# People v. Hines

> California Supreme Court · June 26, 1997 · 15 Cal. 4th 997

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452221

## Case

- **Full name:** THE PEOPLE, and v. GARY DALE HINES, and
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 26, 1997
- **Citations:** 15 Cal. 4th 997; 97 Daily Journal DAR 8258; 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594; 938 P.2d 388; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5038; 1997 Cal. LEXIS 2968
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Kennard
- **Judges:** Kennard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 309 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452221

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that pursuant to amendment of California Constitution, “relevant evidence that is illegally obtained under California law is nonetheless admissible, so long as federal law does not bar its admission”
- noting that, although an appellate challenge was barred by the defendant's failure to object at the penalty phase, the prosecutor's reference to the defendant as a "predator" was "[in any event [a] fair comment on the evidence presented at trial"
- declining to answer the jury’s question, “[wjhat happens if the jury becomes hopelessly deadlocked,” posed during deliberations in the penalty phase of a capital trial, was appropriate, because “an instruction explaining the consequences of a hung jury ‘would have the potentia…

## Opinion text

Opinion
KENNARD, J.
A jury convicted defendant Gary Dale Hines of two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187), 1 with these special circumstances: robbery murder (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i)), burglary murder (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(vii)), and multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also convicted him of robbery (§ 211), burglary (§ 459), grand theft of an automobile (§ 487, former subd. 3), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 12021), and found that he was armed with a firearm in the commission of the robbery, the burglary, and the two murders (§ 12022.5). At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. Defendant’s appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
I. Facts
A. Guilt Phase—Prosecution’s Case
In 1985, Lawrence “Bud” Roberts, his wife Kathryn, and their daughters, Donna and Michelle, moved from Grand Ronde, in Oregon, to the North Highlands area of Sacramento County, California. In the summer of 1986, when Donna was 15 years old and Michelle was 10, the family moved from North Highlands to a house at 4840 Priscilla Lane in south Sacramento.
At that time, Rebecca Palanuk, a friend of Donna Roberts from Grand Ronde, stayed with the Roberts family for three weeks, and helped them move to their new home. Palanuk had a brief romance with defendant, Gary Dale Hines. Defendant had visited Palanuk once at the Robertses’ North Highlands house and saw her three times at the south Sacramento house. When defendant noticed Bud Roberts’s pink fiberglass replica of a 1923 Ford Model-T roadster in the garage, he told Palanuk that he was going to “get” the roadster “one way or another.” After defendant spent a night in a motel with Palanuk and Donna Roberts, Palanuk told defendant she did not want to see him again. About the same time, defendant’s probation officer told him not to see Palanuk.
In September 1986, at the request of a mutual friend, Viola DuCoing and Justin Comer gave defendant and two companions, Jamie Pyle and Mary *1016 Ann Poindexter, a ride from Auburn to Sacramento. During the drive, DuCoing, Comer, Pyle, and Poindexter all heard defendant say that the next time he went to court, he would go in a pink roadster. Defendant also told an acquaintance, Terri Wilson, that he was going to “repossess” a “real nice roadster” from “a friend.”
Jamie Pyle spent the night of September 14, 1986, at the Sacramento home of Steve Tabor. Also present were defendant and several other people. During the evening, defendant played with a pearl-handled pistol. Early the next morning (September 15), Pyle and two others drove defendant and Randal Houseman to a location in south Sacramento that was unfamiliar to Pyle, and dropped them off. 2
About 10:30 that morning, Donna Roberts called Jiy Williams, a friend who had lived next door to the Roberts family when they lived in Grand Ronde, Oregon. According to Williams, Donna sounded “(k]ind of nervous, scared.” Williams heard two and possibly three male voices in the background; near the end of the conversation, he heard one of the voices tell Donna, “Hurry up and get off the phone.” Williams asked who was present, and Donna told him. 3
That afternoon, Michelle Roberts came to the home of a neighbor, Steven Mejia, crying, and told him that she thought her mother had been killed. Mejia called the police. At the Roberts home, the police found the bodies of Kathryn and Donna Roberts. Both victims had suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Donna had been blindfolded, her mouth gagged with socks, and her hands and feet bound with shoestrings and a telephone cord. The master bedroom had been ransacked. Missing from the home were the pink roadster, the purses of Kathryn and Donna, and several rifles and pistols kept in a gun case. In addition, a videocassette recorder (VCR) had been moved from the living room to the garage.
Nine separate witnesses saw two White males driving Bud Roberts’s pink roadster through the streets of Sacramento between noon and 1:30 p.m. on September 15, the day that Donna and Kathryn Roberts were killed. Most of the witnesses testified that the men were in their late teens or early 20’s. (Defendant was 20 years old at the time; Houseman was 16.) Four witnesses *1017 (Jeffrey Doyle, George Perez, Lynette Douke, and James Quirk) identified Randal Houseman as the passenger in the car. Another witness (William Johnson) identified defendant as the driver.
That afternoon, defendant and Houseman drove the roadster to Steve Tabor’s home, arriving about 2:00 p.m. A neighbor of Tabor’s, Diane Mallett, tentatively identified defendant as the driver of the roadster, and identified Houseman as the only passenger. At Tabor’s home, defendant told his friends Terri Wilson and Mary Ann Poindexter that the roadster belonged to him. Around 3:00 p.m., defendant and Houseman drove the roadster to the nearby home of Viola DuCoing, where defendant told Justin Comer that the roadster belonged to him. Defendant and Houseman left 15 minutes later and returned to Tabor’s home.
That evening, defendant and Houseman drove the roadster to the home of Terri Wilson. According to Wilson, defendant and Houseman brought shotguns or rifles into the house, which they claimed were theirs. Defendant asked Wilson for sheets and blankets to cover the car.
That same evening, two of Wilson’s neighbors, James Carpenter and his daughter Christie, noticed the roadster at Wilson’s home. Early the next morning, September 16, 1986, James Carpenter read a newspaper story about the murders and the roadster; after determining that the car was still at the Wilson home, he called the police.
Police officers placed Wilson’s home under surveillance. When an old pickup truck left the residence, police officers tried to detain it, but the driver took off at high speed. The police pursued the truck until it crashed into a fence, and arrested the two occupants: Frank Hiler (Terri Wilson’s boyfriend), and Cyndi Wilson (Terri’s sister). In the cab of the pickup, police found five rifles that had been stolen from the victims’ home, and were wrapped in a quilt from the victims’ bed. Also in the truck was a purse belonging to Cyndi Wilson, which contained a .22-caliber bullet and a list of the guns found at the Roberts house.
At 9:30 that morning, Officer Ken Walker arrested defendant at Terri Wilson’s home. The officer found defendant sitting in a living room chair. Next to the chair was a tote bag belonging to murder victim Donna Roberts. The bag contained the ignition switch from the Robertses’ roadster, a starter pistol and pocket knife belonging to Bud Roberts, some plastic baggies, and a loaded .22-caliber High Standard revolver. Jamie Pyle identified the revolver as the pearl-handled pistol she had seen defendant playing with the night before the murders, and she said that defendant had also been holding *1018 it on the morning of his arrest. On a small table in front of the chair where defendant had been sitting were two handwritten notes, each containing a list of the guns stolen from the Roberts home, with a price next to each gun. David Crowe, an examiner of questioned documents for the California Department of Justice, testified that defendant had written one of the notes and that Randal Houseman had written the other.
Houseman was also in Terri Wilson’s living room when defendant was arrested. Beneath the couch on which Houseman was sitting was a loaded handgun that belonged to Bud Roberts. Behind Wilson’s house, police found the stolen roadster partially covered with blankets and cardboard.
Robert Springer, a supervising identification technician for the Sacramento Police Department, testified that a palm print on a wall of the entry hall of the Roberts home matched defendant’s, as did fingerprints on the roadster, on the lists of stolen guns, on the baggies found in Donna Roberts’s tote bag, and on the VCR in the Robertses’ garage. Springer also found finger and palm prints made by Houseman on the entryway to the Roberts home, the baggies in the tote bag, the roadster, and the gun lists.
Criminalist Robert Garbutt testified that bullets found at the scene of the murders had rifling characteristics similar to test shots fired from the .22-caliber High Standard revolver that was found in Donna Roberts’s tote bag, the gun defendant had been playing with the night before the murders. Garbutt could not, however, conclusively identify the revolver as the murder weapon. He also testified that he found tiny spots of blood on the pants and shoes defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest, and blood on the shirt Houseman was wearing when he was arrested.
A pathologist, Dr. Thomas Amott, testified that Donna Roberts had been shot four times: in her right eye, her left thigh, the middle of her back, and a close-range shot behind her right ear. The gag on her mouth had been tied so tightly that it had caused tears of the frenulum, the tissue connecting the tongue to the floor of the mouth. Kathryn Roberts, like her daughter Donna, had been shot behind the right ear at close range; she also had been shot in her left wrist and twice in the back. In addition, she suffered these injuries: two head lacerations that were inflicted by a blunt object such as a crowbar or pistol butt; several stab wounds to her neck, possibly inflicted by scissors; several large bruises; defensive wounds on her hands that broke bones in a thumb and two fingers; and purplish hemorrhages in the skin of her neck that could have been caused by forcefully applied fingertips.
*1019 B. Guilt Phase—Defense Case
Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he participated in stealing the Robertses’ pink roadster, but he denied playing any role in the murders of Donna and Kathryn Roberts.
Defendant said that on the day the murders took place, he had gone with Randal Houseman to the Roberts home to talk to Rebecca Palanuk to find out whether she was pregnant, as he had heard. (Defendant claimed he was unaware that Palanuk had returned to Oregon and was no longer staying with the Roberts family.) At defendant’s request, Houseman went to the door to see if Palanuk was home, while defendant, who had been warned by his probation officer to stay away from the home, waited at a nearby bus stop. After waiting for more than half an horn: for Houseman to return, defendant walked up to the house. He saw Houseman in the garage; “a whole bunch of stuff’ was in the pink roadster. While defendant “hot-wired” the car, Houseman entered the house. When Houseman returned, he and defendant drove away in the roadster.
Defendant denied telling prosecution witnesses DuCoing, Comer, Pyle, and Poindexter that the next time he went to court he would go in a roadster, denied entering the Roberts home on the day of the murders, and denied any knowledge of the killings.
On rebuttal, the prosecution introduced a tape recording of a conversation between defendant and Randal Houseman that took place in a holding cell at the jail after their arrest, in which defendant made statements contrary to his trial testimony. (The contents of the tape recording will be discussed in pt. II.L., post.)
C. Penalty Phase—Prosecution’s Case
David Frye testified that on April 27, 1984, he telephoned the home of Teresa Smith, his former girlfriend and the mother of his son. When defendant answered, Frye told him to leave the house; defendant responded with profanities. Frye then drove to Smith’s house and walked up to the front door, where defendant was standing. Defendant cocked a sawed-off shotgun, pointed it at Frye and said, “I will blow your fucking head off.” Frye entered the house, telling defendant he was going to call the police. Defendant left.
Larry Wilson, a visitor at the Smith home, confirmed Frye’s account of this incident. He said that defendant had loaded the gun before Frye arrived, and that Frye, who was over six feet tall and weighed over two hundred *1020 pounds, was very angry and was ready to fight defendant when he arrived at the house.
Deputy Sheriff Earl Warren III, assigned to the Sacramento County jail, stated that defendant, on the day after his arrest, used profanity, threatened to throw soap bars at Warren and to kick him in the face, and physically resisted Warren’s efforts to force him to stand facing the wall. Later that day, defendant said to Warren: “I am going to kill you. This is a threat. You’re dead.” Six months later, while Deputy Warren was searching defendant’s belongings in his jail cell, defendant told Warren, “Stop going through my stuff or I will kick you in the face.”
Deputy Sheriff James Cooper testified that he and defendant had several “verbal altercations” while defendant was in custody awaiting trial and that on one occasion defendant told him, “I am going to fuck you up.” Scott French, a reserve deputy with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department who worked at the jail, testified that on August 28, 1987, he heard defendant say of Deputy Cooper that defendant would “beat his ass down” and that “his days are short.” Cooper was not present at the time.
Deputy Sheriff Steve Linebarger stated that on February 15, 1988, while searching defendant’s jail cell, he found in defendant’s mattress a six-inch plastic knife, bound with cloth on one end and sharpened on both edges.
D. Penalty Phase—Defense Case
Frita Hines, defendant’s aunt, testified that she had known defendant since he was nine years old. When defendant was approximately 14 years old, his father moved to another state with defendant’s sister and 2 brothers, leaving defendant in the custody of his mother. Defendant’s mother, an alcoholic who was hospitalized frequently for alcohol-related illnesses, was unable to care for defendant and allowed him to do whatever he liked. She died three years after defendant’s father had left. Defendant often visited Frita Hines while he was a teenager and lived at her home for some time. Defendant behaved well at Hines’s home, and took care of her in 1985, when she had emergency surgery. Hines expressed her love for defendant, and asked the jury not to sentence him to death.
Denise Nicol testified that she had dated defendant for a few months and broke up with him in August 1986, shortly before his arrest in this case. At first, defendant treated her well, but later their relationship deteriorated, largely because of their use of drugs. She, too, asked the jury to spare defendant’s life.
*1021 Richard O’Toole, a teacher, stated that defendant was one of his students at a Rio Linda continuation school from the seventh or eighth grade until the tenth grade. Defendant was not a disciplinary problem and often talked to O’Toole about his broken home.
Dr. Edward Grover, a staff psychologist at Camarillo State Hospital, interviewed defendant and gave this opinion: Defendant suffers from an “antisocial personality disorder,” which is associated with poor bonding between mother and child in the early stages of development. If sentenced to prison, defendant would at first rebel against the prison’s “authority structure,” but would “mellow out” within 10 years. Ultimately defendant could have a productive life in prison, a conclusion Dr. Grover based in part on his experience as an intern at the California Men’s Colony, a prison in San Luis Obispo.
To rebut the testimony of prosecution witnesses David Frye and Larry Wilson that defendant had assaulted Frye with a sawed-off shotgun, defendant called Lisa Smith, Wilson’s sister. Smith said she was present on the day the confrontation between defendant and Frye occurred. Frye had threatened to “beat the hell out of’ defendant. She described Frye as a violent man; he once broke her jaw and he kicked her sister in the stomach when she was pregnant. Defendant was simply defending himself when he pointed the gun at Frye. She claimed the gun was a flare gun, not a sawed-off shotgun.
To counter Deputy Warren’s testimony that defendant had threatened to kill him on the day after defendant’s arrest, defendant called Joe Tinker, an inmate at the county jail on the day of the alleged threats. On that day, according to Tinker, Deputy Warren and other deputies came to defendant’s jail cell and asked defendant to remove his clothes so that they could take photographs of him. Tinker then heard sounds as if the officers were beating defendant. Inmates, Tinker said, commonly use threats and profanity against the jailers.
II. Pretrial and Guilt Phase Issues
A. Marsden Motions
1. Background
On three occasions (twice before trial and once during jury selection), defendant moved, under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 ], for the discharge of his appointed attorneys and for appointment of other counsel to represent him. Each time, the trial court denied the motion after conducting an in camera hearing on the issue.
*1022 Defendant made his first Marsden motion on December 18,1986, when he was arraigned in superior court before Judge Ronald W. Tochterman. When the court asked defendant why he wanted his attorneys replaced, defendant replied that lead counsel Bradley Holmes was “not doing his job.” Asked by the court to be more specific, defendant complained that Holmes had not kept him informed as to what was taking place in court, had not shown him a discovery motion before filing it, and had not kept his promise to send an investigator to the jail to talk to him.
The court asked Attorney Holmes to comment. Holmes said that earlier in the day he had given defendant all of the discovery furnished by the prosecutor. He had as yet been unable to have defendant listen to 18 or 20 tape-recorded statements of witnesses that had been furnished in discovery, but he was trying to find a means to do so. Although Holmes had been appointed to represent defendant in September 1986, it was not until November that defendant had provided sufficient facts for Holmes to start an investigation. Holmes had retained an investigator who would begin work as soon as he had finished going through defendant’s file. Holmes had visited defendant at the jail on a number of occasions, had talked to him frequently on the telephone, had given him copies of all motions filed, and had interviewed some witnesses.
Defendant then complained that he had not received copies of all of the police reports turned over to the defense by the prosecution. Attorney Holmes replied that he had given defendant copies of all the reports, and that defendant’s mistaken belief that some were missing was caused by the confusing manner in which the district attorney’s office had numbered the pages of the reports. The court denied the motion.
Defendant made a second Marsden motion on June 19, 1987. On that day, the trial court, after denying the prosecutor’s motion to join defendant’s case for trial with that of his accomplice, Randal Houseman, asked if defendant would waive time so that his trial could be held after Houseman’s. Defendant refused to waive time, and asked for a new attorney. Judge Tochterman conducted a second in camera hearing, again asking defendant to state his reasons for wanting counsel removed. Defendant replied that he and lead counsel Holmes “cannot communicate with each other,” and that every time he attempted to say anything to Holmes, Holmes interrupted him. He also complained that Holmes had not filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 and other unspecified motions.
In response, lead counsel Holmes explained that he had prepared a motion to suppress evidence, but had not yet filed it for tactical reasons, and that he *1023 intended to file it just before trial. He believed that communication between defendant and himself had been “pretty good” and that much of defendant’s discomfort with him arose from the court’s request that defendant waive time until after the trial of his accomplice, Houseman. Defendant, Holmes said, was eager to go to trial and was therefore reluctant to waive time. Before this particular appearance in court, Holmes had not discussed with defendant the possibility that a time waiver of this length might be appropriate. Holmes expressed confidence that if given a chance to discuss the situation with defendant more fully, the problem could be worked out.
Defendant confirmed that he had been reluctant to waive time. In response to further inquiries from the court, he asserted that he lacked a relationship of trust with Holmes, but he did not specify any other problems between them.
The court denied the motion, finding that Attorney Holmes had given defendant no reason not to trust him, and that any lack of cooperation was attributable to defendant, not to his counsel.
On March 2, 1988, during jury selection, defendant made a third Marsden motion, this time before Judge Rothwell B. Mason, who was assigned to hear the trial. When defendant asserted that “confusion” between him and his attorneys had been “erupting,” the trial court asked defendant to elaborate. Defendant said he could not do so immediately, so the court suggested that defendant “give it some thought,” and “sit down with a pad and pencil” and come up with specific reasons for his dissatisfaction with his counsel. Once defendant had done so, the court stated, it would hold a formal hearing. Defendant agreed. Jury selection then continued.
Five days later, on March 7, the court held a formal hearing on defendant’s Marsden motion. Defendant explained that he had difficulty communicating with Attorney Holmes and that Holmes’s attitude had changed for the worse after defendant had made his most recent Marsden motion. Defendant added that he had written to the California Appellate Project and the Northern California Coalition Against the Death Penalty asking for help, and he showed the court the letters he had received in response. He offered no particulars of the alleged difficulties in communicating with lead counsel Holmes. The trial court denied the motion.
2. Duty of inquiry
Defendant faults the trial court for not conducting a more extensive inquiry into defendant’s dissatisfaction with his trial counsel. In *1024 Marsden , we held that “a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant’s offer to relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the competency of the attorney.” (People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 124 .) Thus, “[w]hen a defendant moves for substitution of appointed counsel, the court must consider any specific examples of counsel’s inadequate representation that the defendant wishes to enumerate.” (People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 435 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 814 P.2d 1273 ].) That occurred here.
As set forth in the preceding section, the first two in camera Marsden hearings conducted by the court were quite thorough. On each occasion, the court repeatedly asked defendant to clarify the reasons for his dissatisfaction with counsel, and thereafter questioned defendant’s lead attorney at length to determine whether defendant’s allegations warranted counsel’s replacement. Although the third hearing was not as thorough as the first two, the court again made great efforts to have defendant explain the nature of the difficulties defendant was having with counsel. When defendant was unable to do so, the court gave defendant as much time as he needed to formulate his reasons for wanting different counsel, In short, at each of the three Marsden hearings the trial court fully complied with its duty to ascertain the nature of the problems defendant claimed he was having with his appointed counsel.
3. Appointment of independent counsel
Defendant faults the trial court for not appointing independent counsel to assist him in arguing that he was entitled to replacement of his appointed counsel. He argues that because he was young (21 years old at the time of trial) and not well educated (a high school dropout, according to the probation report), he could not clearly articulate the reasons why he believed his attorneys should be replaced. He points out that a trial court must appoint counsel to assist a defendant moving for a new trial on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel whenever “a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. . . .” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ]; see also People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ].) But Smith holds only that in such situations the trial court should replace the defendant’s existing counsel with a new attorney; it does not suggest that a defendant should ever be simultaneously represented by two attorneys, one of whom is challenging the other’s competence.
Defendant, moreover, did not ask the trial court to appoint independent counsel to assist him in making his Marsden motion, and the trial court acted *1025 properly when it did not appoint such counsel on its own initiative. Unlike a hearing on a motion for a new trial, a Marsden hearing is not a full-blown adversarial proceeding, but an informal hearing in which the court ascertains the nature of the defendant’s allegations regarding the defects in counsel’s representation and decides whether the allegations have sufficient substance to warrant counsel’s replacement. Appointment of independent counsel to assist a defendant in making a Marsden motion is likely to cause unnecessary delay, and may damage the attorney-client relationship in those cases in which the trial court ultimately concludes that the motion should be denied. We see no need for trial courts to appoint independent counsel to assist defendants making such motions. (See People v. Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 695 [“We are unaware of any authority supporting the appointment of simultaneous and independent, but potentially rival, attorneys to represent defendant.”]; People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 848 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ].)
According to defendant, the trial court’s failure to appoint independent counsel to assist him in making his Marsden motion denied him the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. Defendant, however, was represented by counsel, albeit by counsel with whom he had expressed dissatisfaction and hence was seeking to have discharged. Defendant cites no authority holding that an accused has a constitutional right to the assistance of a separate attorney to argue that appointed trial counsel is ineffective and should be replaced, and we decline to so hold.
4. Denial of the Marsden motions
Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied each of his three Marsden motions. He argues that the hearings conducted on those motions demonstrated a “significant disagreement as to tactics and strategy” between defendant and his trial counsel, and that there was a “substantial deterioration” of the attorney-client relationship. We perceive no error.
A trial court should grant a defendant’s Marsden motion only when the defendant has made “a substantial showing that failure to order substitution is likely to result in constitutionally inadequate representation” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 859 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 227 , 760 P.2d 423 ]), or stated slightly differently, “if the record shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation or that the defendant and the attorney have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result” (People v. Smith, *1026 supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696 ). Defendant made no such showing here; rather, he merely made vague, unsubstantiated allegations that he and his lead attorney had trouble communicating. Defense counsel’s explanations at the Marsden hearing, set forth earlier, showed that the asserted communication problems were not insoluble and had not given rise to such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation was likely to result. Under the circumstances, the trial court properly concluded that there was no need to replace defendant’s counsel.
Defendant faults the trial court for its comments, made in the course of denying defendant’s third Marsden motion, that counsel’s courtroom performance had been “superb” and that the court’s “own subjective perception” was that defendant “couldn’t be further wrong” in believing that counsel’s voir dire during the previous few days demonstrated a negative attitude about the case. These comments, defendant contends, indicate that the trial court improperly based its denial of defendant’s Marsden motion on its personal observations of defense counsel’s performance. We disagree.
Underlying defendant’s complaint is this statement from Marsden: “The defendant may have knowledge of conduct and events relevant to the diligence and competence of his attorney which are not apparent to the trial judge from observations within the four comers of the courtroom. Indeed, ‘[w]hen inadequate representation is alleged, the critical factual inquiry ordinarily relates to matters outside the trial record . . . .’ [Citation.] Thus, a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant’s offer to relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the competency of the attorney.” (People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123-124, italics added.) In this case, however, defendant’s dissatisfaction with his counsel was based in part on matters that occurred within the courtroom, such as defendant’s assertion that counsel’s manner of questioning prospective jurors displayed counsel’s negative attitude toward defendant’s case. Because the trial court had personally observed defense counsel’s conduct, it could properly comment on the quality of his performance.
5. Alleged prosecutorial interference
Defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly “interfered” with the trial court’s consideration of his first Marsden motion. He states that the decision whether to replace a defendant’s appointed counsel is a matter for the court, the defendant, and the defendant’s attorney (see People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 19 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] [trial court should generally honor timely defense request to exclude prosecutor from Marsden hearing]; *1027 People v. Dennis (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 863, 871 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 236 ] [same]), and that here the prosecutor committed misconduct by advising the court of his “personal views” on whether defendant’s attorney should be replaced.
We find no impropriety. The prosecutor was not present during defendant’s first Marsden hearing. Before the hearing, the prosecutor made this statement to the court: “Your honor . . . this is the first I heard there was going to be a Marsden motion. I don’t have the applicable essence of the Marsden criteria right on the tip of my tongue. I don’t know if it’s [a] complete breakdown in the relationship or whatever the standard is. I know the Court is aware of it. I would simply request, your Honor, since I cannot be present, that the Court even though this is a capital case not rule from the posture of abundance of caution or bend over backwards or any such posture but instead apply Marsden in the strictest sense, and that [if] the defendant is not entitled to it to simply deny the motion.” In essence, the prosecutor merely asked the court not to be swayed by extraneous factors in considering defendant’s Marsden motion, but instead to follow the law. We see no impropriety in these remarks.
B. Defendant’s Motion to Represent Himself
Defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion for self-representation. The relevant facts are these: On March 7, 1988, the seventh day of jury selection, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s third motion under People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 , to have his appointed counsel discharged and replaced. (See pt. II.A., ante.) After defendant described the difficulties he was having with defense counsel, the court asked if he had anything more to say. Defendant stated: “I would be asking that if—if I can’t get this granted that I would like to proceed in pro per if possible, you know. If I can’t get this granted or I know it’s the Court’s discretion to be co-counsel.” The court warned defendant at length of the risks and pitfalls of self-representation, but stressed that if defendant insisted upon representing himself, he had an “absolute right” to do so under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ]. After urging defendant to “think about it” and denying his Marsden motion, the court took a short recess. Thereafter, jury selection continued, and no further mention was made of defendant’s desire for self-representation that day.
The next day, just before the noon recess, defense counsel inquired about the status of defendant’s motion for self-representation, or Faretta motion. (Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 .) The trial court replied that no *1028 such motion was pending before it. The court explained that in response to defendant’s “chance comment” about wanting to represent himself, which was made in the course of the Marsden hearing, the court had suggested to defendant that he “think about that overnight." The court then asked defendant, “You wouldn’t seriously be making a Faretta motion to have your attorneys fired, would you?” Defendant replied, “The thought is deeply in mind, let’s put it that way.” The court told defendant that “it’s not in your best interest to do it,” added that it would not permit defendant to use the threat of a Faretta motion to “blackmail” the court into granting defendant’s Marsden motion (which it had previously denied), and praised defendant’s attorney. It concluded, “I do not deem to have a Faretta motion before me at the moment.” Defendant voiced no disagreement, and jury selection continued that afternoon.
Defendant now argues that the trial court improperly denied his Faretta motion. Not so.
Criminal defendants who wish to act as their own attorneys have a constitutional right to do so. (Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 ; People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1141 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ].) To invoke that right, however, a defendant “‘“should make an unequivocal assertion of that right within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.” ’ ” (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1107 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , 906 P.2d 478 ], italics in original.) In this case, defendant never made such an assertion. As mentioned earlier, defendant made his request for self-representation at the Marsden hearing, stating that “if’ the court was going to deny his Marsden motion, he would like to act as his own attorney “if possible,” with the assistance of advisory counsel to be appointed by the court. The next day, when the issue of self-representation was again discussed, defendant told the court that he had the “thought” of self-representation “deeply in mind,” indicating that having been warned by the trial court the previous day of the perils of self representation and told to give the matter serious thought, he was still considering the matter. Defendant’s comments do not represent an unequivocal request to act as his own attorney. Lending support to this conclusion is the lack of any attempt by defendant to correct the trial court when, following the just-described comments by defendant, the court said, “I do not deem to have a Faretta motion before me at the moment.” (See Jackson v. Ylst (9th Cir. 1990) 921 F.2d 882, 888 [self-representation request that was an “impulsive response” to the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for substitute counsel and was not renewed at a later court date was not unequivocal].)
Later that day, after jury selection proceedings, the trial court told defendant that, after researching the matter, it had concluded that under People v. *1029 Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ], a defendant who made a Faretta motion after trial had begun was not automatically entitled to self-representation. The court did not state whether it would permit defendant to represent himself were he to move for self-representation, and defendant did not say he wanted to do so. Defendant argues that the trial court misled him by comparing his case to Windham “in an attempt to convince [defendant] that he would not prevail on the Faretta motion.” He contends that Windham is factually distinguishable, for in that case the Faretta motion was untimely because it was made on the last day of trial, whereas here defendant raised the issue of self-representation during voir dire, before the jury had been sworn and thus before the commencement of trial. The trial court, however, did not tell defendant that his case was factually identical to Windham , and it accurately described Windham’s holding. (See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 827 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ].) Thus, the court’s remarks did not mislead defendant.
C. Conflict of Interest
Defendant accuses his two trial attorneys of having an irreconcilable conflict of interest with him, because they were appointed by the trial court and received compensation from the State of California, which had an interest in convicting defendant of the crimes charged. This circumstance, defendant asserts, may have prevented defense counsel from vigorously objecting to any errors by the trial court, because of their desire to receive appointments in future cases. Defendant suggests that in the future any appointments of counsel and provisions for their fees “should be managed by some entity such as local and/or the State Bar Association rather than the Courts before whom the appointed counsel is appearing.”
We find no conflict of interest. The interest of the State of California is not to secure the convictions of every person charged with a crime, but rather to assure that every criminal defendant receives a fair trial, so that only the guilty will be convicted. Defendant’s bald assertion that the courts are reluctant to reappoint attorneys who have vigorously represented their clients is nothing more than an accusation unfounded by anything in the record before us and unsupported by any citation of authority.
For similar reasons, we reject defendant’s conflict of interest argument pertaining to his appointed counsel on this appeal.
D. Trial Court’s Description of Defendant’s Prior Convictions
Defendant had two prior convictions for burglary. During voir dire, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the trial court told the prospective *1030 jurors about one of these prior burglary convictions. After the jury had been selected, but before the prosecutor made his opening statement, the court read the information to the jury. Included in the charges against defendant was the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (§ 12021.) While explaining this charge to the jury, the trial court stated: “At the . . . request of both counsel, you have . . . learned . . . that the defendant had previously been convicted of a charge of robbery and possession of a firearm by a previous conviction.” (Italics added.) Defendant, however, had no prior convictions for robbery or possession of a firearm. The prosecutor immediately pointed out the court’s mistake, saying, “No, previous conviction of burglary.” The court then stated, “Previously been convicted of a count of burglary. Strike that, I have no information about a previous conviction for robbery.”
As defendant points out, although the trial court’s clarifying statement to the jury properly stated defendant had no prior robbery conviction, it failed to correct the court’s erroneous statement that defendant had a prior conviction for possession of a firearm. Thus, the court’s words could well have confused the jury with regard to whether defendant had also suffered a prior conviction for possession of a firearm. Any such confusion, however, could not have affected the jury’s verdict, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt: his fingerprints were found in incriminating locations at the victims’ house, he left the murder scene in the victims’ roadster, and when arrested he was sitting next to Donna Roberts’s tote bag, which contained a gun that displayed the same rifling characteristics as bullets found at the murder scene. Defendant also contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s misstatement of his prior convictions. Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any ineffectiveness on the part of defendant’s trial counsel was harmless.
E. Prior Burglary Convictions
After defendant testified in his own defense, the prosecutor impeached him by eliciting from him the fact that he had two prior felony convictions for burglary. Defendant now contends that the prosecutor should not have been permitted to use these convictions to impeach him. Because defendant did not object at trial, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal. (People v. Stewart (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 11, 16 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]; see People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109, 116 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ].)
F. Testimony by Defendant
Defendant contends that certain acts by his trial counsel denied him the right not to testify at his own trial. A discussion of the pertinent facts follows.
*1031 On the morning of April 6, 1988, just before the defense presented its case, defense counsel asked the trial court for, and received, a 15-minute continuance because of “a last-minute change with regard to whether [defendant] would testify or not.” Thereafter, counsel told the court that any differences with defendant had been resolved. In his opening statement to the jury, lead counsel Bradley Holmes mentioned that defendant would testify on his own behalf.
That afternoon, defendant asked the trial court for a hearing in camera. There he complained that by mentioning during the opening statement that defendant intended to testify, counsel had in effect coerced him to do so. Counsel responded that he had discussed the matter with defendant before making his opening statement. He had explained that the decision whether to testify was entirely up to defendant, but had recommended that defendant take the witness stand.
The court commented that counsel had acted properly in mentioning to the jury that defendant would testify. The court also told defendant that if he ultimately decided not to do so, it would explain to the jury that this was his right and that the jury should draw no adverse inferences from counsel’s earlier statement to the jury that defendant would testify. The court then suggested that counsel discuss the matter further with defendant.
Trial did not resume until April 12, 1988. In the meantime, defendant had sent the trial court a letter complaining that his attorneys were unprepared, were lying to him, had not visited him at the jail in several months, and only once had discussed with him whether he should testify. The court held another in camera hearing on the matter on April 12. Attorney Julian Macias (defendant’s second counsel) told the court that he had visited defendant the night before the defense began its case, and had explained that defendant was under no compulsion to testify, but that certain defense evidence could be presented only if defendant did so. He denied coercing defendant into testifying. Lead attorney Holmes said that defendant had originally agreed to testify, but had vacillated on the morning of defense’s counsel’s opening statement. Just before the opening statement, Holmes had leaned over the counsel table and asked defendant, “Are you sure you’re going to testify?” Upon receiving defendant’s assent, Holmes made his opening statement in which he mentioned defendant’s intent to take the witness stand. Only later did defendant have second thoughts about his decision.
The trial court reiterated what it had told defendant before: If defendant chose not to testify, the court would instruct the jury to draw no adverse inferences from defendant’s failure to do so. Later that day, defendant did testify on his own behalf.
*1032 Defendant complains that his counsel’s opening statement to the jury coerced him into testifying. We disagree.
“Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.” (Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 225 [ 91 S.Ct. 643, 645 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ].) The defendant’s “absolute right not to be called as a witness and not to testify” arises from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. (Cramer v. Tyars (1979) 23 Cal.3d 131, 137 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 653 , 588 P.2d 793 ].) Although tactical decisions at trial are generally counsel’s responsibility, the decision whether to testify, a question of fundamental importance, is made by the defendant after consultation with counsel. (People v. McKenzie (1983) 34 Cal.3d 616, 631, fn. 9 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 668 P.2d 769 ]; U.S. v. Martinez (9th Cir. 1989) 883 F.2d 750, 755 , vacated on other grounds (1991) 928 F.2d 1470 ; see also People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 466 P.2d 710 ].)
Here, as discussed above, it was only after defendant had told counsel of his willingness to testify that counsel so informed the jury in his opening statement. This was an appropriate tactical decision. Although counsel’s tactical decision made it more difficult for defendant to reconsider his decision to testify, it did not unfairly coerce him or deprive him of his right to decide whether to testify.
We also reject defendant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately “prepare” defendant to testify. Assuming for the sake of argument that competent counsel has such a duty, the record in this case does not show what steps counsel took to prepare defendant for taking the witness stand (see People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 , 838 P.2d 1212 ]), or that defendant’s testimony would have been different had there been greater preparation (U.S. v. Mealy (7th Cir. 1988) 851 F.2d 890, 909 ).
G. Telephone Conversation Between Donna Roberts and Jiy Williams
1. Background
Outside the jury’s presence, Jiy Williams, a friend and former neighbor of Donna Roberts, testified that Donna telephoned him on the day she was murdered. During the conversation, Williams heard voices in the background and asked, “Who’s there?” Donna replied that “Gary” was present. Williams said, “Gary Hines?” Donna replied, “Yes.”
Before trial, defendant moved to exclude the conversation between Williams and Donna Roberts. At the time of the prosecutor’s opening statement, *1033 the trial court had not yet decided how to rule on the motion. The court told the prosecutor: “You better protect your flank, careful on your opening statement that you don’t go too far out on a limb. There is the distinct possibility I will rule that you may not get in the identification of the name on that telephone call.”
In his opening statement, the prosecutor, after telling the jury that Donna had called Williams on the day she was killed, said: “While they were talking, [Williams] could hear a male voice in the background, and he inquired. [*][] And based on information that [Williams] got from Donna, he called the Palanuks when he learned about the murders, and told them what he knew. They called the police and told the police what Jiy had told them. And, with that information the police then go out to where they now know that roadster is at, 1245 Ascot. They get that information, and the information where the roadster is right about the same time, and they go out there. [<]D And Lieutenant Ken Walker has a photograph of Gary Hines now before they ever enter that house . . . .” Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s comments. The court refused to do so.
After the prosecutor’s opening statement, but before Williams testified, the trial court ruled that Williams could testify generally about the conversation between Donna Roberts and himself, but that Donna’s statement that defendant was present during the conversation was inadmissible hearsay. Thereafter, Williams testified that he had received a call from Donna at 10:30 on the morning she was killed, that in the conversation Donna told him that she missed him and would visit him soon, that while talking to her he had heard two or more male voices in the background, and that the conversation was ended after Williams heard a male voice say, “Hurry up and get off the phone.”
The prosecutor asked Williams whether in his telephone conversation with Donna Roberts he had asked her who else was present at the Robertses’ house; Williams said he had. On redirect examination, the prosecutor, following up on this earlier question, asked Williams: “I want you to answer the next question yes or no, okay. When you asked her who was in the background there, okay, did she tell you?” Williams answered. “Yes.” Defendant did not object. After asking three other questions of no importance here, the prosecutor concluded his examination of Williams, and the court took a short recess. During the recess, defendant moved for a mistrial, arguing that by asking Williams whether Donna Roberts had told him who was present during the conversation, the prosecutor had circumvented the trial court’s ruling excluding Donna’s answer that defendant was there. The court denied the mistrial motion, but offered to give the jury “an appropriate *1034 admonition.” Defendant asked the court not to do so because “that would have the affect [sic] of waving a flag in their face.” He also explained that he had not objected when the question was asked because he feared that the objection would enhance the prejudicial effect of the question. Honoring defendant’s request, the court gave no admonition.
The day after Williams’s testimony, one of the jurors submitted to the court this written question: “On 9/16 the police had Mr. Hines already as a suspect. What clues or evidence did the police have on the 15th that lead [szc] them to suspect Mr. Hines?” After consultation with counsel, the court read the question to the entire jury. The court admonished the jury not to speculate about what evidence the police had when it arrested defendant: “[T]he police are allowed to rely on things including hearsay to establish probable cause to go into a home or to make an arrest that fall far short of the regular requirements of what a jury may hear in a courtroom trial. . . . I am satisfied that the hearsay evidence that has brought [defendant’s] name to the forefront and caused [the police] to get a picture of him and check him out was legally done there. . . . That’s not any evidence that you should convict the man of murder or any or [sic (other?)] charge, [f] You’re not going to know specifically why the police went out there because it involves some hearsay, and I ruled that this jury cannot hear that. I didn’t write the California Evidence Code. The Legislature did.”
2. Admissibility of Donna Roberts’s telephone call to Jiy Williams
Defendant contends that the trial court should have excluded the telephone call between Jiy Williams and Donna Roberts in its entirety. The call, defendant asserts, had no relevance except for Donna’s statement to Williams that defendant was present, a statement which the trial court ruled to be inadmissible hearsay. 4
We reject defendant’s contention that the entire telephone conversation was inadmissible. At trial, the defense argued that it was Randal Houseman *1035 alone who had committed the murders of Kathryn and Donna Roberts, and that defendant never entered the Roberts home on the day of the murders. Williams’s testimony that, in his telephone conversation with Donna Roberts, he heard more than one male voice in the background was obviously not hearsay, and tended to disprove defendant’s claim that Houseman had acted alone in perpetrating the murders. With respect to defendant’s assertion that the voices Williams heard could have come from the radio or television, that was a matter for the jury to decide.
The trial court should, however, have excluded Williams’s inquiry of Donna Roberts, “Who is there in the house with you?” The mere fact that Williams asked the question was irrelevant, and telling the jury he had done so might have led it to speculate that Donna Roberts had answered by telling Williams that defendant was present. In the in limine hearing held before Williams testified, the court explicitly gave permission for the prosecutor to ask this question.
The prosecutor thereafter followed up this question with one that implied even more strongly that Roberts had identified defendant, asking: “When you asked her who was in the background there, okay, did she tell you?” Williams responded affirmatively. Although defendant cites this question as misconduct, it was permitted by the trial court’s erroneous ruling at the in limine hearing, which allowed the prosecutor to ask any question short of eliciting the fact that Donna Roberts had told Williams that defendant was present.
Defendant argues that the error violated his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. He did not, however, object on this ground at trial, and therefore has not preserved the issue. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 186 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ]; People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1254, fn. 6 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 451 , 792 P.2d 251 ].) In any event, we find no violation of the confrontation clause. Admission of Donna *1036 Roberts’s statement identifying defendant would not have violated the federal Constitution, as it would be admissible in the federal courts and most states under the “present sense exception” to the hearsay rule. (See Fed. Rules Evid., rule 803(1) (28 U.S.C.) [Hearsay exception for “A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.”]; Booth v. State (1986) 306 Md. 313 [ 508 A.2d 976, 979 ] [a “majority of states” have adopted the present sense exception]; see also Fed. Rules Evid., rule 804(b)(5) (28 U.S.C.) [Hearsay exception for statement by unavailable witness “if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”].) “[W]here proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.” (White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 356 [ 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 ].) Thus, the trial court did not violate the confrontation clause when it permitted the prosecutor to ask questions from which the jury could infer that Roberts had identified defendant, and the error is one of state law only.
Examined under state law, the error was harmless. Before the murders defendant told numerous people that he intended to obtain a pink roadster, and at trial he admitted that he stole the victims’ pink roadster immediately after they were killed. His fingerprints were found in the hallway of the victims’ house and on the underside of a VCR that the killers moved from the victims’ living room to their garage. When arrested, he was seated next to victim Donna Roberts’s tote bag, wearing pants and shoes stained with blood. In the tote bag was a gun that witness Jamie Pyle saw defendant playing with the night before and the day after the murders. Bullets test-fired from this gun had rifling characteristics similar to bullets found at the scene of the murders. Defendant also had written a list of the guns stolen from the victims’ house, along with prices at which they could be sold.
Defendant’s account of the episode—that he remained outside the victims’ home while Randal Houseman went to the door because he did not want to disobey the orders of his probation officer, but that he willingly joined Houseman in stealing the victims’ roadster—was inherently implausible. His claim that only Houseman entered the victims’ house was contradicted by Jiy Williams’s testimony that when Donna Roberts telephoned him on the morning of her death he heard more than one male voice in the background. In short, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and there is *1037 not a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been different if the court had excluded Williams’s question to Donna Roberts. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].)
3. Prosecutor’s opening statement
In the portion of his opening statement quoted above, the prosecutor never explicitly told the jury that Donna Roberts, in her telephone call to Jiy Williams, had identified defendant as one of the persons who was present during the call. Nevertheless, defendant argues, the prosecutor implied that Donna had identified defendant, and therefore was guilty of misconduct. As noted above, defendant objected to the prosecutor’s comments and asked the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard them. The court denied the request.
We agree with defendant that the jury might have inferred from the prosecutor’s comments that Donna Roberts had identified defendant in her conversation with Jiy Williams. The prosecutor told the jury that Williams had “inquired” about the “male voice” he heard during the conversation; that Williams told the Palanuks about the conversation, that the Palanuks told the police, and the police immediately went to the house “where they now know that roadster is at,” with defendant’s photograph. The jury might have inferred from the prosecutor’s comments that Donna Roberts had identified defendant in her conversation with Williams and that Williams had passed this information on to the Palanuks, who in turn had told the police, as a result of which the police brought defendant’s picture with them when they went to seize the roadster.
The situation was not improved by the trial court’s response when a juror, perhaps because of the prosecutor’s comment in his opening statement, asked what evidence led the police to suspect defendant of committing the murders. The court should simply have told the jury that there was no evidence on this point, and reminded it not to speculate about matters as to which there was no evidence. Instead, the court improperly told the jury that the police had hearsay evidence of defendant’s guilt (“I am satisfied that the hearsay evidence that has brought [defendant’s] name to the forefront . . . was legally done”), and improperly implied that information was withheld from the jury because of technical rules of which the court disapproved (“I didn’t write the Evidence Code. The Legislature did.”).
Any misconduct by the prosecutor was, however, harmless. As explained in the preceding section, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. There is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would *1038 have been different if the prosecutor had not mentioned the telephone call in question in his opening statement. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) 5
4. Mistrial
After Jiy Williams testified that in his telephone conversation with Donna Roberts, she had answered his question about who was with her at the house, defendant moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, but offered to admonish the jury to disregard Williams’s testimony. Defendant asked the court not to do so, fearing that the admonition would have the effect of drawing the jury’s attention to this testimony, thus increasing its prejudicial effect. ,
Defendant now asserts that Williams’s testimony was so prejudicial that no admonition by the trial court would have been sufficient to cure it, and that the court, therefore, should have granted his motion for mistrial. We disagree.
“A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. (People v. Woodberry (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 695, 708 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 330 ].) Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; see also People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1060 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174 , 846 P.2d 756 ]; People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 838-839 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 809 P.2d 865 ]; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 565 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ].) Here, an admonition would have been adequate to prevent the jury from speculating that Donna Roberts had identified defendant in her telephone conversation with Williams. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial.
H. Proceedings Conducted in Defendant’s Absence
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in conducting some of the trial proceedings in his absence.
A criminal defendant’s right to be personally present at trial is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, as well *1039 as by article I, section 15 of the California Constitution and by sections 977 and 1043 of the California Penal Code. (People v. Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1141; People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 517 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640 ].) A defendant, however, “does not have a right to be present at every hearing held in the course of a trial.” (People v. Price, (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 407 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ].) A defendant’s presence is required if it “bears a reasonable and substantial relation to his full opportunity to defend against the charges.” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 511 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 , 31 A.L.R.5th 888 ].) The defendant must show that any violation of this right resulted in prejudice or violated the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 310 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ].)
Defendant first argues that his right to be present was violated on February 11, 1988. On that day, defendant’s case was called for trial. Defendant was not present. No courtrooms were available, and the trial court ordered the case “trailed” to February 16, 1988. Defendant’s absence from this brief proceeding on February 11 in no way impaired his right to defend himself against the charges.
Next, defendant claims that the trial court violated his right to be present on March 18, 1988, when, he asserts, the court conducted voir dire in his absence. No voir dire, however, was conducted in defendant’s absence. Defendant was absent only for a matter of seconds, while the court and counsel discussed whether the trial should resume at 1:45 or at 2:00 o’clock that afternoon. After this discussion, the court briefly recessed. Although the trial court did not say whether or not defendant was present when voir dire resumed after the recess, his presence may be inferred not only from the fact that the court, during voir dire, suggested that defense counsel take a few minutes to consult with defendant before deciding whether to accept the jury or to exercise a peremptory challenge, but also from the March 18 minute order, which states that defendant was present during the proceedings that day.
Additionally, defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present on March 23, 1988. On that day, just before the noon recess, the court had ordered the jury to silently examine two photographs that had been admitted into evidence. Defendant was at that point escorted from the courtroom. During that brief absence, no new evidence or testimony was presented to the jury, and defendant’s ability to defend himself was not impaired.
Finally, defendant complains that in his absence the trial court questioned Juror Elizabeth Bahr about a telephone call she had received from defendant *1040 during the two-week period between the end of the guilt phase and the beginning of the penalty phase. 6 Defendant was not brought to court for this appearance because he had told jail personnel he was ill. When the court called the jail to verify the reason for defendant’s absence, it spoke to a nurse who said that defendant had a history of faking illness. Skeptical of defendant’s claim of illness and unwilling to send Juror Bahr home without hearing from her, the court allowed Juror Bahr to describe the telephone call she had received from defendant. The court took no action until a week later, when defendant came back to court, at which time Bahr repeated her account.
Because the record contains no evidence (aside from the trial court’s hearsay statement about its telephone conversation with the jail nurse) that defendant was malingering, it is unclear whether defendant voluntarily absented himself from the proceeding at which Juror Bahr first described her conversation with him. (See People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 405 [trial court properly found that defendant’s acts constituted a voluntary waiver of his right to be present].) In any event, because the trial court took no action at that proceeding and at defendant’s next court appearance had Juror Bahr repeat, in defendant’s presence, what she had earlier told the court, defendant’s ability to defend himself was not impaired in any manner.
I. Informing Jury of Houseman’s Conviction
Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the trial court told the jury that Randal Houseman had been tried and convicted of unspecified offenses based on his involvement in the crimes defendant was charged with committing. Because the defense expressly agreed that the court so inform the jury, defendant cannot claim, as he does now, that in doing so the trial court committed prejudicial error. We further reject defendant’s contention that his attorney’s decision to enter into this stipulation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. It was to defendant’s advantage that the jury be told of Houseman’s conviction, for defendant’s theory at trial was that Houseman was the sole perpetrator of the murders. Thus, counsel’s decision to inform the jury of Houseman’s conviction was tactically reasonable.
J. Defendant’s Claim of Judicial Bias
Defendant contends that his right to an impartial jury was impaired because the jury was influenced by “the trial court’s readily apparent pro-prosecution bias.” He asserts that the court demonstrated its bias by: (1) objecting on its own initiative to two questions by defense counsel; *1041 (2) telling the jury that one prosecution witness (a Sacramento police officer) had been promoted between the time of arrest and trial and that another had been a student of United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy; (3) telling the prosecutor, when defendant objected that the prosecutor was asking leading questions of Detective Ronald Aurich, “I doubt if you are going to put perjury into Officer Aurich’s mouth . . (4) describing the prosecutor to the jury in glowing terms without doing the same for the defense attorneys; and (5) taking into account the prosecutor’s schedule with respect to breaks and lunch hours, without giving the same consideration to defense counsel. Defendant has not preserved the issue for appeal because he made no objection to any of the trial court’s allegedly improper actions. (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1108 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 ]; People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 411 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 731 , 802 P.2d 221 ].)
K. Permitting Jury to View Videotape of Search
As previously explained, on the morning of September 16, 1986, police officers arrested defendant and Randal Houseman at the Sacramento home of Terri Wilson. They then searched Wilson’s home and seized various items of evidence that were later used against defendant at trial. Officer Angel Delgadillo recorded portions of the search on videotape, which the prosecution showed to the jury at trial.
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the videotape. At the suppression hearing, the following evidence was offered.
Officer Delgadillo testified that he arrived at Terri Wilson’s house about 1:30 p.m., and began taping the search half an hour later. At one point, the searching officers argued about the manner in which the search should be conducted. Officer Delgadillo intended to turn off the video camera during the argument, but neglected to do so. After the argument was over, he discovered that the video camera had recorded it. Because he believed the argument to be “unprofessional,” he rewound the videotape to the point just before the argument began, and resumed videotaping the search. Because the remainder of the search lasted a shorter time than the argument among the officers, a small portion of the argument was not recorded over and thus remained on the videotape. No search was conducted during the argument. Defendant contended at trial that by rewinding the tape to erase the officers’ argument, Officer Delgadillo had willfully destroyed material evidence potentially favorable to the defense.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the videotape. Defendant argues that the denial was error.
*1042 Law enforcement agencies have a duty to preserve evidence “that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.” (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 488 [ 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2533 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 ]; People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 976 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 ]; People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 519 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 , 862 P.2d 779 ]; People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 964 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 846 P.2d 704 ].) To fall within the scope of this duty, the evidence “must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.” (Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 489 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2534 ]; Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 976.) Furthermore, “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” (Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51, 58 [ 109 S.Ct. 333, 337 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 ]; Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 976; Webb, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 519.)
Here, the videotape’s erased portion pertaining to the arguments among the searching police officers did not “possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed.” (California v. Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 489 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2534 ].) The uncontradicted testimony of Officer Delgadillo, who videotaped the event, established that no evidence-gathering activities were recorded on the videotape’s erased portion, which had contained only an argument among the searching officers. Defendant does not explain how that argument could have played “a significant role in [his] defense.” (Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 488 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2534 ].) We conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the videotape.
Defendant further contends that because Officer Delgadillo erased the argument between the officers, the videotape “did not accurately depict the scene which it purported to represent” and should therefore have been suppressed. Not so. The videotape depicted the officers’ search of Wilson’s house; it did not purport to depict the argument that took place during the search. The jury was informed that the argument had occurred, and that the police had erased the portion of the videotape on which the argument was recorded. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress the videotape on this ground.
L. Permitting Jury to Hear Tape-recorded Conversation Between Defendant and Houseman
On rebuttal, the prosecution played, over defendant’s objection, a tape recording of a conversation between defendant and Randal Houseman *1043 that took place in a holding cell on the afternoon of their arrest. In the conversation, defendant denied going to the home of Steve Tabor on the day of the murders and denied ever seeing a roadster. Both defendant and Houseman professed ignorance about the murder charges they were facing. Their comments suggested that they suspected their conversation was being recorded.
During the conversation, either defendant or Houseman stated; “(Inaudible) night. Because, remember, I pulled those blankets over the steering wheel. Blanket wasn’t—it was back off the dash.” Sacramento Police Sergeant Ralph Coyle testified that in his opinion defendant was the one who said those words.
Defendant argues that the trial court should have excluded the tape recording. We disagree.
Defendant cursorily contends that the statement was “taken in a police-dominated atmosphere” and therefore violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. He cites no authority in support of this contention, which in any event is without merit. (People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 911 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 , 891 P.2d 93 ].)
Defendant next argues that because police officers recorded the jail conversation without his knowledge, they conducted an unreasonable search and seizure (U.S. Const., 4th and 14th Amends.) and violated title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 ). He offers no analysis or case authority in support of these claims, both of which are without merit. (See Lanza v. New York (1962) 370 U.S. 139 [ 82 S.Ct. 1218 , 8 L.Ed.2d 384 ] [search and seizure]; Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [same]; People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 223-225 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ] [Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act].)
Defendant also contends that the recorded jail conversation violated his state right to privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), the state prohibition against illegal searches and seizures (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13), and sections 2600 and 2601 of the California Penal Code (see De Lancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865, 873 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 647 P.2d 142 ]). Even assuming that these claims have merit, defendant is not entitled to obtain suppression of the tape recording. In general, relevant evidence that is illegally obtained under California law is nonetheless admissible, so long as federal law does not bar its admission. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d); People v. May (1988) *1044 44 Cal.3d 309, 319 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 ]; In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886-887 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ]; Ahmad A. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-536 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 747 ].)
Additionally, defendant argues that admission of the tape recording violated his right to confront adverse witnesses (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.), because he was unable to cross-examine Houseman, whose statements in the tape-recorded conversation were (he claims) admitted against him. In Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123, 135-136 [ 88 S.Ct. 1620,1627-1628 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 ], the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses was violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s “powerfully incriminating” statements implicating the defendant. Houseman, however, made no statements implicating defendant in the tape-recorded conversation; accordingly, defendant’s inability to cross-examine Houseman did not violate his right of confrontation. (See Richardson v. Marsh (1987) 481 U.S. 200, 208 [ 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1707 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 ,]; U.S. v. Enriquez-Estrada (9th Cir. 1993) 999 F.2d 1355, 1359 .)
Finally, defendant asserts that the tape-recorded statement was inadmissible because its probative value was “substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission [would]. . . (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice . . .” (Evid. Code, § 352), claiming, as he did at trial, that the jury may well have been offended by his constant use of obscenities throughout the conversation. We disagree.
As we pointed out earlier, comments made in the recorded jail conversation between defendant and Houseman suggested their suspicion that their discussion was being recorded. In the course of the discussion, defendant denied seeing a roadster or going to the home of Steve Tabor on the day of the murders. Although these statements were exculpatory, they were inconsistent with defendant’s own trial testimony that he drove the roadster to Tabor’s home on the day of the murders. Similarly, defendant’s admission in the recorded conversation that he helped to cover the “steering wheel” (presumably of the roadster stolen by the killers) with a blanket was inconsistent with his trial testimony that he did not help to cover the car. Also, at trial prosecution witnesses contradicted these statements by defendant. In addition, during the recorded conversation defendant asked no questions of Houseman about what had happened at the victims’ home on the day of the murders; this lack of curiosity, as the trial court noted, was inconsistent with defendant’s trial testimony that he remained outside the house and played no role in the killings. For these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that any prejudicial effect arising from the jury’s *1045 listening to defendant’s profanity-laden remarks on the tape did not outweigh the conversation’s probative value. 7
M. Prosecutorial Misconduct
When questioning witnesses, the prosecutor repeatedly characterized the deaths of Kathryn and Donna Roberts as “murders.” For example, the prosecutor asked witness Jerod Dierling: “Do you remember the day the murders were discovered?” (Italics added.) And when cross-examining defendant, he asked, “Well, obviously, you don’t think you’re guilty of the mur ders, do you?” (Italics added.)
Defendant points out that the question whether the killings of Kathryn and Donna Roberts were acts of murder was a matter for the jury to decide. By asking questions that described the slayings as murders, defendant contends, the prosecutor inappropriately “conditioned” the jury to find that they were in fact murders.
Defendant, however, never objected to the prosecutor’s questions; thus, he is barred from asserting this claim on appeal. (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 413 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 ].) Nor was counsel ineffective, as defendant claims, for failing to object. There was no reason for counsel to do so because defendant did not dispute that both victims had been murdered; instead, he denied that he was the murderer. Indeed, given the evidence that the victims were shot at close range in the course of a burglary (thus triggering the felony-murder rule), and that one victim, Donna Roberts, was bound and gagged (thus negating the possibilities that the killing occurred in self-defense or in the heat of passion), it would have been absurd for defendant to argue that the killings were not murders.
Defendant further contends that questions using the word “murder” that the prosecutor directed at defendant caused him to concede that the slayings *1046 were murders, and that these questions, combined with defendant’s answers, in effect elicited a plea of guilty from defendant without the appropriate admonitions required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ], and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]. Recognizing that his counsel made no objection to the prosecutor’s questions, he argues that counsel’s failure to object on this ground was ineffective assistance of counsel. The contention is meritless. Boykin and Tahl require that a defendant, before entering a plea of guilty, be advised of and waive the constitutional rights to trial by jury and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, as well as the privilege against self-incrimination. (In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 132 .) No advisement need be given when a defendant is questioned in the midst of a trial in which there has been no denial of those rights. (People v. Adams (1993) 6 Cal.4th 570, 577 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 , 862 P.2d 831 ].) For the same reason, we reject defendant’s argument that the court should have told defendant of his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U.S. 238 , and In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122 , before the prosecutor’s questions to defendant whether he had prior convictions for burglary and whether he was guilty of car theft in this case.
N. Photographs of Donna Roberts’s Corpse
Over defendant’s objection, the prosecution introduced into evidence three photographs of Donna Roberts’s corpse. Defendant argues that one photograph would have sufficed, and that the remaining two served only to inflame the passions of the jury.
A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether photographs offered for admission into evidence are unduly gruesome or inflammatory. (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 449 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525 , 907 P.2d 373 ]; People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 866 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 ].) Here, the photographs depicted the wounds inflicted on Donna Roberts and the manner in which she was bound, and thus were relevant to show defendant’s premeditation and intent to kill. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83,133 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474 , 885 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 660 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 , 828 P.2d 705 ].) One photograph showed the position of Donna Roberts’s body when it was found, with bindings on her wrists and feet, and a wound in her thigh. The other two photographs showed the gag in her mouth, her blindfold, and the bullet wound in her eye. Any conceivable error in showing the jury all three photographs instead of only one was harmless, given the strength of the evidence of defendant’s guilt. (See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1136-1137 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 ].)
O. Defendant’s Cross-examination of Prosecution Witnesses
Defendant argues that the trial court repeatedly cut off his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses Viola DuCoing, Jamie Pyle, and Mary *1047 Ann Poindexter, thereby violating his right to confront adverse witnesses, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, by section 28 of article I of the California Constitution, and by subdivision 3 of Penal Code section 686.
“The confrontation clause allows ‘trial judges . . . wide latitude ... to impose reasonable limits on . . . cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.’ ” (People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 656, fn. 3 , quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679 [ 106 S.Ct. 1431,1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 ].) In this case, the rulings about which defendant complains occurred when the prosecutor objected to questions by defense counsel that were irrelevant, vague, and argumentative. The questions concerned issues that were at best marginally relevant, such as the length of time that Jamie Pyle remained “high” after injecting methamphetamine and the type of shirt that defendant was wearing when he said he would go to court in a roadster. The trial court properly sustained the prosecutor’s objections to these questions, and we find no impairment in defendant’s ability to thoroughly cross-examine prosecution witnesses Viola DuCoing, Jamie Pyle, and Mary Ann Poindexter.
P. Evidence Regarding the Victims’ Family
Prosecution witness Steven Mejia testified that on the afternoon of September 15, 1986, 10-year-old Michelle Roberts came to his door and tearfully told him that she thought her mother had been killed. During closing argument at the guilt phase, the prosecutor remarked that Michelle “perhaps fortunately” was not home when her mother and sister were killed. Defendant argues that the prosecutor elicited Mejia’s testimony to inflame the jury’s passions through “victim impact” evidence at the guilt phase of trial, and that the prosecutor’s comment in closing argument had the same goal. This “outrageous tactic,” defendant asserts, constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant, however, did not object in either instance. Thus, he has not preserved the right to raise the issue on appeal. (People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 413 .)
With respect to defendant’s contention that his counsel’s failure to object to Mejia’s testimony was ineffective assistance of counsel, an objection would have been unavailing. Mejia’s testimony was admissible because it established the time of the victims’ death and explained how and why police officers were summoned to the victims’ home; it was far less inflammatory than calling Michelle Roberts to testify. (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 522-523 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 199 , 828 P.2d 101 ].) Equally meritless is defendant’s contention that his counsel was incompetent for not objecting to the prosecutor’s passing comment regarding Michelle Roberts. The comment was innocuous and unlikely to inflame the jury.
*1048 Q. Competence of Defense Counsel
Defendant contends that his attorneys ineffectively represented him throughout the guilt phase of trial. Defendant may prevail on this claim only if the record shows that his counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 449 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 827 P.2d 388 ]) and there is a “reasonable probability” that counsel’s unprofessional conduct affected the result of the proceeding; that is, a probability “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]).
Defendant lists various instances of alleged inadequate representation. Each is closely related to a different claim of error, and has been considered and rejected in connection with that claim. For instance, defendant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor’s use of the word “murder” to describe the homicides was discussed earlier in conjunction with defendant’s claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by doing so. (See pt. II. M., ante.) 8 Most of the claims of incompetence involve actions by counsel that were objectively reasonable. As to the remainder of these claims, any possible ineffectiveness by counsel was harmless. Considered either individually or collectively, the instances of alleged ineffectiveness noted by defendant do not show that counsel engaged in unprofessional conduct that undermines our confidence in the outcome of the trial. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2068 ].)
R. Instructional Error
1. Felony-murder rule
The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict defendant of first degree murder under the felony-murder rule if it found that he had committed a robbery or burglary and that he or an accomplice had killed a person in the course of that crime, even if the victim was killed unintentionally or by 9 Defendant makes the bare assertion that the felony-murder rule is unconstitutional because it permits a defendant who lacks the *1049 intent to kill to be convicted of first degree murder. He gives no reasons in support of this argument, nor does he identify any provision of either the state or the federal Constitution that he perceives to be violated by the felony-murder rule. He therefore has not shown that the felony-murder rule is unconstitutional.
Defendant also argues that by instructing the jury that it could convict him of first degree murder even if it did not find that he had the intent to kill, the trial court may have led the jury to believe that it could also find the special circumstance allegations to be true without finding that defendant harbored the intent to kill. 10 We disagree. The court explicitly instructed the jury: “A special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and you must unanimously agree that the defendant intended that a human being be killed.” Furthermore, the court explained to the jury that the special circumstance allegations and the felony-murder rule differed in that the former required intent to kill while the latter did not. 11 These instructions left no possibility of confusion.
Finally, defendant contends that his murder convictions should be reversed because the trial court did not, on its own initiative, instruct the jury that if one person kills in the perpetration of a burglary or robbery while acting alone, a defendant who thereafter aids and abets the burglar or robber may not be convicted of first degree murder under the felony-murder rule. We disagree.
Defendant relies primarily on People v. Pulido (1997) 15 Cal.4th 713 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 625 , 936 P.2d 1235 ]. There, we held that section 189’s first degree felony-murder rule does not apply to “late joiners” who participate in the felonious enterprise only after the murder has been completed. (15 Cal.4th at p. 726; see also People v. Esquivel (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1386 *1050 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ].) We had no occasion to decide whether the trial court was obligated to instruct on late joiners on its own initiative, because the jury necessarily found that the defendant in that case was not a late joiner when it found true a robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation. (People v. Pulido, supra, at pp. 726-727 .) The same is true in this case.
Here, as in People v. Pulido , the trial court instructed the jury that it could only find the burglary-murder and robbery-murder special-circumstance allegations true if it found that the murders were committed “while the defendant was engaged in or was an accomplice in” a burglary or robbery. Moreover, as previously explained, the trial court also instructed the jury that it could not find the special circumstance allegations true unless it found that defendant himself acted with the intent to kill. Thus, by finding the special circumstance allegations true, the jury necessarily found that defendant’s participation in the crimes herein began before the victims were killed. As a result, “ ‘the factual question posed by the omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to defendant under other, properly given instructions’ ” (People v. Pulido, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 726), and reversal is not required.
2. Proof of mental state
The trial court gave the jury a standard instruction on how to evaluate circumstantial evidence of defendant’s mental state. (CALJIC No. 2.02 (4th ed. 1979).) 12 The instruction included this sentence: “If . . . one interpretation of the evidence as to such specific intent or mental state appears to you to be unreasonable and the other interpretation to be reasonable it would be your duty to accept the reasonable interpretation and to reject the unreasonable.” (Italics added.)
Defendant argues that this instruction, because of its use of the word “appears,” is inconsistent with the requirement, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, that a defendant may be *1051 convicted only if the jury finds guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cage v. Louisiana (1990) 498 U.S. 39 [ 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 ].) To tell the jury that it must accept a “guilty interpretation of the evidence” if it “appears to be reasonable,” defendant contends, is providing the jury with a standard of proof that is well below the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
We rejected a similar contention in People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 386 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ]: “The plain meaning of [this] instruction[] merely informs the jury to reject unreasonable interpretations of the evidence and to give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. No reasonable juror would have interpreted [this] instruction[] to permit a criminal conviction where the evidence shows defendant was ‘apparently’ guilty, yet not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (See also People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 954-955 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ]; People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th 450, 506 ; People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 634 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 842 P.2d 1160 ] [all rejecting identical claim].)
Defendant also contends that because the instruction used the word “duty,” it operated as “an impermissible mandatory, conclusive presumption of guilt upon a finding that a guilty interpretation of the evidence ‘appears to be reasonable . . . .”’ This contention, too, we rejected in People v. Jennings, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 386.
Defendant further argues that CALJIC No. 2.90 (4th ed. 1979), a standard instruction defining reasonable doubt that was given by the trial court in this case, is constitutionally defective because it contains the terms “moral evidence” and “to a moral certainty.” Both this court (People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 501-505) and the United States Supreme Court (Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1 [ 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 ]) have rejected this claim.
3. CAUIC Nos. 8.83 and 8.83.1
Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.83 (Special Circumstances—Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence— Generally) and CALJIC No. 8.83.1 (Special Circumstances—Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Required Mental State). The court refused to do so. Defendant now complains that the court committed prejudicial error. We disagree. The two instructions, each of which discusses the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove special circumstance allegations, were duplicative of another instruction (CALJIC No. 2.01) by the court telling the jury how to evaluate circumstantial evidence generally. This was precisely the reason for the court’s refusal to give the instructions *1052 requested by the defense, a decision in which defense counsel acquiesced when, following the court’s explanation, he responded: “That’s fine.”
4. CALJIC No. 2.11.5
The trial court instructed the jury: “There has been evidence in this case indicating that a person other than defendant was or may have been involved in the crime for which the defendant is on trial. [<lfl You must not discuss or give any consideration as to why the other person is not being prosecuted or whether he has been or will be prosecuted.”
Defendant contends that this pattern instruction (CALJIC No. 2.11.5) was incomplete and therefore erroneous. He relies on People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 765 P.2d 940 ]. In that case, we said that CALJIC No. 2.11.5 “would be more informative and might better deter speculation if it told the jury explicitly that its sole duty is to decide whether this defendant is guilty and that there are many reasons why someone who also appears to have been involved might not be a codefendant in this particular trial.” (47 Cal.3d at pp. 918-919.) We concluded, however, that the instruction “accurately states the law” and is therefore not misleading. {Id. at p. 919.) Thus, the trial court in this case did not err by giving this instruction.
5. Lesser included offenses
On the charge that defendant murdered Kathryn Roberts, the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The court told the jury, however, that voluntary manslaughter was not an option on the count charging defendant with the murder of Donna Roberts.
Defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury on lesser offenses included within the charged crime of murder of Donna Roberts. Although defendant does not specify such lesser offenses, we assume he is referring to the voluntary manslaughter instruction that the trial court gave on the charged offense of murder of Kathryn Roberts.
The evidence at trial provided no basis for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as to the murder of Donna Roberts. She was bound, gagged, and shot through the head at close range. There was no evidence from which the jury could have concluded that defendant killed her in a “sudden quarrel or heat of passion” (§ 192, subd. (a)) or in the unreasonable but good faith belief in the necessity of self-defense (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ]). Thus, an instruction on voluntary *1053 manslaughter would not have been appropriate. (See People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 196, fn. 5 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ].) Consequently, defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance for not requesting such an instruction.
III. Penalty Phase Issues
A. Jury Misconduct
1. Defendant’s telephone calls to jurors
After the jury returned its guilt phase verdict convicting defendant of murder with special circumstances, but before the beginning of the penalty phase, the trial court received information that defendant had made a telephone call to Juror Elizabeth Bahr. The court summoned counsel and asked Juror Bahr to explain what had happened. She responded that when she answered the phone, defendant identified himself and asked if Bahr was on the jury. Bahr said she was; defendant then asked, “Did you hear all the evidence?” 13 Bahr replied she had. She then said she did not want to talk to defendant and hung up. Initially Bahr was upset about the call, but she later decided that “it was okay.” The trial court took no further action at that time because defendant was not present. 14
A week later, rejecting defendant’s request that the jurors be individually questioned to determine which of them had received telephone calls, the trial court asked the entire jury panel, in defendant’s presence, whether any of them had received calls “reported to be from [defendant] or [from] an interested party in the case.” Juror Bahr and Juror David Craig said they had received calls. The court told the jury that there was “nothing sinister in all this,” but that it wanted to question the two jurors briefly in chambers “to complete the record.” Juror Bahr then repeated, outside the presence of the other jurors, her account of her conversation with defendant, and said that after receiving the call she had notified the police. She stated that she was not frightened by defendant’s telephone call, but that she had told her daughter, who was “a little bit perturbed.” She had not told other jurors about the call, and did not think it had impaired her ability to fairly judge defendant’s case.
*1054 Thereafter, the court questioned Juror Craig. He said his wife had answered the telephone and told him that he had a collect call from defendant. Craig told his wife not to accept the call. He then called the sheriff. Although Juror Craig said the call “was upsetting at the time,” his initial concern arose from a fear that the call was made by a friend of defendant’s who was out of custody and might be planning an act of retaliation. He became less worried when he learned that defendant himself had made the call. He saw no reason why he could not remain as a juror on the case.
Neither defendant nor the prosecutor asked the court to excuse either Juror Bahr or Juror Craig, and the two jurors remained on the panel.
Defendant now raises three claims of error arising from this series of events.
First, defendant contends that the trial court’s inquiry to the jurors about the telephone calls “prejudiced the entire panel.” He asserts that in asking the jurors collectively whether they had received calls concerning the case, and receiving affirmative responses from Jurors Bahr and Craig, the trial court revealed that it was defendant who had made the calls. Not so. In asking the jurors whether they had received a call “reported to be from [defendant] or [from] an interested party in the case,” the court carefully phrased its question to the jury in a manner that did not reveal whether any juror had received a call from defendant himself. Furthermore, the court stressed that there was “nothing sinister” in the calls, and that it was questioning the jurors only “to complete the record.” We perceive no error.
Second, defendant asserts that Juror Bahr engaged in misconduct by accepting the telephone call from defendant, that Jurors Bahr and Craig engaged in misconduct by discussing the calls with others (Juror Bahr told her daughter about the call; Juror Craig reported the call to the sheriff’s office and apparently discussed it with his wife), and that defense counsel was incompetent for not objecting to the alleged misconduct. Defendant is barred from complaining about any conceivable misconduct by Juror Bahr in accepting his call because he invited any “misconduct” by making the telephone call in the first place. (See People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1156 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 635 , 751 P.2d 901 ] [“As a matter of policy, a defendant is not permitted to profit from his own misconduct.”].) Nor did Jurors Bahr and Craig act improperly when they discussed the calls with others; Although they were not permitted to discuss the facts of defendant’s case with others, this prohibition did not extend to the telephone calls he made to them. Thus, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.
Finally, defendant faults the trial court for not ascertaining whether the other jurors’ ability to be impartial had been impaired by the disclosure of *1055 the telephone calls to Jurors Bahr and Craig. We find no error. The court had no reason to believe that, except for Jurors Bahr and Craig, any of the jurors knew that defendant had made the calls. Because there was no indication or suggestion that the jury’s impartiality had in any way been impaired, there was no need for the court to question the panel further.
2. Discharge of Juror Yoder
Midway through the penalty phase of the trial, Juror Gene Yoder told the trial court, outside the presence of the other jurors, that when he had left the courthouse in his car on one occasion two to three weeks earlier, another car had followed him home. When Yoder realized he was being followed, he made a U-turn and drove towards the pursuing car. Looking inside, he saw three people. Thereafter, when Larry Wilson (a prosecution witness who had been a friend of defendant’s) testified at the penalty phase, Yoder identified Wilson as one of the persons he had seen in the car. The court asked Yoder to remain on the jury while it investigated the matter, and asked the prosecutor to request Wilson to return to court.
That afternoon, the trial court questioned Wilson in Juror Yoder’s presence, but outside the presence of the other jurors. Wilson denied that he had followed Yoder home. Juror Yoder insisted that he still believed that Wilson had been in the car that followed him, and said that he had told Jurors Peterson and Kambas about the incident.
With the agreement of both the prosecutor and defendant, the trial court discharged Juror Yoder. The court told the jury that the discharge occurred because of “a matter of some concern to [Yoder] and his wife,” but that it believed the matter was “a case of mistaken identity” and that it had “no reason to think there is anything of a sinister nature.”
Later, the trial court questioned Jurors Kambas and Peterson outside the presence of the other jurors. Both jurors said that there was nothing in what Juror Yoder had told them that would impair their abilities to fairly judge the case, and the court commented that it believed Yoder had misidentified Wilson. Neither juror was discharged.
Defendant faults the trial court for not asking Jurors Kambas and Peterson whether they had discussed with other jury members the claim of Juror Yoder that he had been followed, and for not telling these two jurors not to discuss the matter with other jurors. The trial court did not err. Neither Juror Kambas nor Juror Peterson regarded Juror Yoder’s comments to them as a cause for concern, and the trial court had no reason to believe that they would discuss those comments with other jurors in a manner that would impair the ability of other jurors to deliberate fairly. The trial court was also *1056 careful to allay any possible fears of other jurors by telling them that Juror Yoder’s concerns appeared to be “a case of mistaken identity.” We note that the defense did not ask the court to further question or to admonish Jurors Kambas and Peterson, and never requested that they be discharged. Indeed, lead counsel stated that he was “totally satisfied” with the court’s actions.
According to defendant, the combined effect of the telephone calls to Jurors Bahr and Craig and the episode involving Juror Yoder was that the entire jury panel was “tainted by fear,” either of defendant himself or of witness Wilson. The record, however, does not support this speculation.
Defendant also complains that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to Juror Yoder’s “misconduct” (presumably referring to the fact that Yoder discussed the fact that he had been followed with Jurors Kambas and Peterson), and failed to ask for a mistrial or a new jury for the penalty phase of the trial. Counsel was not ineffective: Juror Yoder committed no act of misconduct by mentioning to the court his belief that he had been followed. Thus, there was no basis for counsel to move for a mistrial or to request a new jury.
3. Juror Upton’s consultation with her pastor
During jury selection, defense counsel asked prospective juror Beatrice Upton about the views of her church (the Assembly of God) on capital punishment and, if selected as a juror, whether those views would affect her ability to be fair. Upton responded that she would have to speak to her pastor to find out her church’s stand on the death penalty. After further inquiry from the trial court, Upton said that because she was “active in the church” and “in leadership,” she felt that “whatever I would say would always represent the church.” She was uncertain whether this would impair her ability to obey the trial court’s instructions.
The court then took a brief recess to handle an unrelated matter. When jury selection resumed, Upton mentioned that during the recess she had telephoned the head of her church’s Bible school, and was told that there was nothing in the literature published by the Assembly of God on the issue of capital punishment, “and that, if anything, scripturally, it is for capital punishment.” Based on this conversation, Upton believed that she would have no difficulty voting either for or against the death penalty in defendant’s case. Upton was not challenged by the prosecution or the defense, and she served as a juror.
Defendant argues that the trial court should have dismissed Upton from the panel of prospective jurors because of her “misconduct” in asking a member of her church about the church’s stand on capital punishment. *1057 Defendant, however, accepted the jury, including Juror Upton, when he had seven of his twenty peremptory challenges remaining; this suggested that he did not believe that any “misconduct” by Upton had impaired her ability to fairly sit in judgment. (See People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 361.) In any event, Upton’s telephone call, which occurred weeks before the beginning of trial and brought no extrinsic materials into the deliberative process, was not misconduct.
Defendant also accuses the trial court of misconduct “when it suggested that Juror Upton might discuss the matter with her pastor.” The court, however, never suggested that Upton should talk to her pastor.
B. Issues Relating to the Admission of Evidence
1. Admission of weapon found in defendant’s jail cell
The prosecution presented evidence that while defendant was in custody awaiting trial, Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputies searched his cell, finding a plastic inmate-made knife concealed in defendant’s mattress. Defendant argues that this evidence should have been excluded because the prosecution offered no evidence that defendant knew of the knife’s presence. He also contends that regardless of whether he was aware of the knife, his possession of the knife was not admissible under section 190.3, factor (b). This statutory provision permits the prosecution at the penalty phase of a capital case to introduce evidence of “criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence.” Here, defendant notes, the prosecution offered no evidence that he ever held or used the knife.
Defendant’s failure to object to admission of the knife at trial bars him from raising the issue. (People v. Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 923.) As to defendant’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting, he is wrong. “It is settled that a defendant’s knowing possession of a potentially dangerous weapon in custody is admissible under [section 190.3,] factor (b). Such conduct is unlawful and involves an implied threat of violence even where there is no evidence defendant used or displayed it in a provocative or threatening manner. [Citations.] The trier of fact is free to consider any ‘innocent explanation’ for defendant’s possession of the item, but such inferences do not render the evidence inadmissible per se.” (People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 589 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 , 842 P.2d 1142 ].) In this case, the jury could reasonably infer from the knife’s presence in defendant’s mattress that defendant knowingly possessed the knife. Thus, an objection by defense counsel to admission of the knife into evidence would have been futile.
*1058 2. Testimony that defendant used a sawed-off shotgun
As previously mentioned (see pt. I.C., ante), prosecution witnesses David Frye and Larry Wilson testified that defendant had pointed a sawed-off shotgun at Frye and threatened to shoot him. After defense witness Lisa Smith testified that the weapon was not a shotgun but a flare gun that was as large as a shotgun, Sacramento Police Detective Marc Hensley testified in rebuttal that there are no flare guns as large as a shotgun.
Defendant contends that none of the prosecution witnesses qualified as an expert in weaponry, and therefore they should not have been permitted to identify the type of gun that defendant had pointed at Frye. Because defendant failed to object to the testimony of these witnesses at trial, he is barred from challenging it on appeal. (People v. Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 923.) Also, defense counsel cannot be faulted for not objecting. Shotguns are sufficiently within common experience; therefore, Frye and Wilson could properly identify the weapon they saw as a shotgun. (See Evid. Code, § 800.) And Detective Hensley’s testimony was based on his experience with flare guns while serving four years as an air crewman in the United States Navy and during his twelve years as a police officer.
3. Testimony that defendants in murder cases may be violent
As previously mentioned (see pt. I.C., ante), Deputy Scott French testified he had heard defendant threaten that if he ever found Deputy Cooper alone, defendant would “beat his ass down.” On cross-examination, defense counsel asked French, “But yet you didn’t know any reason why [defendant] would be particularly defiant or angry at Officer Cooper?” French replied, “Well, kind of like you said earlier with special treatment. The only reason why that [szc] we take extra caution with people that are going to murder trials is because they are possibly going to be violent.”
According to defendant, Deputy French’s “blanket statement that murder defendants are going to be violent” violated his “constitutional right to an individualized evaluation and sentencing.” Defendant’s failure to object to the officer’s answer at trial precludes him from raising the issue on appeal. In any event, although it was not responsive to the question asked by defendant, the officer’s observation that jailers are particularly careful with defendants in murder cases because they are “possibly going to be violent” was an innocuous comment that in no way impaired defendant’s right to an individualized penalty determination.
4. Statements by defendant to sheriffs deputies
As explained earlier (see pt. I.C., ante), the prosecution presented evidence that defendant had made threats and engaged in other misconduct *1059 directed at sheriff’s deputies at the jail where he was incarcerated pending his trial.
Deputy Warren testified that on the day after defendant’s arrest defendant used profanity and disobeyed Warren’s order that he stand on a yellow line and face the wall with his hands in his pockets. Later that day, when police technicians tried to photograph defendant to determine whether he had suffered injuries that might be relevant to the charges against him, defendant became argumentative and hostile, so that Warren had to physically restrain him. Defendant said that Deputy Warren “would be sorry [he] ever saw” defendant. After the photographs were taken, defendant threatened to throw bars of soap at Warren. Later that day, when Warren encountered defendant in the jail lobby, defendant said: “I am going to kill you. This is a threat. You’re dead.” Six months later, during a search of the property in defendant’s cell, defendant told Deputy Warren, “Stop going through my stuff or I will kick you in the face.”
Deputy French testified he heard defendant say of Deputy James Cooper that defendant would “beat his ass down" and that “his days are short." Officer Cooper testified that he and defendant had had several “verbal altercations," and that on one occasion defendant threatened, “I am going to fuck you up.”
In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that when making the threats discussed above, defendant had violated section 69, which prohibits “attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer by law . . . .” Therefore, the prosecutor contended, the threats were “criminal activity . . . which involved the . . . express or implied threat to use force or violence” (§ 190.3, factor (b)) that the jury could consider as evidence in aggravation.
Defendant argues that the trial court should have concluded that these threats were improperly admitted because the prosecutor failed to give notice that he intended to use them as evidence in aggravation. (§ 190.3.) But defendant did not object to the officers’ testimony on this ground, and he therefore may not now raise the issue. (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 956 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ].) We also reject defendant’s contention that his counsel was incompetent for failing to object to evidence of the threats on this ground. Although the prosecutor’s written notices do not mention the threats, the prosecutor may well have told defense counsel that he intended to use the statements long before trial. In any event, the ordinary remedy for lack of notice is a continuance to enable the defendant to counter the prosecution’s evidence. (People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 334 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 777 P.2d 121 ].) The record does not show that *1060 a continuance in this case would have led to the discovery of additional information that would have enabled defendant to respond more effectively to the prosecution’s evidence.
Defendant further asserts that none of the threats violated section 69, because in each instance he lacked the intent and present ability to interfere with any officer in the performance of his duties. Thus, he contends, the threats were not admissible under section 190, factor (b) as “criminal activity . . . which involved the express or implied threat to use force or violence.” (See People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 772 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ] [construing factor (b) as limited to conduct that violates a penal statute].) Defendant, however, did not object on this ground in the trial court, and therefore is precluded from raising this issue on appeal. (People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 960.) Nevertheless, we address it on the merits because, anticipating our rejection of his contention on this ground, defendant argues that his counsel was incompetent for failing to object.
There was substantial evidence that defendant’s threats to Deputy Warren violated section 69. Defendant made three threats to Warren. The first was made while defendant was resisting attempts to photograph him and Warren was restraining him. From defendant’s comment that Warren “would be sorry [he] ever saw” defendant, the jury could reasonably infer that the purpose of this threat was to prevent Warren from restraining defendant. Later that day, defendant made a second threat when he expressly said he would kill Deputy Warren. The jury could reasonably have found that this was another attempt to discourage Deputy Warren from attempting to make defendant obey the rules of the jail. Defendant argues that when he made these threats, he lacked the present ability to carry them out. But a present ability to carry out threats is not required if, as here, the target of the threat could reasonably fear retaliatory action on some future occasion. (See People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 639 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 765 P.2d 70 ] [courtroom threat by incarcerated capital defendant to “get me a D.A.” satisfied all elements of section 69].) On the third occasion, defendant threatened to kick Deputy Warren if he persisted in searching defendant’s property. To prevent defendant from carrying out this threat, Warren walked defendant to the end of the hallway before completing the search. The jury could reasonably believe that defendant had the intent and ability to carry out the threat.
With respect to the threatening comments defendant made regarding Deputy Cooper, however, the evidence does not show that they violated section 69. Defendant’s comment that Cooper’s “days were short” was not directed toward Cooper but to other inmates, and therefore was not made with the specific intent to deter or prevent Cooper from performing *1061 his duties, as required by section 69. (People v. MacKenzie (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1280 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 ]; In re M.L.B. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 501, 503 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 57 ].) Although defendant’s statement that “I am going to fuck you up” was made directly to Deputy Cooper, the latter could not recall the circumstances under which the statement was made. Thus, the record does not show that defendant made this statement for the p

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452221. Public record. Not legal advice.