People v. Clark

3 Cal.4th 41 (1992)

833 P.2d 561

10 Cal. Rptr.2d 554

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. S004494. Crim. No. 23019.

Supreme Court of California.

July 30, 1992.

*70 COUNSEL

Harvey R. Zall and Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defenders, under appointments by the Supreme Court, Donald L.A. Kerson, Larry Pizarro and Verna Wefald, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attorneys General, Steve White and George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey, Ivy K. Kessel, Susan Lee Frierson and Robert S. Henry, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

ARABIAN, J.

Defendant Douglas Daniel Clark appeals from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law. A jury found him guilty of six counts of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) [1] Multiple murder special circumstances and enhancements for personal use of a firearm were found true as to each of the murder charges. (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 12022.5.) The jury further found defendant guilty of one count of mutilation of human remains, as to one of the murder victims (Health & Saf. Code, § 7052), and of attempted murder and mayhem as to a different victim. (§§ 187/664, 203.) Allegations that defendant had personally used a deadly weapon were found true as to the attempted murder and mayhem counts. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) An enhancement allegation for intentional infliction of great bodily injury was found true as to the attempted murder count. (§ 12022.7.)

The jury set the punishment at death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We conclude that the attempted murder and mayhem convictions must be reversed, and all but one of the multiple-murder special-circumstance findings must be set aside. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

I. GUILT PHASE FACTS

This case concerns the so-called Sunset Slasher or Sunset Slayer murders, a series of killings of young women which took place in the Los Angeles area between approximately May 31 and July 31, 1980.

*71 Police investigation did not focus on defendant until August 11, 1980, when Carol Mary Bundy, defendant's housemate, confessed to the murder of Jack Murray, her sometime lover. In the course of her confession, Bundy accused defendant of the killings. Defendant in turn theorized that Bundy committed the killings with Jack Murray, and then killed Murray in a plot to frame defendant for the Sunset murders.

The evidence against defendant was largely circumstantial and painstakingly pieced together through extensive police investigation. (Bundy did not testify for the prosecution, but only when called by the defense.) The story is further complicated by a morass of procedural machinations relating to defendant's representation. Accordingly, the facts must be set forth in some detail.

A. THE PROSECUTION CASE

1. Murders of Gina Marano and Cynthia Chandler

The first murders the police discovered, and those about which the most detailed evidence existed, were the killings of Cynthia Chandler and Gina Marano.

a) Discovery of the Bodies

About 1:30 p.m. on June 12, 1980, police were called to the scene of a freeway ramp near the Forest Lawn cemetery, where a highway worker had found the bodies of two young girls. Cynthia Chandler, a blonde 16-year-old, was found with a pink jumpsuit wrapped around her legs. One leg of the jumpsuit was slit to the crotch. There was blood on the jumpsuit, and a spot of grease or oil. Chandler's half sister, Gina Marano, age 15, was clothed only in a red tube-top pulled down around her waist. No underwear was found on or anywhere near the bodies. In addition, police found no address book or business cards in the vicinity.

b) Coroner's Examination

Marano was killed by two gunshots to the head. Both bullets exited the skull. Chandler had been shot in both the head and the chest. The chest wound was a contact wound. Two .25-caliber bullets were recovered after the autopsy.

Marano and Chandler had been dead at least 12 hours at the time their bodies were recovered. They were probably killed sometime on June 11, or *72 up to about 4 a.m. on June 12. The signs of lividity on Cynthia Chandler's body were consistent with the body having been moved from one location to another after her death. The absence of puddles of blood where the bodies were found, and post mortem scratches and abrasions on Chandler's body, indicated that the victims had been killed elsewhere and the bodies later moved.

Police criminalists testified that microscopic examination of vaginal material from Cynthia Chandler contained spermatozoa. Samples from Chandler's mouth were negative for spermatozoa or semen. No evidence of sexual assault on Gina Marano was found, but neither could sexual activity be ruled out. No bruising would occur as a result of post mortem sexual activity.

c) Chandler's and Marano's Movements

On June 1, 1980, Chandler and Marano attended a party given by Mark Gottesman, an attorney, at his Hollywood home. Many people were there, including a number of Gottesman's clients. Gottesman was unsure whether his business cards were handed out at the party. Mindy Cohen, a guest at the party, saw the two girls. She talked to Gina Marano and gave the girl her telephone number. Marano wrote the number in an address book she carried with her.

On the afternoon of June 10, 1980, Henry Brigges was driving a moving truck. He picked up two female hitchhikers. One of the girls, with blonde hair, gave her name as Cindy. The other girl had dark hair. Brigges gave the blonde girl his business card, bearing both his own telephone number and the number of his brother and sister-in-law, George and Laurie Brigges. He dropped the girls off at the entrance to a freeway onramp.

Angelo Marano, the father of Gina Marano and the stepfather of Cynthia Chandler, last saw them alive in early June 1980. Gina always carried her address book containing business cards and other information; it was very important to her.

d) The Telephone Calls

(1) Laurie Brigges

Laurie Brigges testified that between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on June 16, 1980, she received a telephone call at home from a man asking for her brother-in-law, Henry Brigges. The man identified himself as a police officer in the Hollywood division who was investigating the murder of two girls whose *73 bodies were dumped near the freeway on June 12. The man said that one of the girls had her brother-in-law's business card. The "policeman" assured Laurie Brigges that her brother-in-law was not suspected in the killings, and that it was not necessary for Henry Brigges to contact the police. Laurie Brigges believed the man gave his name as Detective Clark. She thought the call was unusual because as the conversation proceeded, the caller became more casual and less police-like. For instance, the caller commented that the two girls had been "doing what they shouldn't" — that they were prostitutes.

Over defendant's objection, Laurie Brigges testified that she had identified defendant's voice for police from a tape recording they played for her. She also identified his voice in court as that of the caller.

(2) Mindy Cohen

Around 11:30 a.m., June 22, 1980, Mindy Cohen received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. The man stated he was inquiring into the murders of Chandler and Marano. He said that Gina had been shot in the head, and Cindy in the heart. When Cohen inquired how the police got her phone number, the man said it was found with the bodies.

Approximately one month later, on July 24, 1980, Cohen was awakened by a second telephone call at 7:11 a.m. Cohen immediately recognized the man's voice as the same one she had heard on June 22. The caller asked "if this was Mindy"; Cohen answered yes. He asked if she remembered that he had called previously about the murders of Gina and Cindy, and said, "Well, I killed them and now I want you." The man told Cohen he had shot Gina in the head and had to shoot Cindy in the heart. He said they were prostitutes and that he had paid Cindy $30 to "suck him off." He said, "I shot them and then I made love to them and it felt so good. It felt so good." He said, "Now I want you, Mindy," and "You're next." Cohen noticed that the caller's breathing changed in the course of the conversation. That, coupled with the hesitation in his voice, led Cohen to believe that he was reaching a sexual climax. Cohen became scared and hung up the phone. She asked her father to call the police.

Cohen, like Brigges, identified defendant's voice from a tape recording. Cohen also told the police that the caller had used a two-syllable name. She was not sure of the name but thought she might remember it if she heard it. The officer suggested the name "Doug Clark." Cohen said that was the *74 name. She was so positive about the name "Doug Clark" that the detective did not suggest any others. Cohen testified at trial that "Doug Clark" was the name the caller gave.

(3) Telephone Records

The prosecutor introduced telephone company records for the telephone of Bretta Jo (Joey) Lamphier, one of defendant's girlfriends with whom he sometimes lived. The records for June 16, 1980, reflected three significant telephone calls: a call at 2:13 p.m., from Lamphier's residence to her place of employment; a call at 2:36 p.m. to the number assigned to Laurie Brigges; and a call at 2:40 p.m. to the office of Mark Gottesman. Lamphier testified that she did not make the calls. She was at work at that time. Rather, she testified, defendant telephoned her at work on that afternoon. Defendant told her he was at her apartment, and that he would be calling some movers to arrange to move some of his property from Lamphier's residence into a new apartment on Verdugo Street that defendant intended to share with Carol Bundy.

The July 24, 1980, telephone call to Mindy Cohen was made at 7:11 a.m. from the telephone at the Verdugo Street apartment defendant shared with Carol Bundy. Records showed that defendant clocked in at work at 7:28 a.m. that same morning. It took defendant two to five minutes to get from the apartment on Verdugo Street to his place of work a few blocks away on Verdugo Street.

2. Murders of Karen Jones and Exxie Wilson

Between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m. on June 23, 1980, Officer Guzzetta was patrolling on Sunset Boulevard when he met a prostitute named Karen Jones, whom he warned not to loiter in that area. A resident of the area heard a scream outside his home between 2:25 and 2:40 a.m. At 3:15 a.m., Karen Jones's body was discovered lying by the curb in a pool of blood around her face and hair. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. A .25-caliber jacketed bullet was retrieved from the skull. The gun had been held approximately six to twelve inches from the head when the shot was fired. The coroner estimated that Jones died sometime between 12 midnight and 2:00 a.m. on June 23. The coroner's examination could not determine whether Jones had engaged in sexual activity shortly before her death.

At 7:15 a.m. that same morning, a decapitated body, later identified as that of Exxie Wilson, was discovered in the parking lot of a restaurant. A red dress with a sash was found in a dumpster next to the body. The sash was cut *75 into pieces. No other articles of clothing were found at the scene. Four days later, around 1 a.m., June 27, 1980, a wooden box was discovered in an alley. The severed blonde head of Exxie Wilson was inside the box, wrapped in a pair of blue jeans and a pink T-shirt with the inscription "Daddy's Girl." (These items of clothing were ultimately identified as belonging to another victim, Marnette Comer.) The head had been frozen, and appeared to have been scrubbed or scoured.

The coroner determined that Wilson, like Jones, had died sometime between midnight and 2 a.m. on June 23, 1980. The head had probably been cut off after death, although the victim might have been dying or unconscious. Approximately 15 to 20 cuts were required to sever it. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. A .25-caliber jacketed bullet was recovered from the head. Three vaginal samples from Wilson's body all contained spermatozoa.

3. Murder of Marnette Comer

On June 30, 1980, the nude body of Marnette Comer, a blonde prostitute, was found in a ravine off Foothill Boulevard, not far from the freeway. Freeway lights were visible from the site in the ravine where the body was found. The ravine itself was dark at night. Comer had been dead for some time — from 20-90 days according to the coroner's estimate — and the skin had become dried and mummified. The autopsy showed that Comer had suffered three gunshot wounds to the chest area. Two .25-caliber bullets were recovered from the body.

Sabra Comer, the sister of Marnette Comer, last saw the victim on May 21, 1980. At that time, Marnette was wearing a pink T-shirt with the words "Daddy's Girl" printed on it, like the one found with Exxie Wilson's head.

4. Murder of Jane Doe 18

On August 26, 1980 (after defendant's arrest), another body was discovered near the Sierra Highway in Antelope Valley. A worker inspecting some nearby water towers came upon some human bones, scattered in a 10-foot radius about an oily spot that smelled of decomposing flesh. A clump of blonde hair was found in the vicinity of the site where the remains were found. The victim, an unidentified young female who had died about one to two months earlier, was designated merely "Jane Doe 18." The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. The coroner removed a .25-caliber jacketed bullet from the temporal area of the skull.

5. Attempted Murder and Mayhem of Charlene A.

Charlene A. testified that around 10 p.m., April 27, 1980, she was on Sunset Boulevard. A man she identified at trial as defendant approached *76 driving a blue station wagon, and solicited an act of oral copulation. After she entered the car, defendant suddenly began stabbing her repeatedly in the back, neck, arms, chest and stomach. In the ensuing struggle, Charlene grabbed the knife by the blade. The blade severed tendons in her hand. At one point, she said, "Mister, that's blood. You're hurtin' me." He laughed and said, "I know." She was finally able to open the car door and escape. Charlene later identified defendant's photograph from a lineup, and identified him in court.

6. Defendant's Arrest and Interrogation

On August 11, 1980, Carol Bundy called police to confess to the murder of Jack Murray, her lover. In the course of that confession, she said that she had discovered sometime in June that her roommate, defendant, was engaged in the Sunset murders. She said she helped defendant dispose of Exxie Wilson's head. As she found out more about the murders and became more deeply involved, Bundy confided in Murray. Then, because she was afraid that Murray would tell the police, she shot him in the head, decapitated him, and cut his body with a knife. Defendant helped Bundy dispose of Murray's head.

Defendant was initially taken into custody for his possible involvement in the Murray murder. He was also questioned about the Sunset killings. The interview is relevant to these crimes in several respects.

a) Defendant's Sexual Activities and Attitudes

Detective Orozco asked about defendant's activities in the Hollywood area. Defendant admitted he went to the Hollywood area "pretty much" on a regular basis, primarily to "troll" for prostitutes and to go to clubs. Sometimes defendant would go by himself, but other times he would go with Bundy. He picked up "hookers" on Sunset Boulevard and several other locations. One night, he and Bundy "cruised" Anaheim after reading news stories of the Sunset killings because they wanted to see other areas where prostitutes hang out. Bundy also sometimes went with defendant and paid hookers for "threesomes."

Defendant said that his mother knew "I've been a little weird for a long time. She caught me dressed in her and my sister's underwear when I was nine years old." Defendant told police that he had "started into damn near everything" when he was in the ninth grade in Switzerland, "[a]nd since then I've never been able to look at sex just straight on. It had to be kinky or at least good communication. [¶] ... [¶] And so with hookers, if the girl was *77 a human being first and a hooker second, instead of vice versa, then ... it was great. It — it was a challenge." Defendant said that simply picking up hookers was too easy, so he started going to dancer bars because it was an "ego trip" to be the one man of all those at the bar who walked out with the dancer. In addition, defendant said, "It also was the kind of woman I wanted — tough enough to stand up there and say `You can look; don't touch.'"

Defendant told police he had known "about 100 whores" since he had been living in Los Angeles, and that it was important to be able to have a conversation with a prostitute; defendant would "shine on" a hooker who just says how much and gets down to it. He denied any interest in necrophilia.

b) Knowledge of the Charged Offenses

Detectives showed defendant photographs of the five victims then known. Defendant recognized Cynthia Chandler's photograph as that of a part-time prostitute he had met at the Malibu pier. Defendant thought her name was "Cynthy" or "Cindy" and stated that he had her phone number in his wallet. The two had "partied" about a half dozen times. He was upset when he read about her death in the newspaper and "[i]t scared the fuck out of me because she had my phone number." Defendant said he exchanged phone numbers with all the girls he liked.

Defendant otherwise denied knowing about the deaths of the five girls. He had heard of the name Exxie in the paper, but "must have missed" reading about a head in a wooden box connected to the crimes. Defendant told police he read the newspaper "religiously" every day and specifically had been interested in stories about the Sunset killings because they involved prostitutes.

c) Defendant's Access to Weapons and Cars

Police asked defendant whether he was familiar with two.25-caliber Raven automatic pistols registered to Carol Bundy. Defendant stated that he had handled both guns and test-fired them into a telephone book. He told police he believed Bundy had gotten rid of or sold them. When police officers said that they would like to have the guns, defendant responded, "I bet you would. I — I can understand that." Defendant told police he had "no idea" where they were, although he knew "goddamn well" he did not have them and they were "not in my area." Defendant admitted that he customarily carried a .25-caliber automatic in a clip-on holster in his boot, even though he knew it was unlawful to do so.

*78 When police indicated they had a piece of physical evidence linked to the crimes, defendant surmised that Detective Stallcup might have a bullet in his pocket. Defendant immediately stated that police might have recovered bullets "from the car" because defendant remembered shooting the gun into a telephone book.

Defendant additionally admitted owning a folding knife with a silver handle which he might have left at work. He also had a buck knife which he had given to his brother. He said he had gotten rid of his buck knife, and stated he had had two or three knives.

Police asked defendant if he owned a car. Defendant said he did not; he drove Carol Bundy's Datsun sometimes, but defendant had a motorcycle. In addition, he had driven Bundy's blue Buick station wagon off and on until she recently sold it.

d) Defendant's Demeanor

Although defendant was generally cooperative during questioning, he stated that he was not fully candid with the officers because "there are some things I don't want you to know and I'm not going to tell you, O.K?" Detective Stallcup also testified that defendant was the coolest murder suspect he had ever interviewed. Defendant's behavior changed only when he was interrogated about molesting a 12-year-old girl, Shannon O. Defendant became embarrassed when the police indicated they had a photograph album showing defendant engaged in sexual activities with her.

7. Postarrest Investigation

a) Telephone List Seized From Defendant's Wallet

Defendant's wallet was seized when he was detained at the police station for questioning. The wallet contained a piece of paper with these words on one side:

"Mindy C. [telephone number]

"B. Hills not working

"Friend of Cindi's

"pretty."

The opposite side contained the notation:

*79

"Cindy [telephone number] Rm bottom left

"Blonde hooker 30"

"Cathy too."

The telephone number given for "Mindy C." was Mindy Cohen's actual telephone number. The telephone number listed for "Cindy" was for the Palm Motel on Sunset Boulevard, in an area frequented by prostitutes.

b) Search of Defendant's Apartment

At the conclusion of the interrogation, defendant, Detective Orozco, and other officers went to defendant's Verdugo Street apartment. Defendant pointed out his bedroom and a filing cabinet which he stated belonged to him. Inside the filing cabinet, Detective Orozco found a newspaper opened to an article describing the recovery of the box containing Exxie Wilson's head, and numerous pornographic books and magazines, some depicting necrophilic activities.

c) Defendant's Rental Garage

During the interview, defendant admitted he had rented a small storage garage in Burbank in January 1980. Defendant told police he had given up the garage in May 1980, although other evidence at trial established that he had rented it through June 1980 and abandoned it sometime in July. Police found several dark stains on the garage floor which appeared to be blood. One was a smear approximately two and one-half feet wide and eight feet long, as if something bloody had been dragged across the floor. Presumptive, though not conclusive, testing of the stains proved positive for blood. One of the stains was a partial print of the sole of a boot. The bootprint itself also showed a positive reaction to a presumptive test for blood.

Police later seized a pair of black boots defendant was wearing. The sole of the boots matched the bloody bootprint. This was the same boot in which defendant had admitted carrying a.25-caliber automatic.

8. Other Evidence

a) The Guns

On April 25, 1980, Bundy applied to purchase two .25-caliber Raven automatic pistols at a pawnbroker in Van Nuys. The guns were nearly identical; one had a bright chrome finish and the other had a slightly duller nickel finish. Bundy received the guns on May 16, 1980.

*80 Eleanor (Cissy) Buster first met defendant in May 1980. He moved in with her shortly after Memorial Day. Buster testified that defendant habitually carried two small Raven automatics. He usually carried one in his boot and the other in his jacket. Defendant told Buster he had obtained the guns at a pawnshop on Van Nuys Boulevard. Defendant never went out without taking his guns with him.

Frances Huys was defendant's high school sweetheart. They lost contact in 1968. Then, in 1980, defendant invited her to visit him in Los Angeles over the Memorial Day weekend. Defendant took Huys to an apartment he said he had formerly shared with Carol Bundy (the Lemona Street apartment). There he obtained a gun and ammunition. Defendant told Huys that he had persuaded Bundy to buy a gun for him by falsely telling her that he had a federal conviction and could not purchase it himself. Huys testified that defendant's gun was shiny and silver, like the chrome Raven.

Carlos Ramos was a steam boiler operator at the plant where defendant worked. Defendant, a licensed steam engineer, was training Ramos to operate the boiler. Ramos had seen defendant cleaning guns at work — two smaller guns and a large gun like a.44. On August 15, 1980, another employee told Ramos that police were going to search the plant for guns. Before the police arrived, Ramos found two Raven pistols inside a cosmetic bag hidden in a remote area near the top of the boiler room. Detective Stallcup took custody of the guns the same day.

The plant watchman testified that, on the night of August 9 to 10, 1980, defendant came to the plant after hours. Defendant said he was not feeling well and wanted to get something out of the building. Defendant signed the visitors' log at 2:06 a.m. on August 10, entered the plant, and returned and signed out at 2:15 a.m. The watchman did not see defendant carrying any guns, but defendant was carrying or wearing a jacket which could have concealed small guns like the Raven automatics. A round trip from the watchman's station to the place where the guns were found would take approximately five minutes.

Comparative ballistics tests established that all the bullets recovered from all of the victims in this case were fired by the nickel Raven, one of the guns found hidden at defendant's place of employment.

b) The Cars

During the relevant time, Bundy owned a blue Buick station wagon until she sold it on July 17, 1980. Bundy also purchased a small Datsun automobile. Defendant had regular access to both cars, even when not living with *81 Bundy; he frequently drove the Buick. For example, Cissy Buster testified that defendant had the Buick station wagon virtually continuously from the day he moved into her house (June 3) to the day he left (June 22). Defendant used the station wagon to pick up Frances Huys at the airport in May 1980, and was driving it when he met another witness, Elaine Forrestall, around June 7. Joey Lamphier testified that she often saw defendant driving a small blue car, like a Datsun or Toyota.

After the arrest of Bundy and defendant, law enforcement officers searched both vehicles. In the Buick station wagon, officers recovered .25-caliber slugs and casings which were traced to both the nickel Raven and the chrome Raven. A bullet from the nickel Raven was embedded in the passenger door of the Datsun. Evidence of blood was found inside each vehicle.

c) Blood Type Evidence

The police seized a large painting of a ski scene from the Verdugo Street apartment defendant shared with Bundy. Other evidence established that the painting had been kept for a time in defendant's rental garage. Several spots of blood were found on the back of the painting. Analysis of the blood spots identified a number of different blood type and enzyme characteristics which matched blood from the body of Gina Marano. A blood typing expert testified that only one out of two hundred people would share all of these characteristics.

A criminologist testified that a blood sample from the Buick station wagon shared seven identifiable characteristics which matched the blood of Karen Jones. Only one person in one hundred twenty-five would share all seven characteristics. Some blood samples in the Buick also matched four blood type characteristics of Exxie Wilson. One out of five persons would share those four characteristics.

d) Defendant's Activities on the Date of the Chandler/Marano Murders

Defendant was living with Cissy Buster on June 11-12, the date of the Chandler/Marano killings. Buster testified that defendant telephoned her on June 11, 1980 and told her he would be late for dinner. His work records showed that he worked from 5:10 a.m. to 12:32 p.m. that day. Defendant returned home around 8:30 p.m. and went out again at 10:30 p.m. in the Buick station wagon. Defendant told Buster he wanted to take pictures of a car that was involved in a hit-and-run accident; he borrowed her Polaroid *82 camera. Defendant returned home again around 2 a.m. He later showed Buster pictures of a small car in an underground garage. He pointed to what appeared to be a red liquid on the fender of the car and said the liquid was blood. Buster identified a photograph of Bundy's Datsun as similar to the car defendant showed her in the Polaroid snapshots.

e) Defendant's Postarrest Writings

While defendant was in custody in the county jail, he sent numerous letters and other documents to Joey Lamphier. The documents were seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at Lamphier's residence. Among the documents was defendant's personal summary of "case notes." Defendant detailed case activity and his own actions in parallel columns. One entry acknowledged his acquaintance with Chandler, showing he had had his "4th date w/Cindy" on June 8.

In other letters, defendant importuned Lamphier to "remember" (quotations in defendant's original) the facts as he wanted her to, suggesting that if she failed to do so she would be responsible for his death. In particular, defendant wrote about a specific instance in which he wanted Lamphier to say that he had had the chrome Raven rather than the nickel Raven. Defendant admitted being at Lamphier's house on June 16 and making the telephone calls from her residence reflected in the telephone records for that afternoon (i.e., the calls to Lamphier, to Laurie Brigges, and to the office of Mark Gottesman). Defendant also acknowledged he had given his buck knife to Lamphier and told her to get rid of it. He chastised her for not following his instructions, asserting that the knife was not connected to the crimes, but that it would look bad if the jury knew he had owned knives.

Defendant urged Lamphier to become his investigative eyes and legs, exhorting her to "photograph scenes" from the murder locations and to "see the freeway lights from where #70 [Comer] lay in a ravine for 30 days."

An excerpt from another document indicated defendant's concern, if he represented himself, that he might have to allow his attorney, Maxwell Keith, to cross-examine two key witnesses, because "if I do the direct- or cross-exam on them it will be VERY harmful to our case." (Defendant's emphasis.) The prosecution theorized that this note referred to Mindy Cohen and Laurie Brigges, the two witnesses who heard defendant's voice on the telephone and who would be able to identify him if they heard his voice in court.

Other writings indicated that at a court-ordered examination of physical evidence, defendant deliberately handled certain items to place his fingerprints on them so that police would be unable to prove any preexisting *83 fingerprints; that defendant had altered his appearance by losing weight; and that he had sent case exhibits to a prisoner in the State of Washington for her titillation and amusement. A writing by Joey Lamphier acknowledged that she had destroyed some of defendant's letters at his request.

f) Defendant's Sexual Proclivities

In addition to defendant's statements to the police about his sexual interests and practices, additional evidence was introduced at trial.

Defendant was a regular patron of a bar where Donielle Patton worked. Defendant often talked to Patton about his sex life. He complained that his sex life had become boring and he was looking for new ways of obtaining gratification. Defendant said he was "into S & M" (sadomasochism) and physical abuse. Defendant also talked about picking up "hookers" and going to "swing parties." Defendant told Patton he liked to pick up hookers on Sunset Boulevard, that it made him feel superior since they were so far beneath him. Patton saw defendant at the bar with various women, including Carol Bundy, Cissy Buster, and, based upon a photograph she was shown, Cynthia Chandler. Patton also testified about one incident when defendant came into the bar very excited. He told Patton that he had found a new way of reaching a sexual "high": he would engage a prostitute in sex and slit her throat. Defendant found the jerking motion of her body and her vaginal spasms as she died to be sexually exciting. Patton did not initially believe defendant because she could not believe that anyone would actually do such a thing and then boast about it.

Shannon O., who was 14 at the time of trial in 1982, testified that she would often ride with defendant in the Datsun or the Buick automobile. Defendant would point out prostitutes standing on the street. Shannon once heard defendant say he would like to pick up a "rowdy prostitute" and shoot her if she pulled a knife on him. On another occasion, with both Shannon and Carol Bundy present in the car, defendant paid a prostitute $25 to orally copulate him.

In addition, three of defendant's girlfriends testified that he collected and wore women's underwear.

B. THE DEFENSE CASE

In his opening statement, defendant stated his intent to prove that Carol Bundy, a vocational nurse, and her former lover, Jack Murray, were the real killers. Bundy was granted immunity by the district attorney before she *84 testified for the defense. Bundy did not implicate Murray, however, but testified that defendant had committed the instant crimes.

1. Carol Bundy's Testimony

a) Background

In late 1979, Bundy was living at the Valerio Gardens apartments. Jack Murray was the manager. In December, Bundy met defendant at a country-western nightclub where Murray sometimes sang. Defendant was looking for someone to move in with. By January or February 1980, Bundy had moved to an apartment on Lemona Street in Van Nuys (the Lemona apartment) and defendant had moved in with her. Over the next few months, defendant moved in and out of the Lemona apartment several times, living with various other women for short periods of time.

Bundy and defendant agreed to share a new apartment on Verdugo Street in Burbank (the Verdugo apartment) in late June 1980. Defendant moved into the Verdugo apartment about one week before Bundy. Bundy testified she was still living at the Lemona apartment on June 23, 1980, and did not move to the Verdugo apartment until after that date. Bundy and defendant often fantasized together about sexual matters, including necrophiliac activities.

Bundy purchased two Raven .25-caliber automatic pistols at a pawnshop in Van Nuys in April 1980. The day before Bundy purchased the guns, defendant had gone to the pawnshop, selected the guns he wanted, and then sent Bundy to purchase them. Defendant told Bundy that he was an ex-felon, having committed an armed robbery in Indiana, and that it was illegal for him to purchase the guns himself. Defendant kept the nickel Raven pistol, while the chrome Raven was Bundy's gun. Defendant had access to both guns, however, and sometimes carried both.

Bundy recalled that Frances Huys and defendant came to the Lemona apartment immediately before the Memorial Day weekend in May 1980. Defendant borrowed Bundy's chrome Raven pistol and left the nickel Raven in Bundy's closet. Defendant told Bundy he borrowed the chrome gun because, if he were stopped by police, he did not want to have a "dirty gun" in his possession and the chrome gun had not been previously fired.

During the night of August 9 to 10, 1980, the night Jack Murray's body was discovered, Bundy asked defendant to get rid of the guns. Defendant left the Verdugo apartment and returned approximately 15 minutes later. Defendant did not tell Bundy what he had done with the Raven pistols, although he *85 had previously confided to her that he occasionally hid them in the boiler room at work.

b) The Crimes

(1) Marano/Chandler Murders

Bundy first learned about the murders when defendant telephoned her at work on June 12 or 13, 1980, and directed her to watch the television news. The news broadcast depicted the recovery of the bodies of two teenage girls, Chandler and Marano.

Defendant later told Bundy he had picked up the two girls on the afternoon of June 11. He was only interested in Chandler, the blonde, but Marano would not leave, so he invited both girls into the Buick. He paid Chandler $30 to orally copulate him. Defendant told Marano he did not want her to watch. When Marano turned her head, defendant shot her. Chandler pulled away, and defendant also shot her in the head. The girls did not die right away, so defendant again shot Marano in the head and Chandler in the heart.

After shooting the girls, defendant drove to his rental garage, where he dragged their bodies inside and "played" with them sexually from approximately 4 to 8 p.m. on a bed he kept in the garage. Defendant said he engaged in anal intercourse with Marano, vaginal intercourse with Chandler, and had ejaculated twice in Chandler's throat. Defendant left the garage, returning after dark to pick up the bodies and dump them alongside the freeway. Defendant gave Bundy two bullets which he said had gone through Gina Marano's head.

A few days later, defendant took Bundy for a ride in the Datsun to show her where he had dropped off the bodies of Chandler and Marano. During the drive, defendant had the nickel Raven pistol on the seat beside him. Defendant threatened Bundy not to tell police about the murders.

Sometime after this incident, defendant told her that he had called a girl named Mindy Cohen, whose telephone number he had found among the personal belongings of the two teenage girls. Defendant told Bundy he "got off" on making that telephone call. Defendant called Mindy Cohen a second time and threatened her. Cohen became upset and hung up the telephone, which caused defendant to panic. He called Bundy at work and demanded to know where the two Raven pistols were. He was concerned that he might have told Cohen too much.

*86 (2) Marnette Comer

Defendant told Bundy that on May 31, 1980, he had killed another girl, whom he called "Foothill" (Marnette Comer) because he had dumped her body near Foothill Boulevard. He told Bundy he had picked up Comer on Sunset Boulevard while driving Bundy's newly purchased Datsun. He said that he had shot Comer four times. When Comer realized she was being fired upon, she became angry, called defendant names, and kicked at him. Comer's foot missed defendant and instead broke the handle of the gearshift of the Datsun. After defendant shot Comer, he "gutted her," slitting her belly.

(3) Jones/Wilson Murders

Around 4:30 or 5:00 a.m., June 23, 1980, defendant came to the Lemona apartment, where Bundy was still living, woke Bundy up, and told her that he had killed two prostitutes. [2] Defendant first saw them together on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City. Defendant was sexually interested in only one of them, Exxie Wilson. Eventually, defendant got Wilson to enter the Buick alone. He drove to a restaurant parking lot and shot her in the back of the head as she orally copulated him. Defendant cut off her head with a buck knife. Defendant then went back to look for Karen Jones, the second prostitute, because he was afraid she might identify him. Defendant found her, shot her and left her fully clothed body on the street. Jones was not sexually molested.

A few days later at the Verdugo apartment, Bundy saw Exxie Wilson's frozen head on the kitchen counter near the sink. Defendant swung the head by the hair and asked Bundy to put makeup on it. Then defendant became worried that the makeup would show fingerprints, so Bundy washed the head. Bundy later purchased a wooden box, in which defendant placed Wilson's head, wrapped in the pink "Daddy's Girl" T-shirt, and a pair of blue jeans. They dropped the box in an alley not far from the parking lot where Wilson's body had been.

*87 (4) Jane Doe 18

Sometime in late July or early August 1980, defendant told Bundy he had picked up a prostitute, whom he called "Water Tower" (Jane Doe 18) in Hollywood, and killed her in the Datsun. He shot the victim in the back of the head while she was orally copulating him. Defendant drove to a remote area near some water towers, dragged the body from the car, and laid it against the hood of the car. He engaged in sexual intercourse with the dead body.

(5) Charlene A. Assault

Bundy also described an incident in late April 1980, when defendant came to the Lemona apartment late at night, covered with blood. Defendant told Bundy he had picked up a woman in a bar and had taken her to the Buick station wagon where she orally copulated him. Suddenly, a man named Nick, a rival member of a professional murder organization, came out of the bar, opened the door of the Buick, and attacked defendant with a knife. Defendant grabbed his knife which he kept in the visor of the Buick and began stabbing at the man. He stabbed the woman numerous times instead. She cut her right hand severely when attempting to grab the knife. The woman eventually jumped out of the station wagon and ran away. Defendant told Bundy he killed Nick.

c) Move to Verdugo Apartment/Defendant's Garage

On June 12, 1980, Bundy applied to rent the Verdugo apartment, with defendant as a co-occupant. Defendant moved into the Verdugo apartment before Bundy. The telephone, "a top priority" to defendant, had already been connected. Bundy helped defendant move his belongings, including the large ski painting with the blood spots, from the rental garage in Burbank to the Verdugo apartment. As defendant hung the ski painting on the wall, he laughed and told Bundy the bloodstains in the back belonged to Gina Marano.

Bundy and defendant then cleaned out the rental garage. Bundy swept out the garage while defendant scrubbed stains from the concrete floor. This was the only occasion that Bundy was ever inside that garage.

2. Defendant's Testimony

Defendant denied killing Gina Marano and Cynthia Chandler on June 11, 1980. He admitted he telephoned Mindy Cohen at 7:11 a.m. on July 24, *88 1980, and identified himself as "Doug," but claimed that Chandler had given him that phone number and that he believed he was calling Chandler. Defendant testified that he asked for "Cindy" and that the conversation was confused between the names Cindy and Mindy. He stated that Cohen became hysterical and hostile and threatened to call the police. Defendant denied threatening Cohen or telling her that he had killed the two girls near the Forest Lawn exit.

Defendant also admitted making the telephone calls from Joey Lamphier's residence on June 16, 1980. He denied, however, that he told Laurie Brigges he was a detective investigating the Chandler/Marano homicides. He claimed he only talked about hiring a mover to help him move to the Verdugo apartment. He claimed Bundy had supplied him with telephone numbers of movers to call.

Defendant denied committing any of the other murders or assaulting Charlene A. He claimed, though without any supporting evidence, that Jack Murray committed the murders.

3. Defendant's Postarrest Writings

Defendant was impeached by letters and documents he wrote after his arrest.

In letters to Carol Bundy while they were incarcerated, defendant attempted to persuade her to present false evidence at defendant's trial. Chiefly, defendant urged Bundy to testify that Murray, not defendant, was the killer. [3] Some of defendant's writings indicated firsthand knowledge of the crimes (e.g., defendant knew that Marnette Comer wore "sexy bikini 6's" underwear although he claimed never to have seen or met her; he knew freeway lights were visible from the ravine where her body lay).

Defendant also corresponded with Veronica Lyn Compton, a prisoner in the State of Washington, in which he referred to his plan to have Bundy "lay it [the murders] on dear, dead Jack [Murray]," and his threats to retaliate if she did not. Defendant also wrote that he needed a "foxy blonde" attorney to "offset the `blonde whore' motive." Defendant sent coroner's photographs and other case materials to Compton for her amusement. Much of his writing consisted of sexually oriented matter, including references to necrophilia.

*89 II. GUILT PHASE ISSUES

A. DEFENDANT'S REPRESENTATION

Defendant makes a number of interrelated contentions with regard to his representation.

1. The Facts

In case No. A361671, defendant was originally charged with the six counts of murder, three counts of sexual misconduct against minor Shannon O., and one count of being an accessory to the murder of Jack Murray. The preliminary hearing on those charges began on October 20, 1980. Defendant was then represented by Karl Henry, an attorney apparently appointed to represent him. Defendant was held to answer on all charges.

Defendant was arraigned in superior court on November 13, 1980, on the same counts, with the addition of the count of mutilation of human remains (Health and Saf. Code, § 7052). Because the public defender declared a conflict, the court appointed Paul Geragos to represent defendant. Defendant immediately moved to act as assistant counsel and to have "pro per" (in propria persona) privileges in the jail. Among other reasons for requesting cocounsel status, defendant stated that he had been dissatisfied with Henry's representation in the municipal court. The trial court (Judge Keene) denied the motion without prejudice. On December 9, 1980, defendant's renewed motion for cocounsel status before Judge Ringer, the judge assigned to hear pretrial motions, was heard and again denied.

On June 12, 1981, Geragos was relieved on the ground of a conflict of interest, and Maxwell Keith was appointed to represent defendant. Defendant requested law library privileges for the purpose of filing a civil suit against his former attorney, Karl Henry. The court denied the request.

On July 6, 1981, Judge Ringer granted defendant's request for "pro se" privileges, excluding law library access. Defendant described the "pro se" privileges as "the same things as pro per, but I don't need the law library." In November 1981, Keith moved for an ex parte order that defendant be granted law library privileges in order to assist with the preparation of the defense. Judge Ringer ultimately granted the motion on April 19, 1982. Defendant was accorded law library privileges two hours per day, seven days a week. In addition, sometime before April 19, 1982, a different judge appointed a second attorney, Penelope Watson, to assist in the defense.

On April 2, 1982, case No. A377385 was filed, charging defendant with the attempted murder and mayhem of Charlene A. The public defender *90 declared it could not represent defendant because of a conflict of interest. Defendant objected to the appointment of either Keith or Watson because of their responsibility in dealing with the multiple murder charges in case No. A361671. At defendant's request, David Wesley was appointed to represent him on the new charges. Preliminary hearing on the Charlene A. charges was set for April 14, 1982. At that time, Wesley requested a continuance to pursue discovery and preparation of an affirmative defense. The motion for continuance was denied, and the preliminary hearing was held, despite Wesley's declaration that the defense was not ready and would therefore stand mute. Defendant was held to answer on the charges.

On June 9, 1982, the two cases were consolidated for trial. Wesley's separate appointment was therefore terminated and defendant was represented on all the charges by Keith and Watson. [4]

On July 8, 1982, several pretrial motions remained to be decided. The court set July 26, 1982 as a firm trial date, stating that "What I mean by a trial date is [that] we conclude all the remaining motions that are to be handled prior to the selection of the jury. [¶] As long as those motions are all made, heard and ruled upon, we get a panel...." Both parties, including defendant, agreed to this procedure.

The hearing on pretrial motions was continued to July 26, 1982. The court granted in part and denied in part Keith's motion for discovery. The court asked defendant if he waived time for trial so that hearing on the remaining motions could be continued. Defendant, apparently angry with Keith over the partial denial of discovery, refused to waive time and purported to dismiss Keith, declaring "I'm thoroughly capable of handling this case." Because several defense motions remained to be heard, and the court presumed defendant did not want to abandon the motions, the court found good cause for the continuance despite defendant's refusal to waive time.

Judge Ringer thereupon set a new trial date for August 10, 1982. On August 10, hearing on the remaining defense motions began, but was not concluded. The court continued the hearing to August 12. Keith was unavailable on that date. The hearing resumed on August 13, 1982. The court heard and denied some of the motions. At that point, defendant declared that he had a conflict with one counsel (presumably Keith) and wished to bring a motion under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 *91 S.Ct. 2525] to represent himself, coupled with a motion under Penal Code section 987.9 to have additional counsel (Watson) appointed to assist him. Judge Ringer advised defendant that he could bring his motion in the master calendar court. Defendant agreed. The court could not conclude proceedings on all the remaining motions, and the matter was continued.

On August 19, Judge Ringer disposed of the remaining pretrial motions, and immediately transferred the case to another department for assignment to a trial judge. Defendant informed the court that he had given his Faretta motion papers to Keith, pursuant to the court's instruction that defendant should file papers only through his attorney, but that Keith refused to file the papers. Judge Ringer told defendant he could make his Faretta motion orally before the master calendar court.

The next day, August 20, 1982, the parties and counsel appeared before Judge Leetham in the master calendar court, who assigned the case for trial to Judge Torres. Defendant told Judge Leetham that he was "not represented at these proceedings," and that Keith "is not my attorney.... Mr. Keith is not representing me." Defendant also stated that he had filed a Faretta motion and a motion for appointment of cocounsel. Judge Leetham transferred the matter to Judge Torres's courtroom.

Judge Torres considered defendant's Faretta motion. Defendant explained that he had attempted to declare a conflict of interest with Keith and that he had transmitted written Faretta motion papers to Keith. Defendant stated he had also included an application under section 987.9 to have Watson appointed to assist him in his self-representation, but Keith had failed to file the written papers. Defendant announced that he therefore considered himself in propria persona with Watson as his cocounsel, unless she did not wish to serve in that capacity. In support of his desire to represent himself, defendant referred to additional motions "that are not being prepared that should be," and stated that "There are delays that will be necessary because of discovery."

Keith attempted, "while I am still counsel," to have defendant enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant responded: "Therein lies the conflict, Your Honor. I am not guilty by any regard, way, shape or form.... [¶] There is no rapport, communication or any legal way that we can do business together."

The prosecutor objected to defendant's motion for self-representation. He pointed out that since Watson did not wish to remain as cocounsel if defendant represented himself, he would in effect be discharging two experienced counsel who were familiar with the case, even though defendant *92 conceded that "Miss Watson is fully qualified. She's a very competent attorney. I have utmost faith in her." He stated that he was "satisfied with her representation of me." The prosecutor argued that if defendant subsequently demanded appointment of other counsel, the need to acquaint additional counsel with the case would cause unjustifiable delay.

Judge Torres denied the Faretta motion as untimely, noting that "[t]hat matter has been transferred here for trial today" and that the case was extremely complicated, involving over a hundred witnesses in an estimated six-month trial. Keith again raised the question of the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant refused to enter such a plea.

One final motion to suppress had been reserved, and defense counsel stated that they wished to pursue three additional unfiled motions. Over prosecution objection, the matter was continued to August 25, 1982, to hear the new motions. The motions were disposed of on that date, and jury selection commenced September 7, 1982. In the middle of jury selection, on September 20, 1982, defendant stated that he was "unrepresented in this courtroom," and complained that Keith was unprepared for trial. After this outburst, and additional remarks generally denigrating Keith, defendant was removed from the courtroom. Defendant returned to the courtroom the next day, September 21, 1982.

On September 27, 1982, the court interrupted jury selection to conduct a hearing regarding the identification testimony of Charlene A., the attempted murder/mayhem victim. At the end of the afternoon session, defense counsel informed the court that defendant desired an ex parte hearing to show that counsel was unprepared and that he needed new counsel. The trial court denied the request. On September 30, 1982, Watson told the court she wished to file a letter defendant had written explaining his reasons for the request of September 27. The court refused to receive the letter.

On October 5, the day opening statements were scheduled to begin, defendant told the court he wished to renew his Faretta motion and to represent himself with Watson as cocounsel. He stated that he was not ready for trial and "the defense as a whole right now is not ready" because the district attorney had named a number of witnesses that the defense had never heard of. Defendant thus did not believe any competent attorney (including himself acting as his own attorney) would declare ready for trial under those circumstances. The court advised defendant that if he was ready to proceed forthwith without any attorneys, the motion would be granted. Defendant instead complained that he "was not up to date with the progress of the case." Because defendant apparently did not want to proceed immediately, the court denied the motion.

*93 On October 12, 1982, the fourth day of jury trial, Watson told the court that defendant wished to relieve both counsel and to proceed in propria persona. Defendant claimed that he so moved because of the incompetency of counsel. Defendant stated that he was ready to proceed forthwith, but that he would move immediately for appointment of a second counsel under section 987.9. The court informed defendant that, if he wished to represent himself, he should be prepared to go forward with no other attorneys. The court thereupon denied defendant's motion for self-represenation. Defendant then moved to dismiss Keith for incompetency and to proceed represented by Watson alone, alleging Keith was "totally unprepared." The court effectively denied the motion by bringing out the jury.

The next day, defendant renewed his motion to represent himself. The court again stated that defendant's motion for self-representation would be considered, but that, if granted, defendant would be representing himself without the assistance of any counsel. Defendant asked if the court was requiring him to waive his right to file a motion under section 987.9 for the assistance of counsel. The court stated that defendant could file the motion, but that it would be denied. The court also pointed out that investigators (William Stenberg and Susan Sarkis) had already been provided under section 987.9 to assist in preparation of the defense. Defendant stated that he "absolutely" wanted to represent himself, and indeed that "I've wanted to be pro per since approximately November 25th, 1980 [ sic, apparently November 13, the date he was arraigned in superior court and Geragos was appointed]."

The court advised defendant of his constitutional rights as well as the rights, responsibilities and risks attendant on self-representation. It found that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and stated that defendant would be allowed to represent himself if he wished. Defendant stated that was his desire; he also said that he did not want to be his own attorney but was "forced" to because "It's my life and to proceed with Mr. Keith as my attorney ... is suicide." Defendant called Keith "a buffoon attorney," and said that he was not prepared and that he came to court "half inebriated" in the afternoons. When the district attorney started to defend Keith, the court stated that the claims were "so outrageous they don't warrant an answer from the court." It then granted the motion for self-representation. It ordered Keith and Watson to remain in court as "standby counsel." Keith requested a hearing to determine defendant's competence to waive counsel. The court denied the request.

At the close of the day on October 14, 1982, defendant requested a "combination legal runner-clerk." The court promised to approve any qualified person whose name was submitted by investigator Stenberg. The next *94 trial day, October 18, 1982, defendant moved for a one-day continuance, alleging he had been unable to prepare properly because he was only allowed to transport two boxes of materials to and from the jail. The court ordered that the sheriff transport both defendant and all necessary materials to and from the jail.

On October 19, 1982, defendant advised the court that he had seen Wesley in the courtroom and asked whether he would be allowed to consult a legal adviser if he had funds available and hired one. The court stated that, if an attorney represented to the court that he was retained as defendant's legal adviser, defendant would certainly be allowed to consult with him. Defendant also advised the court that he would have a discovery list prepared by the next morning. The court, however, told defendant that discovery of any items related to the case against Carol Bundy (i.e., the murder of Jack Murray) would not be granted. Defendant complained that Carol Bundy's statements had provided the probable cause for his arrest and that witnesses to Bundy's statements were therefore relevant. The court told defendant to prepare a written motion, but defendant argued that he did not have time to prepare written motions.

Defendant stated that he "resigned" his in propria persona status, "as of now ... because the court refuses to allow me to prepare this case, refuses to allow me evidence and discovery, refuses to present my trial tactics rather than Mr. Keith's half-wit trial tactics." When the court inquired whether defendant was giving up his self-representation, however, defendant stated he "emphatically" wanted his in propria persona status, but that he desired the court to make orders for discovery, and for transportation of defendant and his materials to and from the jail. Defendant berated and accused the court of intentionally "blockading" his preparation of the case. The court repeated its order that the sheriff was "to do everything possible to get the defendant back to the County Jail each and every evening, to the best of their ability."

On November 1, 1982, defendant filed an ex parte motion for appointment of a law student clerk. The court denied the motion. The court told defendant he would have to try the case himself, and that he would "not be getting a big large staff to handle this." If at any time defendant felt he could not represent himself, the in propria persona status could be terminated and the standby attorneys would be reappointed.

After this and other rulings of the court, during his cross-examination of a prosecution witness, defendant declared that the defense "stands mute throughout the rest of the trial." Out of the presence of the jury, the court *95 found that defendant had renounced his right to represent himself, and ordered the standby counsel, attorneys Keith and Watson, reinstated. The attorneys were given until the afternoon session to prepare to continue the cross-examination.

At the commencement of the afternoon session on November 1, defendant informed the court that he did not wish to be "anywhere near" Keith if he was conducting the case. At the recommencement of the cross-examination, defendant stated in front of the jury that Keith did not represent him and that he desired Keith to say and do nothing on his behalf in the case. When the trial court admonished him not to say anything, defendant told the jury to "be aware" that "Mr. Keith is not my attorney and does not represent me." Keith conducted the defense cross-examination for the balance of the afternoon.

On the morning of November 2, 1982, Watson represented to the court that defendant had reconsidered his posture of standing mute during trial and requested that his in propria persona status be reinstated. The court granted the request, with Keith and Watson again on standby. The court admonished the jury not to concern itself with whether defendant was representing himself or not.

At the close of the People's case on December 2, 1982, defendant moved to dismiss all the counts on the grounds that the trial court improperly removed his in propria persona privileges when he chose to stand mute during the trial, and that the court prejudiced the jury against defendant's conduct by restoring the self-representation with an alleged admonition to the jury that defendant had "apologized." The court denied the motion. It stated that "a defendant cannot stand up at a point in trial and say that he wants to stand mute, so I chose to have your attorney take over the case." The court also admonished defendant that "the minute you misbehave, you are going to find your attorney sitting right next to you."

Defendant made his opening statement on December 2, 1982, stating his intent to demonstrate that Bundy and Jack Murray had committed the murders. On December 6, 1982, defendant and the court discussed the production of certain documents or items of demonstrative evidence for presentation in defendant's case. The court admonished defendant he would have to show relevance before the items would be admitted or, in some cases, ordered produced. Defendant requested production of numerous items of evidence from Murray's van, where Bundy shot and then decapitated Murray. The court ruled that evidence in the Murray case was irrelevant. Defendant threatened to ask for continuances until the requested items were *96 supplied, accused the court of requiring him to "pre-try my entire defense in front of the district attorney," and asserted "you're way off on a tangent somewhere."

The court warned defendant to conduct himself properly, or his in propria persona privileges would be taken away, and told him that he would have to behave whether he liked the court's rulings or not. Defendant told the court to "stop that crap," and accused it of lying, of having made up its mind about the case because of having heard a preliminary motion in the Bundy case, and of other improprieties. Despite these and other abusive remarks, defendant did proceed to examine defense witnesses.

At the close of the morning session on December 6, 1982, the court took up in chambers defendant's request for funds to transport certain out-of-state witnesses to the trial. The motions were largely denied on the ground defendant failed to show that the witnesses would offer any relevant information. Following that ex parte proceeding, the court admonished defendant on the record that conduct of the defense case was different from cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and that it was likely that many of the prosecutor's objections to defendant's questions would be sustained. The court warned defendant that it would not argue such rulings with defendant, and that the court's "patience is running out with you." Defendant accused the court of bias. The court warned defendant that he could lose his in propria persona status if he disrupted the courtroom. Defendant stated: "You keep threatening. [¶] You keep threatening that — are you trying to intimidate me? Well, you goddamn can't do that. [¶] You have threatened me, you have brow beaten me, will you just back off and do your job?" The court thereupon revoked defendant's in propria persona privileges.

The matter was continued until December 8, 1982, to allow Keith and Watson time to prepare for presentation of the defense case. On December 8, Keith moved to restore defendant's in propria persona status, indicating that defendant wished to apologize for his demeanor on December 6. The court accepted the apology but denied the motion to restore defendant's in propria persona status, stating, "He's abused the dignity of this court and the privilege. [¶] It's denied, and it is not going to be restored." Keith and Watson represented defendant for the balance of the trial.

2. Analysis

Defendant contends the court erred on many occasions during these events. We note at the outset that "[a]ny dispassionate reading of this record reflects that this defendant was playing games with the court on this issue." *97 ( People v. Lopez (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 882, 889 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 374 ].) Indeed, defendant once implied in a letter to Bundy that he attempted to manufacture reversible error. (See fn. 3, ante. ) As explained below, he has not succeeded. [5]

a) Motions for Cocounsel Status

(1a) Defendant contends that Judges Keene and Ringer improperly refused to grant his 1980 motions to act as cocounsel with Geragos, and that they failed to exercise any discretion in ruling on the motions.

(2) It is settled that a criminal defendant does not have a right both to be represented by counsel and to participate in the presentation of his own case. Indeed, such an arrangement is generally undesirable. ( People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 741 [ 280 Cal. Rptr. 440 , 808 P.2d 1197 ]; People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1218 [ 259 Cal. Rptr. 669 , 774 P.2d 698 ]; People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1162 [ 259 Cal. Rptr. 701 , 774 P.2d 730 ].) Although the court may authorize it upon a "substantial" showing that it will promote justice and judicial efficiency in the particular case ( Frierson, at p. 741; Hamilton, at p. 1162), no such showing was made here.

(1b) Moreover, it is plain from the courts' remarks that they understood and consciously exercised their discretion. Judge Keene, who had just appointed Geragos, knew that defendant had not yet attempted to work with his attorney. He expressly stated that the ruling was without prejudice. Judge Ringer considered defendant's stated reasons for desiring appointment as cocounsel. Defendant's primary concern was that his counsel would need assistance in handling the case. The court advised counsel that a second attorney or a law clerk would be appointed upon an appropriate request. Defendant's further concern that he wished to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in the preparation of the defense was adequately accommodated by his ability to consult with his appointed attorney. Counsel did not express a need for defendant's assistance in researching the law; rather, he planned to request the assistance of an associate attorney or law clerk. There was therefore no abuse of discretion in denying defendant access to the law library. (See People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 480 [ 247 Cal. Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].)

*98 b) Faretta and Marsden Contentions

(1) July 26, 1982, Request

(3) Defendant claims that, on July 26, 1982, he made a knowing and voluntary request for self-representation under Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , which Judge Ringer improperly denied.

The right to self-representation, although constitutionally based, "must be initiated by a timely and unequivocal assertion by the defendant. (See Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 835 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 581-582]; People v. Windham, 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-128 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ].)" ( People v. Salazar (1977) 74 Cal. App.3d 875, 888-889 [ 141 Cal. Rptr. 753 ], original italics.)

Contrary to defendant's contention, on July 26, 1982, he did not unequivocally assert his right to self-representation. At most, defendant was annoyed at Keith's failure to completely win a defense discovery motion. Although he purported to "dismiss" Keith, and stated "I'm thoroughly capable of handling this case," he never expressed the desire to discharge both his appointed attorneys and to proceed pro se. (See People v. Lopez, supra, 116 Cal. App.3d at p. 889 .) Additionally, the trial court properly pointed out that several defense suppression motions were still pending and unheard. Defendant did not contradict the court's stated presumption that defendant did not wish to abandon those motions. Defendant's contention that his " Faretta " motion was improperly denied is thus without merit. [6]

(2) August 1982 Faretta Motions

(4a) Defendant next contends that several times he attempted to make a Faretta motion during the pretrial proceedings in August 1982, and that all three judges to whom he addressed his motions erroneously denied them.

(5) "Although a defendant has a federal constitutional right to represent himself ( Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 ), in order to invoke an unconditional right he must assert it `"within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial."' ( People v. Burton [(1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 852 ( 258 Cal. Rptr. 184 , 771 P.2d 1270 )], quoting People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ].) A motion made after this period is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ( Ibid. ) The court should consider such factors as the `"quality of counsel's representation of *99 the defendant, the defendant's prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion."' ( Burton, supra, at p. 853 , quoting Windham, supra, at p. 128 .)" ( People v. Frierson, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 742 .)

(4b) Defendant contends that his Faretta motion was first made on August 13, 1982, and that as of that date the motion was timely. On that date, Judge Ringer directed defendant to bring his motion in the master calendar court, as it affected the conduct of trial rather than the pretrial proceedings. The court was arguably wrong in this assessment, as defendant indicated to Judge Torres on August 20 that he believed additional pretrial motions should have been, but had not been, prepared. Defendant's motions were continued, apparently for the convenience of the court, so defendant should not be charged with the delay between August 13 and August 20, 1982. (See People v. Ruiz (1983) 142 Cal. App.3d 780, 789 [ 191 Cal. Rptr. 249 ].) Accordingly, we must determine whether the Faretta motion was timely as of August 13, 1982.

Defendant relies on People v. Wilks (1978) 21 Cal.3d 460 [ 146 Cal. Rptr. 364 , 578 P.2d 1369 ], for the proposition that the trial court was without discretion to deny his Faretta motion, because he made it before the actual commencement of trial. In Wilks , however, the court granted a motion for self-representation made over a month before trial was scheduled to begin. ( Id. at pp. 464-465.) We did not establish a hard and fast rule that any motion made before trial — no matter how soon before — was timely. ( Id. at pp. 467-468.)

In People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ], we did not fix any particular time at which a motion for self-representation is considered untimely, other than that it must be a reasonable time before trial. (See People v. Ruiz, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d 780, 790-791 ; People v. Hernandez (1985) 163 Cal. App.3d 645, 652, fn. 7 [ 209 Cal. Rptr. 809 ].) Nor, despite invitations to do so, have we adopted a rigid rule that any Faretta motion made before the actual commencement of trial is deemed timely. (See People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853-854 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 184 , 771 P.2d 1270 ].)

All the parties and counsel agreed on July 8, 1982, that the pretrial motions would be concluded on July 26, 1982, and the case immediately assigned for trial. The court continued the matter to August 10, and the case was thereafter continued on a day-to-day basis in the expectation that the motions would be concluded and jury selection set to begin at any time. *100 Thus, August 13, 1982 — the date defendant first raised his Faretta motion — was in effect the eve of trial. That being the case, the court had discretion to deny the motion. ( People v. Frierson, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 742 .)

A review of the factors stated in People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128 , quoted above, convinces us that the court acted within its discretion in denying the belated request. Although Judge Torres, who ultimately ruled on the motion, was not familiar with the case, he noted on the record the voluminous files, including many motions filed and appearances made by Keith on defendant's behalf. Even a cursory examination of the file supports a reasonable determination that the quality of counsel's representation was adequate. Moreover, even defendant did not claim that Watson's representation was incompetent. In fact, he acknowledged that "Miss Watson is fully qualified. She's a very competent attorney. I have utmost faith in her." He further indicated he was "satisfied with her representation of me."

The second factor, the defendant's proclivity to substitute counsel, was well apparent by August 13, 1982, and supports denial of the motion. [7] Defendant had already been represented by several attorneys. He had disparaged the performance of his attorneys Henry and Geragos, and indicated that he had attempted to discharge Henry in the municipal court proceedings. He had threatened to sue both Henry and Geragos.

The third factor, the reasons for the request, also supports the court's ruling. Defendant did not provide a reasonable basis for dissatisfaction with counsel's performance. Although disagreement between defendant and his counsel over conduct of the proceedings and trial tactics was evident, and defendant claimed there was a "conflict of interest" with Keith, the main articulated source of disagreement — whether defendant should enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity — was resolved according to defendant's wishes. The alleged lack of rapport between defendant and Keith did not require a grant of self-representation. "[T]he Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a `"meaningful relationship" between an accused and his counsel.' ( Morris v. Slappy (1983) 461 U.S. 1, 14 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 610, 621 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 ].)" ( People v. Jeffers (1987) 188 Cal. App.3d 840, 851 [ 233 Cal. Rptr. 692 ].)

*101 The length and stage of the proceedings also militated against granting a motion for self-representation. The pretrial proceedings, nearly concluded at the time defendant raised his motion, had taken almost two years. The prosecutor estimated a six-month trial, and had already twice issued subpoenas to seventy witnesses before two previous trial dates which had been continued at defense request. (See People v. Ruiz, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d 780, 786, 792 .)

Finally, the disruption or delay of the proceedings which would result if the motion were granted also supports its denial. Defendant contends that, as of August 13, 1982, he made no indication that a continuance would be necessary on account of his self-representation, nor did he unequivocally indicate thereafter that any continuance would be necessary. The record belies defendant's claim. The only reason defendant did not indicate on August 13, 1982, that a continuance would be necessary is that the court did not then entertain the motion. When the motion was heard, Keith's failure to file additional pretrial motions or other pretrial proceedings to enforce compliance with discovery orders figured prominently in defendant's expressed reasons for wanting to represent himself. The import of these complaints was that defendant wished to conduct further pretrial proceedings and that the defense could not be ready for trial without full compliance with discovery orders. The court could reasonably have found that the motion for self-representation would have entailed an undetermined amount of delay.

In sum, consideration of the Windham factors demonstrates that defendant's legitimate interests did not overbalance the disruption to the proceedings, delay, and potential for abuse which would be engendered by granting the motion. ( People v. Hall (1978) 87 Cal. App.3d 125, 132 [ 150 Cal. Rptr. 628 ].) We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the untimely motion for self-representation. ( People v. Frierson, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 742 .)

(3) Marsden Motions

Defendant contends the trial court committed error under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [ 84 Cal. Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 ] on three occasions. The contention lacks merit.

(i) September 20, 1982

On September 20, 1982, during jury voir dire, defendant told the court that, if the court was going to conduct business on his trial only four days of the week, he would prefer to have Wednesday off rather than Friday. He *102 complained that Keith was making appearances in other courts on Fridays. "How can he do this when he's written a letter to the DA saying he hasn't even heard of almost 30 witnesses that are on the witness list[?] [¶] He is not prepared for trial now, he has no intention or preparing for trial. He's not interested. [¶] Okay. I'm through."

The court responded that both defendant's attorneys were "doing a very good job," and explained to defendant that the court had other matters assigned on Fridays and that defendant should not expect his attorneys to give up their entire practice simply because they were appointed to represent him. Rather, for the duration of defendant's trial they would have to attend to their other clients only on Fridays.

Later that day, defendant criticized Keith's conduct of voir dire. When the prosecutor objected to defendant's addressing the court, defendant responded "Shut up, you asshole," and was removed from the courtroom.

Defendant was brought out a short time later and stated, "I'm going to object to everything that Mr. Keith does in this courtroom. He's not representing me.... [¶] This isn't my case.... [¶] ... I'm not represented in this courtroom. I've told you that.... [¶] If you will get that buffoon out of this court, leave Miss Watson here, we'll go on. [¶] As long as that buffoon is here, I'm not going to.... [¶] Miss Watson is doing a fine job. She can handle the case. Just get the buffoon out of the courtroom and we will proceed."

Defendant added to his list of complaints about Keith that Keith "look[ed] like he rolled out of the Main Street Mission with his hair sticking out everywhere," and "like he slept in his suit most of the time," and that defendant "ha[d]n't seen that clown except in this courtroom for over two weeks."

Defendant further accused the court of "railroading" him with a "dump truck" attorney, threw things in the courtroom, and was generally abusive, telling the court to "put up with my profanity. [¶] I'll cease the profanity when I'm in pro per." After further discussion in a similar vein, Clark said, "As long as that counsel is in the courtroom, I'm not here. I'm not represented." The court then removed him from the courtroom.

(6) Defendant now asserts that his complaints of September 20 constituted a Marsden motion. In Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 , we held that when a defendant seeks to discharge counsel and substitute another attorney on the ground of inadequate representation, the court must allow the defendant to *103 explain the basis for the motion and to relate specific instances of the attorney's deficient performance. Defendant contends that he made allegations at the September 20 hearing which, if true, were sufficient to show that he was not receiving effective assistance of counsel.

Defendant's diatribes about Keith did not, however, constitute a Marsden motion. Defendant pointedly acknowledged that Watson was "doing a fine job" and that she was capable of handling the case. He never asked for appointment of substitute counsel, but only to discharge Keith. (Cf. People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 854, 855 [ 251 Cal. Rptr. 227 , 760 P.2d 423 ] [Defendant alleged inadequate representation as a ground for wishing to represent himself pursuant to Faretta. Not having requested appointment of a substitute counsel, Marsden procedures were not required.].) Watson also represented defendant and had his full confidence. Under the circumstances, no additional inquiry by the court was needed.

Moreover, defendant was allowed to fully state his grievances. They did not provide a basis for a meritorious Marsden motion. The claim that Keith was unprepared for trial was apparently based on a letter Keith wrote to the deputy district attorney, complaining that the defense had not heard of a number of persons listed on the prosecution's witness list. Defendant's accusation merely seized on and took out of context the rhetoric of Keith's letter. The alleged existence of such a letter does not establish that Keith was unable to be prepared for trial. Neither Keith nor Watson ever indicated a lack of familiarity with any witness which necessitated a continuance or other delay.

Defendant's complaints about Keith's conduct of voir dire address matters which are within the scope of the attorney's authority to control the conduct of the proceedings, and do not establish a basis for substitution of counsel. ( People v. McKenzie (1983) 34 Cal.3d 616, 631 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 462 , 668 P.2d 769 ]; People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ].) Similarly, the allegation that, during jury selection, defense counsel had not personally consulted with defendant at the jail does not establish incompetent representation. (See People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 859 .)

(ii) September 27 and September 30, 1982

On September 27, Watson approached the bench and informed the court that defendant desired an ex parte hearing so that he could show that "counsel was unprepared" and that he needed new counsel. The trial court denied the request for a hearing. On September 30, 1982, Watson told the *104 court she wished to file a letter defendant had written explaining his reasons for the request of September 27. The court refused to accept the letter, stating that "[i]t goes through the attorneys, and your request is denied." (7a) Defendant now contends that the trial court committed Marsden error in refusing to grant the hearing or to receive defendant's letter.

(8) Generally, a trial court's refusal to listen to a defendant's reasons for requesting a substitution of counsel does not comport with the standards set forth in Marsden . We there emphasized the need to permit the defendant to enumerate specific instances of inadequate representation, in order to permit a proper exercise of discretion ( People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 124-125 ), as well as to afford appellate review (see People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal. App.3d 308, 318 [ 147 Cal. Rptr. 740 ]).

However, "the right to the discharge or substitution of court-appointed counsel is not absolute, and is a matter of judicial discretion unless there is a sufficient showing that the defendant's right to the assistance of counsel would be substantially impaired if his request was denied." ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 299 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) (7b) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his right to assistance of counsel would be impaired if his motion to replace Keith was denied.

Defendant had been allowed to air his complaints about Keith on September 20, including his accusation that Keith was unprepared for trial. His renewal, one week later, of a similar accusation did not compel the court to conduct an additional hearing under Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 . Indeed, on October 5, 1982, defendant again moved to represent himself with Watson as cocounsel, on the asserted ground that the defense was "not ready... base[d] ... on the fact that there's an abundance of prosecution witnesses that have been named ...; we have never heard of them." The record demonstrates, therefore, that defendant's repeated allegations that Keith was "unprepared" derived from the same letter that defendant complained about on September 20. Defendant admitted on October 5, however, that he was "totally unaware of what has occurred in the case in the last 60 days, I do not know what discovery has been granted, [and] I do not know if Mr. Keith's gotten the names and addresses of the witnesses to send investigators around...." This shows that defendant had no specific information that Keith was not prepared for trial. Significantly, Watson, who also represented defendant and was thus in a better position to judge the validity of defendant's complaints than the court ever could be, never suggested there was merit in them despite the court's suggestion that it would consider the matter if brought through her. Under such circumstances, the trial court was not required to afford a hearing each time defendant made the same accusations.

*105 (4) Waiver of Counsel

Defendant, having previously argued that the trial court erroneously denied his Faretta request to represent himself, now contends that, when he ultimately was granted self-representation, the motion should have been denied. He contends that he did not make a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel before he assumed his defense on October 13, 1982. As explained below, the contention is without merit.

(i) Marsden

Defendant's first line of attack is that he waived counsel only because the trial court erroneously failed to afford him substitute counsel under People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 113 . We have already rejected defendant's claims of Marsden error as to the proceedings of September 20 and September 27, 1982.

On October 5, defendant informed the court he still wished to represent himself, that he wanted Watson appointed as cocounsel, and that he would need a two-week continuance to prepare for trial. The court informed defendant he would be permitted to represent himself if he could go forward immediately without appointment of additional counsel. Because defendant did not want to proceed forthwith, the motion was denied.

On October 12, defendant moved to dismiss both his attorneys "[f]or the reason of incompetency and inadequacy of counsel," and stated he was ready to represent himself "forthwith," but that his next step would be to move for appointment of second counsel. When the court reiterated that it would allow defendant to represent himself if he were ready to go forward without the appointment of an attorney, defendant abandoned his claim that both counsel were incompetent; although he moved to dismiss Keith "for incompetency," he also stated that he would "proceed with Miss Watson alone," and once again alleged Keith was "totally unprepared."

The gist of defendant's motions on October 5 and October 12 was that he wished to represent himself, not to substitute counsel. (9) "A request for self-representation does not trigger a duty to conduct a Marsden inquiry ( supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 ) or to suggest substitution of counsel as an alternative." ( People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 854-855 .) The court did not commit Marsden error in failing to conduct a hearing on those dates into the reasons for defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel.

(ii) Defendant's Mental Competence to Waive Counsel

(10a) Defendant contends that when the court eventually did grant his motion to represent himself, that ruling, too, was error. He contends the court *106 was required to hear psychological testimony regarding his capacity to waive his right to counsel.

In an in camera session on October 13, 1982, outside defendant's presence, Keith requested a "hearing concerning [defendant's] capability to act in pro per," and offered to present the testimony of two psychological experts to show "that he shouldn't be permitted to go pro per because of his mental and character disabilities." Keith told the court, "I don't know how intelligent his waiver will be because, in my opinion, he's crazy, as crazy as anybody I've ever seen or ever will see." The court deferred ruling on the motion for expert testimony until it heard from defendant himself. It stated, "My problem is: I know what the requirement of Faretta is."

In open court, defendant renewed his motion for self-representation. After some discussion, the court advised defendant at length of his constitutional rights, and of the rights, duties and risks attendant on self-representation. Defendant stated that he understood each of the items explained by the court, and reiterated that he desired to represent himself. Keith again moved that the court permit presentation of expert testimony for the purpose of determining whether defendant was capable of making an intelligent waiver. The court denied the motion, expressly finding that defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

Defendant now argues that the court was required to hold a hearing to determine defendant's capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. He cites People v. Burnett (1987) 188 Cal. App.3d 1314 [ 234 Cal. Rptr. 67 ] for the rule that "whenever a trial court has doubt as to the competence of a defendant to exercise the right of self-representation the court must undertake an exceedingly careful inquiry into the subject, ordinarily by ordering a psychiatric evaluation." ( Id. at p. 1319; see also, People v. Teron (1979) 23 Cal.3d 103, 114 [ 151 Cal. Rptr. 633 , 588 P.2d 773 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 750, fn. 7 [ 170 Cal. Rptr. 798 , 621 P.2d 837 ]; People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal. App.3d 568, 573 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 36 ].)

Defendant's reliance on People v. Burnett, supra, 188 Cal. App.3d 1314 , is misplaced. There, the defendant was found not guilty of criminal charges by reason of insanity and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital. He waived counsel at a hearing to determine whether he was restored to sanity. The trial court did not conduct any inquiry into the defendant's capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver despite the defendant's history of mental illness, his bizarre delusional statements during his appearances in court, and the representations of counsel that defendant desired, e.g., to call *107 various public figures during the trial to show that "`[s]omebody implanted something in his brain, transmitting messages and making him do things, et cetera." ( Id. at p. 1321.)

The Court of Appeal held that "Where, as in the present case, the person whose competence is in question is confined in a mental facility pursuant to judicial decree and the state maintains that such confinement should continue or be extended because that person continues to suffer a mental disability (see Pen. Code, §§ 1026.2 and 1026.5), mental competence to waive counsel is in doubt as a matter of law and such a person cannot be found competent to represent himself or herself without judicial consideration of psychiatric evidence bearing upon the question." ( Burnett, supra, 188 Cal. App.3d at p. 1322.)

Here, by contrast, defendant gave no indication of mental impairment which prevented a valid waiver of counsel. The relevant inquiry is narrow. (11) The trial court is not concerned with the wisdom of defendant's decision to represent himself, or with how well he can do so. The sole relevant question is whether the defendant has the mental capacity to knowingly waive counsel while realizing the probable risks and consequences of self-representation. ( People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 162 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Teron, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 113 .) The court has discretion to determine the defendant's competence to waive counsel; its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. ( People v. Teron, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 114 .) There was no abuse of discretion here.

(10b) The case had been assigned to Judge Torres close to two months before the waiver. The court thus had had ample opportunity to observe defendant personally, and to draw its own conclusions. It thoroughly discussed defendant's rights and obligations with him personally to make sure he knew what he was getting himself into. The record of the hearing in which defendant waived counsel does not suggest in the slightest that defendant's waiver was not knowing. On the contrary, the record demonstrates convincingly that he knew exactly what he was doing. Under these circumstances, the trial court's refusal to hold a further hearing was within its discretion.

Defendant argues that Keith's statement to the court that he was "crazy" and his own repeated disruptive behavior should have raised a doubt in the court's mind about defendant's competency. Although Keith's comments generally, and this statement specifically, were relevant factors for the court to consider, they did not eliminate the court's discretion in light of its own *108 observations and the record as a whole. Keith's comments were not specifically directed to the narrow question — defendant's ability to waive counsel — but rather were more directed to the wisdom of defendant's decision and his ability to effectively represent himself. The same is true of the proffered expert testimony. Keith never made a specific offer of proof regarding what the witnesses would or could testify about defendant's competence to waive counsel. Defendant's disruptive behavior, although undoubtedly a justification for revoking the right of self-representation, similarly did not necessarily show incompetence to waive counsel in the first instance. One can knowingly invoke the right to represent oneself and then abuse that right.

Moreover, the record here, as in People v. Teron, supra, 23 Cal.3d 103 , demonstrates that defendant was intelligent, literate and articulate. Judge Ringer granted defendant law library privileges upon a showing that he could materially assist in the preparation of the defense. Judge Ringer also described defendant as "a person of exceptionally high order of intelligence." Keith himself praised defendant's intelligence and abilities on the record. Defendant also displayed substantial legal acumen for a nonlawyer. The record up to the time of the Faretta motion shows that defendant generally called motions by their proper legal names, referred to appropriate authorities, and clearly and consistently articulated a tenable theory of defense. Neither Keith's rejected attempt to persuade defendant to plead not guilty by reason of insanity nor his statement that defendant was "crazy" was sufficient to raise a doubt about defendant's capacity to make a voluntary, knowing and intelligent choice with regard to his representation. Under all the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion.

Defendant also points to the evidence at the penalty phase provided by the same two psychiatric experts whom the court declined to hear earlier. However, as indicated, there was no reason to entertain such testimony absent some evidence of defendant's incompetence.

Furthermore, even assuming Keith's representation should have raised a doubt in the court's mind about defendant's mental status, our review of the experts' penalty phase evidence (allegedly the testimony that would have been offered at any competency evaluation) does not show that defendant was incompetent to waive counsel. Dr. Maloney found defendant to be of above average intelligence. Dr. Keyes testified he was sane. Although they said that defendant's personality disorders included self-destructive conduct, obnoxiousness and narcissistic self-focus, he was not out of touch with reality. This testimony raises no doubt about defendant's mental ability to understand what he was undertaking. Defendant's contention is without merit.

*109 (iii) Failure to Exercise Discretion

(12) Defendant next contends that the trial court erroneously believed it lacked discretion to deny defendant's midtrial Faretta motion as untimely, and that the failure to exercise its discretion constitutes reversible error. We conclude that defendant may not be heard to argue on appeal that his own motion should not have been granted.

Defendant is correct that the court has discretion to deny a midtrial motion for self-representation. ( People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121 ; see ante, at p. 98.) However, "[t]he Windham factors primarily facilitate efficient administration of justice, not protection of defendant's rights." ( People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 744, 760 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 382 ].) Because the court granted defendant's motion for self-representation at his own insistence, he may not now complain of any error in the court's failure to weigh the Windham factors. ( People v. Brownlee (1977) 74 Cal. App.3d 921, 934 [ 141 Cal. Rptr. 685 ]; see also People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1219-1220.)

(13) Defendant further appears to claim that the court may not grant a midtrial Faretta request in a capital case because, at that point, the state's interest in a reliable death verdict "will always outweigh" the defendant's right of self-representation. We disagree. In People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1194 , the trial court granted the defendant's midtrial motion to represent himself at the penalty phase. We held that, although the defendant had announced his purpose to present no evidence at the penalty phase and to seek a death verdict, that announcement did not compel denial of the self-representation motion. ( Id. at pp. 1222-1223.)

We also rejected the defendant's claim that permitting him to represent himself with the stated intention of obtaining a death verdict rendered the verdict unreliable in a constitutional sense. Even under those circumstances, "the required reliability is attained when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof at the guilt and penalty phases pursuant to the rules of evidence and within the guidelines of a constitutional death penalty statute, the death verdict has been returned under proper instructions and procedures, and the trier of penalty has duly considered the relevant mitigating evidence, if any, which the defendant has chosen to present. A judgment of death entered in conformity with these rigorous standards does not violate the Eighth Amendment reliability requirements." ( Bloom, supra, 48 Cal 3d. at p. 1228.)

Thus, a fortiori, the granting of defendant's motion for self-representation here, where defendant and his counsel vigorously contested both the guilt *110 and the penalty proceedings, did not violate United States Constitution Eighth Amendment reliability standards. (See also People v. Deere (1991) 53 Cal.3d 705, 717 [ 280 Cal. Rptr. 424 , 808 P.2d 1181 ]; People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1030-1031 [ 264 Cal. Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 ].)

(iv) "Conditioning" Grant of Faretta Rights

(14) Defendant next contends that the trial court improperly conditioned its grant of his Faretta motion on waiver of any necessary continuance or assistance of advisory counsel. The cases on which he relies are not apposite.

In People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731 [ 209 Cal. Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ], after the trial court denied repeated motions to substitute new counsel, on the opening day of trial it did permit the defendant to represent himself, making clear that no continuances would be granted. We did not discuss whether the court's failure to grant a continuance would constitute reversible error, but we noted that the defendant effectively had no time to prepare for trial. We stated, "if the trial court did not intend to deny the motion for self-representation as untimely under People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ], it should have considered granting a continuance." ( Id. at p. 741, fn. 3.) In People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ], a pre- Faretta and - Windham case, we held that a defendant who was granted the right to represent himself was entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for trial if necessary. (See also People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 107 ].)

These cases are distinguishable. Although a necessary continuance must be granted if a motion for self-representation is granted, it is also established that a midtrial Faretta motion may be denied on the ground that delay or a continuance would be required. ( People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 972, 976 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Hernandez, supra, 163 Cal. App.3d 645, 651, fn. 4 .) Unlike the trial court in Bigelow, supra, 37 Cal.3d 731 , this trial court made clear its intent to deny the Faretta motion as untimely if a continuance would be necessary. It had in fact denied other Faretta motions on this basis. The Faretta motion was ultimately granted only when defendant expressly represented he was able to proceed without a continuance.

In addition, in contrast to the cited cases, defendant here had been afforded research facilities for many months, so that he had a full opportunity to prepare independently for trial even while he was represented by counsel. (See People v. Hill, supra, 148 Cal. App.3d 744, 757-758 [court that grants self-representation must allow reasonable continuance for preparation, *111 but arguably not when the defendant knew 73 days before trial that he would represent himself, he was allowed 10 days for trial preparation, and he had actively participated in his defense before self-representation]; People v. Jackson (1978) 88 Cal. App.3d 490, 502 [ 151 Cal. Rptr. 688 ].)

c) Advisory Counsel

(15) Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously refused to exercise its discretion on his request for advisory counsel and that, if the court did exercise discretion, it abused it. (See People v. Bigelow, supra, 37 Cal.3d 731, 743 .) Bigelow found error in this regard. It did not, however, create a blanket rule requiring advisory counsel in a capital case. On the contrary, we have specifically held that cocounsel status, advisory counsel and other forms of "hybrid" representation are not constitutionally guaranteed. ( People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1218 .) Thus, as with other matters requiring the exercise of discretion, "as long as there exists a reasonable or even fairly debatable justification, under the law, for the action taken, such action will not be here set aside.... [Citations.]" ( People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 863 , internal quotation marks omitted.)

The record here, unlike in Bigelow, supra, 37 Cal.3d 731 , does not demonstrate that denial of defendant's request for advisory counsel was an abuse of discretion. The defendant in Bigelow was a Canadian, unfamiliar with California law, and had only a ninth grade education. Defendant, by contrast, had graduated from Culver Military Academy, a preparatory school for entry into the service academies. In the military, defendant was assigned to radio intelligence, doing "top security work." Subsequently, defendant earned a license as a stationary engineer. Defendant demonstrated he was an intelligent, articulate, literate individual.

Additionally, while "... the defendant in Bigelow was charged with four special circumstances under the 1978 death penalty initiative, two of which had never been judicially construed and were arguably inapplicable to the defendant's act,... in the present case the defendant was charged only with the multiple-murder special circumstances, which presented no significant construction problems on the facts of this case." ( People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 864 .)

The record here also indicates that defendant demonstrated considerable skill and intelligence as an advocate for himself throughout the proceedings. He consistently called motions by their proper names and cited appropriate authorities. Prior to representing himself, he was permitted on occasion to participate in the proceedings. He questioned witnesses skillfully and was *112 capable of logical reasoning in his arguments to the court. Both the court and counsel acknowledged defendant's superior intellectual capacity and, indeed, defendant was granted law library access based on his demonstrated legal abilities.

Furthermore, as suggested in Crandell , other circumstances may justify denial of a motion for advisory counsel. If, for example, the record supports an inference that the motion is manipulative (e.g., to obtain the appointment of private counsel when no grounds have been demonstrated to relieve appointed counsel), then it may be denied. ( People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 863 .) The record of this case supports such an inference.

(16) When a defendant represents himself, he retains primary control over the conduct of the case, and the role of advisory counsel is consequently limited. (See People v. Hamilton, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1164, fn 14 ; People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1218-1219 .) Although the court ultimately granted defendant's motion for self-representation, in deference to his manifest desire to control the proceedings, it was not also required to place an attorney under the personal direction of someone with defendant's history of manipulative, obstructive and abusive conduct.

d) Appointment of Law Clerk

(17) Defendant also contends the trial court erroneously denied his request for assistance of a law clerk.

In support of his motion, defendant presented three declarations. First, defendant himself averred that the case was too complicated for one person to handle alone (pointing out that Keith had been provided with the assistance of a second counsel), that he needed "a person with good legal research training skills, and ability to assist me in the preparation of my defense," and that law student Darryl Piggee possessed such skills. Second, Darryl Piggee stated that he was a law clerk employed in the office of Steven Solomon, an attorney; that Piggee would be able to devote 40 or more hours per week to assist defendant; that he could provide defendant with access to superior law library materials; and that he would confer with the attorneys in Solomon's office as needed to help prepare the defense. Third, Caryl Warner, an attorney in Solomon's office, stated that Warner had been an attorney for 50 years, that he had handled many murder trials, and that he would personally oversee Piggee's work on defendant's behalf.

The trial court denied the motion, on the grounds (1) that law clerks must work under the supervision of a lawyer, and defendant was not a lawyer, (2) *113 that the law clerk's proper place was with his law firm, and (3) that, while attorneys may need more assistance because they have other cases to which they must devote time, a defendant representing himself has only his own case to prepare.

The request was properly denied. Defendant's motion showed that the requested services were "merely convenient" rather than "reasonably necessary." ( Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 204 Cal. Rptr. 165 , 682 P.2d 360 ]; cf. Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424 [ 180 Cal. Rptr. 489 , 640 P.2d 108 ].) [8]

e) Revocation of Self-representation

(1) Threat to Stand Mute

On Thursday, October 28, 1992, defendant commenced his cross-examination of the prosecution's expert pathologist. After defendant questioned the witness at length for the rest of the day, the court continued the trial until Monday, November 1. A brief hearing was held out of the presence of the jury regarding a discovery matter that defendant raised. Defendant also raised certain matters regarding the witness's "testimony and my scope of cross-examination."

When trial recommenced on November 1, defendant made a number of motions out of the presence of the jury. Some involved the manner in which he would be allowed to question witnesses and to handle exhibits. The court made several rulings against defendant. Defendant also moved to recuse the district attorney. During the course of defendant's rambling discourse on the *114 latter motion, the court twice warned him not to abuse his "pro per status" or it would be revoked. After allowing defendant to discuss at length his unfocused motion to recuse, the court finally denied it as "frivolous." Defendant tried to continue arguing the issue. The court stated it had already ruled and that defendant was not to speak further on that point. It asked if defendant was ready to proceed. Defendant responded, "I'm ready to proceed with this motion [the one the court had just ruled upon]. [¶] You have not heard this motion."

The court ordered the jury brought into the courtroom, and told defendant he could continue cross-examination of the witness. Defendant immediately stated, "Your Honor, the defense stands mute throughout the rest of the trial." The trial court excused the jury, found defendant's actions to be a renunciation of his in propria persona status, and ordered Keith and Watson to resume conduct of the defense. Trial was recessed until the afternoon. That afternoon, Keith and Watson represented defendant.

The following day, Watson advised the court that defendant had reconsidered his position and was now willing to continue cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. Although it stated a belief that defendant was trying to place the court in a "dilemma" and was merely "playing games with the court," the court agreed to give defendant another chance to represent himself. It reinstated defendant's in propria persona status, warning him that any further misbehavior or delaying tactics would result in revocation of that status.

(18a) Defendant contends that his self-representation was improperly revoked because he had a right to conduct his defense by standing mute. He correctly points out that we have upheld cases in which the trial court allowed a self-represented defendant not to actively participate in the defense. ( People v. Teron, supra, 23 Cal.3d 103 ; see also People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1194 ; cf. People v. McKenzie, supra, 34 Cal.3d 616 .) These cases do not, however, compel the reverse conclusion that the trial court here was required to permit defendant to stand mute under the circumstances of this case. While a defendant may sincerely and properly choose not to participate, as in Teron and Bloom , that was not the situation here.

Throughout the trial, defendant had frequently and vehemently made clear that he desired to prove that others had committed the crimes. He had been vigorously defending himself, and indeed had clearly been planning to continue his detailed cross-examination of the pathologist as late as the court's ruling on the recusal motion. Then he apparently became disgruntled with the court's rulings. In front of the jury, he suddenly stated an intent to *115 stand mute. This statement was clearly not motivated by the sincere desire to withhold a defense; it was instead an attempt to either inject error into the case, or to pressure the court into reconsidering its earlier rulings, or, most likely, both. It was merely one of a series of attempts to manipulate or coerce the trial court.

The court was not required to tolerate this conduct. (19) As Faretta itself made clear, a constitutional right of self-representation "is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom." ( Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581 ].) Thus, "the trial judge may terminate self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct." ( Id. at p. 834, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581 ].)

(18b) Defendant argues that his statement of intent to stand mute was not sufficiently disruptive to warrant termination of his self-representation. Viewing the statement in context, we disagree. Standing mute alone may not be disruptive, but we do not view that one statement in isolation. It was part of a series of actions by defendant clearly intended to manipulate the trial. As the court stated in People v. Davis (1987) 189 Cal. App.3d 1177, 1187 [ 234 Cal. Rptr. 859 ], "Trial courts are not required to engage in game playing with cunning defendants who would present Hobson's choices." Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , held generally that a defendant may represent himself. It did not establish a game in which defendant can engage in a series of machinations, with one misstep by the court resulting in reversal of an otherwise fair trial.

In McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 122 , 104 S.Ct. 944 ], the high court held that under some circumstances, standby counsel of a defendant representing himself may play a role at trial even over the defendant's objection. That holding is not directly at issue here, but some of the court's analysis is instructive. It stated, "The right to appear pro se exists to affirm the dignity and autonomy of the accused and to allow the presentation of what may, at least occasionally, be the accused's best possible defense." ( Id. at pp. 176-177 [ 79 L.Ed.2d at p. 132 ].) Refusing to bow to defendant's obviously insincere ploy did not challenge his dignity or autonomy. The court's ruling, which merely caused defendant to continue to defend himself, certainly did not prevent presentation of the accused's best possible defense. The McKaskle court also pointed out that the "trial judge may be required to make numerous rulings reconciling the participation of standby counsel with a pro se defendant's objection to that participation; nothing in the nature of the Faretta right suggests that the usual deference to `judgment calls' on these issues by the trial judge should not obtain here as elsewhere." ( Id. at p. 178, fn. 8 [ 79 L.Ed.2d at p. 133 ].)

*116 The court's judgment call here is similarly entitled to deference. The trial court justifiably viewed defendant's statement, or threat, that he would "stand mute" not as a conscious decision to simply force the prosecution to its proof, but as part of a deliberate course of conduct designed to cause as much disruption as possible. It properly revoked defendant's in propria persona status until defendant chose to continue defending himself. [9]

The dissenting opinion of Justice Kennard argues that the court erred in not allowing defendant to represent himself in his own way, i.e., by standing mute. Other than Faretta itself, however, it does not cite a single case that actually finds a violation of a defendant's right to self-representation. Moreover, although that dissent cites cases finding no error in allowing a defendant to stand mute, it cites none compelling a court to acquiesce in a defendant's request to stand mute under circumstances even remotely similar to those of this case. A finding of no error in one situation is not tantamount to the finding of error in another. As illustrated by the two dissents herein — one finding error in allowing defendant to represent himself, and the other finding error in not allowing defendant to represent himself — Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , is not always easy to apply. We have an obligation to interpret Faretta in a reasonable fashion to vindicate the legitimate rights of defendants while at the same time avoiding turning the trial into a charade in which a defendant can continually manipulate the proceedings in the hope of eventually injecting reversible error into the case no matter how the court rules. Defendant's actions presented the court with a "judgment call" under combat conditions upon which we may, and must, give deference to the trial court. (See McKaskle v. Wiggins, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 178, fn. 8 [ 79 L.Ed.2d at p. 133 ].)

(2) Final Termination of Self-representation

Defendant's self-representation was restored on November 2, 1982. On December 6, 1982, however, following a series of abusive and threatening remarks by defendant directed at the court, the court revoked defendant's in *117 propria persona status and reappointed standby attorneys. [10] They represented defendant during the remainder of the trial.

(20) Defendant contends the trial court erred. He argues that his self-representation could be terminated only for deliberate engagement in serious and obstructionist misconduct (see Illinois v. Allen (1970) 397 U.S. 337 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 353 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 ]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581 ]), and that conduct insufficient to support a finding of contempt of court is insufficient to justify terminating self-representation. (See, e.g., United States v. Seale (7th Cir.1972) 461 F.2d 345, 369-370 ); In re Little (1972) 404 U.S. 553 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 708 , 92 S.Ct. 659 ].)

We need not decide exactly what standard applies, for defendant's conduct, summarized previously, justified the court's exercise of discretion even under his suggested standard. The court was justified in concluding that defendant intentionally sought to disrupt and delay his trial. (See also People v. Davis, supra, 189 Cal. App.3d at p. 1200 [although a defendant may have the right to represent himself, "`[h]e should not be permitted to disparage ... counsel and the court, and to disrupt the orderly presentation of the trial.'"]).

f) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

(21) Defendant claims that there was a fundamental breakdown in the attorney-client relationship which deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. He cites to the proceedings on August 27, 1982, in which Keith attempted to have defendant enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, although Keith conceded that he had not consulted defendant about such a plea beforehand. No fundamental breakdown in the attorney-client relationship was demonstrated, however. The trial court properly ruled that such a plea could not be entered without defendant's consent and no such plea was therefore made. Defendant's wishes in this regard were fully honored. (See People v. Gauze (1975) 15 Cal.3d 709, 717-718 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 773 , 542 P.2d 1365 ].)

(22) Defendant asserts that he thereafter repeatedly alerted the trial court to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, citing the numerous *118 Faretta and Marsden motions. He also complains that, after defendant's in propria persona status was revoked, trial counsel seized all of defendant's papers and notes. In addition, when defendant elected to testify (against counsel's advice), defendant complained that Keith had not met with him and had not permitted him to have his notes with which to prepare his testimony. He argues that these deprivations evidence a lack of communication between defendant and trial counsel, and asserts that the "assistance of counsel is worthless if counsel does not communicate with the defendant."

The claims lack merit. We have already rejected defendant's claims under People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 . Defendant's claims that counsel was "unprepared" were never substantiated. Defendant's own writings suggest that the claims of unpreparedness were an attempt to inject error into the record. Moreover, although defendant claimed that counsel neglected to interview "hundreds" of witnesses, he failed to identify any such witness or to demonstrate any relevant testimony these unidentified witnesses might offer. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that defendant would have been satisfied with the services of any attorney appointed to represent him.

In this case, any conflict between defendant and his attorney was manufactured by defendant himself. He refused to accept that there were any matters within the province of counsel to decide. He desired to control all trial decisions and to make his attorneys subservient to his whims. He has not shown the impairment of the right to effective assistance of counsel or that any lack of communication was the fault of anyone but himself. As noted before, there is no guarantee of a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel. ( Morris v. Slappy (1983) 461 U.S. 1, 14 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 610, 621 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 ].)

B. ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS

Defendant challenges the admissibility of his statements to the police on several grounds.

Before trial began, a full evidentiary hearing was held in front of Judge Ringer on defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the statements on Miranda ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]) and related grounds. Judge Ringer denied the motion to suppress, finding there was no coercion and full compliance with the requirements of Miranda . At trial, defendant renewed his objection. The trial court reviewed Judge Ringer's ruling, and refused to reconsider the Miranda and related issues. Defendant agreed that Judge Ringer had ruled on most of his objections, but he wanted to raise one point not specifically objected to *119 in front of Judge Ringer. The court refused to reconsider any of the Miranda points.

(23) Defendant first contends that the trial court erroneously refused to rehear his renewed motion to suppress. We disagree. Although a ruling on a pretrial motion is not always binding on the trial court (see People v. Superior Court ( Zolnay ) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 734 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 798 , 542 P.2d 1390 ]), a defendant is not entitled to two separate evidentiary hearings before two superior court judges on the issue. We need not decide whether the trial court had the authority to allow defendant a second hearing and to disagree with Judge Ringer's decision; it was certainly not required to do so. Such a requirement would completely defeat the purpose behind pretrial in limine hearings on the admissibility of evidence.

In People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 720 , 807 P.2d 949 ], we considered the circumstances in which an evidentiary objection litigated in an in limine hearing but not reiterated at trial is preserved for appeal. We pointed out that "Motions in limine are a commonly used tool of trial advocacy and management in both criminal and civil cases." ( Id. at p. 188.) One of the purposes of motions in limine is to "permit more careful consideration of evidentiary issues than would take place in the heat of battle during trial." ( Ibid. ) This purpose would be defeated if the in limine ruling were rendered meaningless by a rule that a defendant has a right to a new hearing on the same issue during trial. Such a rule does not exist. Defendant had a full evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of his statement before Judge Ringer. He was not entitled to a second such hearing during trial.

Defendant argued at trial that he wanted to make one new argument not made before Judge Ringer — the claim that he asserted his right to an attorney during the interview and further questioning at that point should have stopped. The court refused to hear that argument. We need not decide whether that refusal was error for, as discussed below, the argument lacks merit. Defendant did not seek to present additional evidence not presented to Judge Ringer, so we can effectively consider the merits.

According to the facts adduced at the pretrial hearing, defendant had been taken into custody around 11:30 a.m. to noon on August 11, 1980. He was transported to the Van Nuys station where he was placed in a holding cell pending the arrival of robbery/homicide detectives from the downtown Parker Center station. Defendant was taken from the holding cell at 6 p.m. and transported downtown to the Parker Center station. His interview began around 7:15 p.m. It was tape-recorded.

Detective Stallcup began by advising defendant that he was under arrest for murder. He advised him of his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he *120 understood these rights. He waived his right to remain silent. When asked whether he waived his right to have an attorney, defendant responded, "I'd like to know how long it will take to get an attorney. [¶] I would like to talk to you in the interim period....[¶] But I would like to try to get one — you know, get that process started." The detective said that a "district attorney" could be there in "about 45 minutes," and he could "start the ball rolling at that time." Defendant responded, "he's with the prosecution on this isn't he?" The detective answered, "Right. But he has — they deal hand in hand."

Another detective asked if defendant wanted an attorney "right now?" Defendant said he did not, that he was "willing to start," but that he was "sure during the process, I'm going to want one." He added, "So there's one fairly quickly available for me." The detectives assured defendant that at any time he could say he wanted an attorney and they would stop the questioning "right there." They said the interview would "stop at that point." Defendant said he understood, and that he did not "want to stop the interview at this point. I would like to have him summoned as soon as possible. But I'm willing to go ahead without him in the interim." For clarification, one of the detectives asked again if defendant wanted "an attorney here right now?"

The parties disagree as to what defendant responded at this point. The Attorney General contends the tape is unintelligible. Defendant claims the tape reveals he said, "I do if you can get it." [11] There the dispute ends. The parties agree that defendant then said, " — right away. But I — in the essence of time factor I would rather — if it's going to take a long time to get him here I'd rather get the ball rolling. You see what I mean? Now, I want to get this cleared up." The detective stated that "if you want an attorney and you want to call one right now, you can call one right now. We want to get that straightened out right here." Defendant responded that he could not afford an attorney, "So it will have to either be public defender or even city attorney or district attorney, whichever you said. [¶] ... That'd be sufficient, just so I have someone here that lets me know."

The detective reiterated that if defendant wanted an attorney "right now, we're going to stop this questioning right now. It's going to cease right now." Defendant responded, "I'll waive it at this point." When the detective said, "And when you want an attorney here, you tell me you want an attorney," defendant responded, "Yes, okay." The interview then continued.

(24) Defendant contends that defendant invoked his right to an attorney, and that the interrogation should have ceased at that point. However, defendant never expressed a desire not to talk until he had an attorney. The *121 detectives repeatedly made clear to him that if he wanted an attorney now, they would stop right then, and that he could stop the interview at any time by merely saying he wanted an attorney. Although he expressed the desire to have the process of getting an attorney started, he never showed the slightest reluctance to talk in the meantime. A desire to have an attorney in the future, coupled with an unambiguous willingness to talk in the meantime, is not an invocation of the right to counsel requiring cessation of the interview. ( People v. Turnage (1975) 45 Cal. App.3d 201 , 211 and fn. 5 [ 119 Cal. Rptr. 237 ] [defendant wanted "an attorney but not necessarily at this particular second"].)

(25) Defendant also contends that any waiver was not knowing and voluntary because he was misled about his right to an attorney and the time it would take to get him one. We disagree. Our review of the entire record convinces us that defendant clearly knew that he could stop the interview at any time by simply requesting an attorney, and that if he wanted one, an attorney could and would be provided. Contrary to his argument, he was not told that the district attorney would actually represent him; rather he was told the district attorney would arrive in about 45 minutes and could "start the ball rolling." Since the interview took place in the evening, it was reasonable for the detectives to tell defendant it would take a while to get an attorney as long as they also informed him — as they did repeatedly — that he did not have to talk in the meantime.

Defendant next contends that his waiver of counsel was rendered involuntary by improper delay in bringing him before a magistrate. Defendant states that he was held for several hours before he was interrogated, and was not brought before a magistrate in that time. Section 825, as pertinent here, requires that a defendant be arraigned "without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within two days after his or her arrest...." In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) ___ U.S. ___ [ 114 L.Ed.2d 49 , 111 S.Ct. 1661 ], the United States Supreme Court held that a reasonable delay of up to 48 hours in obtaining a probable cause hearing is permissible.

Here, defendant was interrogated within several hours after he was taken into custody. "Examples of unreasonable delay are delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay's sake." ( County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, supra, ___ U.S. at p. ___ [ 114 L.Ed.2d at p. 63 , 111 S.Ct. at p. 1670 ].) The high court cautioned, however, that "Courts cannot ignore the often unavoidable delays in transporting arrested persons from one facility to another, handling late-night bookings where no magistrate is readily available, obtaining the presence of an arresting officer who may be *122 busy processing other suspects or securing the premises of an arrest, and other practical realities." ( Ibid. ) These factors easily justify the delay of this case, which was but a fraction of the limit established by section 825 and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, supra, ___ U.S. ___ [ 114 L.Ed.2d 49 , 111 S.Ct. 1661 ].

(26) Next, defendant contends that he invoked his right to an attorney in the middle of the interrogation, but that the detectives ignored his request in violation of his Miranda rights. The contention lacks merit. At one point during the interrogation, the police began to question defendant about a killing unrelated to this case. Defendant said, "I know about that. And I'm not going to ... talk any further about it without an attorney and that — .... That's a whole different ball game." Defendant then changed the subject and continued to talk to the detectives. Detective Orozco did ask defendant further questions about the unrelated killing. Defendant answered some questions but refused to answer others. None of the questions and answers about that killing resulted in any charges against defendant; they were not relevant to this case.

Defendant did not refuse to talk at all without an attorney. Rather, he indicated he would not talk about one limited subject — unrelated to the offenses here charged — without an attorney present. He made no assertion of his right to an attorney such that the interrogation should have ceased entirely. "A defendant may indicate an unwillingness to discuss certain subjects without manifesting a desire to terminate `an interrogation already in progress.' (See, e.g., People v. Watkins (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d 119, 124 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 621 ].)" ( People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 629-630 [ 247 Cal. Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Although it may not have been appropriate for the police to ask any further questions about the unrelated murder, defendant said nothing incriminating about it, and it had nothing to do with this case. It did not prevent further questions on subjects about which defendant was willing to talk — the only subjects relevant here. At most, defendant "sought to alter the course of the questioning. But he did not attempt to stop it altogether." ( People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 970 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 112 , 820 P.2d 214 ].)

This was not a case in which the officers simply changed the subject of questioning from one offense to another to avoid giving effect to a defendant's invocation of his right to counsel. (See People v. Pettingill (1978) 21 Cal.3d 231, 245 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 861 , 578 P.2d 108 ].) Defendant did not invoke the right as to all subjects, only as to one.

Defendant finally contends that his consent to search his apartment was obtained as the result of the foregoing violations, and the evidence seized *123 was therefore inadmissible. There was, however, no violation relevant to this case or to defendant's consent to the search. "Because the tree was not poisonous, its fruit was not tainted." ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 652 [ 286 Cal. Rptr. 801 , 818 P.2d 84 ].)

C. INADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Defendant's next series of contentions concern the introduction of allegedly impermissible character evidence of violence and deviant sexual practices. He argues that the evidence was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, and should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 1101 as improper evidence of propensity toward or prior instances of bad conduct. Defendant further claims the court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction. We consider these claims in turn.

1. The Killing of "Cathy"

(27a) Defendant contends a document in his handwriting, apparently describing his participation in the killing of a prostitute named "Cathy," was improperly admitted or was improperly permitted to remain in evidence. [12] The jury first learned of this murder when the defense played the entire tape of Carol Bundy's August 11, 1980, interview with police in which she described the killing. According to Bundy, she and defendant picked up a young blonde prostitute, who called herself "Cathy." Bundy first watched while Cathy orally copulated defendant. Then, upon defendant's signal, Bundy gave him her chrome Raven pistol. Defendant shot Cathy in the head. Defendant and Bundy took the body, stripped it, and left it in an isolated area near Saugus.

Testifying in his own behalf, defendant claimed that, with one unrelated exception, he had never invited a prostitute into the car with Bundy present. The prosecutor sought to impeach this statement with the writing in question. Defendant's "case materials" contained a cryptic description of the same incident, but described Bundy as the actual killer. Defense counsel objected on the ground there was no corpus delicti of the killing of Cathy, and on relevancy and Evidence Code section 352 grounds.

The trial court ruled that the document was admissible, and permitted the prosecutor to question defendant about it. The court gave a limiting instruction that the jury could not consider the evidence to prove defendant's character or disposition to commit crimes, but only to prove issues such as *124 modus operandi, intent, identity, corroboration of a prosecution witness, motive, knowledge or the existence of a conspiracy. At the close of the defense case, the trial court reversed itself, and excluded the document from evidence on the ground there was no corpus delicti of the offense. Defendant contends that, despite this ruling, the document was inadvertently permitted to go to the jury.

Even assuming the document inadvertently remained in evidence, defendant's claim that it violated Evidence Code section 1101 is without merit. (28) We first reject the Attorney General's contention that the issue is not properly before us. Although defendant did not specifically mention Evidence Code section 1101, the trial court was sufficiently alerted to the issue by the objections actually made. Indeed, it gave the jury a limiting instruction consistent with Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). The issue is thus reviewable. ( People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 906-907 [ 245 Cal. Rptr. 336 , 751 P.2d 395 ].)

(27b) Turning to the merits, the document was properly admitted in the first place. It is not clear that the corpus delicti rule applies to other crimes evidence offered solely to prove facts such as motive, opportunity, intent, or identity, or for impeachment. (See People v. Denis (1990) 224 Cal. App.3d 563, 568-570 [ 273 Cal. Rptr. 724 ].) We need not decide the point, for the corpus delicti was established in this case independently of defendant's extrajudicial writing. Bundy testified from her personal knowledge of the offense. Although she was an accomplice, her testimony was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. ( People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 911 .) The document was properly introduced to impeach defendant's claim that he had never invited a prostitute into the car with Carol Bundy present, and his claim that Bundy was lying about Cathy's murder. Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (c), provides that "Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence offered to support or attack the credibility of a witness."

Defendant's claim that the evidence should nevertheless have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 also lacks merit. Defendant himself elicited Bundy's testimony on this and the other murders. In addition, the document had significant probative value. Defendant's handwritten version agreed in important respects with Bundy's testimony. The court acted within its discretion in originally admitting the evidence.

2. Evidence That Defendant Wore Women's Underwear

Over objection, various witnesses testified that defendant collected various items of clothing from and wore the underwear of his old "girlfriends," *125 that is, prostitutes, dancers, and women he had picked up in bars. Defendant's preoccupation with the clothing appeared to involve a component of sexual gratification, either as "mementos" of his sexual exploits, or directly, as reflected in his cutting the crotch of some of the women's panties and wearing them with his penis hanging out.

(29) Defendant contends the evidence was inadmissible. We disagree. This evidence was relevant to the issue of identity. The circumstances of the killings suggested the killer collected and kept trophies of his kills in the form of some items of their clothing. For example, Marnette Comer's jeans and T-shirt were used by the killer to wrap the severed head of Exxie Wilson. And, except for the Karen Jones murder, no underwear was recovered from the site of any of the killings. The treatment of the victims' clothing appeared to involve sexual gratification derived from the clothing itself. Under the circumstances, the court had discretion to admit the evidence.

3. Interrogation Statement

(30) Defendant objected to an admission during his police interview that since his school days he had been unable "to look at sex straight on" or that "it had to be kinky." Defendant's driving need for "kinky" sex corroborated evidence of his interest in prostitutes and necrophilia, features that he shared with the murderer. The evidence was therefore relevant to the issue of identity, and thus properly admitted.

4. Hiring of Dancer

Defendant also objected to testimony elicited from Frances Huys that defendant had hired a dancer to perform for him and Huys, and to engage in three-way sex with them. This evidence was relevant to show defendant's fondness for hiring prostitutes, which was relevant on the questions of identity and motive.

5. Testimony of Donielle Patton

Over relevance objections, Donielle Patton testified that defendant liked to pick up prostitutes, that he had offered her money to help him pick up sexual partners, and that he stated to her that he had found a new "sexual high" in slitting prostitutes' throats while engaged in sex, so he could feel their vaginas tighten as they died.

(31) Defendant did not object to this testimony on the ground of Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101. In the absence of a timely and specific *126 objection on the ground sought to be urged on appeal, the trial court's rulings on admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 22, fn. 8 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ].) Accordingly, these contentions are not preserved for appeal.

Defendant argues that, at least with respect to evidence of other crimes, the Evidence Code section 1101 issue was preserved by his objections on relevancy grounds. In People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d 883, 907 , we held that, "When ... the People have already made it clear that the evidence will show the commission of an uncharged crime, and the defendant objects on grounds that the People have not shown that the evidence is relevant to any issue in the case, the objection is sufficient to alert the court that admissibility must be determined under the criteria of Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (b), and 353, and People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303, 314-318 ."

Williams does not aid defendant. We there reemphasized the basic rules that a timely and specific objection to admissibility of evidence is required, and that "A general objection on grounds of relevancy is not adequate to preserve an issue with respect to admission of other-crimes evidence for appeal." ( People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d 883, 906 .) The objection "must be made in such a way as to alert the trial court to the nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis on which exclusion is sought, and to afford the People an opportunity to establish its admissibility." ( Ibid. )

In Williams, the prosecutor had advised the jury in the opening statement that he intended to show that the defendants had stolen some guns and tools (including the murder weapon) from a man for whom they had been working. Defense counsel objected on the ground of relevance to any issue in the trial. The objection was therefore "sufficiently specific to encompass a Thompson objection, i.e., that the People were offering evidence of uncharged criminal conduct by the defendant, that defendant had not put in issue any element of the offense or issue necessary to the People's case-in-chief to which that crime was relevant, and that any relevance the evidence might have if admissible was outweighed by its inherently prejudicial nature." ( People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 906 .)

Here, Donielle Patton's testimony did not clearly involve uncharged crimes. Patton testified that, at the time, she believed defendant was describing a fantasy, and not a real event. The prosecutor never argued that defendant actually committed a murder in the manner that defendant described to Patton. The testimony was not introduced for that purpose, but to show defendant's sexual interests and motivations. The testimony was not, *127 therefore, other-crimes evidence. Under the circumstances, a specific objection on the ground of Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), was required. [13]

(32) In any event, the testimony was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), as evidence of motive. Evidence of motive was relevant to the disputed issue of identity.

The murder victims were all prostitutes and, with the exception of Karen Jones, all were found nude, suggesting a sexual motivation. (See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 367 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ]; People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 886 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 172 , 755 P.2d 355 ].) The killer apparently engaged in deviant sexual practices, telling Mindy Cohen he had post mortem sex with Marano and Chandler, and threatening to kill Cohen and then "make love" to her in the same way. Other evidence supported the theory that post mortem sex had taken place in some of the murders. For example, semen was found in the mouth of the severed head of Exxie Wilson, and sperm was found in Chandler's vagina. The killer achieved additional sexual gratification from describing his necrophilic acts to Cohen over the telephone. Evidence of defendant's sexual interest in and gratification from necrophilic activities and fantasies constituted a highly distinctive mark of commonality with the killer (especially when coupled with the other common marks such as access to the relevant vehicles, guns, and locations).

Admission of the evidence was also within the discretion the trial court has under Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548, 574 [ 247 Cal. Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ].) The testimony was highly probative. The description of slitting the throats of prostitutes was presented as a statement of defendant's interests. There was no claim it described an actual killing. There was no abuse of discretion.

6. Other Evidentiary Items

Defendant did not raise a specific objection on the ground of Evidence Code section 1101 to any of the remaining 12 items of evidence of which he here complains. Accordingly, his objection on that ground is waived. He argues, however, again in reliance on People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d 883, 906-907 , that his relevancy objections to certain items of evidence were *128 sufficient to apprise the court that he was objecting on the ground of impermissible other-crimes evidence under Evidence Code section 1101. For the reasons stated above in connection with the testimony of Donielle Patton, we disagree. In any event, the evidence was properly admitted.

(33) In a letter to Joey Lamphier, defendant admitted that he had been involved in tax fraud, insurance fraud, arson and other "shady shit" in his life, and may have identified other criminal acts. These references were, however, entirely incidental to the other matters for which the letter was admitted (e.g., to impeach Lamphier's denials that defendant attempted to influence her testimony, direct evidence of defendant's efforts to suborn perjury, and defendant's admissions of his making telephone calls on June 16, 1980).

Defendant did make an adequate Evidence Code section 352 objection to admission of his letter to Lamphier. The letter was, however, probative on issues of his admissions with respect to his movements and with respect to the telephone calls, as well as of his attempts to get Lamphier to lie in his behalf. The admissions of other past criminal activity (tax evasion, etc.) were insignificant in comparison and not prejudicial.

(34) Evidence of the circumstances of an offer by defendant to "take care of" witness Elaine Forrestall's ex-boyfriend was probative to show that defendant had one of the Raven guns at that time. The probative value was not substantial, but we cannot conclude that its admission was unduly prejudicial. The evidence was not offered as evidence of another crime and was again only incidental to other purposes for which the evidence was admitted.

(35) Shannon O. testified that, while she and Carol Bundy were riding in the car with defendant, he picked up a blonde prostitute and paid her $25 to orally copulate him while Bundy and Shannon watched. Defendant objected only on relevancy grounds, and therefore has waived other objections. The evidence was relevant. While technically it involved a criminal act of engaging in prostitution or possibly endangerment of a minor, it was not offered specifically to "prove" such a criminal act. The event had significant points in common with the behavior of the murderer (e.g., picking up a blonde prostitute for a sexual encounter in the murder vehicle).

Because defendant did not properly preserve an objection on the ground of impermissible character trait to any of the remaining items of evidence to which he now objects, those contentions will not be reviewed here.

Defendant also maintains that the prejudicial value of other items outweighed any probative value. We disagree. As to some of these items, *129 defendant did not object on that basis, thus waiving the claim. In addition, had a proper objection been made, the court would have had discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to admit the evidence.

(36) Two knives were admitted over a relevancy, but not an Evidence Code section 352, objection. Neither knife was directly or conclusively connected to the offenses (e.g., Charlene A. testified her attacker used a knife with a yellow handle; neither of the knives introduced had a yellow handle). However, defendant owned both of the knives. He was seen to carry similar knives in the cars, and in particular kept a buck-type knife in a slit in the visor of the Buick station wagon. Exxie Wilson was killed in the Buick. Her head was severed with 20 cuts by an instrument like a buck knife. Defendant told Joey Lamphier to destroy one of the knives. The knives were circumstantially relevant.

(37) Many pornographic works were seized from defendant's apartment. Only a few pages were admitted at trial, including one page depicting a decapitated head orally copulating a severed penis. Defendant objected on grounds of relevance and Evidence Code section 352. The picture depicting the decapitation/oral copulation was probative of defendant's interest in that matter. Defendant also complained that the picture was improperly removed from its context. However, if it had been placed "in context," the entire pornographic book from which it came would have been admitted into evidence. The trial court undoubtedly — and reasonably — concluded that the inclusion of the entire remainder of the pornographic book would be prejudicial beyond its probative value. The court acted to avoid undue prejudice to defendant.

(38) Defendant objected, on relevancy grounds only, to introduction of a photograph album seized from the cell of Veronica Compton. The photographs in the album depicted case photographs (e.g., of the headless corpse of Exxie Wilson and her severed head) as well as pictures of defendant holding up various items of physical evidence including the victims' underwear and the box in which Exxie Wilson's head was found (the photos were apparently taken during a defense viewing of physical evidence at the police property room). The photographs corroborated one of defendant's writings in which he described apparent efforts by him to plant false evidence, i.e., by deliberately placing his fingerprints on items of physical evidence so the prosecutor could not prove any preexisting prints on the evidence.

(39) Defendant objected on relevancy and Evidence Code section 352 grounds to introduction of a form he had filled out to place an advertisement for sexual partners in a sexually oriented newspaper. The form was circumstantial evidence of defendant's access to Carol Bundy's Datsun automobile *130 (the ad was found in the trunk of the Datsun), which had not yet been proven at the time the evidence was offered. Although its probative value was slight, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in admitting it.

(40) We have reviewed each of the many other items of evidence defendant claims was improperly admitted. As to many, there was no objection, and the issue therefore has been waived. As to the others, we find no abuse of discretion in their admission given the nature of the charged crimes. In addition, in light of the substantial evidence of guilt, and the large amount of other evidence of defendant's aberrant sexual conduct and interests, any error in the admission of any of this evidence was harmless.

The evidence of defendant's commission of the crimes was strong. Indeed, it was sufficiently strong that the prosecution did not even call Bundy as a witness (she testified solely during the defense case). Defendant was closely connected to the gun that fired all of the fatal shots; the gun was found hidden at the plant where defendant worked. Defendant had briefly entered the plant in the middle of the night shortly before the guns were discovered. The incriminating telephone calls were made by someone (not the police) who had access to Gina Marano's address book. Telephone company records showed that defendant made the Brigges, Cohen and Gottesman calls; defendant himself admitted on the stand that he made those calls. Defendant had access to the relevant cars. He was unable to account for his movements at relevant times (e.g., the evidence suggesting he, not Bundy, occupied the Verdugo apartment on the night of June 22). He attempted to destroy evidence or to persuade others to alter their testimony. There was substantial blood evidence (painting and bootprint) relating to his rental garage. Defendant admitted that he knew Cynthia Chandler. A telephone list bearing the name "Cindy" and Mindy Cohen's name and telephone number was found in defendant's wallet. It is not reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have occurred in the absence of the evidence to which defendant now objects, whether the evidence be considered singly or as a whole. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].)

7. Limiting Instruction

(41) Defendant concedes that a limiting instruction was given with respect to the document involving defendant's participation in the murder of "Cathy." He complains, however, that no limiting instruction was given with respect to the other challenged evidence. No such instruction was requested. Defendant argues that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to do so. There is, however, no such duty. ( People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 64 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 458 , 634 P.2d 534 , 23 A.L.R.4th 776 ].) Collie recognizes a possible *131 exception in "an occasional extraordinary case." ( Ibid. ) This is not such an extraordinary case. In addition, contrary to defendant's argument, the rules applicable to noncapital cases are equally applicable in capital cases. (See People v. Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d 883, 906 ; People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 81 [ 246 Cal. Rptr. 209 , 753 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 766 [ 239 Cal. Rptr. 82 , 739 P.2d 1250 ].) The court was under no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction.

D. RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE

Defendant next contends he was denied due process because the trial court refused to allow him to present evidence supporting his third party culpability defense, and because the trial court improperly refused him discovery of relevant defense evidence. His proposed defense was that Bundy and Jack Murray committed the charged murders, and Bundy then murdered Murray and framed defendant.

(42) The applicable law was summarized in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 833 [ 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ]: "To be admissible, the third-party evidence need ... only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. At the same time, we do not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party's possible culpability.... [E]vidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime."

Under this test, there was no error.

1. Evidence of the Murray Killing

Defendant was originally charged as an accessory after the fact to the murder of Murray, because he had aided Bundy in disposing of Murray's decapitated head. (§ 32.) That count was dismissed before trial, over defense counsel's objection. Attorney Keith asserted that the Murray offense "will tend to show there is more than a distinct possibility that someone else other than Clark committed these homicides."

During trial, the court stated in the presence of the jury that it was irrelevant that one of Bundy's guns had been used to kill Murray, and cut off defendant's cross-examination on that subject. It did not permit defense counsel to question Bundy about details of the Murray murder, and ruled that *132 exhibits relating to that crime would be inadmissible. [14] The court ordered defense counsel not to mention the Murray murder in the closing argument. In addition, the court instructed the jury that there was no corpus delicti of the Murray offense, and that admissions in regard to that offense could not be considered.

(43) Defendant argues the evidence of the Murray murder was admissible for several reasons. First, since it was a decapitation murder, it was "other crimes" evidence which might tend to establish that the killer of Jack Murray, i.e., Bundy, was also the killer of Exxie Wilson. Second, evidence that Jack Murray's head had been transported in the Datsun automobile would have undermined the inference that blood in the Datsun may have belonged to Marnette Comer. Third, the fact that Murray was killed with the chrome Raven was relevant to show that the fact defendant possessed and hid the guns in his workplace did not necessarily mean that he used the nickel Raven. Since one of the hidden guns was the chrome Raven, which had been used by someone else to commit a separate murder, he argues that his possession and secretion of the nickel Raven does not necessarily tie him to the killings of this case. Finally, evidence that Bundy killed Murray alone would dispel any possibility that the jury might think defendant had been involved.

We find no error. The excluded evidence was not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt under the standard of People v. Hall, supra, 41 Cal.3d 826 . First, the trial court could reasonably have found that it did not qualify as "other crimes" evidence to show that Bundy had killed Exxie Wilson. While the fact of decapitation was an unusual point of similarity between the two murders, there were many significant points of dissimilarity. Exxie Wilson was, like the other victims, a blonde female prostitute. She was invited into Bundy's Buick by a stranger for a sexual encounter. She was killed with the nickel Raven, defendant's gun. Her decapitated body was left in a public place. Her severed head was also dropped in a public location a few days later. There was evidence of semen in her mouth and vagina. Her killer was probably a man.

Murray, a male, was killed in his own vehicle by someone he knew. The motive was not sexual gratification, but to prevent the reporting of crime. He was killed with the chrome Raven. The body was left inside his vehicle, not dumped, and the head was disposed of and never found. Murray's killer was a woman. The Murray murder does not reasonably tend to show that the same person — Bundy — also killed Exxie Wilson.

*133 Second, the physical facts of Marnette Comer's murder supported the account that it took place in the Datsun. Comer had been shot three times. Two bullets fired from the nickel Raven were recovered from the body. A third bullet, also from the nickel Raven, was found embedded in the passenger door of the Datsun, exactly as Bundy had described. The fact, assuming it true and that the jury had learned of it, that Murray's head was later transported in the Datsun does not negate the conclusion that Comer was killed in the Datsun.

Third, the jury did learn that someone else killed Murray with the chrome Raven. It heard Bundy say on the tape that she (and she alone) had killed Murray with her chrome gun. There was no contrary evidence. Defendant was fully able to argue the inference that it was therefore possible that he was also not the user of the nickel Raven.

2. Production of Evidence

(44a) Defendant argues he was improperly denied discovery of certain items of evidence from the Murray investigation. Specifically, he asked for and was denied the following: (1) Four bloodstained pillows, one with a bullet hole, found in Murray's van

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