People v. Johnson , 47 Cal. 3d 1194 ( 1989 )

Opinion

PANELLI, J.

Defendant was convicted of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187)¹ and robbery (§ 211) of Edward Dukar with findings of personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.5, 1203.06). A special circumstance allegation under the 1978 death penalty law was found true: that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i).) The jury fixed the punishment at death; the appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239.)

I. Guilt Phase Facts

A. Prosecution Case.

Defendant was convicted of killing Edward Dukar on October 31, 1980, in Dukar’s jewelry store in a small shopping center in Milpitas. The principal prosecution witness was Miller Peter Hodges, an accomplice, who testified as part of a plea bargain.

Hodges testified that he, defendant, and Thomas Fields drove to Dukar’s jewelry store to rob him. Both defendant and Fields were armed. Fields and Hodges waited in the parked car while defendant went into Dukar’s store to check out the situation. He returned a few minutes later saying there were some customers in the store and another sales clerk. After waiting a few minutes for the customers to leave, defendant returned to the store followed by Hodges and Fields. Defendant began talking to Dukar while Fields and Hodges talked to the clerk, Gary Ingalls. Ingalls was about to ask Dukar for the key to the display case when defendant pulled a gun and shot Dukar. Upon hearing the shot, Hodges and Fields ran from the store to the car.

Defendant fired three more shots at Dukar, broke the glass in the jewelry case, took two trays of rings, and fled. Defendant left behind a jewelry catalog that Dukar had given him earlier.

Hodges testified that defendant was carrying jewelry trays when he got to the car. An object about the size of a wallet fell from defendant’s inside pocket. Defendant got in the car, and the three drove off.

When police arrived at the store, they found a wallet outside with the names of defendant’s sisters imprinted on it. Inside the store they found the catalog that defendant had handled. On it were two of defendant’s fingerprints. The coroner’s report stated that Dukar had died from gunshot wounds to the head and chest.

Defendant was identified by store customers and nearby tenants. The most positive identification was by Marine Recruiting Sergeant W.M. Goodwin who had an office in the shopping center. Goodwin had stopped to say hello to Dukar while Dukar was talking to defendant shortly before the shooting. Goodwin identified defendant at a corporeal lineup and at trial. Gary Ingalls, the store clerk, said he recognized defendant at a lineup but was nervous and made no identification of him until the preliminary examination. Dolly Johnson, who had been in the store the first time defendant entered, had marked her card with a “possible” identification of defendant at the lineup. She was 99 percent sure at that time. She had asked the lineup participants to smile, and defendant had forced a smile. Later, when she saw defendant smiling naturally in court, she was 100 percent sure that defendant was the man who had smiled at her in Dukar’s store. Less certain identifications of defendant were also made by Brad Kisela and Charles Ray, who had been in the store when Dolly Johnson was there.

B. Defense Case.

Defendant presented alibi testimony by his mother, stepfather, stepbrothers, his girlfriend, two women who were living at his mother’s house, and employees of Hillhaven Convalescent Home in East Palo Alto. Their testimony was to the effect that defendant left home with his stepbrothers and girlfriend about 12:10 or 12:30 p.m. on the day Dukar was killed to attend a Halloween party at Hillhaven where defendant’s stepbrother Barry worked. They arrived 10 to 15 minutes after leaving defendant’s house. The witnesses’ testimony varied, however, as to the time. The group could have arrived anywhere from 12:30 to 1:35. The varied defense testimony indicated that defendant stayed for 45 minutes to an hour.

Police had been dispatched to the murder scene about 12:52 p.m. It takes about 29 minutes to drive from the murder scene to defendant’s residence.

Defendant’s family testified that he had lost his wallet in early 1980. They remembered his complaints about it and searching the house for it. Department of Motor Vehicles’ records showed that defendant had obtained a duplicate license in February 1980.

Defendant presented expert testimony that there were no fingerprints on the catalog of sufficient quality for comparison purposes. Defendant’s mother testified that a few days before the robbery Hodges had come to her house with some jewelry cases and catalogs. Defendant had handled the catalog and had advised his mother not to deal with Hodges.

II. Jury Selection Issues

A. Representative Cross-section.

Defendant contends that the granting of hardship exclusions because of the projected length of the trial tended to systematically exclude poor persons in a disproportionate manner. His contention fails. Claims of denial of a fair cross-sectional jury are analyzed by ascertaining whether a cognizable class has been excluded. (People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 345 [197 Cal.Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) Even assuming that only poor persons were given hardship exclusions, a fact not proven here, persons with low incomes do not constitute a cognizable class. (People v. Estrada (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 76, 91 [155 Cal.Rptr. 731]; see also People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 348-349; People v. Milan (1973) 9 Cal.3d 185, 195-196 [107 Cal.Rptr. 68, 507 P.2d 956].)

Defendant also contends that the process of death-qualifying a California jury results in the systematic underrepresentation of Blacks and women on capital juries and denied him his right to a representative jury at the guilt phase. A majority of this court rejected such an argument in People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pages 349-350, footnote 7 (plur. opn.), 374 (Kaus, J., conc.).

Defendant further contends that the exclusion for cause of prospective jurors who would automatically vote against a death sentence deprived him of a representative jury. This claim has been rejected by both this court and the United States Supreme Court. (People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 78-79 [241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127]; Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162 [90 L.Ed.2d 137, 106 S.Ct. 1758].)

Defendant also assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748]. In Wheeler, we held that peremptory challenges may not be used to remove prospective jurors solely on the basis of presumed group bias. We defined group bias as a presumption that certain jurors are biased merely because they are members of an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or similar grounds. (Id. at p. 276.) The United States Supreme Court similarly held in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712] that the Equal Protection Clause forbids peremptory challenges of potential jurors solely on account of their race when the defendant is a member of that race. Such challenges may not be used “to strike black veniremen on the assumption that they will be biased in a particular case simply because the defendant is black.” (Id. at P-97.)

We recognized in Wheeler, and the United States Supreme Court recognized in Batson, that peremptory challenges have historically served as a valuable safety valve in jury selection. We said in Wheeler that such challenges are permissible so long as they are based on specific bias, which we defined as a bias relating to the particular case on trial or the parties or witnesses thereto: “For example, a prosecutor may fear bias on the part of one juror because he has a record of prior arrests or has complained of police harassment, and on the part of another simply because his clothes or hair length suggest an unconventional lifestyle. In turn, a defendant may suspect prejudice on the part of one juror because he has been the victim of crime or has relatives in law enforcement, and on the part of another merely because his answers on voir dire evince an excessive respect for authority. Indeed, even less tangible evidence of potential bias may bring forth a peremptory challenge: either party may feel a mistrust of a juror’s objectivity on no more than the ‘sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another’ [citation]—upon entering the box the juror may have smiled at the defendant, for instance, or glared at him.” (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p.275.)

Batson does not use the term “specific bias.” It permits challenges so long as they may be justified by “a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried.” (Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 88].) The court emphasized, however, “that the prosecutor’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.” (Id. at p. 97 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 88].)

Under Wheeler and Batson, if a party believes his opponent is improperly using peremptory challenges for a discriminatory purpose, he must raise a timely challenge and make a prima facie case of such discrimination. Once a prima facie case has been shown, the burden shifts to the other party to come forward with an explanation that demonstrates a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried. (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-282; Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 96-98 [90 L.Ed.2d at pp. 87-89].) The court in Batson noted that the prosecutor may not rebut the defendant’s prima facie case merely by denying that he had a discriminatory motive or affirming his good faith in making individual selections: “If these general assertions were accepted .as rebutting a defendant’s prima facie case, the Equal Protection Clause ‘would be but a vain and illusory requirement.’ ”² (Batson, supra, at p. 98 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 88].)

Both Wheeler and Batson profess confidence in the ability of the trial courts to determine the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s showing. In Wheeler, we said that we will “rely on the good judgment of the trial courts to distinguish bona fide reasons for such peremptories from sham excuses belatedly contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination.” (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 282.) The court indicated likewise in Batson. (Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 89].) The trial court, however, must make “a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanation in light of the circumstances of the case as then known, his knowledge of trial techniques, and his observations of the manner in which the prosecutor has examined members of the venire and has exercised challenges for cause or peremptorily. . . .” (People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 167-168 [197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854].)

In the present case the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to remove three Black jurors, four Jewish jurors and two Asian jurors. Defendant objected to exclusion of these jurors by a Wheeler motion.³ The trial court did not make an express finding that defendant had made a prima facie case of group bias. However, the court asked the prosecutor “Do you wish to respond [to the defendant’s Wheeler motion]?” It then proceeded to hear the prosecutor’s explanations for the use of the peremptory challenges. In People v. Turner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 711 at pages 718-719 [230 Cal.Rptr. 656, 726 P.2d 102], a decision handed down after this case was tried, we concluded that such an inquiry by the trial court constituted “at least an implied finding” of a prima facie showing. Accordingly, we proceed to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations.

As to the Jewish jurors, the prosecutor stated that one was a “very nervous person,” gave the defendants “a very noticeable smile,” was opposed to the death penalty or leaned that way. The second person was 71 years old, looked tired, had a relative who was a lawyer, and felt the death penalty was not a deterrent. He seemed to have a great deal of rapport with defense counsel and appeared more friendly to the defendant than the average juror. The third person was 61 years old and was a “very tired appearing person." She was critical of a police department she had dealt with and she felt an officer had lied. She also gave defendants a very sympathetic look. The prosecutor thought the fourth person was “weird,” that sympathy for the defendants might be a problem for him, and that he “didn’t seem to be willing to commit to promises to make a decision based on the facts of the evidence.” The prosecutor also stated he felt totally unable to relate to him.

As to the Asian jurors, one did not approve of the death penalty and said she could not pass judgment. She seemed to have some trouble understanding the people questioning her. The other person said she preferred life without possibility of parole over the death penalty and was concerned that the case be proven without any doubt. She had also contested a speeding ticket and had lost and had some feelings about that.

Regarding the three Black jurors, Ms. S.’s ex-husband was a policeman, and she seemed to be prejudiced against policemen. She had a brother-in-law who had been arrested and had known others who had gone to jail. She had a very defensive body position when the prosecutor questioned her and would not look at him when introduced. Her pulse seemed to race when the death penalty was mentioned. It was the practice of the prosecutor to rate each juror on a scale. Ms. T. was given a slightly lower than average rating by the prosecutor; he would have left her on had he had a jury panel where others had lower ratings. She was overweight and poorly groomed, indicating that she might not have been in the mainstream of people’s thinking. She was very nervous about the death penalty and kept her hand over her mouth when talking about it. She didn’t approve of the death penalty. She did not relate to the prosecutor and seemed not to trust him. Mr. F.S. had been arrested numerous times and had been in and out of jail and court many times as a defendant. “He talked about police officers abusing people and juries treating blacks differently, police treating blacks differently.” He would not state a position on the death penalty and said he would require proof beyond a shadow of doubt. He did not come to court twice when asked to by the clerk.

After listening to the detailed explanations given by the prosecutor and the objections by defense counsel to the subjectivity of some of the cited reasons, the court denied the Wheeler motion. Unlike People v. Hall, supra, 35 Cal.3d 161, here there is nothing suggesting that the court misunderstood its obligation to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations. In Hall the court indicated hostility to the Wheeler holding, stating “ ‘a peremptory challenge is a peremptory challenge, otherwise, it’s meaningless.’ ” (Id. at p. 165.) The trial court in Hall completely abdicated its responsibility under Wheeler and expressed the view that “group bias is shown only when a prosecutor declares an intent to exclude all members of an ethnic group from the jury.” (Id. at p. 169.) Here, by contrast, the trial court’s statement of the basis of a Wheeler motion indicated a clear understanding of the distinction between group bias and individual bias, and its explanation of its ruling shows that it found that the challenges had been based on an individual evaluation of each juror and his individual bias. The court thus understood its obligations under Wheeler and made a conscientious determination that the prosecutor had not been guilty of group bias.

The dissent’s argument to the contrary is unconvincing. First, it rejects a number of reasons given by the prosecutor as being “trivial.” Nowhere does Wheeler or Batson say that trivial reasons are invalid. What is required are reasonably specific and neutral explanations that are related to the particular case being tried. Second, the dissent dismisses a number of statements about particular jurors’ dislike of the death penalty on the ground that further questioning revealed such jurors would vote for the death penalty if it were appropriate. Those answers, however, merely ruled out a challenge for cause; they did not preclude concern that the jurors were predisposed against the death penalty.⁴ The dissent’s argument in this regard suggests that it has essentially elevated peremptory challenges to challenges for cause. In so doing, the dissent appears to embrace Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion in Batson, which advocates the elimination of peremptory challenges. Justice Marshall was alone in this view, and it has never found explicit acceptance in our opinions.

We cannot argue with the assertion by defendant and the dissent that the prosecutor’s explanations would be inadequate under the approach taken by the majority in People v. Trevino (1985) 39 Cal.3d 667 [217 Cal.Rptr. 652, 704 P.2d 719]. We think, however, that Trevino extended Wheeler beyond its logical limits.⁵ Despite its professed confidence in the ability of trial judges to distinguish a true case of group discrimination, the majority in Trevino specifically disallowed reliance on body language and the prospective juror’s mode of answering questions in rebutting a prima facie case. Wheeler had given no indication that such subjective reasons were unacceptable, and the dissent does not really argue to the contrary. (See dis. opn., p. 1284.) In ruling out subjective reasons, the majority in Trevino, and the dissent in this case, seem unwilling to trust the trial courts to conscientiously rule on the adequacy of the proffered explanations. As Justice Kaus wrote in dissent: “I have my own hunch that what is really behind the majority’s rejection of hunches, gut-feelings and body language is a fear that prosecutors will insincerely attempt to justify group bias with such reasons and that trial judges, some of whom are perceived as being unsympathetic toward the Wheeler rule, will rubber-stamp their explanations. I submit that if we cannot trust trial courts to do their job fairly, we might as well close up shop and that we, ourselves, were insincere when, in Wheeler, we professed our faith in the ‘good judgment’ of the trial bench.”⁶ (People v. Trevino, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 704, fn. 4.)

The majority in Trevino, in our view, also placed undue emphasis on comparisons of the stated reasons for the challenged excusáis with similar characteristics of nonmembers of the group who were not challenged by the prosecutor. First, we note, as did Justice Kaus in his Trevino dissent, that the comparison is one-sided since it ignores the characteristics of the other 26 jurors against whom the prosecutor also exercised peremptory challenges. (Trevino, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 700.) Moreover, we fail to see how a trial judge can reasonably be expected to make such detailed comparisons mid-trial. Here, with a two-month voir dire it is unrealistic to expect the trial judge to make a detailed review of the reasons as the Trevino majority would require.

The dissent’s use of a comparison analysis to evaluate the bona tides of the prosecutor’s stated reasons for peremptory challenges does not properly take into account the variety of factors and considerations that go into a lawyer’s decision to select certain jurors while challenging others that appear to be similar. Trial lawyers recognize that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge. In addition, the particular combination or mix of jurors which a lawyer seeks may, and often does, change as certain jurors are removed or seated in the jury box. It may be acceptable, for example, to have one juror with a particular point of view but unacceptable to have more than one with that view. If the panel as seated appears to contain a sufficient number of jurors who appear strong-willed and favorable to a lawyer’s position, the lawyer might be satisfied with a jury that includes one or more passive or timid appearing jurors. However, if one or more of the supposed favorable or strong jurors is excused either for cause or peremptory challenge and the replacement jurors appear to be passive or timid types, it would not be unusual or unreasonable for the lawyer to peremptorily challenge one of these apparently less favorable jurors even though other similar types remain. These same considerations apply when considering the age, education, training, employment, prior jury service, and experience of the prospective jurors.

It is also common knowledge among trial lawyers that the same factors used in evaluating a juror may be given different weight depending on the number of peremptory challenges the lawyer has at the time of the exercise of the particular challenge and the number of challenges remaining with the other side. Near the end of the voir dire process a lawyer will naturally be more cautious about “spending” his increasingly precious peremptory challenges. Thus at the beginning of voir dire the lawyer may exercise his challenges freely against a person who has had a minor adverse police contact and later be more hesitant with his challenges on that ground for fear that if he exhausts them too soon, he may be forced to go to trial with a juror who exhibits an even stronger bias. Moreover, as the number of challenges decreases, a lawyer necessarily evaluates whether the prospective jurors remaining in the courtroom appear to be better or worse than those who are seated. If they appear better, he may elect to excuse a previously passed juror hoping to draw an even better juror from the remaining panel.

It should be apparent, therefore, that the very dynamics of the jury selection process make it difficult, if not impossible, on a cold record, to evaluate or compare the peremptory challenge of one juror with the retention of another juror which on paper appears to be substantially similar. The dissent’s attempt to make such an analysis of the prosecutor’s use of his peremptory challenges is highly speculative and less reliable than the determination made by the trial judge who witnessed the process by which the defendant’s jury was selected. It is therefore with good reason that we and the United States Supreme Court give great deference to the trial court’s determination that the use of peremptory challenges was not for an improper or class bias purpose. As stated in Batson: “Since the trial judge’s findings in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” (Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 89].) Here an experienced trial judge saw and heard the entire voir dire proceedings by which defendant’s jury was selected. The record indicates he was aware of his duty under Wheeler to be sensitive to the manner in which peremptory challenges were used. He found no improper use of the peremptory challenges by the prosecutor. Under these circumstances we see no good reason to second-guess his factual determination.⁷

Accordingly, we disapprove People v. Trevino, supra, 39 Cal.3d 667, to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion. We hereby return to a standard of truly giving great deference to the trial court in distinguishing bona fide reasons from sham excuses. The United States Supreme Court echoed our view in this regard when it stated in Batson: “While we respect the views expressed in Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion concerning prosecutorial and judicial enforcement of our holding today, we do not share them. The standard we adopt under the Federal Constitution is designed to ensure that a State does not use peremptory challenges to strike any black juror because of his race. We have no reason to believe that prosecutors will not fulfill their duty to exercise their challenges only for legitimate purposes. Certainly, this Court may assume that trial judges, in supervising voir dire in light of our decision today, will be alert to identify a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Nor do we think that this historic trial practice, which long has served the selection of an impartial jury, should be abolished because of an apprehension that prosecutors and trial judges will not perform conscientiously their respective duties under the Constitution.” (Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 99, fn. 22 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 89].)

Under the standard of giving great deference to the trial court’s determination, we affirm the ruling in this case. The dissent, in our view, unjustly faults the trial court for not making a sincere and reasoned determination regarding the genuineness of the prosecutor’s reasons. There is no indication in the record that the court did not do so. The dissent seems to believe that inquiry by the court is required to demonstrate compliance with its obligation under Wheeler. We do not read Wheeler or Hall as establishing such a requirement. The dissent also misinterprets a remark by the trial court as indicating that the court had determined in advance that it would accept as true anything the prosecutor said. The court simply rejected the defense argument of the necessity for placing the prosecutor under oath before hearing his reasons. The court’s remark cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything more than that. Although the court’s explanation of its ruling was inartfully phrased, the record clearly reveals that the court understood the distinction between specific and group bias and had that distinction in mind when it made its ruling.

Defendant finally contends that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against death penalty skeptics violated People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258. We recently rejected that argument in People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 80. (See also People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 313-315 [208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669].)

B. Peremptory Challenges.

Defendant contends that section 1070.5, which limits jointly tried capital codefendants to 5 individual and 26 joint peremptory challenges, but gives the prosecutor 36 unrestricted challenges, operated to deny him due process and equal protection of the law because his codefendant was not “realistically” exposed to the death penalty and thus had different interests. We have recently upheld the statute against virtually identical attacks based on denial of due process and equal protection. (People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 79-80; People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1004-1007 [248 Cal.Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017].) Contrary to defendant’s assertion, his situation is no different from that in Ainsworth where both defendants were charged with murder with special circumstances and there was no indication that the death penalty was not being sought as to the codefendant. Indeed, the Ainsworth situation was arguably more extreme in that each defendant there attempted to cast primary blame on the other. Here, by contrast, both defendants claimed they were not involved in the crimes.

C. Impartial Jury.

Defendant contends that the death-qualification of the jury resulted in a guilt-prone jury which denied him his due process and impartial jury rights. We have repeatedly rejected that contention. (See e.g., People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 827 [218 Cal.Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372]; People v. Anderson (1985) 38 Cal.3d 58, 60 [210 Cal.Rptr. 777, 694 P.2d 1149]; People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 868-869 [196 Cal.Rptr. 309, 671 P.2d 813].)

D. Witherspoon/Witt.

Defendant contends that three prospective jurors were improperly excused under Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770]. The United States Supreme Court, however, recently modified the Witherspoon standard in Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 105 S.Ct. 844], and we adopted that modification in People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 767-769 [239 Cal.Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250]. The new standard is whether a juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” (469 U.S. at p. 424 [83 L.Ed.2d at pp. 851-852].) In addition to dispensing with Witherspoon's reference to “automatic” decisionmaking, this new standard likewise does not require that a juror’s bias be proved with “unmistakable clarity.” The court explained that “determinations of juror bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism.” (Ibid. [83 L.Ed.2d at p. 852].) Our task on review is to examine the context surrounding the juror’s exclusion to determine whether the trial court’s decision that the juror’s beliefs would “substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror” is fairly supported by the record. (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 175 [91 L.Ed.2d 144, 154, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2469].)

Our review of the record discloses support for the court’s determination that the three prospective jurors had views that would substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors.

Defendant also argues that the excusáis were improper because the trial court should have instructed the prospective jurors during voir dire that it was their civic duty to sit as jurors if they could subordinate their views and obey the laws of this state. We rejected a similar claim in People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 96.

E. Defense Challenges for Cause.

Defendant contends the court erred in denying his challenges for cause to three potential jurors for bias in favor of the death penalty. Defendant is correct in asserting that the same Witherspoon/Witt standard should govern such challenges. We so held in People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 763-764 [251 Cal.Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260]. Although each of the jurors in question indicated that he favored the death penalty, each ultimately said that he would follow the law as given and would not automatically vote for the death penalty. Each juror indicated he would vote for life without possibility of parole if that were the appropriate penalty based on the evidence presented. The court rejected defense counsel’s argument that these jurors had said they would place the burden on the defendant to show why the death penalty should not be given, noting that defense counsel had elicited such statements in response to leading questions which did not explain the requirements of the law. Once informed of the legal standard the jurors said they would follow it.

The record supports the trial court’s ruling. Where, as here, conflicting and equivocal answers are given regarding the juror’s impartiality, the trial court’s determination as to the juror’s true state of mind is binding upon an appellate court. (See People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 355-356; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 725 [83 Cal.Rptr. 608, 464 P.2d 64].)

F. Restriction of Voir Dire.

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion under People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392 [174 Cal.Rptr. 317, 628 P.2d 869] in refusing to permit defense counsel to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to view accomplice Hodges’s testimony with suspicion and distrust. We disagree. In Williams we held that counsel should be allowed to ask questions reasonably designed to assist in the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges whether or not such questions are also likely to uncover grounds for a challenge for cause. (Id. at p. 407.) We reaffirmed, however, that the function of voir dire is not to educate or indoctrinate the jury. (Id. at p. 408.) We also left “intact the considerable discretion of the trial court to contain voir dire within reasonable limits.” (Ibid.)

Under Williams the court must permit questioning about legal doctrines that are material to the trial and controversial in the sense that they are likely to invoke strong feelings and resistance to their application. (29 Cal.3d at p. 410; People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 184 [222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480].) Under this standard the court acted within its discretion in precluding questions about viewing accomplice testimony with distrust since that is not a proposition with which the average juror would tend to disagree. (See People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 184; see also People v. Helton (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1144-1145 [209 Cal.Rptr. 128].)

Defendant also contends the court abused its discretion in precluding or limiting defense questioning of prospective jurors as to factors and circumstances they would deem significant in selecting an appropriate penalty. Again we find no abuse of discretion. The line of questioning involved incomplete statements of law and tended to cause confusion about the legal principles and facts of the case. This was unlike the questioning improperly precluded in Williams regarding the jurors’ views about the right to use force in self-defense even though an avenue of retreat is open. In the present case, the court permitted a wide range of questions regarding prospective jurors’ attitudes about the death penalty, and it did not abuse its discretion in imposing this limitation.

Defendant further contends that the court improperly precluded the defense from questioning jurors with prior jury experience about the result reached by the prior jury. In People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 765-767 [175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446], we held that in future cases a trial judge will have the discretionary authority to permit defense access to jury records and reports of investigations available to the prosecution. Defendant concedes that Murtishaw was inapplicable to his case since voir dire commenced four days before Murtishaw was filed, but he nevertheless argues that the trial court should have permitted the questioning of jurors under the Williams rule. The effect of Williams on the long-standing rule precluding such questions (People v. Conte (1912) 17 Cal.App. 771, 778 [122 P. 450]; People v. Trask (1907) 7 Cal.App. 103, 105 [93 P. 891]) appears to be an open question. We need not decide it here, however, since even if it were error to preclude such questioning, the error was clearly harmless. As we stated in People v. Murtishaw, supra, 29 Cal.3d at page 767: “As the prior cases have pointed out, in any individual case it is entirely speculative whether denial of access [to jury records] caused any significant harm to the defense. Consequently, under the test of prejudice established in the California Constitution (art. VI, § 13) and People v. Watson [1956] 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243], the denial of access is not reversible error.”

III. Guilt Phase Issues

A. Motion to Suppress Testimony of Accomplice Hodges.

Defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the testimony of Hodges on the ground that it was the product of illegal interrogation. It is undisputed that statements made by Hodges on December 5 and December 9, 1980, were involuntary as a result of having been obtained through coercion and other illegal means.⁸ These statements were near-confessions and implicated defendant and Fields. The trial court, however, found there was clear and convincing evidence of attenuation and therefore refused to suppress Hodges’s testimony.

In reviewing this contention using well-settled principles, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the trial court’s determination, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of the findings below. (People v. Superior Court (Sosa) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 883, 887 [185 Cal.Rptr. 113, 649 P.2d 696].)

It is unnecessary to go into detail about the many illegalities in obtaining Hodges’s statements. For our purposes of reviewing the trial court’s ruling on attenuation it is sufficient to note that the trial court found, and the prosecution did not dispute, that the statements given by Hodges to Sergeant Pang were involuntary for the following reasons: “There wasn’t probable cause to arrest. During the course of the interrogations there were both promises of reward or leniency. There were coercions threatening the defendant that if he didn’t talk they would go all the way on the prosecution, where they didn’t have evidence to proceed, [fl] There was pressure regarding out-of-county crimes and misrepresentations regarding the status of those offenses. Mr. Hodges was misled regarding those matters, [fl] And also there was pressure brought to bear on his girlfriend, Miss Elarms, before Mr. Hodges was allowed to talk to her regarding the status of those particular cases. And there was a threat there, and on the instant charge to act in a certain way, the officers knew that they didn’t have probable cause, [fl] There was also a clear violation of Miranda, and although that is not something that may be directly assertable here by defendants Johnson and Fields, it’s certainly a fact that the Court has to consider in the context of all the circumstances. This is just a partial statement of the reasons for my decision in that regard.”

On the question of attenuation, Hodges testified that his decision to testify was based on his fear that his confessions would be admissible. The force of this testimony, however, was dissipated by other evidence in the record. At the time of Hodges’s preliminary hearing on the Dukar robbery/murder charges, it was stated that Hodges would waive preliminary examination, and in exchange for a plea bargain, would testify in the matters involving defendant and Fields. During the voir dire regarding the plea bargain it was stated that Hodges would plead guilty to a charge of simple robbery carrying a prison term of two, three or five years. Hodges acknowledged that his attorney had explained that the statements he had given to the police “may very well be inadmissible evidence.” Hodges also acknowledged that he understood that without the statements there would be insufficient evidence to hold him. At the point of taking Hodges’s waivers on the plea bargain, Hodges began to balk. The hearing was then recessed. Hodges and his attorney met with the prosecutor who offered to reduce the maximum sentence on the robbery plea to three years. During this meeting Hodges’s attorney said, “You’ve made your decision. You’ve made it in open court. The statements are ridiculous. We’ll go ahead and go to prelim. If the statements are thrown out I’m aware of no evidence against you. . . .” Hodges then decided to accept the prosecutor’s offer of the reduced sentence and to go forward with the agreement.

In finding clear and convincing evidence of attenuation, the court cited a number of factors: In the intervening 10 days between the time Hodges made his statements and the preliminary hearing there was no further contact between Hodges and the police. The record of Hodges’s preliminary hearing waiver indicated Hodges had been advised of the possibility of his statements being ruled inadmissible and the lack of evidence against him without those statements. Hodges’s balking at the initial waiver and his decision to continue after the prosecutor’s offer of a reduced sentence indicates an arm’s length bargain. All of this evidenced that Hodges’s decision to go ahead was an exercise of his free will and was not a consequence of any further exploitation of the initial confessions. The court also noted that Hodges’s testimony that his attorney had told him the statements may be admissible must be put in the context of the way lawyers speak about the outcome of litigation—i.e., there are no guaranties.

We conclude the record supports the trial court’s ruling. As the trial court noted, the circumstances here are unlike those in People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883, upon which defendant relies. In Sosa we affirmed the trial court’s suppression of a witness’s testimony on the ground that there was no credible evidence of attenuation. The only evidence offered at all was testimony by a police officer which the court refused to credit. There was no evidence that the witness was exercising his free will in deciding to testify. Here, by contrast, there was ample and credible evidence of attenuation. (See also United States v. Ceccolini (1978) 435 U.S. 268 [55 L.Ed.2d 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054].)

Defendant also contends he was denied due process by the trial court’s rulings that the attorney-client privilege precluded most of his questions to Hodges and his attorney regarding the content of their discussion about the plea bargain and the admissibility of the statements. Defendant argues that Hodges waived the attorney-client privilege when, in response to a question by the prosecutor about the meeting at which the prosecutor was present, Hodges said that his attorney had told him earlier that there was a possibility his statements would be admissible because it was a murder-robbery. After lengthy argument the court ultimately ruled that Hodges had not made a general waiver of the attorney-client privilege because he had not been advised of his right to assert the privilege. The court also ruled that the conversation at which the prosecutor was present was not privileged because it was not intended to be confidential. In accord with this ruling, Hodges’s attorney testified about the meeting with the prosecutor, but the court sustained objections to questions about other discussions between him and Hodges.

Although defendant makes a lengthy argument concerning his due process rights to invade the attorney-client privilege, he cites no authority directly supporting that claim. Indeed, Littlefield v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 477 [186 Cal.Rptr. 368], supports a contrary result. There the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order allowing defendant Angelo Buono to invade prosecution witness Kenneth Bianchi’s attorney-client privilege regarding conversations with his attorney leading to his plea bargain: “The contention herein urged on us is that the evidence sought would show that the public defender, then representing Bianchi, had disclosed to Bianchi facts about the alleged murders, thus enabling him to fabricate testimony against Buono. Assuming that the evidence would show that the public defender had done so, in counseling Bianchi about the wisdom of the plea bargain (a fact that Buono’s counsel can only surmise), we see nothing to permit a violation of the traditional attorney-client privilege.” (Id. at p. 481.) The same reasoning applies in this case.

B. Testimony by Hodges Pursuant to Plea Bargain.

Defendant contends he was denied a fair trial because the terms of Hodges’s plea bargain placed him under a strong compulsion to testify in accordance with his prior statements to the police. Defendant relies primarily on People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438 [116 Cal.Rptr. 133], where the Court of Appeal reversed the convictions of two defendants after prosecution witnesses testified under a grant of immunity conditioned upon the witnesses not changing their testimony from the tape-recorded statements given the police. (Id. at p. 450.) The court acknowledged that a grant of immunity could be conditioned on a requirement that the witness testify fully and fairly to the facts, but that it was not permissible to place the witness under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion. (Id. at P- 455.)

In the present case, the terms of the plea bargain required that Hodges testify truthfully if called as a witness at the preliminary hearing and trial of defendant and Fields. Hodges’s attorney stated that the agreement contemplated truthful testimony and was not conditioned upon testimony “for or against anyone.” The prosecutor interjected at that point: “And further, it’s also conditioned of course, on the understanding that what he has told the Milpitas Police Department in previous statements is in fact the true testimony that he—as he understands it—”

The present situation is not like that in Medina. Here the agreement was that Hodges testify truthfully. The prosecutor’s assertion that he understood the truth to be what Hodges had told the police was not a term of the bargain. We considered a similar situation in People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pages 360-361, and rejected the defendant’s claim that the bargain was tainted by the prosecutor’s expectation of testimony consistent with the statement given to the police: “We recognize that a witness in Gail Fields’ position is under some compulsion to testify in accord with statements given to the police or the prosecution. The district attorney in the present case obviously believed that Gail’s last statement was a truthful account, and if she deviated materially from it he might take the position that she had breached the bargain, and could be prosecuted as a principal to murder. But despite this element of compulsion, it is clear, and the cases so hold [citation] that an agreement which requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain.” (Id. at p. 361; accord People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1251-1255 [232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].)

C. Motion to Sever.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of codefendant Fields. The motion was based on the prejudicial effect of admission of codefendant Fields’s extrajudicial statement (see People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265]) and the requirement that codefendants share peremptory challenges (§ 1070.5).

Section 1098 states the general preference for joint trials: “When two or more defendants are jointly charged with any public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, they must be tried jointly, unless the court order separate trials. . . .” The matter of granting separate trials “remains largely within the discretion of the trial court [citation], guided by the principles set out in People v. Massie (1967) 66 Cal.2d 899 [59 Cal.Rptr. 733, 428 P.2d 869].” (People v. Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d 302, 312.) The court should order separate trials of codefendants “in the face of an incriminating confession, prejudicial association with codefendants, likely confusion resulting from evidence on multiple counts, conflicting defenses, or the possibility that at a separate trial a codefendant would give exonerating testimony.” (People v. Massie, supra, 66 Cal.2d 899, 917, fns. omitted.)

No abuse of discretion appears here. The court’s denial of severance was premised on an effective editing of codefendant Fields’s statement or exclusion of the statement if effective editing were not possible. That took care of any Aranda problems. (See People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d 518.) As to the claimed prejudice of having to share peremptory challenges, the court properly relied on the statute providing for shared peremptory challenges in joint trials. (§ 1070.5.) None of the other factors mentioned in Massie, supra, 66 Cal.2d 899, was present here. There was no indication that there would be conflicting defenses or the possibility of exonerating testimony if the trials were separate. Nor was there any indication of undue prejudice from the association of the two defendants. Finally, the charges were essentially the same as to each and not likely to cause confusion. The codefendants’ positions in this case were less adversarial than those in People v. Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d 302, where we affirmed the ruling denying separate trials when the defendants had conflicting defenses.

D. Introduction of Fields’s Statement.

1. Aranda.

Defendant contends that the admission of a heavily edited version of Fields’s extrajudicial statement violated People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620], Aranda allows admission of a codefendant’s extrajudicial statement in a joint trial only if all parts of the statement which implicate any codefendants are effectively deleted: “By effective deletions, we mean not only direct and indirect identifications of codefendants but any statements that could be employed against nondeclarant codefendants once their identity is otherwise established.” (People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 530.)

The edited statemerit of Fields that was admitted was extremely limited—that Fields had told Sergeant Pang that he had gone into Dukar’s store about noon and was wearing a light color suit. The court gave an instruction that the jury was to consider this evidence against Fields only.

Defendant argues that this statement indirectly implicated him because it tended to corroborate Hodges’s testimony as well as the identifications made by a number of eyewitnesses. Aranda protections, however, do not go that far. Fields’s statement did not link defendant to the crime any more or less than he was already linked. The statement is similar to that which the court in Aranda indicated would have been acceptable: “I was one of the persons who robbed the store but I will tell you nothing more.” (63 Cal.2d at p. 531, fn. 10.) (See also People v. Dominguez (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 481, 506-507 [175 Cal.Rptr. 445].)

2. Tainted Fruit.

Defendant contends that Fields’s statement was also inadmissible as a fruit of the illegal arrest and the illegal statements given by Hodges. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress this evidence, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the trial court’s determination and resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the finding below. (People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d at p.887.)

Based on Hodges’s statements on December 5 and 9, Officer Pang obtained a warrant for Fields’s arrest. On December 29, 1980, Officer Temple-man of the Alhambra Police Department detained Fields and ran a warrant check which revealed outstanding traffic warrants. About the same time, Templeman’s supervisor arrived and told him Fields was wanted for murder. They took Fields to the police station on the traffic warrants and called Officer Pang to verify the murder warrant. There was a discrepancy in the warrant about the race of the person wanted, and Pang confirmed the wanted person was Black. Officer Pang told Templeman that Hodges had implicated Fields at a preliminary hearing and that there was “plenty of probable cause” to arrest him. Although there was some dispute about whether Officer Pang told Templeman to arrest Fields on the warrant or on the basis of Hodges’s testimony at the preliminary hearing, the trial court found that Pang’s reference to Hodges’s preliminary hearing testimony and statement that there was “plenty of probable cause” supported the legality of the arrest. We defer to the trial court’s finding in this regard and conclude that its ruling must be upheld.⁹

E. Testimony by Gary Ingalls.

Defendant contends the court prejudicially erred in admitting the testimony of Gary Ingalls because he had been hypnotized. (See People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18 [181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 641 P.2d 775]; People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385 [208 Cal.Rptr. 162, 690 P.2d 635].) After hearing evidence and argument the court ruled that Ingalls’s testimony was admissible because he had not in fact been hypnotized. Defendant disputes the trial court’s ruling.

Gary Ingalls, the store clerk, gave the police a report on the day of the robbery. On November 18, 1980, Ingalls was taken to a hypnotist, Mr. Fernandez, to see if he could remember additional details. After the session Ingalls did not have any different recollection and did not believe he had been hypnotized. Mr. Fernandez, however, was of the opinion that Ingalls had been hypnotized. On August 4, 1981 (nine months after the session with Mr. Fernandez), Ingalls was examined by Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist. After interviewing Ingalls and Fernandez, listening to a tape of the session, reviewing police reports containing Ingalls’s statement, and administering a hypnotic induction profile, Dr. Spiegel concluded Ingalls had not in fact been hypnotized. Dr. Spiegel attached particular significance to Ingalls’s use of both past and present tense on the tape since hypnotized subjects usually use the present tense as though reliving the experience.

Defendant contends that the court’s ruling was erroneous because it was based on the opinion of Dr. Spiegel, which in turn was based on the results of the hypnotic induction profile. He asserts that the court should have disregarded Dr. Spiegel’s opinion because the hypnotic induction profile did not meet the Kelly-Frye standard of general acceptance as reliable in the scientific community in which it was developed. (People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 [130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240]; Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 Fed. 1013 [54 App.D.C. 46, 34 A.L.R. 145].) Defendant did not raise this objection until the time of the trial court’s ruling. In any event, the argument is unavailing since the hypnotic induction profile was not the sole basis of Dr. Spiegel’s opinion, and Dr. Spiegel’s opinion was not the sole basis of the trial court’s ruling. The court based its ruling on the testimony of Ingalls himself as well as Dr. Spiegel. Dr. Spiegel, in turn, based his opinion on review of the tape recording of the hypnosis session, police reports regarding Ingalls’s statement, and the hypnotic induction profile.

F. Hitch/Trombetta Motion.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to exclude fingerprint evidence and testimony regarding some rings under People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641 [117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361]. In Hitch, we held there is a due process duty to preserve and disclose the component parts of a breathalyzer test and that where such evidence cannot be disclosed because of its intentional but nonmalicious destruction, suppression of the test results is required unless the prosecution can show that the investigative officials have established and enforced rigorous and systematic procedures for the preservation of the evidence. (Id. at pp. 652-653.) We ruled that the People’s duty to preserve applies whenever there exists a “reasonable possibility” that the evidence would have constituted “favorable evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence.” (Id. at p. 649.) We later applied Hitch to require the preservation of a semen sample taken from a rape victim (People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169 [161 Cal.Rptr. 299, 604 P.2d 1051]) and of a urine sample taken from a suspected narcotics user (People v. Moore (1983) 34 Cal.3d 215 [193 Cal.Rptr. 404, 666 P.2d 419]).

In California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 [81 L.Ed.2d 413, 104 S.Ct. 2528], the United States Supreme Court addressed for the first time the question of the People’s duty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to take affirmative steps to preserve evidence. Although the high court discussed our Hitch case, it formulated its own test: “Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality [citation], 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.” (467 U.S. at pp. 488-489 [81 L.Ed.2d at p. 422], fn. omitted.)

Although we have acknowledged that the Trombetta formulation of the duty-to-preserve test differs substantially from our Hitch standard (supra, 12 Cal.3d 641), we have never squarely decided whether Hitch has “survived” Trombetta. (See In re Michael L. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 81, 86 [216 Cal.Rptr. 140, 702 P.2d 222].) The Court of Appeal, however, was forced to decide this question in People v. Trombetta (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1093 [219 Cal.Rptr. 637] where upon remand of the case from the United States Supreme Court, it held that California v. Trombetta supersedes Hitch. The People v. Trombetta court concluded that Hitch was premised on federal due process and that the federal due process test set forth in California v. Trombetta should therefore prevail. (173 Cal.App.3d at p. 1100.) Although we agree with that analysis of our Hitch opinion, we note that there is yet another reason for finding the Trombetta rule controlling. As Justice Eagle-son noted in People v. Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1203 [218 Cal.Rptr. 756], the result is also compelled by the Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8, which added article I, section 28, subdivision (d) to the California Constitution.¹⁰

Justice Eagleson found the Hitch.exclusionary rule governed by the reasoning set forth in In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 888-889 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744], that article I, section 28, subdivision (d) has limited the power of the court to create nonstatutory rules for the exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence if those rules afford greater protection to a criminal defendant than does the Fourth Amendment. “In each instance relevant evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence is being excluded, and the reasoning of In re Lance W. should be applicable to both situations.” (Angeles, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 1217; accord People v. Tierce (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 256 [211 Cal.Rptr. 325].)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d 641, has not survived Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. 479. Under the Trombetta standard we find no error.

1. Fingerprint Evidence.

The prosecution introduced evidence that defendant had been seen at Dukar’s store holding a jewelry catalog and that a catalog found at the store after the murder had two fingerprints matching defendant’s. An FBI fingerprint specialist, Thurman Williams, tested the catalog after local authorities had already tested it with ninhydrin and photographed the two fingerprints disclosed. Williams made his own photos of the fingerprints, which were sufficient for comparison purposes. Williams reprocessed the catalog with ninhydrin and then, following normal procedures, used silver nitrate to see if additional prints could be developed. No further prints were found; the silver nitrate turned the paper dark and washed out the latent prints. At the time he used the silver nitrate Williams did not know there were prints to be compared with those found on the catalog. He was later given a set of defendant’s prints which he found matched the prints in photos he had taken; there were at least 15 points of similarity and no points of dissimilarity.

In denying the motion to exclude the fingerprint evidence, the trial court stated that the fingerprint identification was made from the photographs of the latent prints and that those photographs still exist. The court also noted that it is standard procedure in analyzing fingerprints to do the silver nitrate test and to do it last.

The court’s ruling was proper. The catalog did not have an exculpatory value that was obvious at the time of test, nor did it constitute the sole means of obtaining the evidence since the photographs taken of the fingerprints still exist. (See California v. Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at pp. 488-489 [81 L.Ed.2d at p. 422].)

2. Ring Diagrams.

On the day of the murder Gary Ingalls had prepared a diagram of two rings the killer had worn. One was a white gold ring with an L-shaped area with two or three diamonds worn on the left little finger. The other was a large diamond encircled by smaller diamonds. The diagrams were given to the police and were lost by them.

Defendant was wearing a diamond ring on his left small finger when he was arrested on November 18, 1980. Charles Ray said the ring defendant had been wearing could be the one he had seen on the killer’s finger. Gary Ingalls said the ring defendant had been wearing looked similar to one he had seen the killer wearing. Ingalls gave conflicting testimony regarding the description of the non-L-shaped ring he had drawn. At one point he said he could not remember how he had described the second ring.

The trial court denied a motion to strike the testimony of other witnesses regarding the ring defendant was wearing when arrested, but it stated it would entertain a motion to strike the testimony of Ingalls as to that matter. The striking of Ingalls’s testimony would have been sufficient to dispel any prejudice resulting from the loss of the diagrams. Defendant’s failure to seek such relief, in our view, constitutes abandonment of the claim. (See People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 684 [156 Cal.Rptr. 871, 597 P.2d 130].) In any event, defendant was still able to impeach Ingalls’s testimony by having Officer Morasci duplicate in court the diagrams which had been lost. Moreover, the evidence pertaining to the rings was tangential at best since defendant could have changed rings many times in the two and a half weeks between the murder and his arrest. Thus, in Trombetta terms, the diagram could not be expected to have had a significant role in defendant’s defense, and defendant was able to obtain comparable evidence by Officer Morasci’s duplication of the diagram. (California v. Trombetta, supra, 479 U.S. at pp. 488-489 [81 L.Ed.2d at p. 422].)

G. Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in four instances.

1. He charges the prosecutor with Griffin error (Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106, 85 S.Ct. 1229]) in stating during guilt phase argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, you have now heard the entirety of the case at least as it resolves to the defense in this case. Obviously, if there has been some or is some defense to this case, you’d either have heard it by now or for some reason nobody’s talking about it.”

We do not believe that this statement constitutes impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify at trial. (See People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 691 [224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665].) Moreover, defendant’s failure to raise this objection below bars review since an admonition could have cured any conceivable prejudice. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27-34 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Defendant’s suggestion that the Green contemporaneous objection rule should not be followed in capital cases has been rejected in numerous cases. (See e.g., People v. Ratliff, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 690-691; People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 108, fn. 30.)

2. Defendant contends the prosecutor was calling his stepfather, Fred Ferguson, Sr., a liar and/or a fool in the following cross-examination of him regarding the pressure the prosecutor was putting on him: “A. I told you I didn’t know what to do. Q. Right. A. And I said you got me on the spot, you said that’s right. I’m supposed to get you on the spot. Q. What a mind. Do you remember me saying I’m supposed to get you on the spot?” (Italics added.)

The italicized statement by the prosecutor does not appear derisive, but even if it were, defendant’s failure to object bars review under Green since an admonition clearly could have cured any prejudice.

3. Defendant complains about a statement made by the prosecutor during cross-examination of Frank Rodriguez who was testifying for codefendant Fields. Rodriguez had seen a Black man standing near Dukar’s store minutes before the killing, but he was unable to identify either of the defendants as the man he had seen. The prosecutor asked Rodriguez whether his family was unhappy about his being a witness. The defense objected, stating: “May it please the Court, what his family’s feelings may be are not material to this witness’ voluntariness—. . . I mean, we can’t cross-examine the family to find out why are they reluctant to have somebody come forward and attempt to tell the truth as they see it.” When asked by the court if he wished to respond, the prosecutor said: “I’m afraid the response, Your Honor, wouldn’t be something we should put on the record.” (Italics added.)

Again, defendant’s failure to object below bars review under Green. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, it is not clear to us that the italicized statement implied the prosecutor knew some fact about the witness’s family that would be damaging to the defense. Moreover, any prejudice to defendant would be extremely remote since the testimony related only to codefendant Fields.

4. Defendant further contends the prosecutor improperly stated his personal views. On the subject of the ease or difficulty of identifying defendant, the prosecutor said, “I’d recognize him anyplace.” Regarding the defense fingerprint expert’s being paid for his time, the prosecutor said, “I have some feelings about that.” On the subject of the same witness’s expertise, the prosecutor argued, “I won’t call him an expert, but I don’t think he was really qualified as one. ...” The prosecutor expressed unhappiness about the leniency granted Hodges. Finally, the prosecutor stated that the jury must have seen defense witness Maxine Brown talking to defense counsel in the hallway during recess, implying, according to defendant, that her testimony was being doctored by the defense.

The only objections raised below were to the comment about the fingerprint expert’s expertise and the leniency given Hodges. As to the former, the court admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement to the extent it was an expression of his personal opinion rather than his view of the evidence. As to the latter the court overruled the objection and it is difficult to see how defendant suffered any prejudice.

The court, on its own, admonished the jury to disregard the comment about Maxine Brown’s meeting with defense counsel. Moreover, the remarks pertained to Brown’s correction of her testimony after a recess in which she met with counsel, a fact which she herself confirmed.

As to the other unobjected-to statements, an admonition would have cured any prejudice; thus review of these points is barred. (People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 27-34.) In any event, any error was clearly nonprejudicial.

H. Other Trial Errors.

Defendant mentions in passing three other asserted errors which he urges cumulatively contributed to the verdict. He argues that the court erred in sustaining hearsay objections to defense questions regarding the content of a conversation between members of the Ferguson family and Sergeant Pang. Pang had testified on direct that he had told the family the crime had occurred at 12:52 p.m. Hearsay objections were sustained when the defense attempted to elicit the responses of the family members when told the time of the crime. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, these statements were not admissible under Evidence Code section 356 or 791. Section 356 applies when the balance of a conversation is necessary to make it understood. Section 791 applies to prior consistent statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication. Neither statute fits the situation here.

Defendant next contends the court erred in sustaining hearsay objections to a question of Elaine Williams regarding where defendant said he was going. Before the court could rule, Williams responded: “Barry Ferguson was dressed like a woman, and he [defendant] was going to a Halloween party that’s what I know because I was there.” The court ordered the answer stricken. Even if the court erred in excluding testimony concerning where defendant said he was going, any error could not have been prejudicial in light of the other evidence that had been admitted regarding defendant’s having gone to the party at the convalescent home.

Finally, defendant complains about Sergeant Pang’s bringing to court a clear plastic bag that contained, among other things, a light bluegrey suit which had been ordered suppressed. When the suit’s presence was noted, the court ordered it removed and found no prejudice. Defendant fails to show the court erred.

IV. Special Circumstance Issues

Intent to Kill.

Defendant argues that the robbery/murder special circumstance should be set aside because the court failed to instruct on intent to kill in connection with it. (See Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 [197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862].) His contention fails. In People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104 [240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306], we reconsidered our Carlos decision in light of intervening authority from the United States Supreme Court. We concluded that the court need not instruct on intent to kill as an element of the felony-murder special circumstance unless there is evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was an accomplice rather than the actual killer.¹¹ (Id. at pp. 1138-1139.)

In the present case, there is no evidence that anyone other than defendant was the actual killer. Accordingly, we find the record establishes beyond doubt that defendant was the actual killer in this case, and hence the finding required by Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 [73 L.Ed.2d 1140, 102 S.Ct. 3368], is satisfied. (Cabana v. Bullock (1986) 474 U.S. 376 [88 L.Ed.2d 704, 106 S.Ct. 689].)

V. Penalty Phase Issues

A. Facts.

1. Prosecution Case.

The prosecution presented evidence of a number of other crimes committed by defendant. Ludmila Vystricil testified that defendant and another man robbed her at her jewelry store in Fremont on April 11, 1980. They took between $21,000 and $25,000 worth of jewelry. Ludmila’s son, Carol Vystricil, testified that defendant, a woman, and another man robbed him of between $70,000 to $75,000 worth of jewelry at the Fremont jewelry store on August 18, 1980.

Robert Siegel, a St. Louis, Missouri, police officer testified that on January 11, 1969, in a St. Louis housing project, defendant and about five other young men pulled guns on him and his partner, took the officers’ guns, ordered them to start running, and fired about five shots at them. A certified copy of defendant’s conviction for first degree robbery for this offense was also introduced.

The prosecution introduced a certified copy of defendant’s Missouri conviction on February 11, 1974, for manslaughter.

Emile Jones testified that on January 11, 1980, defendant and another man began shooting at him while he was trying to open the trunk of a car parked near the freeway in East Palo Alto.

Bessy Henderson testified that on April 17, 1980, her sister Cheryl Rayon, who was defendant’s girlfriend, was staying with defendant at his mother’s house. When defendant’s sister would not let Bessy talk to Cheryl on the telephone, Bessy lied and left word that her mother was ill and that Cheryl should come home. When Cheryl and defendant arrived at Bessy’s house about 10 minutes later, defendant became very angry upon learning that her mother’s illness was just a ruse. Defendant pulled a gun and said that being lied to made him want to hurt someone.

2. Defense Case.

The only evidence defendant presented at the penalty phase was the testimony of Barcialee Barbarick, a 63-year-old inmate from Missouri who had spent 41 years in custody. He was then serving a life term in Missouri for murder. Barbarick testified that defendant had not been the person who had committed the Griffith killing on May 16, 1973. He was surprised that defendant had pled guilty to the offense (manslaughter) but that defendant was young, uneducated, and had been threatened with the death penalty.

3. Prosecution Rebuttal.

Santa Clara Deputy Sheriff Dan Aulman testified that he escorted Barbarick from Missouri and that Barbarick had said defendant was his best friend and that he would do anything to help him.

Robert Roller testified that he had been a prison guard at the time of the Griffith killing. He saw an unknown Black inmate hold Griffith while defendant stabbed him with a knife. Roller yelled at defendant. Defendant turned, pointed the knife at him, and said, “Don’t fuck with me.”

B. Notice of Aggravating Evidence.

Defendant contends the prosecution violated the notice provisions of section 190.3 and that the trial court therefore erred in permitting evidence in aggravation to be introduced at the penalty trial. We disagree.

Section 190.3 provides in pertinent part: “Except for evidence in proof of the offense or special circumstances which subject a defendant to the death penalty, no evidence may be presented by the prosecution in aggravation unless notice of the evidence to be introduced has been given to the defendant within a reasonable period of time as determined by the court, prior to trial.” The purpose of the notice provision is to advise an accused of the evidence against him so that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense at the penalty trial. (See People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 96.)

Defendant asserts the notice was inadequate in this case because the written notice was not provided until one day after the jury was sworn and over sixty days after jury selection had begun. The trial court found, however, on two different occasions that the defense had had actual notice well before any definition of commencement of trial.¹² Notwithstanding defendant’s protestations to the contrary, the notice was sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirements as we have interpreted them. (See People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 97; People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 419-425 [243 Cal.Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279].)

C. Separate Jury.

Defendant contends that he should have had a separate jury to consider his penalty alone. He relies on the previously discussed asserted prejudice from the statutory requirement that he share peremptory challenges with codefendant Fields. We have already decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever trials. Once the joint trial was underway, the statutory preference for a single jury came into play. (See People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d at 1168, 1199 [240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301].) Defendant did not specifically move for a separate jury, instead raising the issue by motion for mistrial. In any event, defendant’s motion did not establish good cause for a new jury. (Ibid.)

D. Effect of Guilt Phase Errors.

Defendant urges that any errors found harmless at the guilt phase be reweighed at the penalty phase. Since we have rejected virtually all of defendant’s claims of guilt phase error, no more need be said.

E. Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by inviting the jury to consider the time and expense of retrying the case in the following statement: “There are two things I want to mention before I get into the facts here. I’m going to do that briefly. I don’t expect arguments will be anywhere nearly as long in this phase of the case. []|] The two things are first of all that you have been here, as you know, a great deal of time. And I know that. That’s serious in a case where you have been here as long as you have. There are undoubtedly going to be differences of opinions among you in terms of things that have perhaps nothing to do with this case at all, things to do with issues such as the death penalty, such as life in prison without the possibility of parole, but just personal things who’s smoking, who isn’t, all of those things, [fl] At the outset I’d like to say that 1 ask that you keep in mind the importance of this decision to my clients, the People out there in the community. And, of course, the importance in this case to the clients of the defense attorneys because those things, of course, really have nothing to do with this case at all. I only mention it again because you have been together so long. If you have been together three days, I certainly wouldn’t even say that. But I don’t think—if this jury for instance could not reach a decision as to one or both of the defendants here, and we had to try it again and go step by step, day by day through this case all over all over again because of something—” (Italics added.)

Defense counsel objected, stating: “There’s no showing that this case would have to be tried again. It is not proper argument, calls for speculation.” At a sidebar conference the court overruled the objection, finding nothing improper in the argument. The prosecutor then resumed, stating: “What I believe I was saying was that I hope that you’ll be able to put aside any personal things in terms of things that have nothing to do with this case and be able, if it’s possible, to reach a verdict. The Judge will instruct that it takes a unanimous verdict in this case to reach the decision as to either or both of the defendants or either of the two penalties involved.”

In context, it is clear that the prosecutor was urging the jurors to do their best to reach a verdict.

Defendant further asserts that the impact of counsel’s argument is demonstrated by the fact that on the first day of deliberations the jury sent the following query: “If the jury cannot come to a unanimous agreement on one of the defendants, what happens to the defendant after this time? Does he get sentenced by the Court or is there a complete retrial for the conviction and penalty?” After discussion with counsel, the court responded: “If there is further trial, it would be on the penalty phase only.”

Even if a causal connection could be shown between the prosecutor’s argument and the jury’s query, there is nothing wrong with the answer given by the court. (See People v. Hamilton (1988) 46 Cal.3d 123, 153-156 [249 Cal.Rptr. 320, 756 P.2d 1348].)

Defendant cites four other instances of alleged misconduct. The first was the prosecutor’s question to Bessy Henderson regarding whether she had ever seen defendant with a bigger gun than the one he pulled on her. The point is waived since defense counsel raised no objection, and any conceivable prejudice could have been cured by an admonition. (People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 27.)

The second instance was a question by defense counsel to Officer Siegel which elicited testimony that he had arrested and released defendant the day before the armed robbery of the officers. Although the prosecutor asked that the officer be allowed to finish his answer, the questioning was done by defense counsel. That is not prosecutorial misconduct.

The third instance was the prosecutor’s eliciting testimony from Officer Siegel that it was a crime in Missouri in 1969 to carry a concealed weapon. Although defense counsel objected on the ground that there was no showing the young men had no licenses, he now asserts the testimony was inadmissible because it proved a crime of which no notice was given. That may be true, but it is inconceivable that defendant could have been prejudiced in light of the proper admission of the testimony to show defendant’s participation in armed robbery—a crime for which notice was given.

The fourth instance of asserted misconduct was the prosecutor’s objections to defense counsel’s argument: “Mr. Gardner [the prosecutor] stands before you and says well this was a terrible thing. He mentions the word execution. Let me point out to you that any of these particular type of factors is the—or are the burdens of the prosecution. They must prove these factors in aggravation beyond reasonable doubt. Now, Mr. Gardner had the opportunity of bringing in a pathologist, a coroner’s examiner or somebody, and asked them to describe the trajectories. Was the man standing when he was hit based upon the trajectory? Was the man laying [sz'c] down when he was hit? Depending on the trajectory, but Mr. Gardner asked you to use speculation and conjecture.” The prosecutor objected, stating: “Counsel stipulated the coroner out of this case. I was not able to bring him in.” After the prosecutor again objected about the stipulation, the court instructed the jury that the “stipulation is a fact like any other fact proved in this case and follow your recollection as to what was stipulated to you.” We do not agree with defendant’s assertion that the prosecutor’s objections implied that the coroner would have testified the murder was an execution-style killing. No impropriety appears in the objections.

F. Instruction on Admissions.

Defendant contends the court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct sua sponte that admissions by a defendant are to be viewed with caution. The admissions to which he refers are: (1) telling Bessy Henderson being lied to made him want to hurt somebody; (2) telling the Missouri prison guard, “Don’t fuck with me”; (3) the statement someone in the group made to the two Missouri police officers, “Go for your gun and you’re dead.”

The statements in question were not admissions as that term is defined in CALJIC Nos. 2.70 and 2.71, the instructions defendant claims should have been given. Those instructions state that an admission is a statement by a defendant, which does not acknowledge his guilt by itself but which tends to prove guilt when considered with the rest of the evidence. None of these statements played a part in establishing defendant’s guilt of the crimes in question—(1) brandishing a firearm; (2) manslaughter; (3) robbery. Thus the court had no sua sponte duty to instruct on viewing a defendant’s admissions with caution. Moreover, any error in failing to so instruct would have been harmless in any event.

G. Sentencing Discretion.

The jury was instructed in the language of former CALJIC No. 8.84.2 as follows: “If you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death.” Defendant contends the jury was thereby misled as to its role in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case.

In People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545 [220 Cal.Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440] (revd. on other grounds California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [93 L.Ed.2d 934, 107 S.Ct. 837]), we upheld the 1978 death penalty statute against a challenge that it withdrew constitutionally compelled sentencing discretion from the jury. We observed that “the word ‘weighing’ is a metaphor for a process which by nature is incapable of precise description. The word connotes a mental balancing process, but certainly not one which calls for a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of the imaginary ‘scale,’ or the arbitrary assignment of‘weights’ to any of them. Each juror is free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value he deems appropriate to each and all of the various factors he is permitted to consider .... By directing that the jury ‘shall’ impose the death penalty if it finds that aggravating factors ‘outweigh’ mitigating, the statute should not be understood to require any juror to vote for the death penalty unless, upon completion of the ‘weighing’ process, he decides that death is the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances.” (Id. at p. 541.) We acknowledged, however, that the words “shall impose a sentence of death” left room for confusion and stated that each case must be considered on its own merits to determine whether the jury “may have been misled to defendant’s prejudice about the scope of its sentencing discretion under the 1978 law.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. 17.)

In the present case, the court gave some supplemental instructions that helped clarify the jury’s role. It instructed the jury: “Although you were instructed during the guilt phase of this trial that you must set aside any sympathy or pity for a defendant in determining his guilt or innocence, this rule does not apply to the penalty phase. You may consider sympathy or pity for a defendant, if you feel it appropriate to do so, in determining whether to impose death penalty or life in prison without possibility of parole.” After giving CALJIC No. 8.84.2, the court instructed: “The word ‘outweigh’ does not mean that you shall simply count the factors on each side and arrive at a decision based on numerical sums. Rather it is your duty to evaluate the significance, if any, of each factor and ascribe to it the weight to which you believe it is entitled, [fl] For example, a single mitigated [szc] factor may outweigh several aggravating factors. I have previously read to you the list of aggravating circumstances which the law permits you to consider, if you find that any of them is established by the evidence. These are the only aggravating circumstances that you may consider, [(¡] The mitigating circumstances which you have read for your consideration are given to you merely as examples of factors that you may take into account as reasons for deciding not to impose a death sentence upon a defendant. [fl] You should pay careful attention to each of these factors. Any one of them may be sufficient, standing alone, to support a decision that death is not the appropriate punishment in this case. But you should not limit your consideration of mitigating circumstances to these specific factors, [fl] You may also consider any other circumstances relating to the case or to a defendant as reasons for not imposing a death sentence. The fact that you found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in the first degree is not, itself, an aggravating circumstance.”¹³

The court’s additional instructions insured that the jury was properly informed of its sentencing discretion and responsibility. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the prosecutor did not divert the jury from this proper understanding. He exhorted the jurors to base their verdict on the facts and the law, stating: “Now I remind you that all juries and this particular jury, of course, the same way, the jury’s sworn to find a verdict based upon the facts and based upon the law, things set—the fact, obviously set over a year ago, some of them, some of them longer, and the law is set by either legislators or by a vote of the public. They aren’t personal matters as to the jurors.” The prosecutor argued that the aggravating circumstances presented as to defendant should be given heavy weight vis-a-vis the mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor reminded the jury that its weighing job involved determining the importance to be given the various mitigating and aggravating circumstances found.

Defendant contends the prosecutor was urging the jury to hide behind the law and to minimize its sense of responsibility in the following: “As far as your being comfortable, I think that the only way to be—I hate that word. The only way to feel right about this case, let me use that. The only way you can feel right about this case is not to take the law into your own hands. And the only way not to take the law into you own hands is to follow the law and follow the facts and reach an appropriate verdict because that’s what you’re sworn to do. If you follow the facts and you follow the law to a fair, reasonable, just verdict, then I don’t see how anyone, including yourselves, because that’s the most important, could be unhappy with what you’ve done. However, if you take upon yourself the responsibility of doing other than what the law says, other than what the facts and the evidence are, then you have to have done something personally then maybe you are responsible for consequences because you’ve actually done something that’s outside the law. If you follow the law I think that would be the best way to feel right, that you did the right thing in this case . . . .”

The above statement was made in response to Fields’s counsel’s closing remarks: “I think what you have to do in a case like this basically is to know in your own hearts that 10 years from now, 15—20 years from now you’re going to have to be comfortable with your decision and that you know that you did the right thing so that when you wake up in the middle of the night you’re comfortable with it and you know that you’ve met your social responsibilities.” The prosecutor acknowledged that he did not think anyone could be totally comfortable with a death sentence, but that he thought it was clearly the appropriate sentence for defendant: “If you want comfort this just isn’t the right case.” He then proceeded with the above-quoted statement.

In context, we do not believe that the prosecutor’s statement constituted error under Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320 [86 L.Ed.2d 231, 105 S.Ct. 2633], which held that “it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s death rests elsewhere. . . .” (Id. at pp. 328-329 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 239].) In Caldwell the prosecutor sought to minimize the jury’s sense of the importance of its role by telling the jury that its determination of whether death was the “appropriate” penalty would be reviewed for correctness by the state supreme court.

Here, as contrasted with Caldwell, the prosecutor emphasized to the jury that its task was to determine what the appropriate penalty was for this defendant and that in making such a decision it would be difficult for a juror to be comfortable with such an awesome task. The argument is not at all the same as that in People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227 [246 Cal.Rptr. 713, 753 P.2d 669], where we found Caldwell error. (See also People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 655 [244 Cal.Rptr. 181, 749 P.2d 836].)

H. CALJIC No. 8.84.1.

Defendant identifies a number of asserted shortcomings of the text of CALJIC No. 8.84.1 which was read to the jury:

1. Deletion of Inapplicable Mitigating Factors.

The trial court has no duty to delete irrelevant mitigating factors. (People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 104-105.)

Defendant contends that the failure to delete inapplicable mitigating circumstances allowed the prosecutor to commit Davenport error. (People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247 [221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861].) The prosecutor twice made fleeting reference to an absent factor being an aggravating factor, but he went on to argue the irrelevance of the inapplicable mitigating factors. To the extent that Davenport error was committed, defendant waived the point by failing to object since an admonition would have cured any possible prejudice. (See People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 788, 790 [230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].) Moreover, any such error was clearly harmless in any event. (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 456 [250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)

2. Modification of Section 190.3, Factor (f).

Defendant contends the trial court sua sponte should have modified CALJIC No. 8.84.1 factor (f) (“Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct”) so that a finding of a reasonable belief in extenuation for the shooting could be deemed a factor in mitigation in light of evidence presented by Gary Ingalls that Dukar attempted to pull his own gun at the time he was shot. We disagree. The instruction as given left room for defendant’s argument, and such argument also would have fit perfectly under factor (k) of section 190.3 in CALJIC No. 8.84.1 (“Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime”). (See People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 776.)

3. Dual Use of Underlying Crimes.

We agree with defendant that factors (b) and (c) of section 190.3 should be construed to apply only to criminal activity other than the crimes for which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding. We so held in People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pages 105-106. Although we suggested clarifying CALJIC No. 8.84.1 in the future, we did not hold that instruction in the statutory language itself constitutes error. (Id. at p. 106, fn. 28.) The record here discloses no jury confusion on this point, and the jury was expressly told not to count, but instead to weigh the countervailing factors.

4. Overlap of Section 190.3, Factors (b) and (c).

Defendant contends the court should have modified CALJIC No. 8.84.1 to make it clear that factor (c) of section 190.3 (“the presence or absence of any prior felony conviction”) applied only to felonies other than those covered under factor (b) of section 190.3 (“the presence or absence 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”). We disagree. We held in People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764-765 [244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741], that an offense which qualifies under both factors (b) and (c) may properly be considered under both.

5. Section 190.3, Factor (k).

The instruction on factor (k) did not specifically include the addition to CALJIC No. 8.84.1 made after our suggestion in People v. Easley, supra, 34 Cal.3d 858, 878, footnote 10, directing the jury to consider “any other ‘aspect of [the] defendant’s character or record . . . that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death,’ ” but in general its thrust complied with our suggestion. The jury was instructed that it was permissible to consider sympathy or pity for the defendant in determining penalty. It was also instructed that it could “consider any other circumstances relating to the case or to a defendant as reasons for not imposing a death sentence.” Here the court’s instruction was broader than our Easley suggestion and was sufficient to convey to the jury the message contained in the post-Easley version of the instruction. (See People v. Howard, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 433-434.)

6. Refusal to Instruct on Leniency to Hodges as Mitigating Factor.

The court did not err in refusing to instruct that the leniency granted to Hodges could be considered as a factor in mitigation. In People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 811-813 [248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310], we held that the court did not err in refusing to admit at the penalty phase evidence of the codefendants’ negotiated plea dispositions as mitigating evidence. The reasoning there applies equally here. The focus in a penalty phase trial of a capital case is on the character and record of the individual offender. The individually negotiated disposition of an accomplice is not constitutionally relevant to defendant’s penalty determination.

I. Constitutionality of Section 190.3, Factor (b).

Defendant contends that section 190.3, factor (b) is unconstitutionally vague. We have upheld the constitutionality of section 190.3, factor (b) in People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pages 201, 204-205 and People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 97.

J. Circumstances of the Crime.

Defendant contends that permitting the jury to aggravate simply on the basis of the circumstances of the crime (§ 190.3, factor (a)) permits unconstitutionally broad and unfettered discretion and allows imposition of the death sentence on the basis of factors common to virtually all felony murders. We have rejected these contentions in People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pages 1188-1189, 1208. (See also Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) 484 U.S. 231 [98 L.Ed.2d 568, 108 S.Ct. 546].)

K. Burden of Proof.

Defendant contends the jury should have been instructed that the prosecutor had a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances and a separate and distinct burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt that death was the appropriate remedy. This contention has been rejected in many cases. (See e.g., People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779; People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1201.)

L. Other Violent Criminal Activity.

Defendant contends no testimonial evidence as to the facts underlying the criminal activity involving force or violence should be admitted at the penalty phase except for documentary evidence of the fact of prior convictions. We have held to the contrary. (See People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1203.) Defendant further contends that the jury should have been told not to consider “other crimes” evidence against defendant unless there was unanimous agreement beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt of those offenses. We rejected such a claim in People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pages 773-774, finding the Robertson (People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21 [188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279]) instruction sufficient. We have also previously rejected defendant’s claim that the court should have instructed sua sponte on the elements of the “other crimes.” (See e.g., People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 773; People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1202, fn. 12.) The same reasoning applies to instructions on aiding and abetting and circumstantial evidence.

Although we have rejected claims that the penalty jury should be required to make written findings as to other crimes (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779; People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1203), defendant nevertheless argues that the court should have at least listed the other crimes the jury was being asked to consider. He relies on People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 72, footnote 25 [222 Cal.Rptr. 127, 711 P.2d 423], where we said: “Once the trial court has determined what evidence is properly admissible as other criminal activity [citation], ‘the prosecution should request an instruction enumerating the particular other crimes which the jury may consider as aggravating circumstances in determining penalty. . . . [T]he jury should be instructed not to consider any additional other crimes in fixing the penalty.’ (People v. Robertson, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 55 fn. 19.)” The trial here preceded our decisions in Phillips and Robertson. We do not believe that the absence of such instruction could have affected the verdict.

Defendant finally asserts that evidence of the St. Louis robbery incident should not have included reference to any offense other than the robbery—that evidence of the assaults and other matters should have been precluded as barred by the statute of limitations. The argument is specious. The statute allows admission of evidence of other criminal activity involving violence.

M. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt as to Each Aggravating Factor and Written Findings.

We have already held that there is no constitutional requirement that a penalty jury be required to find that each aggravating factor has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or that the jury make written findings as to the existence of aggravating circumstances and the conclusion that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating. (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779.)

N. Ineffectiveness of Counsel.

Defendant contends he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. To establish entitlement to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel the burden is on the defendant to show (1) trial counsel failed to act in the manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates and (2) it is reasonably probable that a more favorable determination would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings. (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 [152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R.4th 1]; People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144]; see also Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-696 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-699, 104 S.Ct. 2052].) When a defendant makes an ineffectiveness claim on appeal, the appellate court must look to see if the record contains any explanation for the challenged aspects of representation. If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one or unless there could be no satisfactory explanation, the case is to be affirmed on appeal. (People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 425-426.) In such cases, the claim is more appropriately made in a petition for habeas corpus. (Ibid.)

In the present case, defendant recasts as ineffectiveness-of-counsel claims a number of previously discussed contentions where counsel failed to object below. None of these matters, however, was so significant that counsel’s failure to object could be termed inexplicable or that it was reasonably probable that a determination more favorable to defendant would have resulted had counsel objected.

Defendant also charges his trial counsel with ineffectiveness in deciding to call Barcialee Barbarick as a witness. He faults counsel additionally for announcing to the jury his intention to call Barbarick before he had ever talked with him and for then spending only 10 minutes talking with Barbarick before putting him on the stand. Defendant fails to note, however, that the record shows his investigator had gone to Missouri and had talked with Barbarick. Although Barbarick testified he talked with defense counsel for only 10 minutes, that does not in itself establish ineffectiveness. As to the decision to call Barbarick, the record sheds no light on counsel’s reasons for doing so. Since there may have been valid tactical reasons for calling Barbarick, the ineffectiveness claim fails on appeal. (See People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p.425.) Counsel could reasonably have felt it wiser to present the facts underlying defendant’s manslaughter conviction than to leave the jury aware of only the bare fact of a manslaughter conviction. Moreover, Barbarick’s testimony, if believed, exonerated defendant from responsibility for the death. We cannot call the decision to have Barbarick testify unreasonable.

O. Modification Motion.

Defendant contends the court’s ruling on the automatic modification-of-verdict motion was inadequate under People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pages 792-794. As we noted in Rodriguez, section 190.4, subdivision (e) requires the trial judge to make an independent determination whether imposition of the death penalty upon the defendant is proper in light of the relevant evidence and the applicable law. (Id. at p. 792.) The judge must “review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances . . . and shall make a determination as to whether the jury’s findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings.” (§ 190.4, subd. (e).)

The motion for modification of verdict was heard at the same time as a motion for new trial. Before proceeding with the motion for new trial the court stated: “The law provides that the Court should automatically review the case as for the appropriateness of the verdicts and to ascertain whether the verdicts are supported by the evidence and the law.” The court then heard argument on the motion for new trial. In denying a new trial, the court referred to a number of evidentiary and legal points.

The court then returned to the motion for modification, stating: “I have reviewed all of the instructions that were given to the jury and the notes I had taken of all the testimony of all the witnesses as I think I’m required to do, review the entire record. The Court’s duty to review the record in this situation is automatic. And I feel that the evidence both as to the guilt of the Defendant Johnson as to all three counts of the complaint and as to the truth of the special circumstances was overwhelming and the jury verdict as to guilt was amply supported by the evidence and as to the penalty that the jury found that all parties were given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case to the jury. And I feel the jury was properly and fully instructed on the law, and, therefore, it does not appear to the Court that there is any basis for disturbing the verdicts even with reference to the finding of guilty, the finding of truth of the special circumstances or the finding as to the penalty.”

We conclude that the court’s statements were sufficient to show compliance with section 190.4, subdivision (e). The court reviewed all of the evidence and made a finding that there was no “basis for disturbing the verdicts.” This indicates that the court understood its duty to determine whether the findings and verdicts are contrary to the law or evidence presented. The court’s statement at the time of sentencing confirms such: “The record will reflect . . . that the court has automatically as required by law reviewed the entire record to determine whether the verdict is supported by the evidence and is in accordance with the law. And the court concludes that it is.” Although the statement of reasons is not as detailed as we might like, it is sufficient. (See People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 625 [244 Cal.Rptr. 200, 749 P.2d 854].) It is clear that the court had in mind its obligation to independently review the evidence and did give some reasons to support its ruling. The ruling on this automatic motion was made in conjunction with a noticed motion for new trial under section 1181, thus making the scope of the combined motions broader, in fact, than a section 190.4, subdivision (e) motion alone. The present case is unlike People v. Rodriquez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pages 792-795, where the court, in addition to failing to state any reasons, failed to undertake any independent review of the evidence. The reasons given here are also more substantial than those found wanting in People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 199-200 [246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]. Moreover, it is not reasonably possible that a remand for more detailed reasons would result in any change in the court’s ruling.

P. Disproportionality of Sentence.

Defendant contends he should be given proportionality review on both an intracase and intercase basis. We have held in numerous cases that intercase proportionality review is not required. (See e.g., People v. Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1285-1286; People v. Howard, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 444-445.) As to intracase review, defendant relies on People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697] in arguing that the death penalty is disproportionate in light of sentences given Hodges and Fields.

Defendant’s reliance on Dillon is misplaced. The facts of this case bear no similarity to the circumstances in Dillon, where an immature 17-year-old defendant, who shot and killed his victim out of fear and panic, was sentenced to life in prison despite the view of judge and jury that the sentence was excessive in relation to his true culpability. (34 Cal.3d at p. 487.) Nothing in the record here indicates it is disproportionate that defendant, the actual killer, was sentenced to death while his codefendant aider and abettor received a lesser sentence. Defendant’s situation is not comparable to that of Hodges, an aider and abettor who received a negotiated disposition in return for an agreement to testify.

VI. Conclusion

The judgment is affirmed in its entirety.

Lucas, C. J., Arguelles, J., Eagleson, J., and Kaufman, J., concurred.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references hereafter are to the Penal Code.

2 The dissent has taken this quotation out of context at pages 1287-1288 in using it to support the argument that subjective reasons are unacceptable. The United States Supreme Court said nothing about subjective versus objective reasons. Its concern was that the reasons be nondiscriminatory, clear, and reasonably specific. (Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 20 [90 L.Ed.2d at p. 88].)

3 Defendant is Black. Under Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. at page 96 [90 L.Ed.2d at pages 87-88], defendant could challenge only the exclusion of the group of which he is a member. Under Wheeler, however, defendant need not be a member of the group to challenge its exclusion. (22 Cal.3d at p. 281; see also People v. King (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 923, 931, fn. 3 [241 Cal.Rptr. 189].) Moreover, under Batson it is at least questionable whether the generic description Asian or a religious group can constitute a “cognizable group.’’ (See United States v. Sgro (1st Cir. 1987) 816 F.2d 30.)

4 Indeed, the defendants, as part of their Wheeler motion, argued that jurors who had a “general opposition to the death penalty, [although] obviously still death qualified under the Hovey and Witherspoon decision,” constituted a cognizable class and they objected to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude these “death penalty skeptics.” Included as members of this group, we note, defendants named one of the Black jurors (Mrs. T.), two of the Jewish jurors (Ms. S. and Mr. B.) and one of the Asian jurors (Ms. F.), thus indicating defendants’ belief that these jurors were in fact “death penalty skeptics.” As indicated hereafter, we have previously upheld the right to peremptorily challenge death penalty skeptics. (Seepost, at p. 1223.)

5 Our discussion focuses on Wheeler since it has gone further than Batson in allowing defendant to challenge the exclusion of groups of which he is not a member.

6 The trial judge in this case had almost 10 years of judicial experience in supervising jury trials when this case was tried. Moreover, trial judges know the local prosecutors assigned to their courts and are in a better position than appellate courts to evaluate the credibility and the genuineness of reasons given for peremptory challenges.

7 We note, moreover, that there was in fact some racial diversity in this jury. Three of the jurors had Hispanic surnames, and one of these persons, Luis Reguero, served as the foreperson.

8 Defendant has standing to raise the issue of the voluntariness of Hodges’s statements since they were obtained through coercive means. (See People v. Varnum (1967) 66 Cal.2d 808, 812-813 [59 Cal.Rptr. 108, 427 P.2d 772]; People v. Jones (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 572, 581 [164 Cal.Rptr. 605].)

9 Even if the ruling were erroneous, we would have no difficulty finding the admission of the heavily edited version of Fields’s statement harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

10 We recognize, however, that Proposition 8 does not apply to this case since the crimes in question were committed before the passage of Proposition 8. (See People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 262 [193 Cal.Rptr. 692, 667 P.2d 149].)

11 Defendant urges reexamination of Anderson, but the arguments he presents have all been made and rejected in the petition for rehearing in Anderson. (See also People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 326-327 [246 Cal.Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082].)

12 The notice question was raised again at the motion for new trial. In denying the motion, the court stated: “Formal notice had not been given but all of the circumstances that were to be used were made known to the defendant by the People. And I think in substantially—and in writing, written documents were given to the defendant in support of those circumstances long before the motion was made by the defendant to have a formal notice. When that motion was made I required the People to give you formal notice which was given to you the day that the jury trial actually started. And it was my opinion—I still have that feeling—that no prejudice resulted to the defendant from the circumstances of this case as far as notice is concerned.”

13 Defendant contends the trial court should have instructed sua sponte as to the definition of “life without possibility of parole’’ and as to the jury’s obligation to assume there would never be parole, particularly where voir dire revealed this to be a significant concern of at least one trial juror. We held in People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 129-131 [246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37], that the court did not err in refusing to give a similar instruction that the defendant had requested. A fortiori it is not error to fail to instruct sua sponte.