defendant did not object.
Following these comments, both the prosecutor and the trial court reminded the jury that the burden of proof rested upon the prosecution. The prosecutor ended his opening argument by stating he would take notes as defense counsel spoke, “and because I have the burden of proof I do get to rebut what he says. [][] I don’t get to argue everything all over, but I can rebut the points he brings up because it’s my burden to prove that this defendant committed these crimes . . . .” The court then advised the jury of various principles. As is relevant here, the court stated: “There’s certain legal requirements that go with these types of proceedings and the burden of proof is on the People, or on the State. The defendant has no burden of proof in the criminal trial—you’ll see it again in the instructions, and again I want to be careful that you not misunderstand the comments that were being made this morning, and I’m not saying they had any intent other than that, [f] The evidence can be commented on and the law can be commented on, but I thought just at the end the district attorney said the burden of proof is on the People, and that’s true. I want to make sure there’s no misunderstanding about that.”
In his closing argument, the prosecutor returned to the theme of “waiting to hear what the defense was,” and attacked defense counsel’s argument. He then stated to the jury: “I am very concerned, representing the State, that one of you has missed the focus of this trial. And that is a nightmare to me. That one of the [jurors] that I’m looking at just doesn’t get it.” He further stated that “I lie awake at night worrying that you people will not get it. It is not
*740
about what color his shoes were, what color his wig was, what hand he held the gun in, whether Brenda Rambo was emotional. Does that change whether he killed Timothy McVeigh? Does it matter that he’s five-eight or six-two? Of course not.” Defendant did not object to these statements.
Defendant failed to object to any of these comments on the ground they shifted the burden of proof to defendant. Therefore, he has forfeited this claim. The claim also fails on the merits, because the comments did not indicate that defendant bore the burden of proof. In the circumstances of this case, in which there was overwhelming and seemingly irrefutable evidence that defendant committed the crimes charged, the prosecutor’s comments merely highlighted his observation that there seemed to be no coherent defense to the charges. Finally, had any juror interpreted the comments to indicate that defendant had a burden of proof, this impression would have been dispelled by the instructions and the numerous reminders to the jurors that the People bore the burden of proving defendant’s guilt. (See
People v. Bradford
(1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145 , 939 P.2d 259 ] [the court, noting that the prosecutor had reiterated that the prosecution had the burden of proof, observed that “[a] distinction clearly exists between the permissible comment that a defendant has not produced any evidence, and on the other hand an improper statement that a defendant has a duty or burden to produce evidence, or a duty or burden to prove his or her innocence”].)
c.
Vouching for the credibility of witnesses
Defendant claims the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of Joseph Loya, who followed defendant’s vehicle after the Vons market shooting, Officer King, who attempted to locate defendant at his apartment after that shooting, and Officer Jansing, who arrested defendant in San Francisco. “A prosecutor may make ‘assurances regarding the apparent honesty or reliability of’ a witness ‘based on the “facts of [the] record and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.” ’ [Citation.] But a ‘prosecutor is prohibited from vouching for the credibility of witnesses or otherwise bolstering the veracity of their testimony by referring to evidence outside the record.’ [Citation.]”
(People
v.
Turner
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 432-433 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182 , 99 P.3d 505 ].)
When the prosecutor began to discuss the testimony of Loya, he referred to him as “a nice young man who did something very important in this case. [][]... H] Joseph Loya deserves our thanks. He went to the trouble of chasing after somebody he felt did something wrong.” After reviewing Loya’s actions and his role in identifying defendant, the prosecutor stated: “So these are the kinds of people we presented to you as witnesses. This is the kind of young man that you saw here who was willing to put himself out to do what
*741
he felt is right. That is the nature and quality of these witnesses.” Defendant did not object to these comments.
After the exchange noted above, in which the prosecutor questioned the defense’s purpose in “patronizing” Linda King by asking her questions about how she felt as a police officer alone in her patrol vehicle, the prosecutor stated: “Here is a police woman doing her job. She’s willing to put herself on the line. She knows she’s there to look for[] somebody who has just committed attempted murder. She’s sitting there in the dark on her own willing to sacrifice, to be there to catch people like him. [f] I don’t know what the point was of those questions about her being scared. She was there because she believes in what she does. She’s a police officer. She did what she was supposed to do.” Other than his objection to the prosecutor’s comment concerning the defense’s “patronizing” the witness, noted above, defendant did not object to these statements.
With respect to Officer Jansing, the prosecutor stated: “I wanted you to see the quality of him. I brought him down from San Francisco. I wanted you to see this is a man who is doing his job. Here’s a guy—you saw the kind of man he is. Attention to detail, [f] He didn’t have to run that plate. Something didn’t look right and fortunately there are people like Officer Jansing who take their job seriously in life, [f] It could have been easy for him in the middle of his shift to drive by a parked car and not think anything of it. A guy like this and a guy like Mr. Loya are to be given credit. They went the extra distance. To run a plate he didn’t have to do and did everything by the book. Fortunately for us and fortunately for law enforcement there are people like Mr. Jansing who are willing to do their jobs properly and that is how this man got captured.” Defendant did not object.
At the end of his closing argument, the prosecutor stated: “I am confident you will have no problem in quickly resolving this case because there is no defense. It is indefensible what he did. He just happened to get caught. Thank you Mr. Loya, thank you Officer Jansing. [|] That is why we’re here. He almost got away with it except for people like that who are willing to go the extra distance.” Defendant did not object.
Because the defense did not object that the prosecutor was vouching for the witnesses’ credibility, defendant has forfeited this contention. His claim also fails on the merits, because the prosecutor’s comments concerning these witnesses were based upon facts established by the testimony and did not refer to evidence outside the record. The prosecutor’s remarks did not improperly vouch for the credibility of these witnesses.
*742
d.
Asking the jury to conduct an experiment
The prosecutor stated that “[yjou’re going to be asked by both sides to look at the weapon, [f] I invite you to look at the trigger pull. You can look at it on single action and double action. It is a significant pull to get the trigger to pull. I want you to put the safety on. You’ll see when you put on that safety it’s impossible to get that gun to fire.“ Not only did defendant fail to object to these comments, but he earlier agreed that the jurors should be permitted to inspect the weapon in order to allow them to appreciate its mechanical operation.
24
Therefore, he has forfeited any claim regarding these comments.
This claim also fails on the merits. “ ‘A jury’s verdict in a criminal case must be based on the evidence presented at trial, not on extrinsic matters.’ ... A juror commits misconduct if the juror . . . engages in an experiment that produces new evidence [citation].”
(People v. Wilson
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 829 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 , 187 P.3d 1041 ], citations omitted.) The prosecutor’s invitation that the jurors examine the firearm was a request that they consider the evidence presented at trial, not that they produce new evidence through an experiment. Thus, there was no impropriety in his remarks.
e.
Appealing to the jurors’ passion or prejudice
Defendant claims that various statements by the prosecutor were intended to appeal to the jurors’ passion or prejudice. “It is, of course, improper to make arguments to the jury that give it the impression that ‘emotion may reign over reason,’ and to present ‘irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury’s attention from its proper role, or invites an irrational, purely subjective response.’ [Citation.]”
(People v. Padilla
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 956-957 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 426 , 906 P.2d 388 ],
*743
overruled on other grounds in
Hill, supra,
17 Cal.4th at p. 823, fn. 1.) Defendant did not object to any of the prosecutor’s statements on this basis, and therefore has forfeited this claim. As explained below, the claim also fails on the merits.
The first challenged comments were made when the prosecutor argued that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and “the defense wants you just to look at the things that will walk [defendant] out of here . . . .” As noted above, the prosecutor expressed concern that one of the jurors would not understand the relevant facts. “I am very concerned, representing the State, that one of you has missed the focus of this trial. And that is a nightmare to me. That one of the [jurors] that I’m looking at
just doesn’t get it.
I know
most of you have common sense.
... [ID If this man went to Alpha Beta with the intent to rob and do a burglary, he is guilty of special-circumstance murder. [][] I lie awake at night worrying that
you people will not get it.
It is not about what color his shoes were, what color his wig was, what hand he held the gun in, whether Brenda Rambo was emotional. Does that change whether he killed Timothy McVeigh? Does it matter that he’s five-eight or six-two? Of course not.” (Italics added.)
Defendant asserts the italicized comments “engaged the personal pride of the jurors,” “injected into the case broader issues than [defendant’s] guilt[,] and invited the jury to render a verdict based upon their personal pride or public opinion.” Viewed in context, however, the statements merely emphasized the prosecutor’s argument that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and that jurors should not become distracted by irrelevant circumstances or arguments. The prosecutor’s arguments focused the jury on its role, did not invite an irrational or emotional response, and did not refer to public opinion. The cases cited by defendant do not support a contrary conclusion.
25
*744
The second challenged comment was made in response to an inconsistency in the defense’s argument—the defense continued to question the witnesses’ identification of defendant as the perpetrator of these crimes, but also focused upon mitigating evidence, such as the circumstance that the perpetrator did not shoot Rambo. The prosecutor commented, “They can’t tell you on the one hand, . . . some gunman robbed Alpha Beta and Brenda Rambo, yet the defendant is a nice guy for not shooting Brenda Rambo. ... [I] . After he shot her friend in cold blood, he’s a good guy now? [f] Maybe it’s me. Maybe my priorities are screwed up, I don’t know.
Maybe you think he is a nice guy.”
(Italics added.) The prosecutor then noted that the robbery of the Alpha Beta market

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2387024. Public record. Not legal advice.