People v. Merriman , 60 Cal. 4th 1 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/18/14
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                          )
    )
    Plaintiff and Respondent, )
    )                             S097363
    v.                        )
    )
    JUSTIN JAMES MERRIMAN,               )
    )                        Ventura County
    Defendant and Appellant.  )                     Super. Ct. No. CR45651
    ____________________________________)
    In 2001, a jury convicted defendant Justin James Merriman of the 1992 first
    degree murder of Katrina Montgomery (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 and found
    true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed while
    defendant was engaged in the commission of rape and oral copulation (§ 190.2,
    subd. (a)(17)(C), (F)), and the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly
    weapon (former § 12022, subd. (b)). The jury also convicted defendant of
    numerous noncapital crimes that occurred subsequent to the murder, including
    multiple counts of sexual assault and witness dissuasion. After a penalty phase
    trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. Defendant moved for new trial (§ 1181),
    and for modification of his sentence to life without the possibility of parole
    (§ 190.4, subd. (e)). The trial court denied the motions and sentenced him to
    1     All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
    otherwise indicated.
    1
    death.2 Defendant‟s appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) For the reasons that
    follow, we affirm the judgment.
    I. FACTS
    A. Guilt Phase Evidence
    1. Prosecution evidence
    a. The murder of Katrina Montgomery
    i. Katrina’s prior interactions with defendant
    Katrina Montgomery was 16 years old in 1989 when she started dating
    Mitch Sutton, one of the founding members of a Ventura County White
    supremacist gang called the Skin Head Dogs (SHD). Defendant, who also was
    16 years of age at that time, belonged to the same gang. Sutton brought Katrina
    2       The court also imposed an aggregate determinate sentence of 63 years,
    which was comprised of the following consecutive sentences: The upper term of
    eight years for the forcible rape of Robyn G. (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), six years for the
    forcible oral copulation of Robyn G. (§ 288, subd. (c)), six years for the
    penetration of Robyn G. with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), two upper terms
    of eight years each for the forcible rape of Billie B. on two separate occasions
    (§ 261, subd. (c)(2)), one year for the attempted forcible oral copulation of Billie
    B. (§§ 664/288, subd. (c)), an upper term totaling 13 years for personal use of a
    firearm while resisting an executive officer (§ 69, former § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)),
    the mid-term of 16 months for assault on a police officer (§ 245, subd. (c)), eight
    months for vandalism (former § 594, subd. (b)(2)), three years for each of three
    counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)), and two
    years for solicitation to dissuade a witness (§ 653f, subd. (a)). Pursuant to section
    654, the court stayed sentence for two counts of brandishing a deadly weapon to
    avoid arrest (§ 417.8), a second count of resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and
    conspiracy to dissuade a witness by force or threat, including the gang
    enhancement associated with that count (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 186.22,
    subd. (b)(1)). The court also imposed a sentence of 365 days in county jail, with
    credit for actual time served, for a single count of being under the influence of a
    controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550.
    2
    along to SHD parties where she socialized with his fellow gang members and their
    wives and girlfriends, some of whom became close friends of hers.
    Early in Sutton and Katrina‟s relationship, Sutton enlisted in the Army and
    was sent to Germany. Katrina moved to Germany for eight months to be with
    him. By the time Sutton returned from his three years of military service in 1992,
    he and Katrina had broken up. On his return, Sutton officially left the SHD gang,
    although he continued his friendship with defendant.
    Meanwhile, between January 1990 and March 1992, Katrina was
    corresponding and conversing with defendant on a regular basis while he was in
    custody in various juvenile detention facilities and in state prison. In the
    beginning, defendant‟s letters encouraged Katrina to “stick with Mitch Sutton”
    and he asked her to send him “neat pictures” of herself. Defendant‟s subsequent
    letters, which sometimes referenced Katrina‟s breakup with Sutton, became more
    sexually explicit and suggested that he believed Katrina was interested in him. In
    August 1990, for example, defendant mentioned a photograph Katrina had sent
    him, indicating that he wanted to “play with the toys you must have under that
    buttercup suit.” In February 1991, defendant asked Katrina for more photographs
    “of . . . your fine self so I have something to drool over and think about touching
    up one great day.” In March 1992, defendant wrote to Katrina after she had
    visited him in prison, saying, “You know deep down inside you enjoy[ed] saying I
    was „your‟ long lost locked-up hubby . . . , secret lover but a real faithful
    „boyfriend.‟ ” In the same letter, defendant apologized for his “crude and rude but
    lewd sexual gestures” during the visit and promised next time “not to toss you
    around like one of them blowup sex dolls.”
    From these and defendant‟s other letters it can be inferred that Katrina had
    sent defendant revealing photographs of herself, and that she had had physical
    contact with him during a prison visit. But the correspondence also suggested that
    3
    Katrina had told defendant she wanted to resume her relationship with Mitch
    Sutton and that she considered defendant only a friend, which were sentiments that
    appeared to both confuse and anger defendant. For example, in March 1992,
    shortly before defendant‟s release, he wrote “That shit about you need me for a
    friend just doesn‟t cut the mustard anymore,” and he confronted Katrina with his
    suspicion that she was using him as a means of reigniting her relationship with
    Sutton. Defendant also wrote, “I‟m burned on the third-grade game and the
    thought of you trying some kind of snake move like there‟s something you have to
    gain but you‟re stringing me along until the time‟s right . . . .” Later in the same
    letter, defendant stated, “I feel you‟re up to something and it sure isn‟t me . . . .”
    Notwithstanding Katrina‟s apparent indications to defendant that she
    wanted to be his friend but not his girlfriend, defendant had communicated to
    others that he was interested in her. According to Scott Porcho, one of SHD‟s
    founding members and a friend of both defendant and Katrina, it was common
    knowledge that defendant expected Katrina would be his girlfriend after he was
    released from prison. Porcho‟s wife at that time, Apryl, also was close to Katrina.
    She knew that Katrina did not want to become involved with defendant.
    Shortly after defendant‟s release from prison in the spring of 1992, Katrina
    and a high school girlfriend drove in Katrina‟s truck to defendant‟s home in
    Ventura where he lived with his mother and sister. Katrina went inside to
    “straighten out a couple of things” while her friend waited in the truck. When
    Katrina returned, there were red marks around her neck and she said defendant had
    attacked her. Katrina told her friend she was angry not only with defendant but
    also with defendant‟s mother, who had witnessed the attack and done nothing to
    help her.
    The prosecutor presented evidence at trial that Katrina disclosed to her
    mother another incident at defendant‟s house after his release from prison, during
    4
    which he had forced himself upon her. According to Mrs. Montgomery, Katrina
    told her that she had gone to visit defendant in Ventura. When the evening grew
    late, defendant‟s mother suggested to Katrina that she spend the night in their
    guest room so that she would not have to drive all the way back to Los Angeles at
    that hour. Katrina accepted the offer and went to sleep in the guest room but later
    was awakened by defendant, who had climbed into bed with her and was making
    sexual advances. When Katrina asked defendant to stop, he refused, saying, “You
    know you want it.” Katrina told defendant she felt sick and needed to use the
    bathroom, and he did not prevent her from getting up. Instead of going to the
    bathroom, however, Katrina ran from the house, got into her truck, and drove
    away. When defendant realized she had fled, he went outside and ran after her,
    yelling angrily.
    The prosecutor also presented evidence that the incident in the guest room
    was not the first time defendant had forced himself upon an unwilling partner.
    According to a former girlfriend, Corie G., when defendant was 15 years old, he
    held her against her will in the camper shell of a pickup truck until she submitted
    to having sexual intercourse with him, notwithstanding that she repeatedly
    attempted to leave and was yelling for her friends to help her.
    ii. Thanksgiving weekend party at the Porchos’ house
    Katrina spent most of Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 26, 1992,
    celebrating the holiday with her family in Los Angeles. She had plans to meet her
    parents at another family gathering in Santa Barbara on Saturday, November 28.
    On Friday, Katrina left Los Angeles in her truck in the late afternoon to attend a
    party at the North Oxnard home of SHD gang leader Porcho and his wife Apryl.
    The couple had invited Katrina to spend the night at their house and she had
    brought with her an overnight bag in addition to her purse. According to Porcho,
    5
    Katrina was one of the first guests to arrive at the gathering, and she was already
    drunk at that time.
    Several other SHD gang members and their wives and girlfriends attended
    the party. SHD founding member Mike Wozny drove his girlfriend and defendant
    to the gathering. Although defendant was not one of SHD‟s original members, he
    had joined the gang when he was 14 years old and, now 20 years of age, was
    considered a leader by the gang‟s younger members.
    Other partygoers included members of a White supremacist gang called the
    Sylmar Peckerwood Family (Sylmar Family). The SHD and the Sylmar Family
    were on very friendly terms, almost “like one gang.” Five of the Sylmar Family
    members who came to the party, including Ryan Bush and 16-year-old Larry
    Nicassio, lived together at a “crash pad” in Sylmar.
    Partygoers gave varying accounts regarding the interactions between
    defendant and Katrina during the evening. Bush saw them hugging and joking
    with each other about sexual matters. Nicassio noticed that they were initially
    interacting normally but after a while seemed not to be getting along. According
    to Porcho, however, defendant did not want Katrina anywhere near him and had
    asked Porcho to keep her away. Defendant twice summoned Porcho to remove
    Katrina from his side. On one of those occasions, Katrina had her arm around
    defendant.
    Everyone at the party was drinking alcohol throughout the evening, and
    some of the partygoers smoked marijuana and ingested LSD. Several arguments
    and fights occurred. For example, defendant kicked a member of the Sylmar
    Family in the face for disrespecting their hosts by shaking a can of beer and
    spraying its contents around the kitchen.
    At one point during the evening, defendant said to Nicassio that he wanted
    Nicassio to “get” Katrina and handed Nicassio a steak knife. Nicassio did not take
    6
    defendant seriously and put the knife down. According to Nicassio, it was
    common for the older gang members to tease and play jokes on him because he
    was only 16 years old. A short time later, however, defendant approached
    Nicassio and again gave him a steak knife, saying, “We‟re gonna get that bitch,
    you‟re gonna do it.” Nicassio again discarded the knife, thinking defendant had to
    be joking. Defendant handed Nicassio a knife a third time while they were
    socializing with others in the kitchen and said, “This is the last one I‟m giving
    you. You‟re gonna do it.” Nicassio was standing behind Katrina as she sat on a
    kitchen chair. To make everyone laugh, he held the knife above Katrina‟s head
    and imitated the lead character in the movie Psycho. He then discarded the knife.
    During the party, Bush saw defendant and Katrina playfully wrestling on
    the bed in one of the bedrooms. At first, Katrina was giggling when defendant
    tried to kiss her. However, when Katrina told defendant to stop and he did not,
    she became angry and started yelling.
    The party‟s hosts heard someone yelling from one of the bedrooms, but
    their recollections differed as to what they observed on entering the room.
    According to Porcho, Katrina was lying on the bed holding her stomach as if she
    had been punched, with defendant and a number of Sylmar Family gang members
    standing around her in a semicircle. By contrast, Apryl saw Katrina with only
    defendant, Bush, and Nicassio, one of whom was holding her down on the bed.
    Apryl walked Katrina out of the room and took her car keys away from her
    because she was intoxicated. Porcho and defendant exchanged words over the
    incident.
    After Apryl left the house to drive a partygoer home, defendant and Porcho
    went to the kitchen and continued their argument about the incident in the
    bedroom. It was now sometime after 2:00 a.m., and most of the partygoers had
    departed. According to Nicassio, when defendant said something to the effect that
    7
    he was going to “get” Katrina, Porcho responded, “You‟re not going to fuckin‟
    touch her,” and then hit defendant on the forehead with a 40-ounce beer bottle.
    Defendant‟s head was bleeding from the blow.
    Katrina went with defendant to the bathroom where she attended to his
    wound, cleaning it with a washcloth. Nicassio was standing in the doorway.
    While Katrina stood over the sink washing up, defendant pointed to her and
    silently mouthed to Nicassio, “Are you gonna do it or what? Do it now, do it
    now.” As before, Nicassio thought defendant was joking with him. Later, as
    defendant stood outside the house smoking a cigarette, he told Bush, “I‟m gonna
    get that bitch.”
    When Apryl returned after driving a guest home and saw the mess
    defendant and her husband had made during the fight, she decided everyone had to
    leave. By now, all of the other Sylmar Family members had left the party, and
    defendant offered to let Bush and Nicassio sleep at his house. Apryl drove the
    three of them to that destination around dawn. Defendant led Nicassio and Bush
    upstairs to his bedroom and gave them some blankets, directing them to sleep on
    the floor at the foot of his bed.
    While Apryl was driving back to her home after having dropped off the
    group at defendant‟s house, defendant called the Porcho residence and asked to
    speak with Katrina. Porcho refused to put her on the line. By the time Apryl
    returned home, however, Katrina had showered, changed her clothes, and was
    talking with defendant on the telephone. Apryl picked up another receiver, told
    defendant to go to sleep, and ended the call. Defendant called back again asking
    for Katrina but Apryl hung up on him, which upset and angered Katrina. A heated
    argument ensued, during which Katrina demanded the keys to her truck and
    angrily accused Apryl and Porcho of trying to run her life. After Katrina and
    Apryl had argued for about 30 minutes, Apryl retrieved Katrina‟s keys and threw
    8
    them at her. When Katrina left, Apryl believed she was driving home to Los
    Angeles.
    Instead, Katrina went to defendant‟s house. According to Nicassio, when
    Katrina came into defendant‟s bedroom, she no longer seemed intoxicated.
    Shortly after her arrival, she left the room to change into shorts and a T-shirt, and
    then got into bed with defendant.
    Soon after Katrina got into bed, defendant straddled Katrina‟s shoulders
    with his knees, saying, “Come on, just do it.” Katrina protested, “No, not with
    them in the room.” Defendant responded by smacking her in the face, saying “Do
    it now, bitch.”
    As Katrina was being forced to orally copulate defendant, neither Bush nor
    Nicassio intervened. Nor did they try to stop defendant when he got on top of
    Katrina and had intercourse with her, notwithstanding that she was pleading with
    him to stop because he was hurting her. As Nicassio explained, he failed to do or
    say anything because he had seen defendant hurt people and he was afraid of him.
    Bush likewise feared defendant. Bush looked away as the sexual assault moved
    closer to the side of the bed. When he finally spoke up, he asked defendant,
    “What are you doing, man?” Defendant replied, “What the fuck do you think I‟m
    doing.”
    At one point, defendant left the bed to get a bottle of lotion. After rubbing
    some of its contents on Katrina‟s genital area, he resumed intercourse with her.
    Katrina had started crying and continued begging defendant to stop, saying she did
    not want to get pregnant. Defendant got off of her, said, “There, you‟re pregnant,”
    and again forced her to orally copulate him, this time pushing her onto the floor at
    the foot of the bed while he dangled his legs over the edge. With Katrina now
    positioned only a couple of feet away from where Nicassio and Bush were lying
    9
    down, defendant asked them, “Hey, do you guys want some of this?” Nicassio
    just looked away, and Bush responded, “No.”
    A short time later, Katrina asked to use the bathroom. Defendant refused,
    telling her to use a trash can that he put down on the ground next to her. Nicassio
    finally spoke up to defendant, saying, “Why don‟t you just let her use the
    restroom?” When defendant said, “All right,” Katrina retrieved her overnight bag
    and put her clothes back on. As she was kneeling down to tie her shoes, defendant
    came up alongside her with a knife and stabbed her in the throat.
    Katrina was crying and holding her throat, begging defendant not to hurt
    her, but the attack continued. Defendant covered Katrina with a blanket. He then
    retrieved a crescent wrench from his top drawer, kneeled down next to her, and
    struck a blow to her head. Katrina was still alive but her breathing became loud
    and labored. Defendant then grabbed her by the hair, asking, “Where is her
    jugular?” He then slit her throat with a knife, and rolled up the body in blankets
    and sleeping bags. At one point during the assault, while Katrina was still alive,
    Nicassio suggested they call an ambulance and assured defendant that Katrina
    would not say anything because “she‟s afraid of you.” Defendant disagreed,
    saying, “She‟ll rat on me.” Instead, he called the Porcho house, asking if Katrina
    was there and telling them that she had never showed up at his place.
    After the killing, when Nicassio and Bush started pacing around the room
    in a panic, defendant angrily warned them, “You better not fuckin‟ say nothing”
    and “You‟re part of this, too.” Nicassio tried to leave, promising not to say
    anything. But defendant stood between him and the bedroom door holding the
    knife and told him, “No, you‟re not fuckin‟ going anywhere.” He then ordered
    Nicassio and Bush to help him cover up the crimes, telling them that “[i]f we got
    caught . . . we would all go down.” Fearing retaliation from defendant and other
    10
    gang members if they refused, Nicassio and Bush complied with defendant‟s
    command.
    At defendant‟s direction, Nicassio drove Katrina‟s truck to the front of the
    house. Meanwhile, Bush helped defendant carry the body downstairs and loaded
    it into the back of the truck, along with a plastic sack in which defendant had
    placed the knife and wrench and some of Katrina‟s belongings. According to
    Bush, blood was soaking through the blankets and he was concerned that
    defendant‟s mother had seen them as they passed by her bedroom door on their
    way downstairs. Defendant assured Bush she would not say anything. Indeed,
    defendant‟s mother did more than simply remain silent. When defendant‟s sister
    awoke that morning, she saw their mother on her hands and knees using rags and a
    pot of water to clean up blood that had stained the carpeting at the top of the stairs.
    Defendant‟s sister helped with the cleanup until the stain was no longer noticeable.
    Defendant, Bush, and Nicassio then set about to further cover up the
    crimes. Nicassio drove the group in Katrina‟s truck to Sylmar where he and Bush
    lived. Bush collected rags and paint thinner and borrowed a housemate‟s truck,
    signaling Nicassio and defendant to follow him. The two trucks ultimately
    stopped near a ravine in a rural area called Sunset Farms, where defendant and
    Bush unloaded the body, dragged it into a drainage pipe, and covered it with
    tumbleweeds and garbage. A short time later, they drove to Angeles Crest
    National Forest and stopped at a turnout. Bush, Nicassio, and possibly defendant
    wiped down the inside of Katrina‟s truck with the paint thinner to destroy
    fingerprints. Bush then tried to roll the truck off the side of a hill, but he was
    unsuccessful and they simply abandoned it there, close to the turnout.
    The group left the scene in the truck that Bush had borrowed from his
    housemate and went to a restaurant to discuss the situation. Pursuant to their plan,
    Nicassio and Bush drove defendant back to his house. While en route, defendant
    11
    again warned each of them to “keep your fuckin‟ mouth shut.” Nicassio and Bush
    then headed back to Sylmar. Before arriving home, they pulled off the freeway in
    an industrial area and threw the sack containing the murder weapons and Katrina‟s
    overnight bag into a dumpster.
    Two nights later, also according to plan, Bush and Nicassio returned to the
    site where Katrina‟s body had been hidden in a drainage pipe so they could bury
    her. Bush dug a grave about five feet from the pipe while Nicassio kept a lookout.
    Meanwhile, Katrina‟s mother was becoming increasingly concerned
    regarding her daughter‟s whereabouts. Around 2:00 p.m. on the day after the
    Porchos‟ party, she received a call from Apryl asking if Katrina was at home.
    Several hours later, she received a call from the Los Angeles County Sheriff‟s
    Department informing her that Katrina‟s truck had been discovered over an
    embankment. Katrina‟s purse was inside the cab and there was blood on the
    outside of the tailgate and in the truck bed. Later testing showed that the blood
    belonged to the biological child of Mr. and Mrs. Montgomery.
    Mrs. Montgomery immediately started calling family and Katrina‟s friends,
    but none knew where she was. When Mrs. Montgomery spoke with Apryl again,
    Apryl told Mrs. Montgomery that she had not seen Katrina for several months.
    But, in a telephone call to defendant about five hours later, Mrs. Montgomery
    learned that defendant had seen Katrina the night after Thanksgiving at the
    Porchos‟ home. When Mrs. Montgomery confronted Apryl with that information
    a short time later, Apryl admitted that Katrina had been at her house. Thereafter,
    the Montgomery family reported Katrina missing and continued to search for her,
    distributing flyers and organizing search parties in Ventura and Oxnard and in the
    area where her truck had been abandoned.
    12
    iii. The investigation
    A police investigation into Katrina‟s disappearance began almost
    immediately, and defendant was a suspect from the outset. When Porcho told
    fellow SHD gang member Wozny that Katrina‟s truck had been found abandoned,
    Wozny left an anonymous message on a tip hotline saying defendant, Nicassio,
    and Bush might be responsible for Katrina‟s disappearance. When detectives
    interviewed Porcho and Apryl at their home on the Sunday after Thanksgiving,
    they learned that Porcho had gotten into a fight with defendant for slapping
    Katrina. When one of the detectives asked Porcho who he should speak to in the
    event something had happened to Katrina, Porcho replied, “I‟d talk to [defendant].
    That‟s all I‟m gonna say.”
    Detectives went to defendant‟s home the same day. A carpet cleaner who
    was finishing a job there told them he had been called to the house to clean a
    coffee spill. Defendant‟s mother was nervous and asked the detectives whether
    they had a search warrant to go inside her home. They did not. She eventually
    told the detectives that defendant had come home early Saturday morning with “a
    couple of boys.”
    Over the course of the next several days, investigators were able to obtain
    more information about some of the incidents at the Porchos‟ party, including
    Katrina‟s argument with Apryl and her abrupt departure from the house. But
    efforts by defendant‟s mother, sister, and fellow SHD gang members to protect
    defendant by being untruthful, coupled with the SHD and Sylmar Family gangs‟
    strict code prohibiting interactions with law enforcement, hampered the
    investigation, which languished for years.
    This is not to say that no one was discussing the crimes. The day after the
    killing, Bush told his older brother, also a gang member, what had happened to
    13
    Katrina. A short time later, Nicassio gave his girlfriend at the time a detailed
    account of the incident.
    Defendant also spoke about the crimes. Days after the killing, when
    defendant‟s sister became aware of Katrina‟s disappearance and confronted
    defendant about the blood on the stairs, defendant told her that she did not want to
    know and said he was “going to hell for sure for the things he had done.” About
    one month later, defendant mentioned to Nicassio that his mother had cleaned up
    the blood in his bedroom, and he sought confirmation from Nicassio that the body
    had been disposed of.
    As the investigation continued, some witnesses started coming forward. For
    example, in July 1997, almost five years after Katrina‟s disappearance, Apryl
    (now divorced and remarried) met with the prosecutor, telling him that defendant
    had called Katrina at the Porcho home and asked her to come to his house after the
    party. However, most of the individuals with knowledge of the case, including
    Nicassio and Bush, were not forthright with investigators, and many witnesses
    brought before a grand jury in November 1997 either failed to disclose what they
    knew or lied outright. No indictment was handed down.
    The prosecution‟s case quickly revived, however, when Bush, Nicassio, and
    Nicassio‟s girlfriend were arrested in November 1997, one or two days after the
    first grand jury had failed to hand down an indictment. Nicassio‟s girlfriend
    disclosed what Nicassio had told her about the crimes, and she urged Nicassio to
    likewise cooperate with the prosecution, which he eventually agreed to do in
    exchange for being permitted to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. The
    prosecutor later received a letter from an incarcerated SHD gang member, John
    Crecelius, revealing a statement defendant had made while they were both out of
    custody. According to Crecelius, defendant expressed concern on learning that his
    “crime partner” or “buddy” had been arrested for raping and murdering “a girl that
    14
    he had cut five years ago.” Defendant also had told Crecelius that he expected the
    police would be coming for him soon because he had a strong feeling that Nicassio
    “was gonna tell on him.”
    The wall of silence that had protected defendant for many years finally
    started to give way. In exchange for an early release from prison, SHD gang
    member Wozny, who had called in the anonymous tip, agreed to drive defendant
    around in a “bait car” equipped with recording devices that would be monitored by
    police. While in the bait car in December 1997, defendant solicited Wozny‟s help
    in “getting” the Porchos‟ housemate, John Cundiff, who defendant believed had
    “ratted on him.” When Wozny and defendant discussed the investigation into
    Katrina‟s disappearance, defendant said he “wasn‟t going to do any more time
    behind this.” Wozny attempted a second encounter with defendant in the bait car
    that same night, but decided to abandon the operation after defendant, with a box
    cutter in hand, patted Wozny down to see if he was wearing a wire.
    Also in December 1997, a prison inmate named Christopher Bowen disclosed
    to investigators that defendant had asked him during casual conversation four
    years earlier whether he had ever killed anyone. When Bowen said no and asked
    defendant the same question, defendant told him that he had killed “Trina.”
    Defendant made other admissions after being taken into custody in January
    1998 following an hours-long standoff with law enforcement that led to a number
    of separate criminal charges. (See post, pt. I.A.1.c.) All of the incriminating
    statements were elicited surreptitiously and many, but not all, of them were the
    result of agreements between the prosecution and inmates who agreed to cooperate
    in exchange for leniency in their cases.
    For example, in April 1998, SHD gang member John Crecelius wore a wire
    while in a courthouse holding cell with defendant. Crecelius told defendant that
    Nicassio, who was his county jail cellmate, was going to reveal defendant‟s
    15
    involvement in the killing. Defendant told Crecelius to beat up Nicassio, and
    expressed the opinion that Nicassio should take the “rap” for the crimes because
    he was the youngest.
    Also in April 1998, Kristin S. agreed to help the prosecution in its case
    against defendant. Specifically, she agreed to wear a wire during conversations
    with defendant‟s mother, who wanted Kristin to request a jail visit with Nicassio at
    the same time defendant‟s mother was visiting defendant so that defendant and
    Nicassio would be placed in the same visiting area and could communicate with
    one another. Kristin had spoken with investigators after defendant‟s arrest, telling
    them that in December 1997, the month before he was apprehended, defendant
    told her the police were looking for him and that he was afraid he would go to jail
    and “never get out.” Kristin also described an incident that had occurred several
    years earlier in which defendant, who was wearing only boxer shorts at the time,
    cornered her in a bathroom while he injected drugs and tried to get her to touch his
    penis. When Kristin got upset and tried to leave, defendant told her to shut her
    mouth or he would “slit [her] throat like Trina‟s.” Kristin decided to assist the
    prosecution because she hated defendant for what she claimed he had done to her
    on an even earlier occasion. According to Kristin, sometime in 1994 or 1995,
    defendant had kept her in his bedroom for two days without food and forced her to
    masturbate him for hours at a time while he looked at pornographic magazines.
    As previously mentioned, Nicassio ultimately entered into an agreement with
    the prosecution, the terms of which required him to provide information regarding
    the location of Katrina‟s body and assist in the ongoing investigation. Pursuant to
    that agreement, Nicassio directed investigators to the area where he and Bush
    buried the body, but the land had since been developed and they were unable to
    locate the body.
    16
    Nicassio also wore a wire while interacting with defendant on a number of
    occasions. During the first operation, Nicassio showed defendant an altered
    version of a probation report that falsely stated Nicassio had refused to cooperate
    with the prosecution. Defendant told Nicassio to continue refusing to cooperate
    and he wondered aloud who was talking to the prosecution.
    Many of the recorded conversations between Nicassio and defendant
    occurred in the jail visiting area, interactions that were made possible by Kristin‟s
    participation in defendant‟s mother‟s plan to have Nicassio and defendant brought
    to the same visiting area at the same time. During the first such visit, Nicassio
    asked defendant what would happen if Katrina‟s body was found. Defendant
    replied, “If that shit comes out of the ground, we‟ll both be going to L.A. County.”
    On another occasion, defendant suggested how they could explain away the
    presence of blood on the stairs in his house and in the bed of Katrina‟s truck.
    The prosecution stepped up its efforts at obtaining an express admission from
    defendant by instructing Nicassio to inform defendant that Katrina‟s body had
    been discovered. During the visiting room conversation in which Nicassio gave
    defendant the “bad news,” defendant reacted by saying, “Oh, God,” but then told
    Nicassio not to believe the “trick.” If the body had been found, defendant said,
    “they would already have charged me.” Defendant repeatedly told Nicassio that
    he had to keep his mouth shut about Katrina being at defendant‟s house, even
    when talking to his lawyer or at trial if he was charged, because it would drag
    defendant and Bush into it. As defendant walked away upset and agitated, he
    turned back and approached Nicassio with his fists clenched as if to hit him, then
    turned again and left the visiting area.
    Defendant changed his approach with Nicassio several months later, after
    learning that his sister told investigators that she helped clean up blood on the
    stairs of their home and that she had been subpoenaed to testify at another grand
    17
    jury proceeding. Noting that his mother was “involved in this” because of the
    blood on the stairs, defendant told Nicassio that if Nicassio were to cooperate with
    police he should say that Katrina was taken out of the house over the “bridge,” that
    is, the catwalk leading directly to defendant‟s room, and not through the main
    house. When Nicassio protested that he “didn‟t do this and [didn‟t] want to do the
    time for it,” defendant told him to stop saying that. Defendant also told Nicassio
    that his claim of innocence was making him nervous, and he reminded Nicassio
    that Nicassio had “fuckin‟ hauled that shit.”
    From the time of his arrest in November 1997, Bush had steadfastly refused
    to cooperate with the prosecution. Around the time defendant was indicted for
    murder in January 1999, however, he decided he no longer wanted to “live a lie”
    and agreed to tell investigators what he knew about Katrina‟s disappearance. Like
    Nicassio, he led investigators to the general location where Katrina‟s body was
    buried.
    b. Sexual assaults subsequent to the murder
    Defendant was prosecuted for a number of other crimes in addition to the
    murder of Katrina, including sexual assault offenses against two other women.
    The following evidence was presented not only to support these sexual offense
    counts but also the murder charge and the rape-murder and oral-copulation-murder
    special-circumstance allegations.
    i. Robyn G.
    Robyn G. and defendant used drugs together and sometimes engaged in sex.
    One day between November 1994 and January 1995, defendant joined Robyn and
    others on the boat where Robyn was living at the time. Robyn and her visitors
    were injecting heroin and methamphetamine. At one point, Robyn went
    downstairs with defendant into one of the boat‟s bedrooms to use more drugs.
    18
    After doing so, they started kissing. Defendant then started acting aggressively
    toward Robyn. When Robyn became uncomfortable and said she wanted to leave,
    defendant ordered her to sit on the bed. He then demanded that she orally copulate
    him. Robyn complied because she was afraid. Defendant was flipping through
    pornographic magazines while Robyn orally copulated him. When she tried to
    leave, defendant called her names and kept her from getting off the bed.
    Defendant continued the sexual assault by forcing Robyn to have intercourse.
    At various points, Robyn communicated to defendant that she was sore and
    wanted to stop. Defendant responded by ordering her to assume different
    positions. At one point, defendant inserted a gun into Robyn‟s vagina. The
    assault lasted two to three hours.
    ii. Billie B.
    Billie B. met defendant in 1988 when she started attending parties with her
    SHD gang member boyfriend, Mitch Buley. In March 1992, Billie became
    involved with defendant after having split up with Buley, who was then in prison.
    Defendant directed her not to tell Buley about them, or he would hit her.
    Billie did not attend the Thanksgiving weekend party at the Porchos‟ house
    in 1992, but she learned from her roommate, SHD gang member Wozny, that
    Katrina was missing. When defendant called Billie‟s house on the Sunday after
    Thanksgiving, Wozny told him to “ „not call here anymore.‟ ” Defendant showed
    up at the door a short time later anyway, but Wozny would not let him inside.
    During this period of time, Billie‟s relationship with defendant started to
    change, and defendant became increasingly violent and sexually abusive. For
    example, sometime after August 1994, defendant was visiting Billie in her new
    apartment when her former roommate Wozny knocked on the door. Not wanting
    Wozny to know he was alone with Billie, defendant pushed Billie down in the
    19
    hallway to prevent her from letting Wozny inside. Defendant then forced Billie to
    orally copulate and masturbate him by repeatedly pushing her head and hand to his
    penis. Defendant would not let Billie stop or leave. The incident lasted for
    several hours.
    Billie‟s subsequent sexual encounters with defendant sometimes started as
    consensual vaginal intercourse but then turned assaultive. An incident occurring
    at defendant‟s house between August 1994 and January 1995 is illustrative. After
    Billie and defendant had engaged in intercourse for four or five hours, Billie
    indicated that she wanted to stop because she was tired and he was hurting her. At
    one point she had started to bleed from her vagina. Defendant told her to shut up
    and continued having intercourse. When he was finished, he became enraged at
    Billie for having stained his sheets with blood and he dragged her downstairs by
    the hair to the laundry room, calling her “sick” and angrily disparaging her.
    On many occasions, defendant‟s sexual assaults on Billie were not preceded
    by consensual sex. Between August 1994 and January 1995, for example,
    defendant repeatedly forced Billie to orally copulate and masturbate him for hours
    at a time while he looked at pornography, using the weight of his body to keep her
    from leaving. In an incident that occurred in Billie‟s apartment in October or
    November 1995, defendant kept pulling Billie onto the couch and shoving her
    hand into his pants. The more she resisted, the angrier defendant became. Billie
    finally left the couch and went into her daughter‟s room, trying to avoid defendant.
    Defendant followed her in and tackled her to the floor. Billie explained that she
    did not resist having intercourse with defendant at that time because she was afraid
    he would hurt her if she did not submit.
    20
    c. Standoff with police prior to arrest
    As previously mentioned, defendant was taken into custody in January 1998
    after an hours-long standoff with police officers. The prosecution charged
    defendant with a number of crimes in connection with the incident and also argued
    at trial that defendant‟s conduct evidenced his consciousness of guilt concerning
    the murder count. The evidence showed the following events.
    Ventura County Sheriff‟s Deputies Howe and Miller were patrolling a high-
    crime area in Ventura on a Friday night in late January 1998 when they saw two
    bicyclists, defendant and a woman, riding without headlights. The officers pulled
    alongside them, but defendant ignored Officer Howe‟s repeated orders to stop and
    continued riding. Officer Howe gave chase on foot, joined by other officers who
    were nearby at the time. Meanwhile Officer Miller pursued defendant in the patrol
    car, cornering him several blocks away. He grabbed defendant by the shirt, but
    defendant managed to break free.
    Other officers joined the chase on foot through a vacant lot, shouting for
    defendant to stop. They stopped abruptly after one officer yelled, “Gun!”
    Defendant had pulled out a revolver and was holding it to his own head, warning
    the officers not to approach or he would shoot himself.
    Defendant then walked to a chain link fence in a dark area of the lot, climbed
    over it, and ran to the house where his girlfriend at the time, Annette Berryhill,
    was visiting Janette Trembley-Rail. When defendant arrived, he banged on the
    door, yelling, “Let me in, you gotta let me in, there‟s cops all over the place.”
    Berryhill opened the door but did not remove the chain lock. Defendant pushed
    his way inside and ran into Trembley-Rail‟s bedroom. When Trembley-Rail told
    defendant to leave, he refused and ordered her to do as he said. According to
    Trembley-Rail, defendant was agitated, hostile, and out of breath, and he was
    holding a triangular object under a dish towel. Meanwhile, police had surrounded
    21
    the house. When defendant began to barricade himself inside by moving furniture,
    throwing items around, and trying to cover the windows with blankets, a SWAT
    team was called in.
    Berryhill distracted defendant long enough for the other people in the house,
    including Trembley-Rail, Trembley-Rail‟s daughter, and young granddaughter, to
    escape. Berryhill eventually exited the house through a window, telling officers at
    a command post that defendant was not coming out.
    After a seven-hour standoff, when all attempts at communicating with
    defendant had failed, officers fired tear gas into the house. At one point,
    defendant opened the front door coughing and gagging, took a breath of fresh air,
    and went back inside. He did the same thing a second time.
    Defendant ultimately left the house blinded by the tear gas and crawling on
    all fours. Officers approached defendant to apprehend him, but saw that he was
    holding a knife and slashing with it in the direction of any noise. The officers
    backed off and tried to subdue defendant with rubber bullets, which did not have
    the desired effect. Defendant then crawled back into house.
    A short time later, defendant opened the door and emerged from the house
    again. As before, officers approached to place him under arrest. This time,
    defendant did not have a knife in his hand. When he reached into his jacket as if
    to retrieve a weapon, however, one of the officers aimed his rifle, then ordered
    defendant to lie down. Defendant refused, but he was grabbed from behind and
    dragged to the ground. It took six officers to finally subdue him.
    When Trembley-Rail returned to her home, she found the entire residence
    “knee deep in debris” and estimated the total damage to be $55,000. Defendant‟s
    mother told Trembley-Rail‟s daughter she would pay for the damage if she agreed
    not to cooperate with police.
    22
    Defendant was transported to the hospital. During the ride, he was
    unresponsive and seemed to be under the influence. A blood test showed the
    presence of amphetamines.
    After defendant‟s arrest, he stated in a telephone call to an acquaintance that
    “If [he] would have known it was for a headlight, [he] wouldn‟t have ran like
    that.”
    During the defense closing argument, defense counsel conceded defendant‟s
    guilt of all charges stemming from the incident that culminated in his arrest.
    d. Postindictment witness intimidation
    Defendant was first indicted for Katrina‟s murder and other crimes in January
    1999. For the next two months, he undertook efforts to silence the fellow gang
    members and others who were cooperating with the prosecution. At trial, which
    was held in 2001, the prosecutor pointed to these efforts not only as evidence of
    defendant‟s culpability for the murder but also as the basis for five later-added
    counts charging defendant with various witness dissuasion crimes, including
    conspiracy to intimidate witnesses and soliciting the intimidation of witnesses.
    (§§ 136.1, subd. (c), 182, subd. (a)(1)/136.1, subd. (c), 653f, subd. (a)/136.1, subd.
    (c).) During the defense closing argument, defense counsel conceded defendant‟s
    guilt of these charges.
    In connection with the conspiracy count, the prosecution presented expert
    testimony to support an associated sentencing allegation that the conspiracy
    occurred to benefit and in association with a criminal street gang. (See § 186.22,
    subd. (b).) One gang expert testified about the SHD gang‟s violent White
    supremacist philosophy and the criminal convictions of its members, which
    included attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The expert also
    described the SHD gang‟s structure and strict code of noncooperation with law
    23
    enforcement, explaining to the jury how the gang had been heavily influenced by
    prison culture in this regard. According to the expert, it was incumbent upon all
    members of the SHD gang to take appropriate action against any person who had
    been identified as a “rat,” so long as there was “paperwork,” that is, written proof
    of cooperation with the police. As one SHD gang member later explained to the
    jury, gang members were obligated to do “anything necessary” to silence a
    member of their own gang who had been labeled a rat.
    The prosecution also presented extensive evidence regarding defendant‟s
    postindictment activities in jail, where, by using his mother and others as go-
    betweens, he managed to collect information regarding the individuals he believed
    were “ratting” on him and disseminate that information to fellow gang members.
    Some of this evidence consisted of letters written by defendant that were seized by
    jail and prison authorities. In one letter to an SHD gang member incarcerated at
    Wasco State Prison, defendant told the recipient that Bowen and Nicassio had
    worn a wire on him. Another letter from defendant that was found during a search
    of an SHD member‟s cell in the same prison stated that fellow SHD member Mike
    Wozny had taken him for a drive in a “wired cop car” prior to his arrest. In a letter
    to an SHD gang member being housed at Tehachapi State Prison defendant gave a
    “rundown on all these wire-wearing pieces of poop,” naming Wozny, Bowen,
    Crecelius, and Kristin S.
    The paperwork on the individuals who were cooperating with the prosecution
    came from the transcripts of the grand jury proceeding at which the informants
    had testified. A search of defendant‟s mother‟s home disclosed nine volumes of
    the grand jury transcripts, one of which had been unbound. Several pages of that
    volume were found during a search of defendant‟s cell conducted on the same
    day. Also recovered from defendant‟s cell, hidden inside the mattress, were two
    pieces of paper listing the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of victims and
    24
    witnesses. On the pages of defendant‟s Bible were written, in tiny print, the
    names of a couple who were close to Nicassio and Bush.
    Defendant‟s communications with his fellow gang members were facilitated
    by a number of persons outside the jail, including defendant‟s mother, sister,
    girlfriend, and various women who associated with the SHD gang. The
    facilitators‟ roles ranged from simply mailing or dropping off defendant‟s letters
    under their own names to “spreading the word” regarding the informants. For
    example, after learning from defendant that Nicassio was wearing a wire to help
    investigators, Jennifer Wepplo communicated that information directly to an
    incarcerated SHD gang member, who later wrote to her saying someone had to
    “get” Nicassio from inside the jail. According to Samantha Medina, another SHD
    associate who agreed to assist defendant in his efforts to dissuade witnesses,
    defendant directed her to inform an SHD gang member named Spencer Arnold
    that Arnold‟s girlfriend, Kristin S., was wearing a wire.3
    Defendant also sought the involvement of John Hernandez, a member of the
    Ventura Avenue Gangsters who was housed in the cell next to defendant at the
    county jail. Defendant gave Hernandez grand jury transcripts so that Hernandez
    could “pass the word around” that Crecelius was “ratting” on him. Defendant also
    supplied Hernandez with a handwritten list of the individuals who had cooperated
    3      Prior to the start of defendant‟s trial, defendant‟s mother and two women
    who helped facilitate his communications outside the jail were convicted of
    conspiring with defendant to intimidate witnesses. (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 136,
    subd. (c).) In defendant‟s mother‟s case, she voluntarily pleaded guilty midtrial
    after being shown a transcript of the recorded conversation between defendant and
    Nicassio in which defendant instructed Nicassio to tell police that Katrina‟s body
    went over the catwalk, rather than through the house, so as not to implicate his
    mother.
    25
    with the prosecution, asking Hernandez to circulate the names of the “rats” among
    his “homeboys” for the purpose of having them assaulted. The list named
    Nicassio, Crecelius, Bowen, Wozny, and Kristin. Nicassio was shown the list by
    an inmate who said Hernandez had given it to him.
    Defendant‟s list was successfully circulated pursuant to his request. When
    Nicassio was in the courtroom‟s holding tank during the grand jury proceedings
    that led to additional charges of witness intimidation, Nicassio was approached by
    a member of the Nazi Low Riders prison gang who told him there was paperwork
    on him throughout the state‟s prison system and that he would be killed for being a
    rat. After defendant‟s efforts to dissuade witnesses had come to light, however,
    the prosecution made arrangements with officials at the Ventura County Jail and
    the California Department of Corrections for the protection of its incarcerated
    witnesses and no harm ever came to Nicassio or any of the other individuals who
    defendant sought to silence.
    2. Defense case
    The defense called defendant‟s mother to testify regarding her recollection of
    events at her home around the time of Katrina‟s disappearance. She remembered
    nothing remarkable about the Friday after Thanksgiving Day 1992, only that
    defendant came home late at night. She heard male voices coming from
    defendant‟s room, but no female voice, and no unusual sounds like someone
    running, banging, yelling, or moving about the house.
    According to defendant‟s mother, when she arose around 7:00 a.m. on
    Saturday, she noticed blood on the stairwell, which she and her daughter cleaned.
    When she asked defendant a short time later who had gotten hurt, he pointed to his
    forehead and said, “Check this out,” then returned to his room, ignoring her advice
    26
    that he needed stitches. She testified further that she saw no one with defendant
    that morning and that defendant did not leave the house prior to 1:30 p.m.
    Defendant‟s mother confirmed that she had arranged to have the carpets in
    her home cleaned by an SHD gang member on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, the
    day after she had discovered the blood on the stairwell. She explained, however,
    that the cleaning had nothing to do with the blood. Rather, it was because
    defendant‟s room “smelled like a brewery.”
    Contrary to the testimony of the officers who came to defendant‟s home to
    investigate Katrina‟s disappearance, defendant‟s mother told the jury that she did
    allow the officers inside and that they went upstairs to defendant‟s room. She also
    denied having unbound the grand jury transcripts to copy pages. According to
    defendant‟s mother, at the time she was in possession of the transcripts,
    defendant‟s girlfriend was living with her and had access to the room where she
    kept those documents.
    Defendant‟s mother testified that, to her knowledge, defendant was not in a
    gang. As she saw it, defendant‟s association with his friends was “just some kids
    having a good time.”
    As previously mentioned, defense counsel conceded defendant‟s guilt of the
    charges stemming from the incident that culminated in defendant‟s arrest and the
    counts involving defendant‟s postindictment attempts to dissuade the witnesses
    who had testified against him at the grand jury proceeding.
    3. Prosecution’s rebuttal
    The prosecution attempted to cast doubt upon defendant‟s mother‟s version
    of events with evidence of her contradictory statements and outright lies. For
    example, one of the officers who interviewed defendant‟s mother three years after
    Katrina‟s disappearance testified that she said the stains on the carpet were from a
    27
    coffee spill, which was consistent with a statement by the carpet cleaner the day
    after Katrina had disappeared. The prosecutor also presented a tape-recorded
    conversation between defendant‟s sister and a friend in which defendant‟s sister
    said that when she told her mother she was planning to talk with the prosecutor,
    defendant‟s mother “got really scared” and admitted she was “living a lie.”
    B. Penalty Phase Evidence
    1. Prosecution’s case in aggravation
    The prosecution‟s case in aggravation focused primarily on the circumstances
    of the murder and the other crimes of which defendant had been convicted at the
    guilt phase. In addition, members of Katrina‟s family testified regarding their
    memories of her and how her disappearance and death have affected them. The
    prosecution also presented evidence of eight prior incidents involving defendant‟s
    use of violence or threat of violence, some of which occurred while defendant was
    incarcerated at a juvenile detention facility and the Ventura County jail.
    a. Victim impact evidence
    Katrina‟s parents, brother, sister, and grandmother testified briefly about their
    close relationships with Katrina and described how difficult it was to cope, first,
    with her disappearance and later, with the realization that she was no longer alive.
    According to Katrina‟s parents, when Katrina returned home after living in
    Germany for six months with her then-boyfriend Sutton, she had “turned a
    corner,” and started working full time and attending community college classes to
    pursue a career in photography. Midway through examining Katrina‟s mother, the
    prosecutor played a videotape of Katrina dancing and socializing at a large family
    celebration. When questioning resumed, Katrina‟s mother said she always feels
    Katrina‟s absence when the family gathers for such events.
    28
    b. Prior convictions and incidents involving force or violence
    Much of the prosecution‟s evidence regarding defendant‟s commission of
    other crimes involving violence or threat of violence was introduced pursuant to
    stipulations read aloud by the prosecutor, which the court instructed the jury to
    accept as proved.
    The parties stipulated that in July 1989, defendant pushed a 32-inch wooden
    club into the face of a man who was engaged in a verbal altercation with
    defendant‟s friend, threatening to “beat the crap outta [him].” In connection with
    this incident, defendant was charged with battery and brandishing a deadly
    weapon. (§§ 242, 417, subd. (a).)
    The prosecution presented evidence of another incident that occurred about
    one year later in June 1990 while defendant was a ward at the California Youth
    Authority facility in Paso Robles. A high school teacher at that institution, Ronald
    Jenkins, testified that defendant entered his classroom embroiled in a racially
    charged argument with an African -American ward. At Jenkins‟s directive, the
    wards took their seats and quieted down. At one point, defendant got up and
    walked toward the bathroom. After passing the ward with whom he had argued,
    defendant picked up a chair and used it to hit him in the back of his neck and
    shoulder blades. A brief fight ensued and lasted until security officers arrived on
    the scene.
    The parties stipulated to defendant‟s involvement in another altercation at the
    same California Youth Authority facility one month later. In July 1990, defendant
    and two other wards were instructed to come out of their cells and walk to the
    showers. Defendant started walking toward the showers, then turned and struck
    the escorting officer multiple times with closed fists. As the officer and his
    coworkers attempted to wrestle defendant to the ground, defendant continued to
    swing and kick at the officer until he was finally subdued and handcuffed. Two
    29
    officers were injured in the incident. Defendant said he attacked the officer
    because he believed he had been talking about his sister and mother, but the
    officer denied having done so. In connection with the attack, defendant pleaded
    guilty to forcibly resisting or deterring an officer in the performance of his duties
    and was sentenced to a two-year prison term. (§ 69.)
    The parties further stipulated that on Halloween night in 1992, Deputy Van
    Davis responded to a party noise complaint and observed defendant and a
    companion getting up off an individual who was lying on the ground motionless
    and bleeding heavily from his lip. For that attack, defendant was convicted of
    misdemeanor battery. (§ 242.)
    The prosecutor presented the testimony of two witnesses who described a
    June 1994 attack on an inmate in the Ventura County jail. June Marsh, a service
    technician at the jail, testified that while monitoring the inmates‟ movements
    within the jail, she observed defendant and two other inmates who were ready to
    return from the visiting area to their cells. Pursuant to jail procedure, the inmates
    were instructed to line up in single file with their hands behind their backs. Marsh
    testified that as she activated the door for them to reenter the cell area, defendant
    turned around with a raised fist and punched the inmate behind him in the face,
    knocking him to the ground. According to Marsh, defendant kneeled down and
    continued striking the inmate in the face for several seconds, then walked away as
    officers began responding to the scene. Marsh heard someone ask defendant,
    “What did you do that for?” She recalled that defendant replied, “Because I felt
    like it.”
    The prosecution also presented testimony by Sergeant Steven Cargile, the
    first officer to arrive on the scene of the June 1994 incident in the Ventura County
    jail. Cargile testified that when he reached the inmate who had been attacked, he
    overheard the inmate say to defendant, “ „That was a sucker punch, a real P.C.
    30
    [protective custody] move.‟ ” Defendant responded, “ „I got you though, didn‟t
    I?‟ ”
    Another stipulation by the parties concerned defendant‟s April 1996 attack
    on a patron at a Santa Barbara nightclub. The victim, a university student, was
    drunk and dancing in the “mosh pit.” After being assaulted by skinheads, he left
    that area of the club and went to the lobby. Defendant approached and punched
    him in the nose, causing him to fall to the floor. Defendant‟s companion, fellow
    SHD gang member Scott Porcho, continued the attack by kicking the victim two
    or three times in the head. The victim suffered a broken nose, a swollen eye, and
    lacerations that required 13 stitches. In connection with this incident, defendant
    pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery causing serious bodily injury. (§ 243,
    subd. (d).)
    The parties further stipulated that during a January 1998 vehicle stop, an
    officer discovered a small knife concealed in defendant‟s front pants pocket while
    he searched defendant incident to arrest. The knife was admitted into evidence.
    The prosecution concluded its case in aggravation with a final stipulation by
    the parties regarding another incident at the Ventura County jail in November
    1998. On that occasion, defendant intervened in a fight between a Black inmate
    and a White inmate, punching the Black inmate in the face. When another Black
    inmate told defendant he should stay out of it, defendant became angry and
    slammed the inmate against a jail cell door, knocking him down. Before officers
    responding to the fight finally subdued defendant, he broke away from a control
    hold and attempted to kick the inmate he had knocked down.
    31
    2. Defense case in mitigation
    a. Defendant’s upbringing and background
    The defense evidence regarding defendant‟s background emphasized his
    tumultuous home life, his drug use, fighting, and problems in school beginning at
    an early age, and his frequent bouts of detention and incarceration that were
    triggered mostly by his use of drugs.
    In brief testimony, defendant‟s grandmother told the jury that defendant‟s
    biological parents separated when he was two years old, and that she had been his
    primary caregiver off and on for his entire life. She indicated that defendant had
    always showed her love and respect, and she did not believe he committed the
    crimes of which he was convicted.
    One of the defense experts, Psychologist Patrick Barker, Ph.D., offered the
    jury a more detailed account of defendant‟s upbringing and family history, which
    was based on information provided by defendant, his mother, and his adoptive
    father. Dr. Barker reported that defendant‟s biological father was an alcoholic
    with whom defendant had little contact after his parents‟ separation. When
    defendant was five years old, his mother married Dean Merriman, who adopted
    defendant. Merriman likewise was an alcoholic and their home life was “badly
    dysfunctional.” When Merriman drank heavily, which was often, he would swear
    angrily, break things, and abuse defendant‟s mother both verbally and physically.
    He often belittled defendant in front of others.
    According to Dr. Barker, defendant‟s mother and adoptive father frequently
    separated and reunited. When they were together, they fought much of the time.
    When they separated, defendant would move back and forth between the two
    households.
    Defendant told Dr. Barker that to escape the domestic turmoil and instability,
    he often stayed away from home. At one friend‟s house, drugs were readily
    32
    accessible and, at age 11, defendant first began using methamphetamine. When
    defendant was in his very early teens, he was sexually molested by a woman at a
    neighbor‟s house.
    Dr. Barker learned that beginning at an early age defendant had significant
    problems in school that were attributable to his behavior, truancy, and learning
    difficulties. He attended seven or eight different schools before eventually
    dropping out of high school. Defendant‟s mother indicated that because defendant
    did so poorly in school, he became the class clown. Starting in his early teens,
    defendant also established a reputation as a good fighter, and prided himself for
    not backing down in a fight. Dr. Barker‟s review of defendant‟s school records
    confirmed that defendant‟s behavior, attendance, and performance were poor.
    One notation indicated that in seventh grade defendant was caught distributing
    methamphetamine to his fellow students.
    Defendant‟s association with skinheads and White supremacists likewise
    began in his early teens. Defendant‟s mother believed defendant‟s involvement
    was influenced by Dean Merriman‟s racist views and an incident at a party in
    which defendant was stabbed by an African-American.
    Defendant‟s criminal history began at 15 years old when he was arrested for
    vandalism and other crimes and sent to a medium-security juvenile detention
    facility. Defendant spent most of the next 10 years as an inmate at one sort of
    facility or another, including prison. Most of his detentions were due to his use of
    drugs. Defendant told Dr. Barker that he was addicted to heroin and abused other
    drugs and alcohol.
    b. Expert testimony
    The defense sought to show through its mental health experts that defendant
    suffered from severe brain damage that was further exacerbated by his drug and
    33
    alcohol use, and that these serious mental deficits were the source of a long history
    of unplanned, impulsive behavior, including Katrina‟s murder.
    Dr. Barker, a forensic and clinical psychologist, testified regarding the results
    of various tests he administered to defendant to assess his intelligence and pinpoint
    dysfunctional personality traits. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, a test of
    intellectual functioning, showed defendant in the low-average range with a full-
    scale I.Q. of 88. The results of two tests for traits associated with personality
    disorders, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the
    Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, showed defendant matched a profile type
    that is thought to be among “the most difficult of the criminal offenders.” Such
    individuals are distrustful, anti-social, cold, unstable, impressionable, hostile, and
    violent. His answers on the tests further reflected alcoholic and addictive
    tendencies.
    Dr. Barker emphasized that individuals with defendant‟s personality profile
    have poor impulse control, that they act without thinking about the consequences,
    and blame others when they do get in trouble rather than learn the consequences of
    their actions. He further believed that, in defendant‟s case, his heavy drug and
    alcohol use would make him even more impulsive and unpredictable. But even
    were defendant not under the influence, Dr. Barker observed, he likely would
    exhibit a lack of respect for others and fail to take into account the consequences
    of his behavior. On cross-examination, Dr. Barker indicated that he had diagnosed
    defendant as suffering from antisocial personality disorder.
    Jordan Witt, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist with special training in clinical
    neuropsychology, conducted a neuropsychological examination of defendant in
    order to assess brain function. His conclusion was that defendant suffered from
    brain damage, which manifested itself in his very limited concentration span, his
    extreme hyperactivity, his inability to properly manage, process, and react to
    34
    information, and his memory difficulties. According to Dr. Witt, defendant‟s
    brain dysfunction leads him to operate in “kind of a living present,” in which he
    acts at the whim of his impulses and emotions and cannot rely upon his memories,
    reasoning, and information from his environment. Based on defendant‟s
    background and the results of the battery of neurological tests, Dr. Witt believed
    that defendant‟s brain was defective at birth and that his dysfunction worsened
    over time due to both his substance abuse and multiple head injuries with loss of
    consciousness from fights and an automobile accident. Like Dr. Barker, Dr. Witt
    diagnosed defendant as suffering from antisocial personality disorder, as well as
    other cognitive and learning disorders and polysubstance dependence.
    The defense bolstered its argument that defendant suffered from brain
    damage by calling Psychiatrist Joseph Wu, M.D., who testified in relevant part
    regarding the results of a positron emission tomography (PET) brain imaging scan
    that was performed on defendant in August 2000, prior to the start of the guilt
    phase of trial. Dr. Wu found brain activity abnormalities in defendant‟s scan that
    showed “more likely than not” that defendant had brain damage or disease in the
    frontal lobe of the brain, the area involved with functions such as the regulation of
    aggression, long-term planning, and judgment. His findings from the PET scan
    were corroborated by the results of an earlier electroencephalogram, which
    showed abnormal electrical activity in the brain‟s frontal and temporal lobes, and
    which was consistent with possibility of complex partial seizures, a type of
    epilepsy that can affect certain emotions and movements.
    The defense called its fourth expert, Forensic Psychologist Leonard
    Diamond, Ph.D., to show that the adverse effects of defendant‟s serious brain
    deficits had begun to manifest themselves many years before the capital crime.
    Dr. Diamond first evaluated defendant in 1989 while he was in a juvenile
    detention facility. According to Dr. Diamond‟s report, defendant operated on pure
    35
    impulse, had no insight into his own actions, and, because he lacked an orderly
    progression of thoughts, was incapable of planning. After reevaluating defendant
    prior to the penalty phase, Dr. Diamond concluded that defendant had changed
    little during the intervening 12 years. For example, Dr. Diamond explained,
    defendant still showed no insight into his behavior and still had extremely poor
    judgment and very poor social skills. Also like before, defendant was impulsive,
    “acts out,” and “blows up easily.” According to Dr. Diamond, defendant is not
    psychotic but rather has “a long-standing characterological disorder” that was
    formed early in life, possibly at the time of birth. During cross-examination,
    Dr. Diamond agreed with the prosecutor that it would be fair to characterize
    defendant as having antisocial personality disorder and to describe him as a very
    violent, dangerous, and vengeful person.
    3. Prosecution rebuttal evidence
    The prosecutor presented two mental health expert witnesses who disagreed
    with the methodology and findings of the defense experts.
    Neuropsychologist Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D., evaluated Dr. Witt‟s opinion that
    defendant suffered from brain damage. In his view, Dr. Witt had an inadequate
    basis on which to reach that conclusion and committed errors in scoring the
    diagnostic tests. Dr. Kalechstein observed, for example, that Dr. Witt failed to
    take into account that defendant was in solitary confinement for the two months
    prior to their meeting, which, in Dr. Kalechstein‟s view, would have explained
    why defendant seemed distracted and inattentive. According to Dr. Kalechstein,
    Dr. Witt also failed to properly explore the possibility that defendant was faking
    his mental status, and should either have obtained information from sources other
    than defendant‟s self-reporting or be tested for malingering. When
    36
    Dr. Kalechstein scored some of the neurological tests administered by Dr. Witt,
    the results showed defendant in the average range of neurological functioning.
    Neurologist Helen Mayberg, Ph.D., offered her views regarding Dr. Wu‟s
    opinion that the results of PET brain imaging showed an abnormality in
    defendant‟s frontal lobes. Dr. Mayberg‟s critique began with concerns regarding
    the normal control group against which Dr. Wu had compared defendant‟s scan.
    For example, as she pointed out, normal brains have tremendous variability in
    shape and activity levels, and she was unsure whether defendant‟s scan actually
    deviated from an expected pattern. She also faulted Dr. Wu for not taking into
    account defendant‟s medical conditions and medications, which, she explained,
    can suppress activity in the frontal lobe.
    Dr. Mayberg was leery of Dr. Wu‟s opinion that defendant had brain damage
    in the frontal lobe because, in her view, a diagnosis cannot be made solely on the
    basis of a PET scan. She believed furthermore that any lower activity in
    defendant‟s frontal lobes could be explained by an infolding of the brain at that
    spot, and she saw no pattern of variations in defendant‟s brain activity or anything
    appearing on the scan itself that could be considered abnormal.
    4. Defendant’s statement
    In an unexpected development just before closing arguments, the court
    reopened the penalty phase trial so that defendant could testify on his own behalf.
    Defendant took the witness stand against counsel‟s advice, and read from a
    rambling statement he had prepared the previous night in which he offered his
    sympathies to Katrina‟s family, complained that his counsel did not provide him
    with a proper defense, and maintained his innocence. Before testifying, defendant
    indicated to the court he was aware he likely would be subject to cross-
    37
    examination. After reading his statement, defendant nonetheless refused to answer
    any of the prosecutor‟s questions.
    II. DISCUSSION
    A. Refusal to Sever Trial on Murder Charge from Trial on Other
    Counts
    Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to
    sever trial on the murder count from trial on the rest of the charges against him.
    He furthermore asserts that a joint trial on all charges deprived him of his
    constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. His claim fails, as we explain
    below.
    1. Background
    The Ventura County Grand Jury initially returned a 25-count indictment
    against defendant in January 1999. The first three counts of the indictment
    charged defendant with special circumstance murder and other crimes involving
    Katrina.4 Seven of the counts charged defendant with sexually assaulting
    Robyn G. and Billie B., and nine counts arose from the circumstances surrounding
    defendant‟s attempt to evade arrest in January 1998. The remaining six counts
    charged defendant with being under the influence of a controlled substance at
    various times predating his arrest. A second, five-count indictment was issued in
    May 1999, about four months after the first indictment, charging defendant with
    crimes stemming from various attempts to dissuade witnesses who had testified at
    the earlier grand jury proceeding.
    4      The murder count included rape-murder and oral-copulation-murder
    special-circumstance allegations. The first indictment also charged defendant with
    the substantive crimes of rape and forcible oral copulation in connection with the
    same incident, but those counts were dismissed before trial on the prosecutor‟s
    motion because the six-year statute of limitations had expired.
    38
    In 2000, the court conducted a hearing on two pretrial motions by the parties,
    granting the prosecution‟s motion to consolidate the two indictments, and granting
    as to certain counts a defense motion to sever trial on the murder charge from trial
    on the other charges in the first indictment.5 The court denied the request to sever
    the murder count from all other charges, however. In making that determination,
    the court found the evidence that supported the charges involving defendant‟s
    attempt to evade arrest was cross-admissible to show his consciousness of guilt as
    to the murder, and that the evidence underlying the sexual offense charges
    involving women other than Katrina appeared to be cross-admissible because
    sexual assault was part of the murder case.
    2. Statutory requirements for joinder of charges
    Section 954 authorizes the joinder of “two or more different offenses
    connected together in their commission . . . or two or more different offenses of
    the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts . . . .” The statute
    further provides that “if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases
    in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated.” (§ 954.)
    As a threshold matter, we conclude that the charges in question met the
    statutory requirements for joinder. The sexual offense charges were properly
    joined with the murder count because they are assaultive crimes against the person
    and therefore belong to the same class of crimes. (People v. Maury (2003)
    
    30 Cal. 4th 342
    , 395; People v. Alvarez (1996) 
    14 Cal. 4th 155
    , 188.) The counts
    5      The court severed trial on (1) drug- and firearm-possession charges
    connected with defendant‟s arrest that required proof of defendant‟s status as a
    convicted felon and drug addict and (2) five counts charging defendant with being
    under the influence of a controlled substance that were based upon events
    unrelated to his arrest. As to these charges, the court found that joinder would
    prejudice defendant.
    39
    involving defendant‟s attempts to evade arrest and to dissuade and intimidate the
    witnesses who testified at the grand jury proceeding were connected together in
    their commission with the murder count because defendant‟s apparent motive for
    resisting arrest and intimidating witnesses was to avoid criminal liability for
    Katrina‟s murder. (Cf. People v. 
    Alvarez, supra
    , at p. 188 [the charged rape was
    connected in its commission to the vehicle theft count because the theft may have
    been motivated by a desire to avoid arrest for the rape]; People v. Valdez (2004)
    
    32 Cal. 4th 73
    , 119 [notwithstanding the passage of time, a charge of escape from
    custody was connected in its commission to the murder charge because the
    apparent motive for the escape was to avoid prosecution for murder].) We observe
    that the one count charging defendant with being under the influence of a
    controlled substance at the time of his arrest is neither in the same class of crimes
    nor connected together in its commission with the murder charge. Because the
    drug offense occurred in conjunction with the other crimes stemming from
    defendant‟s arrest, however, it was connected together in its commission with
    those offenses and therefore properly joined. (See People v. Johnson (1988)
    
    47 Cal. 3d 576
    , 587 [concluding that joinder of an additional charge connected in
    its commission to one of several properly joined counts met the requirements of
    § 954].)
    Defendant does not suggest there was any failure in meeting the statutory
    requirements for joinder. He points out, however, that a court has discretion to
    order severance of charges “in the interests of justice and for good cause shown,”
    even when the requirements of section 954 are satisfied. (§ 954.) Defendant
    contends that the court abused its discretion by refusing to sever trial on the
    murder charge from trial on all other joined counts.
    40
    3. A court has discretion to order separate trials
    The law favors the joinder of counts because such a course of action
    promotes efficiency. (Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 
    43 Cal. 4th 1205
    , 1220.)
    Nonetheless, as defendant correctly observes, a trial court has discretion to order
    that properly joined charges be tried separately. (§ 954; People v. Sapp (2004)
    
    31 Cal. 4th 240
    , 257-258.) Likewise, although a trial court is authorized to
    consolidate two or more accusatory pleadings for trial in an appropriate case, it is
    not required to do so. (§ 954; People v. Marlow (2004) 
    34 Cal. 4th 131
    , 143.)
    In exercising its discretion in this regard, the court weighs “the potential
    prejudice of joinder against the state‟s strong interest in the efficiency of a joint
    trial. [Citation.]” (People v. Arias (1996) 
    13 Cal. 4th 92
    , 126.) To succeed on a
    claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance or ordering
    consolidation, the defendant must make a “ „clear showing of prejudice‟ ” and
    establish that the ruling fell “ „ “ „ “outside the bounds of reason.” ‟ ” ‟ ” (Alcala
    v. Superior 
    Court, supra
    , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1220, italics omitted; accord, People v.
    Soper (2009) 
    45 Cal. 4th 759
    , 774; People v. Lucky (1988) 
    45 Cal. 3d 259
    , 277.)
    An appellate court evaluates such claims in light of the showings made and the
    facts known by the trial court at the time of the court‟s ruling. (People v. Avila
    (2006) 
    38 Cal. 4th 491
    , 575; People v. Mendoza (2000) 
    24 Cal. 4th 130
    , 161;
    People v. Balderas (1985) 
    41 Cal. 3d 144
    , 171.)
    If the evidence underlying the joined charges would have been cross-
    admissible at hypothetical separate trials, “that factor alone is normally sufficient
    to dispel any suggestion of prejudice and to justify a trial court‟s refusal to sever
    properly joined charges.” (People v. 
    Soper, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th at p. 775; see also
    Alcala v. Superior 
    Court, supra
    , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1221; People v. 
    Mendoza, supra
    ,
    24 Cal.4th at p. 161.) Relevant to our inquiry here, it is sufficient that evidence
    supporting the various noncapital crimes would be admissible in a separate murder
    41
    trial. As this court has explained, “ „two-way‟ cross-admissibility is not required.”
    (People v. Zambrano (2007) 
    41 Cal. 4th 1082
    , 1129; accord, Alcala v. Superior
    
    Court, supra
    , at p. 1221.)
    As we explain in greater detail below, the evidence known to the court at the
    time of its rulings that supported the charges of sexual crimes against Robyn G.
    and Billie B., resisting arrest, and the dissuasion of witnesses generally would
    have been cross-admissible in a hypothetical separate trial of the murder charge.
    Accordingly, defendant fails to make the requisite clear showing of prejudice to
    establish that the court abused its discretion in denying severance and ordering
    consolidation.
    a. Joinder of the sexual assault counts
    The initial indictment charged seven sexual assault counts involving victims
    other than Katrina: one count each of rape, forcible oral copulation, and
    penetration with a foreign object against Robyn G. (§§ 261, subd (a)(2), 288, subd.
    (c), 289, subd. (a)), and three counts of rape and one count of attempted forcible
    oral copulation against Billie B. (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 664/288, subd. (c).)
    The charges involving Robyn G. were based upon her testimony at the grand
    jury proceeding, which was similar to her testimony at trial. According to
    Robyn G., during the course of what had started out as a consensual sexual
    encounter in the bedroom of a boat where she was living at the time, defendant
    prevented her from leaving, forced her to orally copulate him while he viewed
    pornographic magazines, raped her, and put a gun into her vagina.
    Billie B.‟s trial testimony likewise tracked her earlier testimony at the grand
    jury proceeding. Billie B. described an hours-long incident in which defendant
    forced her to orally copulate and masturbate him by repeatedly pushing her head
    and hand to his penis. She also recounted a different incident lasting four to five
    42
    hours that began as a consensual encounter. On that occasion, defendant ignored
    Billie‟s protestations that she was tired and that the intercourse was hurting her,
    telling her to shut up while he continued having intercourse. On still another
    occasion, Billie related, defendant repeatedly pulled her onto the couch with him
    and shoved her hand into his pants. He became angry when she resisted. When
    Billie eventually got up and went into her daughter‟s room to avoid defendant, he
    followed her and tackled her to the floor. As Billie explained, she did not resist
    having intercourse with defendant at that time because she was afraid he would
    hurt her if she refused.
    The grand jury testimony regarding the sexual assaults against Robyn G. and
    Billie B. was known to the court at the time of its ruling on the defense motion to
    sever. At the hearing on the severance motion, the prosecutor argued that the
    evidence supporting the sexual assault counts was cross-admissible in the murder
    trial to show common plan or scheme and propensity to commit sexual offenses.
    Defense counsel countered that the evidence was inadmissible because its
    prejudicial effects substantially outweighed its probative value. The court made
    no finding in that regard, noting only that the prosecutor had indicated he intended
    to file a motion regarding the admissibility of the sexual assaults evidence. For
    purposes of ruling on the severance motion, the court assumed cross-admissibility
    and denied severance subject to reconsideration of the issue in light of later
    rulings. The court observed, however, that given the statements of Nicassio and
    Bush describing the events that occurred in defendant‟s bedroom on the night in
    question, sexual assault was part of the murder case.
    During a later pretrial hearing at which the court considered the prosecution‟s
    offer of proof supporting admission of both charged and uncharged sexual
    assaults, the court ruled in relevant part that the evidence underlying the seven
    sexual offense charges was cross-admissible as to the special circumstance
    43
    allegations associated with the murder count. Specifically, the court found that the
    evidence regarding the crimes against Robyn G. and Billie B. had distinctive,
    unusual, and significant similarities to the sexual assault special circumstances, for
    example, the involvement of drugs and alcohol, and victims who were “skinhead
    groupies . . . who come back for more no matter how badly they‟re treated.” The
    court further found that the probative value of the evidence was “very significant”
    and not prejudicial, and that the evidence was therefore admissible both under
    Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), and under Evidence Code section
    1108. (See Evid. Code, §§ 1101, subd. (b), 1108, 352.) The court did not revisit
    its denial of severance at the time of those rulings, and the defense did not
    thereafter ask the court to reconsider its earlier ruling.
    Defendant argues that the court‟s findings regarding the factual similarities
    between the sexual assaults against Robyn G. and Billie B. and the sexual assaults
    underlying the murder charge were insufficient to establish cross-admissibility
    under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b).6
    For her part, the Attorney General argues that similarities in the type of
    victims targeted by defendant, in the circumstances surrounding the assaults, and
    in the sexual acts defendant forced upon his victims raised reasonable inferences
    6       Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) (Evidence Code section
    1101(b)) states, “(b) Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence
    that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove
    some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
    identity, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a defendant in a prosecution
    for an unlawful sexual act or attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and
    in good faith believe that the victim consented) other than his or her disposition to
    commit such an act.”
    44
    that defendant acted with the requisite intent to force Katrina to orally copulate
    him and to rape her before killing her.
    We need not resolve the parties‟ debate concerning whether the evidence
    supporting the sexual assault crimes was sufficiently similar to the evidence
    underlying the murder charge to permit admission under Evidence Code section
    1101(b) to prove intent, common plan, or identity in a separate trial on the murder
    count. This is because the sexual assaults evidence would have been cross-
    admissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108 to show defendant‟s
    propensity to commit the rape and forcible oral copulation upon which both the
    murder charge and the special circumstance allegations were based.
    Evidence Code section 1108 provides that “[i]n a criminal action in which
    the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant‟s
    commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by
    Section 1101 if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.”
    Defendant was “accused of a sexual offense” within the meaning of Evidence
    Code section 1108 because it was alleged he murdered Katrina during the
    commission of rape and forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, §§ 261, 288a), both
    of which are “sexual offenses” as defined by Evidence Code section 1108,
    subdivision (d)(1). (Cf. People v. Loy (2011) 
    52 Cal. 4th 46
    , 60 [for purposes of
    Evid. Code, § 1108, the defendant was “ „accused of a sexual offense‟ ” in a
    prosecution for murder during the commission of a lewd and lascivious act on a
    child]; People v. Story (2009) 
    45 Cal. 4th 1282
    , 1291-1292.)
    We are persuaded furthermore that the evidence supporting the sexual assault
    crimes that was known to the court at the time of the severance motion would not
    have been inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352 in a separate trial on the
    murder count. A court deciding whether evidence of one or more sexual offenses
    meeting the definitional requirements of Evidence Code section 1108 should
    45
    nonetheless be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 undertakes a
    careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue
    prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value.
    Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the “nature, relevance, and possible
    remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the
    likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main
    inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the
    jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense,
    and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such
    as admitting some but not all of the defendant‟s other sex offenses . . . .” (People
    v. Falsetta (1999) 
    21 Cal. 4th 903
    , 917 (Falsetta).) Balancing these considerations,
    we conclude that the risk of undue prejudice from the sexual assaults evidence
    would not have outweighed its probative value were it admitted at a separate trial
    on the murder count.
    The probative value of the sexual assaults evidence was substantial. First,
    the evidence supporting the sexual assault charges involving Robyn G. and
    Billie B. was relatively similar to that supporting the murder count. Each of the
    victims was an SHD “groupie,” in each incident defendant raped his victim and
    forced her to orally copulate him and, in each instance, defendant forcibly
    prevented the victim from leaving and ignored her pleas to stop. The sexual
    assaults occurred no more than three years after the murder and were therefore not
    remote, which further increased their probative value. In addition, the evidence
    supporting the sexual assaults was independent of the evidence supporting the
    murder; Robyn G. and Billie B. initially described the crimes against them without
    any knowledge of the sexual crimes against Katrina. (See 
    Falsetta, supra
    , 21
    Cal.4th at p. 917; People v. Balcom (1994) 
    7 Cal. 4th 414
    , 427.)
    46
    Defendant repeats his contention, previously mentioned, that the factual
    similarities between the two sets of charges were insufficient to permit inferences
    regarding intent, common plan or scheme, or identity. (See Evid. Code,
    § 1101(b).) Such dissimilarities ordinarily would diminish the probative value of
    the proffered sexual assaults evidence. (See People v. 
    Balcom, supra
    , 7 Cal.4th at
    p. 427.) But defendant‟s argument ignores the distinction between admissibility
    under Evidence Code section 1101(b), which requires a sufficient degree of
    similarity between charged and uncharged offenses, and admissibility under
    Evidence Code section 1108, which does not. As we have observed, although lack
    of similarity is relevant to the court‟s decision whether to exclude Evidence Code
    section 1108 propensity evidence as more prejudicial than probative, that factor is
    not dispositive. (People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 63.)
    If the prejudicial effect of the sexual assaults evidence would substantially
    outweigh its probative value in a separate trial on the murder count, it would
    defeat cross-admissibility of the evidence. The admission of this evidence would
    not have been unduly prejudicial, however. Although the sexual assaults were
    demeaning, disturbing, and unsavory, their underlying facts paled in comparison
    to the horrendous nature of the murder. The sexual assaults evidence was
    considerably less inflammatory than the murder and, therefore, its admission
    would not likely have had an unduly prejudicial impact on a jury. (See People v.
    Lewis (2009) 
    46 Cal. 4th 1255
    , 1287-1288 [evidence of a prior rape was less
    inflammatory than the charge that the defendant raped, strangled, and cut the
    throat of the murder victim while her children were asleep upstairs].) And
    although defendant complains generally that “this sort of evidence” distracted the
    jury from its main area of inquiry, he fails to explain why the sexual assaults
    evidence would have confused, misled, or otherwise distracted the jurors from
    their task of deciding defendant‟s guilt of Katrina‟s murder. We observe in this
    47
    regard that the testimony of Robyn G. and Billie B. at the grand jury proceeding
    was not extensive and its presentation at a separate trial on the murder count
    would not have been unduly time consuming.
    Finally, defendant emphasizes that at the time of the court‟s ruling he had not
    been convicted of the sexual assaults against Robyn G. and Billie B. We agree
    that the absence of a conviction would increase the prejudicial impact of the
    evidence at a separate trial on the murder count because the jury might be tempted
    to convict defendant of murder as punishment for having escaped criminal liability
    for subsequent crimes. (See 
    Falsetta, supra
    , 21 Cal.4th at p. 917; cf. People v.
    
    Balcom, supra
    , 7 Cal.4th at p. 427.) This circumstance does not tip the balance
    against cross-admissibility, however. Just as defendant bears a heavy burden to
    overcome the preference for a single trial of properly joined counts, he likewise
    faces a presumption favoring the admissibility of sexual offense evidence under
    Evidence Code section 1108 to show propensity to commit the charged offense.
    (People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 62; People v. Soto (1998) 
    64 Cal. App. 4th 966
    , 984.)
    We conclude that defendant has failed to carry his burden of rebutting the
    strong presumption of admissibility of the sexual assault crimes evidence under
    Evidence Code section 1108. Because the sexual assaults evidence clearly would
    have been cross-admissible in a separate trial on the murder count, that
    circumstance alone is sufficient to dispel any potential of prejudice arising from
    the joinder of these counts (Alcala v. Superior 
    Court, supra
    , 43 Cal.4th at
    p. 1221), and we find no reason that this rule should not apply here. Accordingly,
    we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever trial on
    the sexual assault counts from trial on the murder charge.
    48
    b. Joinder of the resisting arrest counts
    The indictment charged defendant with nine crimes in connection with the
    incident in late January 1998 in which he fled from officers and then barricaded
    himself inside a residence until tear gas forced him outside and he was
    apprehended. As relevant here, the charges included two counts of resisting an
    executive officer (§ 69), two counts of brandishing a handgun to resist arrest
    (§ 417.8), and one count each of assault on a peace officer, felony vandalism, and
    being under the influence of a controlled substance. (§ 245, subd. (c), former
    § 594, subd. (b)(2); Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a).)
    The prosecution made the following offer of proof in opposition to the
    defense motion to sever trial on these counts from trial on the murder count. By
    late 1997, defendant was aware he was a suspect in Katrina‟s murder. On the
    evening of January 30, 1998, officers noticed two individuals, one of whom was
    later identified as defendant, riding bicycles without headlights. When they
    approached the pair, defendant fled, ignoring the officers‟ order to stop. The
    officers gave chase. As they got closer, defendant pulled a gun from his waistband
    and threatened to shoot himself. Defendant then jumped a fence and ran to a
    nearby home, where he beat on the door and demanded to be let inside. The
    occupants complied, but eventually left the house. Meanwhile, defendant
    barricaded himself inside. A Ventura County SWAT team was called to the scene
    but the standoff continued for hours. After tear gas was deployed, defendant went
    out of the house and back inside several times. On one occasion, he crawled on
    his hands and knees with a knife in his hand, and slashed at one of the approaching
    officers, then retreated into the house. He was apprehended the next time he
    emerged when a group of officers managed to tackle and handcuff him. A blood
    sample taken from defendant shortly after the incident showed the presence of
    methamphetamine. Subsequent to defendant‟s arrest, he told an acquaintance that
    49
    he felt like a “dumb fuck” for running from the police because he thought he was
    being arrested for murder, not for a bicycle infraction.
    After hearing extensive argument from the parties, the trial court denied
    severance on all but two of the counts arising from the incident. 7 The court
    acknowledged the six-year gap between the alleged murder and the events
    surrounding defendant‟s arrest. It also acknowledged the defense argument that,
    given defendant‟s status as a chronic drug user, gang member, and prison parolee,
    he likely fled from the police for reasons other than consciousness of guilt. But
    the court found that the prosecution had “plugged those holes” with evidence that
    was clearly admissible, and it determined that defendant would not be unduly
    prejudiced by the use of that evidence both to prove the separate charges and to
    show consciousness of guilt as to the murder.
    Evidence that defendant, thinking he was being arrested for murder, fled
    from police and resisted arrest by engaging in a dramatic, hours-long standoff
    generally would be admissible at a separate trial on the murder charge to show his
    consciousness of guilt for killing Katrina. Likewise, evidence of the murder
    generally would be cross-admissible in a separate trial on the resisting arrest
    charges to help explain the intensity of his efforts to evade police. (See People v.
    Arias (1996) 
    13 Cal. 4th 92
    , 127-128 [evidence the defendant kidnapped and
    robbed one victim would be cross-admissible in a separate trial for the robbery
    murder of a gas station clerk that occurred 13 days earlier because the defendant‟s
    need for money and transportation to avoid arrest for the murder showed his
    7       The indictment charged two additional counts in connection with this
    incident — possession of a firearm by a narcotic addict and felon in possession of
    a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The court granted the severance motion
    as to those counts.
    50
    consciousness of guilt; evidence of the murder in turn would be admissible in the
    kidnapping-robbery trial to show motive]; see also People v. Lewis and Oliver
    (2006) 
    39 Cal. 4th 970
    , 1027 [evidence that the defendant attempted to avoid arrest
    by jumping fences before being apprehended was properly admitted as tending to
    show his consciousness of guilt for the capital crimes].) We reject defendant‟s
    assertion that the bulk of the evidence of events surrounding his arrest served no
    purpose other than to prejudice him.
    Defendant repeats the argument advanced by his trial counsel at the hearing
    that there were any number of reasons why defendant would have fled the police
    other than a consciousness of guilt for Katrina‟s murder. His argument
    demonstrates only that the evidence proffered by the prosecution regarding
    defendant‟s motive for evading police was disputed by the defense. He points to
    no case, and we have located none, suggesting that a finding of cross-admissibility
    is an abuse of discretion simply because the defense has challenged the inferences
    that may be drawn from the proffered evidence. (See People v. Kraft (2000)
    
    23 Cal. 4th 978
    , 1032 [upholding the trial court‟s ruling denying severance of 16
    murder charges in which evidence relating to one or more of the murders, some of
    which was disputed by the defense, was cross-admissible to refute anticipated
    defenses].)
    Because any inference of prejudice from the joinder was dispelled by the
    cross-admissibility of the evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion in
    declining to sever trial on the murder count from trial on the charges arising from
    incident relating to defendant‟s arrest.
    c. Consolidation of the witness dissuasion counts
    After defendant was charged with Katrina‟s murder, the sexual assaults on
    her and two other victims, and the crimes stemming from the incident relating to
    51
    his arrest, a second indictment was issued in May 1999 charging defendant with
    five counts that involved various attempts to dissuade witnesses who had testified
    at the earlier grand jury proceeding. Specifically, defendant was charged with
    three counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat, and the solicitation of, and
    conspiracy to commit, those crimes. (§§ 136.1, subd. (c), 653f, subd. (a), 182,
    subd. (a)(1).) In connection with the conspiracy count, it was alleged that the
    crime was committed for the benefit of and in association with a criminal street
    gang, for purposes of sentence enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b).
    The prosecutor later moved to consolidate the two indictments. At a brief
    hearing on consolidation that preceded the hearing on the defense severance
    motion, defense counsel acknowledged that the evidence of intimidation and
    threats would be admissible at trial on the other charges. The trial court granted
    the consolidation motion without elaboration, impliedly rejecting defense
    counsel‟s argument that consolidation of the two indictments would be unduly
    prejudicial to defendant.
    We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering consolidation.
    Notably, the victims identified in the second indictment were the witnesses who
    testified against defendant in the grand jury proceeding that led to the original 25-
    count indictment. Evidence supporting the witness dissuasion charges therefore
    generally would have been cross-admissible in a separate trial on all of the charges
    in the first indictment to show defendant‟s consciousness of guilt as to those
    counts. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 
    22 Cal. 4th 900
    , 948 [evidence that the
    defendant solicited someone to kill the robbery victim before he testified against
    the defendant at a pending trial on that crime would have been admissible at a
    separate trial on conspiracy to murder a detective to prevent his testimony at the
    robbery trial]; see also People v. Pinholster (1992) 
    1 Cal. 4th 865
    , 945 [evidence
    that defendant threatened to kill a witness if he testified was properly admitted at
    52
    trial to show his consciousness of guilt]; People v. Hannon (1977) 
    19 Cal. 3d 588
    ,
    599.)
    On appeal, defendant again acknowledges that evidence of his attempts to
    dissuade witnesses from testifying was relevant to show his consciousness of guilt
    as to the murder count. He asserts, however, that the inference of prejudice was
    not dispelled by the cross-admissibility of the evidence because of the voluminous
    amount of highly inflammatory evidence relating to his gang membership and
    White supremacist views, his obscene and vulgar writings, his “Mansonesque”
    psychosexual power over young women, and his perverse relationship with his
    mother that was admitted to prove the witness dissuasion counts and the associated
    gang enhancement.
    In these respects, defendant‟s argument is based on evidence developed later
    at trial, not on the facts known to the trial court at the time it ruled on the motion
    to consolidate the indictments. Although the points he raises are relevant to the
    question whether consolidation of the charges and denial of severance resulted in
    gross unfairness in violation of his right to due process (see post, pt. II.A.4), these
    argument have no bearing on the question whether the court‟s ruling on the motion
    to consolidate was an abuse of discretion. (People v. 
    Mendoza, supra
    , 24 Cal.4th
    at p. 162, fn. 3 [an appellate court reviews the trial court‟s ruling on a motion to
    consolidate charges in light of the facts then known to the court].)
    4. Constitutionality of trial on the joined charges
    Even when we conclude, as we do here, that the trial court acted well within
    its discretion in denying severance or consolidating charges, we must further
    inquire whether events after the court‟s ruling demonstrate that joinder actually
    resulted in “gross unfairness” amounting to a denial of defendant‟s constitutional
    right to fair trial or due process of law. (People v. Rogers (2006) 
    39 Cal. 4th 826
    ,
    53
    851; People v. 
    Mendoza, supra
    , 24 Cal.4th at p. 162; People v. Bean (1988) 
    46 Cal. 3d 919
    , 940.) Our review of the trial record in the case discloses there was no
    gross unfairness.
    Defendant does not dispute that the evidence regarding the sexual assaults
    against Robyn G. and Billie B. known to the court when it ruled the evidence
    admissible with regard to the murder count differed little from the evidence
    actually presented at trial. He argues, however, that the presentation of this
    evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 to show his propensity to commit
    sexual crimes created a “fundamentally unfair paradigm” that unconstitutionally
    prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury.
    We previously have upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section
    1108 against a similar challenge and find no persuasive reason to revisit our
    conclusion. (
    Falsetta, supra
    , 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916-922; see also People v. Fitch
    (1997) 
    55 Cal. App. 4th 172
    , 180-184.) The record shows the trial court carefully
    weighed the probative value of the sexual assaults evidence against its potential
    prejudicial effect before allowing its admission in connection with the murder
    count and the associated special circumstances, and defendant does not suggest the
    court failed to undertake the requisite inquiry. The due process clause does not
    require more. (
    Falsetta, supra
    , at pp. 917-918.) We observe furthermore that
    because the sexual offenses against Robyn G. and Billie B. were charged, rather
    than uncharged crimes, there was no risk that the jury would have found defendant
    guilty of murder to punish him for escaping criminal liability for the other sexual
    offenses. (See People v. 
    Balcom, supra
    , 7 Cal.4th at p. 427; People v. 
    Bean, supra
    , 46 Cal.3d at p. 939.) The joinder of the murder charge with the sexual
    offense counts did not render defendant‟s trial grossly unfair.
    Defendant argues more generally that the result of the court‟s refusal to sever
    the trial on the murder count from trial on all other counts was a trial in which the
    54
    “jury‟s view of the actual evidence of the capital crime was hopelessly entangled
    with evidence of defendant‟s character.” For example, defendant argues, joinder
    permitted the admission of evidence of his “bizarre and scary behavior” while
    attempting to evade arrest, as well as evidence of the vulgar, antisocial, and
    frightening beliefs he embraced by virtue of his membership in a White
    supremacist gang. According to defendant, the “sheer amount of evidence that
    was extraneous and fundamentally irrelevant” to the murder charge “had
    everything to do with the jury‟s willingness to convict defendant of it.”
    We disagree with defendant that the evidence supporting the sexual offenses,
    resisting arrest, and witness dissuasion counts was extraneous and irrelevant to the
    murder count. Rather, for the reasons previously discussed, all three groups of
    crimes were bound up with proving defendant‟s guilt of the murder and the
    evidence developed at trial was properly admitted for that purpose. For example,
    the evidence regarding the SHD gang explained the code of silence, which tended
    to show why the two eyewitnesses did not report the murder to law enforcement
    until years after the incident. Nor was the evidence of guilt of the murder count
    substantially weaker than the evidence supporting defendant‟s guilt of the other
    crimes so as to render his trial grossly unfair. (People v. 
    Soper, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th
    at p. 784; People v. 
    Jenkins, supra
    , 22 Cal.4th at p. 949.) All of the crimes were
    proved by strong, direct evidence, which included testimony either by
    eyewitnesses or the victims themselves.
    To support his claim of a constitutional violation, defendant points to
    numerous items of evidence that were not before the court at the time of its
    severance ruling, specifically, his jailhouse letters to fellow gang members and
    female “gang groupies,” as the trial court described them. Defendant argues that
    this evidence so inflamed the jury as to render his trial grossly unfair. We have
    reviewed the complained-of evidence and find that the bulk of it is easily
    55
    dismissed as flip and adolescent rants and ramblings. Furthermore, defendant‟s
    suggestive drawings and use of profanity and vulgarity, although distasteful,
    would not have unduly inflamed the jury. As one prosecution witness explained
    during cross-examination, letters from inmates commonly contained crude sexual
    references. Moreover, given the jurors‟ knowledge that the SHD was a White
    power, male-dominated gang, they likely would not have been surprised or
    shocked by defendant‟s drawings of swastikas and expressions of admiration for
    Adolf Hitler, his racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic remarks, or his demeaning
    characterizations of women.
    Two items of evidence cited by defendant warrant further discussion. The
    first exhibit is a jailhouse letter from defendant to an unknown inmate that
    includes a vulgar and unsavory poem describing anal intercourse. The other
    exhibit is a letter from defendant to a fellow gang member containing a
    reprehensible, demeaning poem mocking African Americans. We observe,
    however, that although these exhibits were admitted into evidence, the text of the
    poems was neither read to nor summarized for the jury.
    Defendant did not ask the court to redact the complained-of exhibits to
    remove the offensive material before they were placed into evidence. But even if
    the letters should have been redacted, their admission did not render defendant‟s
    trial grossly unfair. The facts of the murder far overshadowed any evidence of
    defendant‟s vulgar and racist musings, and defendant‟s guilt of that charge was
    supported by strong evidence, including detailed testimony by the two
    eyewitnesses. Although the evidence of defendant‟s jailhouse letters was not
    insubstantial, neither was it pervasive.
    Pointing to the prosecutor‟s closing argument, which urged the jury to
    consider the various sexual crimes against the different victims as “not just one
    evil act [but as] all the evil together,” defendant argues finally that the jury could
    56
    not reasonably have been expected to “compartmentalize the evidence” so as to
    decide each count individually on the evidence presented. (People v. 
    Soper, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th at p. 784.) The record does not support his assertion. The
    prosecutor‟s point was that were the jury to find defendant committed rape and
    forcible oral copulation against some of the victims, it could infer that defendant
    had a disposition to commit, and likely did commit, all of the charged sexual
    offenses, an argument he was entitled to make. (Evid. Code, § 1108.) The record
    shows moreover that the jury was instructed on the elements of each of the
    charged crimes, told that “each count charges a distinct crime,” and directed to
    “decide each count separately.” (CALJIC No. 17.02.) Absent some showing to
    the contrary, we presume the jury followed the court‟s instructions. (People v.
    Yeoman (2003) 
    31 Cal. 4th 93
    , 139.) No such showing was made here.
    In resolving a claim that joinder resulted in gross unfairness in violation of a
    defendant‟s right to a fair trial and due process, we have observed that a judgment
    will be reversed on this ground only if it is “reasonably probable that the jury was
    influenced [by the joinder] in its verdict of guilt.” (People v. 
    Bean, supra
    ,
    46 Cal.3d at p. 940.) For all the reasons explained above, we conclude there was
    no reasonable probability that the joinder of counts tainted the jury‟s verdicts in
    this case.
    B. Excusal of Two Prospective Jurors for Cause
    Defendant asserts that his death sentence must be reversed because the trial
    court erred when it granted the prosecution‟s challenges for cause against two
    prospective jurors, depriving him of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and
    57
    Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.8 We conclude that the
    trial court did not err in excusing the prospective jurors in question.
    The governing principles are well settled. Under the state and federal
    Constitutions, a criminal defendant is entitled to trial by an impartial jury. (People
    v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 895; Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 
    469 U.S. 412
    ,
    424.) “ „To achieve the constitutional imperative of impartiality [in a capital
    case], the law permits a prospective juror to be challenged for cause only if his or
    her views in favor of or against capital punishment “would „prevent or
    substantially impair the performance of his [or her] duties as a juror‟ ” in
    accordance with the court‟s instructions and the juror‟s oath.‟ [Citations.]”
    (People v. Martinez (2009) 
    47 Cal. 4th 399
    , 425.) As this court has explained,
    absent a finding of substantial impairment, a trial court may not exclude a person
    from jury service in a capital case based upon his or her “personal conscientious
    objection to the death penalty.” (People v. Stewart (2004) 
    33 Cal. 4th 425
    , 446.)
    8       Defendant invokes these and other state and federal constitutional
    provisions in nearly every other claim raised in this appeal. “In most instances,
    insofar as defendant raised the issue at all in the trial court, he failed explicitly to
    make some or all of the constitutional arguments he now advances. In each
    instance, unless otherwise indicated, it appears that either (1) the appellate claim is
    of a kind . . . that required no trial court action by the defendant to preserve it, or
    (2) the new arguments do not invoke facts or legal standards different from those
    the trial court itself was asked to apply, but merely assert that the trial court‟s act
    or omission, insofar as wrong for the reasons actually presented to that court, had
    the additional legal consequence of violating the Constitution. To that extent,
    defendant‟s new constitutional arguments are not forfeited on appeal. [Citations.]”
    (People v. Boyer (2006) 
    38 Cal. 4th 412
    , 441, fn. 17, italics omitted.)
    “ „ “No separate constitutional discussion is required, or provided, when rejection
    of a claim on the merits necessarily leads to rejection of any constitutional theory
    or „gloss‟ raised for the first time here.” [Citations.]‟ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 
    52 Cal. 4th 856
    , 890, fn. 7.)
    58
    “During voir dire, jurors commonly supply conflicting or equivocal
    responses to questions directed at their potential bias or incapacity to serve. When
    such conflicting or equivocal answers are given, the trial court, through its
    observation of the juror‟s demeanor as well as through its evaluation of the juror‟s
    verbal responses is best suited to reach a conclusion regarding the juror‟s actual
    state of mind. [Citation.] „ “ „There is no requirement that a prospective juror‟s
    bias against the death penalty be proven with unmistakable clarity. [Citations.]
    Rather, it is sufficient that the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a
    prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law in the
    case before the juror.‟ ” ‟ [Citation.]” (People v. Jones (2012) 
    54 Cal. 4th 1
    , 41.)
    A trial court‟s ruling on a challenge for cause is reviewed for abuse of
    discretion. (People v. 
    Martinez, supra
    , 47 Cal.4th at p. 426.) We will uphold the
    court‟s decision “ „ “ „if it is fairly supported by the record, accepting as binding
    the trial court‟s determination as to the prospective juror‟s true state of mind when
    the prospective juror has made statements that are conflicting or ambiguous.‟
    [Citations.]” ‟ ” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 
    25 Cal. 4th 926
    , 975; accord,
    People v. Manibusan (2013) 
    58 Cal. 4th 40
    , 60.) When there is no inconsistency or
    ambiguity, we will uphold the court‟s ruling if it is supported by substantial
    evidence. (People v. Pearson (2012) 
    53 Cal. 4th 306
    , 327-328.)
    1. Prospective Juror S.B.
    S.B.‟s responses in her juror questionnaire indicated that she supported both
    the death penalty and life without the possibility of parole. Specifically, when
    asked to give her general feelings regarding the death penalty, S.B. wrote that if “a
    person killed someone they should serve a life sentence or receive the death
    penalty.” Although she believed life without parole was a more severe
    punishment for defendants because “they have to deal with this for the rest of their
    59
    lives,” she also checked “Yes” to the question whether she would be open-minded
    regarding which penalty should be imposed in the case.
    At the outset of voir dire questioning, the court asked S.B. whether there was
    any reason she could not be fair in this matter. She shrugged her shoulders and
    said, “No, I guess not.” When the court then asked whether there was anything
    else about her views regarding the death penalty, she qualified her questionnaire
    response by stating, “I‟m not really for it unless they‟re a serial murderer or
    something, but if it‟s just one murder, I think they should [get] . . . life without
    parole.” In response to the court‟s further question whether she was saying she
    would automatically vote for life without parole in a case involving only a single
    murder victim, S.B. replied, “Yes, yes.” The prosecutor then challenged her for
    cause.
    Defense counsel questioned S.B. first, eliciting from her that she would make
    certain exceptions to her view that the death penalty should be reserved for serial
    killers. She agreed that death would be appropriate, for example, for someone
    who killed a child. When defense counsel observed that S.B. seemed “right in the
    middle” and “would consider both [penalties], depending on the circumstance,”
    S.B. agreed, indicating, “Yeah, I think I would.” She also agreed with defense
    counsel‟s observation that “in the right case with only one victim” she could vote
    to impose the death penalty, depending on what she heard at trial. As S.B. stated
    in her own words, “I‟m willing to listen to the case . . . before I make my
    decision.”
    S.B. retreated somewhat from those views while being questioned by the
    prosecutor, however. Although she confirmed she could consider the death
    penalty in a case involving only one victim, she indicated, “I don‟t know if I
    would do it.” She also answered “Yeah,” when the prosecutor asked whether
    there was a possibility she would not be “fair” on the death penalty issue. When
    60
    the prosecutor then inquired into S.B.‟s view that life without parole was a harsher
    punishment than death, she agreed that if she thought the harsher penalty was
    appropriate, it was more likely she would vote for life without parole because
    “they‟d have to think about it forever.” S.B. then agreed with the prosecutor again
    “there was a good chance in a case like this that [she] probably won‟t be fair in a
    penalty stage.”
    The parties then conducted another round of questioning, eliciting somewhat
    vacillating responses from S.B. When defense counsel asked S.B. what she would
    do if she was convinced by the evidence that death was appropriate, S.B. replied,
    “I would say yes if it was appropriate.” The prosecutor, after reminding S.B. that
    she had previously agreed with him that there was a good chance she could not be
    fair in the case, then asked whether in a case with only one victim, it would be
    very unlikely for her to return a verdict of death. S.B. answered, “Yes.”
    The court conferred with the parties outside the presence of the prospective
    jurors, indicating at the outset that it was “leaning” toward excusing S.B. Defense
    counsel argued that her answers consistently indicated she would consider, and
    return, a death verdict in an appropriate “one victim” case. For his part, the
    prosecutor noted that at the outset of voir dire questioning, before any prompting
    and leading questions by either side, S.B. responded to the court‟s open-ended
    question by indicating she could not be fair. In the prosecutor‟s view, because
    S.B. was going to say whatever the attorneys wanted her to say, her remarks
    during the initial questioning by the court were the best indicator of her true state
    of mind.
    Finding the question “close,” the court granted the challenge for cause over a
    strenuous defense objection. The court observed that S.B.‟s views were difficult
    to read “because she just swayed with the wind.” It found, however, that her
    comment at the outset of questioning was “very revealing,” and concluded
    61
    accordingly that her duty as a potential capital juror would be impaired by her
    reluctance to impose the death penalty in single-victim cases.
    Under the circumstances presented here, the trial court‟s impression of S.B.‟s
    true state of mind is entitled to deference by this court, and we conclude that its
    ruling is supported by the record. It is true that S.B. indicated during questioning
    by defense counsel that “in the right case with only one victim” she could vote to
    impose the death penalty. But she had expressed the opposite view at the outset of
    questioning without any prompting, and then vacillated back and forth in her
    responses to leading questions by the parties. Those responses, when considered
    in conjunction with S.B.‟s demeanor, could have left the court with the
    “ „ “definite impression” ‟ ” that she would be unable to faithfully and impartially
    perform her duties as a juror in the case. (People v. Moon (2005) 
    37 Cal. 4th 1
    , 14,
    see 
    id. at pp.
    15-16; People v. Friend (2009) 
    47 Cal. 4th 1
    , 61 [the court‟s excusal
    of a prospective juror after determining he would be unwilling to consider the
    death penalty for a defendant who had committed only one murder was fairly
    supported by the record]; People v. Hawthorne (2009) 
    46 Cal. 4th 67
    , 84 [same].)
    Defendant asserts that because S.B.‟s views regarding the death penalty were
    neither ambiguous nor equivocal, the trial court‟s determination of her state of
    mind is not entitled to deference. He observes that S.B. quickly retreated from her
    initial comment that the death penalty should be imposed only on serial killers.
    According to defendant, as voir dire continued and S.B. became more familiar
    with the process, her understanding evolved and she unambiguously expressed her
    ability to apply the law and vote for death in an appropriate case. Defendant may
    be correct that, when considered separately, S.B.‟s views were not ambiguous.
    But the record supports the trial court‟s observation that S.B. “swayed with the
    wind” depending on which of the parties was questioning her. For example, after
    having agreed with defense counsel that she “would consider both [penalties],
    62
    depending on the circumstance,” S.B. then agreed with the prosecutor that in a
    case with only one victim it would be very unlikely for her to vote for death.
    Contrary to defendant‟s argument, the record does not show that the continued
    questioning in this case solidified and clarified the prospective juror‟s views. (Cf.
    People v. Williams (2013) 
    56 Cal. 4th 630
    , 667 [upholding the trial court‟s refusal
    to excuse a prospective juror whose initial responses appeared conflicting but
    whose views were clarified in the final round of questioning].) In any event, the
    court‟s resolution of the conflict in S.B.‟s responses, which was based upon its
    firsthand observations of the prospective juror‟s answers and demeanor, is entitled
    to deference here. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 
    44 Cal. 4th 758
    , 780 [observing
    that the court “was in the best position to assess the juror‟s state of mind, based on
    her conflicting responses, her demeanor, her vocal inflection and other nonverbal
    cues”].)
    Defendant contends furthermore that the court applied an erroneous standard
    to excuse S.B. when it found she was impaired by her reluctance to impose the
    death penalty in single victim cases. Specifically, he complains there was no
    finding whether S.B. could set aside her personal beliefs and carry out her duties
    as a juror without substantial impairment. As defendant points out, under
    applicable law, even a juror who “might find it very difficult to vote to impose the
    death penalty” is not necessarily substantially impaired unless he or she was
    unwilling or unable to follow the court‟s instructions in determining the
    appropriate penalty. (People v. 
    Stewart, supra
    , 33 Cal.4th at p. 447, italics
    omitted; see also People v. Rountree (2013) 
    56 Cal. 4th 823
    , 848 [prospective juror
    was properly excused for cause, not because he believed judging the defendant
    would be difficult, but because he indicated it would be difficult for him to set
    aside his religious beliefs in order to carry out his duties as a juror].) We disagree,
    however, that the court employed an erroneous standard here. The focus of
    63
    questioning by the court and the parties was whether there was a likelihood that
    S.B. fairly could consider both the death penalty and life without parole. We have
    repeatedly explained that such an inquiry is a proper formulation of the standard
    set forth in Wainwright v. 
    Witt, supra
    , 
    469 U.S. 412
    . (See People v. 
    Martinez, supra
    , 47 Cal.4th at p. 432.) As previously discussed, the record supports the trial
    court‟s determination that S.B.‟s views would substantially impair the
    performance of her duties as a juror because those views rendered her incapable of
    returning a death verdict in an appropriate case involving only a single murder
    victim. The trial court did not err in excusing S.B. for cause.
    2. Prospective Juror B.T.
    Prospective Juror B.T.‟s questionnaire responses indicated a consistent and
    emphatic opposition to the death penalty. He checked “Yes” in answering the
    question whether his opposition to the death penalty was so strong that he would
    always vote against the death penalty, no matter what the evidence, and he
    included comments that the death penalty “promotes a culture of state sanctioned
    killing, ” it is “irreversible,” “mistakes are made,” and it does not “serve[] any
    good purpose.” He also marked “No” when asked whether he could be open-
    minded as to which penalty should be imposed were the case to proceed to a
    penalty phase, reiterating his earlier comment that he opposes the death penalty.
    During voir dire questioning, however, B.T. appeared less certain of his
    views, telling the court he “couldn‟t tell you for sure” that he felt he could never
    vote for the death penalty but that he “dread[ed] the thought” of ever having to do
    so. When asked whether he would be open-minded as to either penalty, B.T.
    indicated that he was “open-minded to following the law.” As he explained, “I
    always try and do everything I can to follow the law . . . but to try to tell you how I
    would consider voting on the death penalty, I couldn‟t even tell you. I couldn‟t
    64
    even tell you my own mind.” B.T. reiterated his opposition to the death penalty
    and indicated he “would start out with my mind opposing the death penalty.” He
    then explained, “I . . . always do everything I can to follow the law and I would do
    . . . the same thing as a juror, cause I think if I was accused of a crime, I‟d want
    every possible safeguard I could have to see that the laws are followed.” He
    acknowledged, however, that he could not say how his feelings would affect him.
    And when asked if there were any scenarios in which he felt he could vote for the
    death penalty, he responded, “No.” The prosecutor challenged B.T. for cause but
    did not question him further.
    Defense counsel began his questioning by confirming with B.T. that he
    understood a juror‟s various roles during a capital case and that a juror takes an
    oath to follow the court‟s instructions when making the penalty determination.
    When counsel asked B.T. whether he could do that, B.T. replied, “Yes,” and again
    indicated he “would always follow the law.” B.T. indicated, however, that he also
    opposed the death penalty and didn‟t know whether he could vote for death. In
    response to counsel‟s further question whether his opposition to the death penalty
    was so strong that he could not consider it as an option, B.T. said, “No,”
    reiterating that, “as a juror, I would always do everything I could to follow the
    law.”
    Defense counsel then elicited from B.T. several responses suggesting his
    views would not substantially impair his ability to perform his duties as a juror.
    B.T. agreed with counsel that he would follow the law and the instructions given
    to him at the penalty phase. And when asked if he could set aside his general
    opposition to the death penalty and be as fair to the prosecution as he would be to
    the defendant, B.T. answered, “Yes, I believe I could.” In response to the question
    whether his mind was foreclosed to the possibility of choosing death as a penalty,
    he indicated, “No it‟s not.”
    65
    After neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor indicated he wanted to be
    heard on the issue, the court excused B.T. for cause without comment.
    B.T.‟s responses to questions regarding his views on the death penalty were,
    at best, equivocal and conflicting. His answers on the questionnaire showed
    strong opposition to capital punishment, but during questioning in open court he
    was unable to say for sure how those views would affect his ability to vote for
    death in an appropriate case. And although B.T. told the court there was no
    scenario in which he felt he could vote for the death penalty, he indicated later
    during defense counsel‟s questioning that his mind was not foreclosed to the
    possibility of choosing death as a penalty. We defer to the court‟s resolution of
    the ambiguities and conflicts in B.T.‟s views, which was informed by the court‟s
    firsthand observations of the prospective juror‟s responses and demeanor. We
    conclude furthermore that the record fairly supports the court‟s determination that
    B.T.‟s views regarding the death penalty would substantially impair the
    performance of his duties as a juror. B.T. twice indicated on his questionnaire that
    he would not be able to set aside his personal views and apply the law. The trial
    court, having considered B.T.‟s demeanor during voir dire questioning, was
    entitled to accept those responses, notwithstanding B.T.‟s contradictory answers
    during voir dire questioning. (People v. Whalen (2013) 
    56 Cal. 4th 1
    , 49-50.)
    As defendant correctly observes, this court has made clear that a juror‟s
    strong opposition to the death penalty does not necessarily disqualify him or her
    from serving on a jury in a capital case. (People v. 
    Jones, supra
    , 54 Cal.4th at
    p. 42; People v. 
    Martinez, supra
    , 47 Cal.4th at p. 427; People v. 
    Stewart, supra
    ,
    33 Cal.4th at p. 446.) He does not persuade us that the trial court‟s excusal of B.T.
    is contrary to that pronouncement, however. “[T]hose who firmly believe that the
    death penalty is unjust may nevertheless serve as jurors in capital cases so long as
    they state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in
    66
    deference to the rule of law.” (Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 
    476 U.S. 162
    , 176.)
    During voir dire questioning, B.T. indicated repeatedly that he strove to always
    “follow the law.” But whether he could set aside his views regarding the death
    penalty was not so clear. Although B.T. answered, ”Yes” when defense counsel
    asked whether he could set aside his general opposition to the death penalty, his
    questionnaire responses indicated that his beliefs in that regard were so strong that
    he always would vote against the death penalty, regardless of the evidence.
    Having assessed B.T.‟s demeanor firsthand during questioning, the trial court
    could properly find the questionnaire responses the better reflection of B.T.‟s true
    state of mind. (People v. 
    Whalen, supra
    , 56 Cal.4th at p. 49.)
    C. Evidentiary Rulings at the Guilt Phase
    1. Admission of uncharged misconduct
    Before the start of the guilt phase, the prosecution filed a detailed trial brief
    seeking admission of evidence of defendant‟s uncharged misconduct through the
    testimony of his alleged victims. Defendant claims the trial court erred by
    allowing the prosecutor to present the resulting evidence involving sexual assaults
    and other violence against women, and he asserts that the admission of this
    evidence deprived him of a fair trial and due process. We conclude the challenged
    evidence was properly admitted.
    a. Testimony of Kristen S.
    According to the prosecution‟s offer of proof, Kristen S. was acquainted with
    defendant because they used methamphetamine together. Sometime between 1993
    and 1996, Kristen went home with defendant after a party. She probably would
    have consented to “normal” sexual activity with him. At one point, however,
    defendant started to “get weird,” ordering her to undress and then holding her hand
    on his penis while he lay on his bed and looked through pornography. Kristen
    67
    manually stimulated defendant for hours, but he was unable to maintain an
    erection and demanded that she perform other sexual acts, also for an extended
    period of time. She orally copulated him for so long that it became painful for her.
    The offer of proof further indicated that Kristen S. wanted to leave but never
    actually told defendant so because she was scared and confused. She believed that
    defendant knew she wanted to leave, however, because when she said she had to
    use the bathroom, defendant escorted her there and stood over her until she was
    finished. The entire incident lasted for almost two days, at the end of which
    Kristen left defendant‟s bedroom and went home. She did not contact the police
    to report what had happened.
    Kristen S. encountered defendant again several nights later when she was at a
    tattoo shop having a “White power” design that was created by defendant tattooed
    on her buttocks. Defendant, who was hanging around the shop watching the tattoo
    artist at the time, slapped Kristen‟s buttocks repeatedly, saying it would help set
    the ink. When Kristen complained to defendant about his behavior, he forced her
    into the bathroom and made her sit on the toilet. Holding her there with one hand,
    he attempted with the other hand to inject drugs into his arm. While doing so,
    defendant drew his own blood with the syringe and started squirting it at Kristen‟s
    face, angrily saying that he did not like “mouthy girls” and warning her that if she
    continued to mouth off he “would slice her throat like he did to Trina.”
    i. Evidence regarding the sexual assault
    At a hearing concerning the admissibility of various uncharged sexual
    assaults, the court ruled that the incident with Kristin S. in defendant‟s bedroom
    was admissible as propensity evidence under Evidence Code sections 1108 and
    1101(b). The court found significant similarities between that event and the other
    68
    charged and uncharged crimes, and determined that the probative value of the
    evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effects.
    We uphold the court‟s ruling for reasons similar to those on which we
    rejected defendant‟s challenge to the court‟s refusal to sever the murder count
    from the sexual assault charges. (See ante, pts. II.A.3.a, II.A.4.)
    Evidence Code section 1108 permits the prosecutor in a sexual offense trial
    to present evidence of the defendant‟s other sexual offenses, so long as the other
    sexual offenses are not inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. As
    previously explained, defendant was accused in the present matter of sexual
    offenses against Katrina because it was alleged she was murdered during the
    commission of rape and oral copulation. In addition, he was charged with sexual
    offenses against Robyn. G. and Billie B. that fell within the scope of Evidence
    Code section 1108. (See Evid. Code, § 1108, subd. (d)(1) [listing rape, sexual
    penetration with a foreign object, and forcible oral copulation as qualifying sexual
    offenses].)
    Defendant does not dispute that he was being prosecuted for sexual offenses
    within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1108. He argues, however, that
    Kristen S.‟s testimony regarding the incident in the bedroom should not have been
    admitted under Evidence Code section 1108 or otherwise. Pointing to Kristen‟s
    heavy drug use at the time of the events in question and her failure to report the
    incident to authorities until long after it had occurred, he first asserts that her
    recollection of these events was so vague, disjointed, and inherently unreliable as
    to be inadmissible on that ground alone. It is well settled, however, that the
    reliability of a witness‟s testimony is a matter for the jury to decide and therefore
    concerns the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility. (People v.
    Anderson (2001) 
    25 Cal. 4th 543
    , 587.)
    69
    Defendant further contends that the incident as described by Kristen S., even
    if believed, did not amount to a sexual offense for purposes of admission under
    Evidence Code section 1108. Specifically, he argues there was no showing that
    defendant forced Kristen to do anything against her will or that the sexual
    encounter was otherwise nonconsensual. Defendant‟s characterization of the
    evidence is belied by the prosecution‟s offer of proof and Kristin‟s testimony at
    trial. Although Kristen acknowledged that she did not expressly refuse
    defendant‟s orders to perform various sexual acts or try to escape, she explained
    that she did not attempt to resist defendant because he had gotten “weird” and she
    was scared and confused. Given Kristen‟s vulnerability by being alone with
    defendant in his bedroom, and the testimony regarding her awareness of his
    membership in a violent skinhead gang, her acquiescence to and continued
    participation in sexual acts with defendant is not inconsistent with the conclusion
    that a forcible sexual assault occurred.
    Characterizing the sexual assault evidence as “yet another bizarre and
    disturbing incident” involving drugs and “strange sex” that created an “aura of evil
    around him,” defendant argues finally that the evidence was not properly admitted
    under Evidence Code section 1108 because it was “inadmissible pursuant to
    section 352.” (Evid. Code, § 1108, subd. (a).) A court has broad discretion to
    exclude, as substantially more prejudicial than probative, sexual offense evidence
    that meets the requirements for admission under Evidence Code section 1108, and
    its ruling in this regard is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. 
    Loy, supra
    ,
    52 Cal.4th at p. 61.)
    As previously explained in the discussion regarding defendant‟s challenge to
    the court‟s denial of his motion to sever the murder charge from the sexual assault
    offenses (see ante, pt. II.A.3.i.), a court considering the admissibility of evidence
    under Evidence Code section 1108 examines a number of specified factors to
    70
    determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the evidence in question
    substantially outweighs its probative value regarding defendant‟s propensity to
    commit the charged sexual offenses. (People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 61;
    
    Falsetta, supra
    , 21 Cal.4th at pp. 917-918.) Here, the relevant factors amply
    support the conclusion that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
    evidence of defendant‟s sexual assault of Kristen S. for purposes of showing
    defendant‟s propensity to commit the charged sexual assaults.
    First, the nature and quality of the offenses against Kristen S., each of which
    amounted to a forcible sexual assault, were identical to the nature and quality of
    the charged sexual offenses, suggesting their strong probative value as evidence of
    defendant‟s disposition to commit such crimes. Although the incident involving
    Kristen occurred several years after the sexual crimes against Katrina, it happened
    around the same time as the sexual assaults against Robyn. G. and Billie B. and
    showed defendant‟s continuing pattern of sexual crimes against the women who
    befriended him. (See People v. 
    Story, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th at p. 1293 [defendant‟s
    history of sexual assaults was probative of the sexual conduct that preceded
    defendant‟s strangulation of the victim].)
    We observe furthermore that the sexual assaults against Kristen S. bore many
    similarities to the charged offenses, further supporting the probative value of the
    evidence in question. Kristen, like Katrina, Robyn G., and Billie B., was, as
    described by the court, a “skinhead groupie” who considered defendant either a
    friend or a boyfriend. In addition, the assaults against all four victims involved a
    multiplicity of forced sexual activities and, in the case of Kristen, Robyn G., and
    Billie B., they were lengthy ordeals during much of which defendant flipped
    through pornographic magazines. Notably, and likely related to the manner in
    which Katrina escaped from defendant‟s home during the first unwanted sexual
    71
    encounter, defendant prevented all four victims from using the bathroom without
    his supervision.
    That defendant had not been charged and convicted of any sexual crimes in
    connection with the incident involving Kristen S. arguably increased the potential
    for undue prejudice because of the risk that the jury might want to convict
    defendant of the charged offenses because he had escaped punishment for his
    crimes against Kristen. We observe furthermore that because there was no prior
    conviction, defendant‟s commission of the offenses against Kristen was less
    certain and he bore some additional burden defending against that evidence.
    (See People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 61 [prior conviction for a sexual
    offense admitted as propensity evidence under Evid. Code, § 1108 diminishes its
    potential for prejudice].) None of these factors is dispositive, however. And
    although the incident in question may have been “bizarre and disturbing” as
    defendant asserts, it was not so horrendous as to have inflamed the jury. Nor did
    the prosecutor belabor its details at trial. Given the strong probative value of the
    evidence in question, the potential for prejudice did not overcome Evidence Code
    section 1108‟s presumption in favor of admissibility of the sexual offense
    evidence to show defendant‟s propensity to commit the charged sexual offenses.
    (See People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , at p. 62.)9
    ii. Tattoo parlor incident
    After extensive argument by the parties, and over defense objection, the court
    ruled that Kristen S. could testify about the incident at the tattoo parlor in its
    9      Like our resolution of defendant‟s challenge to the court‟s denial of his
    motion to sever trial on the murder count from trial on the sexual offense charges,
    we need not, and do not, address whether the court acted within its discretion in
    admitting the evidence under Evidence Code section 1101(b).
    72
    entirety. Although the court acknowledged that the evidence placed defendant in
    an unfavorable light, it found the prejudicial impact of the evidence was not
    outweighed by its significant probative value in providing context for defendant‟s
    admission. Kristen‟s eventual testimony at trial differed only slightly from the
    prosecution‟s offer of proof. She testified at trial that defendant, who was clad
    only in boxer shorts at the time, was angry at her for refusing to touch his penis
    and wanting to leave the bathroom.
    Defendant does not challenge the admissibility of his statement to Kristen S.
    to the effect that he “sliced” Katrina‟s throat. He argues, however, that the court‟s
    ruling admitting the facts surrounding the entire incident at the tattoo shop
    exposed the jury to irrelevant and highly prejudicial “criminal propensity”
    evidence forbidden under subdivision (a) of Evidence Code section 1101, and
    inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. For example, defendant asserts,
    the evidence that before he made the admission regarding Katrina he was injecting
    drugs and then using the syringe to squirt his own blood at Kristen demonstrated
    to the jury that he acted with depraved indifference to Kristen‟s life.
    Defendant‟s challenge to this evidence does not succeed. As defendant
    acknowledges, his unsolicited statement to Kristen S. about slicing Katrina‟s
    throat constituted an admission and was therefore properly allowed into evidence
    to show the identity of the perpetrator. (See People v. Robinson (2000) 
    85 Cal. App. 4th 434
    , 445.) Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding that
    admission were relevant because they placed his statement in context. (Ibid.) The
    jury was entitled to know, for example, that defendant‟s admission was made
    neither in passing nor in jest but rather for purposes of instilling fear in Kristen for
    refusing his demand for sexual stimulation.
    A “trial court,” of course, “has broad discretion” under Evidence Code
    section 352 “to exclude even relevant evidence „if its probative value is
    73
    substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will . . . create
    substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the
    jury.‟” (People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 893 [quoting Evid. Code].) But
    we cannot say that the tattoo parlor evidence was unduly prejudicial within the
    meaning of Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Karis (1988) 
    46 Cal. 3d 612
    ,
    638 [“ „ “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging” ‟ ”]; accord, People v.
    Lopez (2013) 
    56 Cal. 4th 1
    028, 1059.) Nor does defendant persuade us that the
    prejudicial impact of the complained-of evidence outweighed its strong probative
    value in giving context to his admission, particularly when that evidence is
    compared to other unsavory evidence properly before the jury, such as the horrific
    facts underlying the capital crime. (People v. Harris (2013) 
    57 Cal. 4th 804
    , 842;
    People v. Jones (2011) 
    51 Cal. 4th 346
    , 371.) We conclude the court did not abuse
    its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the incident at the tattoo shop.
    b. Testimony of Corie G.
    Before trial, the prosecutor also sought a ruling admitting evidence that
    defendant sexually assaulted Corie G. According to the prosecutor‟s offer of
    proof, defendant and Corie first started dating in 1988 when defendant was 15
    years old and she was two years his senior. Defendant, who was a member of the
    SHD gang at the time, was incarcerated during much of their relationship. On one
    occasion when he was not in custody, defendant held Corie against her will in the
    camper shell of a truck parked in front of a residence and forced her to engage in
    sexual intercourse. Although Corie told defendant she did not want to do so, she
    submitted because she believed if she did not let defendant do what he wanted, it
    was “gonna get bad” and defendant would become violent.
    At a hearing on the prosecutor‟s motion, the court expressed strong doubts
    that the incident was sufficiently similar to the charged offenses to justify its
    74
    admission under Evidence Code section 1101 (b). It concluded, however, that the
    dissimilarities did not render the evidence inadmissible under Evidence Code
    section 1108. Ruling that it would allow the evidence under the latter provision,
    the court explained that it found the incident was not inflammatory when
    compared to the other sexual crimes and that it was relevant to show defendant‟s
    treatment of women. Corie G.‟s testimony at trial was substantially the same as
    the prosecution‟s offer of proof, although she added that during the incident she
    yelled for her friends in a nearby house to help her but that no one came out. She
    also indicated during cross-examination that, after the incident, she continued to
    “hang out” with defendant and other SHD gang members and that she felt safe
    with defendant “because he was the toughest guy.”
    Defendant argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of the sexual
    assault against Corie G. because the evidence was substantially more prejudicial
    than probative. For reasons similar to those supporting the admission of evidence
    regarding the sexual crimes against Kristen S. (see ante, pt. II.C.1.a.), we conclude
    that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the challenged evidence. The
    probative value of the evidence in question was shown by the forcible nature and
    quality of the sexual offense, which mirrored the nature and quality of the charged
    sexual offenses. Although the incident had occurred five or more years before the
    sexual assaults against Katrina and the victims of the other charged crimes, the
    evidence was highly probative of defendant‟s lengthy history of sexually
    assaulting “skinhead groupies” who considered him a boyfriend or friend but
    feared a violent response if they refused his commands. As for the issue of
    prejudice, there is no question that forcible sexual intercourse is a serious and
    demeaning crime. However, the admission of evidence regarding the
    circumstances surrounding defendant‟s rape of Corie cannot be characterized as
    unduly prejudicial when compared to the facts underlying the charged crimes.
    75
    Defendant points out, correctly, that, like the sexual assault against Kristen, the
    incident involving Corie did not result in a prior conviction, which creates a
    potential for prejudice. Nor did the incident involve a demand for sexual acts
    other than intercourse or occur over an extended period of time, similar to some or
    all of the charged sexual offenses. These factors, however, do not compel the
    conclusion that the potential for prejudice by admitting the challenged evidence
    substantially outweighed its probative value, as described above. As previously
    mentioned, there is a strong presumption in favor of admitting sexual assault
    evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 to show propensity to commit
    charged crimes. (People v. 
    Loy, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 62.) Contrary to
    defendant‟s argument, the presumption of admissibility was not overcome as to
    the evidence of defendant‟s sexual assault against Corie.
    c. Testimony of Susan V.
    The prosecutor also sought admission of evidence regarding an incident that
    occurred after Katrina‟s murder, arguing that the evidence was admissible to show
    defendant‟s consciousness of guilt. Susan V. was a former girlfriend of
    defendant‟s. She also was a good friend of John Cundiff, an SHD gang member
    who was living with the Porchos at the time of Katrina‟s disappearance. About
    two years after Katrina disappeared, Susan had a conversation with Cundiff
    regarding that subject and defendant somehow became aware of their talk. About
    one week after Susan spoke with Cundiff, she drove to defendant‟s home to visit
    him. Defendant came out to the car and walked with Susan toward the house, then
    turned abruptly and punched her in the face with a closed fist. Susan ran back to
    the car and locked herself inside, but defendant followed, apologizing for hitting
    her, and telling her they needed to talk. Susan accepted the apology, got out of the
    car, and walked along with defendant. As they approached defendant‟s house,
    76
    however, defendant started punching her in the face again. Susan eventually
    ended up in defendant‟s room. During an ensuing conversation, defendant asked
    Susan what she had spoken to Cundiff about and then told her not to talk about
    Katrina again.
    The court admitted the proffered evidence, rejecting defense counsel‟s
    argument that presenting the incident in its entirety would show defendant‟s bad
    character and propensity for violence. The court acknowledged the prejudicial
    impact of evidence that defendant “sucker-punched” a woman and then lured her
    out of her car and did it a second time. But the court concluded that the inferences
    to be drawn from the incident had significant probative value that outweighed any
    prejudice, remarking that “[s]ome things we‟ve got to take as they allegedly
    happened and let the jury sort it out.”
    Citing to People v. Nelson (2008) 
    43 Cal. 4th 1242
    , defendant complains that
    the trial court abdicated its responsibility for deciding the admissibility of
    evidence by ruling that it would allow the jury to “sort it out.” We have no quarrel
    with defendant‟s contention that the task of resolving questions regarding the
    relevance of evidence is a “hallmark responsibility of the trial judge.” (Id. at p.
    1265.) Contrary to his assertion, however, the record of the court‟s ruling on the
    admissibility of the evidence regarding defendant‟s attack on Susan V., when read
    in its entirety, amply demonstrates that the court thoughtfully and carefully carried
    out its judicial obligation in this respect. Placed in context, the court‟s comment
    about letting the jury “sort it out” meant that the jury ultimately would determine
    the inferences to be drawn from the challenged evidence.
    We likewise reject defendant‟s substantive challenge to the admission of this
    evidence. Defendant‟s warning to Susan V. not to talk about Katrina‟s
    disappearance was highly probative of his consciousness of guilt and the central
    issue of his identity as the killer. Even more probative in this regard were the
    77
    violent assaults that preceded the warning. (See People v. McKinnon (2011) 
    52 Cal. 4th 610
    , 669 [evidence that the defendant‟s sister‟s threat to dissuade a witness
    was accompanied by a violent assault was more powerful than evidence the
    defendant had only verbally threatened the witness].) Defendant‟s sudden,
    unprovoked assault on a former girlfriend, coupled with the deceptive manner in
    which he coaxed her out of the car for a second beating, undoubtedly placed him
    in a negative light. But, in ruling the evidence admissible, the court acted well
    within its discretion in finding that its probative value substantially outweighed
    any prejudicial impact.
    2. Admission of Katrina’s out-of-court statements
    The court conducted a number of pretrial evidentiary hearings to decide
    whether to allow prosecution witnesses to relate Katrina‟s statements describing
    two incidents involving assaultive conduct by defendant that occurred several
    months prior to her disappearance. Defendant claims the court‟s rulings admitting
    the out-of-court statements violated state evidentiary law and his state and federal
    constitutional rights to due process and to confront the witnesses against him. We
    conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two of the
    statements in question. Although we will assume the court erred in admitting a
    third statement, we conclude its admission did not prejudice defendant. We
    conclude furthermore that the admission of the out-of-court statements did not
    deprive defendant of any constitutional rights.
    a. Spontaneous statements
    Two of the three out-of-court statements in question were admitted, for the
    truth of the matters asserted, under the spontaneous statement exception to the
    78
    hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1240.)10 The admissibility requirements for such
    out-of-court statements are well established. “ „(1) [T]here must be some
    occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the
    utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before
    there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous
    excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet
    in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the
    occurrence preceding it.‟ [Citations.]” (People v. Poggi (1988) 
    45 Cal. 3d 306
    ,
    318.) A statement meeting these requirements is “considered trustworthy, and
    admissible at trial despite its hearsay character, because „in the stress of nervous
    excitement, the reflective faculties may be stilled and the utterance may become
    the instinctive and uninhibited expression of the speaker‟s actual impressions and
    belief.‟ [Citation.]” (People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 925.)
    A number of factors may inform the court‟s inquiry as to whether the
    statement in question was made while the declarant was still under the stress and
    excitement of the startling event and before there was “time to contrive and
    misrepresent.” (People v. 
    Poggi, supra
    , 45 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Such factors include
    the passage of time between the startling event and the statement, whether the
    declarant blurted out the statement or made it in response to questioning, the
    declarant‟s emotional state and physical condition at the time of making the
    statement, and whether the content of the statement suggested an opportunity for
    10     Evidence Code section 1240 provides that “[e]vidence of a statement is not
    made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate,
    describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and
    [¶] (b) Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of
    excitement caused by such perception.”
    79
    reflection and fabrication. (People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 925, People v.
    Ramirez (2006) 
    143 Cal. App. 4th 1512
    , 1525.) This court has observed, however,
    that these factors “may be important, but solely as an indicator of the mental state
    of the declarant.” (People v. Farmer (1989) 
    47 Cal. 3d 888
    , 903-904.) For this
    reason, no one factor or combination of factors is dispositive. (People v. Gutierrez
    (2009) 
    45 Cal. 4th 789
    , 810; see, e.g., People v. 
    Poggi, supra
    , at p. 319 [a
    statement made calmly and coherently also may have been made spontaneously];
    People v. Trimble (1992) 
    5 Cal. App. 4th 1225
    , 1234 [the lapse of time between the
    startling event and the statement is not determinative of its spontaneity].)
    Whether an out-of-court statement meets the statutory requirements for
    admission as a spontaneous statement is generally a question of fact for the trial
    court, the determination of which involves an exercise of the court‟s discretion.
    (People v. 
    Poggi, supra
    , 45 Cal.3d at p. 318.) We will uphold the trial court‟s
    determination of facts when they are supported by substantial evidence and review
    for abuse of discretion its decision to admit evidence under the spontaneous
    statement exception. (People v. Lynch (2010) 
    50 Cal. 4th 693
    , 752; People v.
    Brown (2003) 
    31 Cal. 4th 518
    , 540-541.)
    i. Katrina’s statements to Shawna Torres
    The summary of facts in the prosecution‟s trial brief included a statement by
    Katrina‟s friend Shawna Torres regarding an incident that occurred when Katrina
    paid a visit to defendant shortly after his release from prison in the spring of 1992.
    According to Torres, Katrina wanted to make clear to defendant that she was not
    his girlfriend and to tell him to stop calling and writing her. Katrina was inside
    defendant‟s home for about 20 minutes while Torres waited in the truck. When
    Katrina returned, she was visibly upset and told Torres that defendant had grabbed
    80
    her by the neck and started choking her while his mother stood by and did nothing.
    Torres noticed red marks on Katrina‟s neck.
    The defense objected to the proposed testimony on the ground it was based
    upon inadmissible hearsay, and the prosecutor countered that Katrina‟s out-of-
    court statement qualified for admission under the spontaneous statement exception
    to the hearsay rule. At an initial hearing on the matter, in which the parties
    debated the admissibility of the evidence both under the excited utterance
    exception and under Evidence Code section 352, the court remarked that it found
    the probative value of the evidence “astronomical.” However, the court did not
    then issue a ruling, and granted a defense request to conduct a hearing at which
    Torres could be questioned regarding her anticipated testimony.
    At the hearing, Torres provided an account of events substantially similar to
    what had appeared in the prosecution‟s trial brief, adding that Katrina was both
    upset and “really angry” when she returned to the truck. At the conclusion of
    Torres‟s testimony, and after considering further argument by the parties, the court
    overruled the defense objections and concluded without elaboration that the entire
    incident was admissible under the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay
    rule. Torres testified at trial that Katrina told her that defendant “got upset” with
    her and then attacked her, and that she showed Torres the red marks on her neck.
    We conclude the court acted well within its discretion in finding Katrina‟s
    statements to Torres met the requirements of the spontaneous statement exception.
    Because Katrina‟s statement to Torres described a physical assault by defendant, it
    clearly satisfied the requirement that the statement in question relate to an
    occurrence that was startling enough to cause nervous excitement. The record also
    amply supports the trial court‟s finding that Katrina spoke to Torres while she was
    under the “stress of excitement” and before there was time to contrive or
    misrepresent what had happened. Torres testified that Katrina was in defendant‟s
    81
    house for only 20 minutes and that when she returned to the truck she was upset
    and angry. Torres testified further that Katrina immediately told her that
    defendant had tried to choke her while his mother stood by doing nothing, and
    Torres could see red marks on Katrina‟s neck.
    Defendant does not assert that Katrina‟s statement to Torres failed to satisfy
    any of the requirements for admission under Evidence Code section 1240. Rather,
    he raises a more general challenge to the statement‟s admissibility, arguing that
    Katrina‟s association with defendant and his violent and hateful gang, and her
    efforts to hide the truth of those affiliations from the other people in her life,
    “made contrivance and misrepresentation a way of life” and therefore rendered her
    statement to Torres innately unreliable.
    Defendant‟s argument is not well taken. Permitting the admission of an out-
    of-court statement satisfying all of the requirements of Evidence Code section
    1240 is based upon the long-held recognition that a statement uttered while under
    the stress of excitement interferes with the process of reflection and fabrication,
    and therefore is considered a true expression of the declarant‟s observations and
    impressions. (People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 925, People v. 
    Farmer, supra
    , 47 Cal.3d at p. 903.) Under defendant‟s reasoning, the statement of an
    individual who lives an “unreliable or unpredictable” lifestyle is always unreliable,
    no matter what the circumstances under which it was made. Such a proposition
    ignores the “crucial element” in determining the admissibility of a purportedly
    spontaneous statement, namely, the mental state of the speaker at the time the
    statement was uttered. (People v. 
    Gutierrez, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th at p. 811.)
    Although defendant‟s focus on Katrina‟s “dual life” may be relevant to the weight
    of the evidence in question, it has no bearing on its admissibility.
    We also reject defendant‟s assertion that the admission of Katrina‟s
    statements to Torres violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and to
    82
    confront the witnesses against him. Because the evidence was properly admitted
    under Evidence Code section 1240, its admission did not deprive defendant of due
    process. (People v. Riccardi (2012) 
    54 Cal. 4th 758
    , 809-810 [the “routine and
    proper application of state evidentiary law does not impinge on a defendant‟s due
    process rights”].) Nor did its admission violate the confrontation clause. (People
    v. Griffin (2004) 
    33 Cal. 4th 536
    , 579-580, fn. 19 [admission of the declarant‟s out-
    of-court statement to a friend at school does not implicate the confrontation clause
    because it is not “ „testimonial hearsay‟ within the meaning of” Crawford v.
    Washington (2004) 
    541 U.S. 36
    ].)
    ii. Katrina’s statements to her mother
    The admissibility of Katrina‟s statements to her mother regarding defendant‟s
    attempt to rape her presents a closer question. At an evidentiary hearing regarding
    the admissibility of those statements, Katrina‟s mother testified that their
    conversation took place one morning in the late spring or summer of 1992, the
    year of Katrina‟s disappearance. Katrina had returned from a weekend in Ventura.
    Shortly after her mother had arisen that morning, Katrina started following her
    around the house. She was acting nervous and “like something was upsetting
    her.” When they finally sat down together in Katrina‟s mother‟s bedroom, Katrina
    told her mother she wanted to talk about something that had happened to her in
    Ventura. According to Katrina‟s mother, Katrina seemed emotional, agitated,
    afraid, and “shocked at her own vulnerability.”
    Katrina‟s mother then testified regarding what Katrina said about the incident
    in question. Katrina told her that she had stopped by defendant‟s house the
    previous night to say hello. When the hour got late, defendant‟s mother suggested
    she stay overnight instead of driving back to Los Angeles and she accepted the
    offer. Katrina went to sleep in an extra bedroom, but awoke to find defendant in
    83
    bed with her making sexual advances. When she told defendant to stop, he
    responded that he knew she wanted it. She managed to flee by telling defendant,
    falsely, that she was sick and needed to use the bathroom. She went into the
    bathroom for a moment but then grabbed her things, ran out of the house, and got
    into her truck. As she was driving off, defendant came outside, yelling at her.
    Although Katrina‟s mother repeatedly stated that she believed the events
    Katrina described to her had occurred the previous night, she could not say so with
    absolute certainty and indicated that the incident could have happened the night
    before that. She also indicated during cross-examination that she was unsure
    whether Katrina had come home and gone to bed the night before their
    conversation or had arrived home that same morning.
    After considering further briefing and argument by the parties, the court ruled
    that Katrina‟s conversation with her mother was admissible as a spontaneous
    statement. The court noted that Katrina‟s mother was being “very cautious”
    regarding the timeframe but it found, as a factual matter, that the incident had
    occurred the night before Katrina‟s conversation with her mother, rather than two
    nights earlier. The court further found that the revelations in question had all the
    “earmarks” of the hearsay exception for spontaneous statements. In the court‟s
    view, Katrina would not have raised the issue with her mother at all “unless it was
    bothering her to the point where she was still under the stress of what happened.”
    The court was impressed by the testimony that Katrina had followed her mother
    around the house until she could talk to her alone, and it found Katrina “clearly”
    needed to get something “off her mind.” The court also noted, “based on
    everything [known] about this case up to that point,” how traumatic the incident
    appeared to have been for Katrina. The court found it significant that Katrina was
    the victim of the startling event rather than simply an eyewitness.
    84
    At trial, Katrina‟s mother‟s testimony regarding her conversation with
    Katrina was substantially similar to her testimony at the pretrial hearing.
    Like Katrina‟s statements to Shawna Torres, Katrina‟s statements to her
    mother described an assault by defendant, and therefore clearly satisfied the
    requirement that the statement in question relate to an incident that was startling
    enough to have caused nervous excitement. Defendant does not argue otherwise.
    Rather, he asserts that Katrina was no longer under the stress of the startling event
    when she recounted the sexual assault to her mother because their conversation
    occurred after a substantial amount of time, possibly as much as 36 hours, had
    elapsed.
    We observe at the outset that the trial court expressly found a shorter duration
    of time between the purported incident and the conversation, a determination we
    conclude is supported by substantial evidence. As the record shows, Katrina‟s
    mother repeatedly stated that she believed the incident Katrina described to her
    had happened the night before their conversation. Although Katrina‟s mother
    indicated that the events in question could have occurred one night before that, she
    said so only because she was not absolutely certain of the time frame. On this
    record, the court was entitled to find that her reference to a lengthier timeframe
    was made out of an abundance of caution and that it did not call into question her
    other testimony.
    We do not disagree with defendant that, in any event, an appreciable amount
    of time had elapsed between the sexual assault and Katrina‟s statements to her
    mother describing those events. Our cases suggest that allowing admission of a
    statement that was made approximately eight hours after the startling event may be
    the exception rather than the rule. (See, e.g., People v. 
    Lynch, supra
    , 50 Cal.4th at
    p. 754 [trial court erred in admitting murder victim‟s statement describing to her
    daughter the beating that had occurred more than one hour earlier]; see also
    85
    1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Hearsay, § 180, p. 1035 [statements made
    at a time substantially after the event are likely to be excluded].)
    For her part, the Attorney General argues that notwithstanding the passage of
    time following the sexual assault, Katrina‟s conversation with her mother may
    have been her first opportunity to disclose the traumatic event to a person whom
    she trusted. (See People v. 
    Trimble, supra
    , 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 1235 [the
    defendant‟s departure from the family‟s residence presented the first secure
    opportunity for the young child who had witnessed the fatal assault on her mother
    two days earlier to describe the incident to her mother‟s sister].)
    We need not decide whether the trial court reasonably determined that
    Katrina remained under the stress of the asserted sexual assault up to and
    including the time she disclosed to her mother the incident in question. Even
    assuming the court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to introduce
    the out-of-court statement, its admission does not require reversal because there is
    no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable
    result had the evidence been excluded from trial. (People v. 
    Gutierrez, supra
    , 45
    Cal.4th at p. 813; People v. Watson (1956) 
    46 Cal. 2d 818
    , 836.) The evidence
    regarding defendant‟s rape and murder of Katrina was strong, and included
    consistent accounts of the crimes by the two eyewitnesses, Bush and Nicassio.
    Other properly admitted evidence, such as the testimony of the sexual assault
    victims and Apryl Porcho, raised a strong inference that Katrina would not have
    consented to sexual activity with defendant on the night of the murder. Still other
    evidence, including Katrina‟s statement to her friend Torres and Nicassio‟s
    testimony that defendant repeatedly directed him to stab Katrina with a knife at the
    Porchos‟ party, showed that defendant had both engaged in and solicited prior acts
    of violence against Katrina. The admission of Katrina‟s statement to her mother
    describing a sexual assault in the guest room of defendant‟s house several months
    86
    before the murder, which comprised but a minor part of the prosecution‟s case,
    was cumulative of, and no more inflammatory than, the properly admitted
    evidence at trial. Any error in its admission did not prejudice defendant.
    Defendant asserts that the admission of this evidence infringed his federal
    constitutional right to due process. We have recognized that the admission of
    evidence in violation of state law may also violate due process, but only if the
    error rendered the defendant‟s trial fundamentally unfair. (People v. Partida
    (2005) 
    37 Cal. 4th 428
    , 439.) Defendant fails to show that the introduction of a
    hearsay statement describing an uncharged and unsuccessful attempt to sexually
    assault Katrina, even if erroneous, was so prejudicial as to render his trial unfair.
    For reasons previously discussed, we also reject defendant‟s further argument that
    the admission of Katrina‟s statement to her mother deprived him of his United
    States Constitution Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
    (See People v. 
    Gutierrez, supra
    , 45 Cal.4th at pp. 812-813 [three-year-old
    declarant‟s statement to his aunt was not testimonial and therefore did not
    implicate the defendant‟s rights under the confrontation clause, within the
    meaning of Crawford v. 
    Washington, supra
    , 
    541 U.S. 36
    ].)
    b. Statement by Katrina admitted for a nonhearsay purpose
    The court conducted another pretrial evidentiary hearing to consider the
    admissibility of a different out-of-court statement by Katrina concerning the same
    sexual assault that she previously had described to her mother. According to
    Katrina‟s girlfriend, Lee Jensen, Katrina called her “within a few days” of the
    incident, crying and upset. She told Jensen that defendant had gotten on top of her
    and when she told him to get off, he covered her mouth with his hand and started
    pulling off her boxers. When Katrina then convinced defendant she was starting
    87
    to feel sick and needed to visit the bathroom, she left the guest room, grabbed her
    purse, and ran out of the house.
    The court ruled that Katrina‟s statement to Jensen was not admissible as a
    spontaneous statement because the evidence did not meet the statutory
    requirements for admission under that exception to the hearsay rule. (See
    discussion ante, pt. II.C.2.a.) Just before Jensen‟s testimony at trial, however, and
    over defense objection, the court granted the prosecutor‟s request to allow him to
    question the witness about Katrina‟s statements for the purpose of showing
    Katrina‟s state of mind regarding whether she would have consented to sexual
    intercourse with defendant. The court qualified its ruling by directing the
    prosecutor to ask Jensen about the incident without giving the details.
    In accordance with the court‟s ruling, the prosecutor asked Jensen whether
    Katrina had disclosed to her that “something had happened” at defendant‟s house
    in the summer of 1992. Jensen replied, “Yes.” The court interrupted the
    prosecutor‟s continued questioning to give a limiting instruction, informing the
    jurors that the witness‟s reference to an incident at defendant‟s house was being
    admitted, not for its truth, but to illustrate Katrina‟s state of mind toward
    defendant.11
    11      The court instructed the jury as follows. “The last testimony appears to be
    in reference to something that you heard from Mrs. Montgomery as well, an
    incident, and to the extent this witness has referred to it, the out-of-court
    statements by Katrina Montgomery that this witness has referred to are not offered
    for their truth, that is, not offered and not to be considered by you to prove this
    incident happened but for whatever light they may or may not shed about Katrina
    Montgomery‟s state of mind in relation to the defendant at the time in question.
    [¶] As opposed to this limiting instruction, the previous testimony by Mrs.
    Montgomery about Katrina Montgomery relating the details of an incident that
    took place when she allegedly fled the defendant‟s house, that evidence can be
    considered by you for the truth of the matter, that is, evidence that what was said
    (footnote continued on next page)
    88
    We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of
    Katrina‟s disclosure to her friend that “something had happened” at defendant‟s
    house. As the court made clear, the evidence was not being admitted to establish
    that defendant had in fact sexually assaulted Katrina on a previous occasion.
    Admitting the evidence for that purpose would have contravened the hearsay rule.
    Rather, the disclosure was allowed as circumstantial evidence of Katrina‟s then-
    existing state of mind for the nonhearsay purpose of showing she would not have
    consented to sexual activity with defendant on the night of the murder. “In the
    case of forcible rape, evidence of any circumstance that makes it less plausible that
    the victim consented to sexual intercourse is relevant. [Citations.]” (People v.
    
    Harris, supra
    , 57 Cal.4th at p. 843 [letters written by the rape-murder victim to a
    friend one week before her murder in which she described her and her boyfriend‟s
    future plans together was circumstantial evidence of the victim‟s then state of
    mind and properly admitted for the purpose of showing she would not have had
    consensual sex with another person].)
    We have observed that statements admitted for a nonhearsay purpose present
    an increased risk of prejudice “if the jury is unable to distinguish between the truth
    of the matters asserted and the inferences concerning the declarant‟s state of
    mind.” (People v. 
    Riccardi, supra
    , 54 Cal.4th at p. 823.) The potential for such
    prejudice, however, did not outweigh the probative value of the state of mind
    (footnote continued from previous page)
    did happen, if you accept it. [¶] Of course, it‟s up to you whether to do that or
    not, as it is as to all factual issues.” Even assuming the court erred in admitting
    under the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule Katrina‟s out-of-
    court statement to her mother, the court‟s reference to that evidence in the limiting
    instruction did not prejudice defendant, for the reasons discussed ante, in part
    II.C.2.a.ii.
    89
    evidence in this case. Almost immediately after the testimony in question, the
    court instructed the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence could be
    considered. We find nothing in the record that would rebut the presumption that
    the jury followed the court‟s directive. (People v. Cox (2003) 
    30 Cal. 4th 916
    ,
    963.)
    Pointing to the trial court‟s finding that Katrina‟s statements to Jensen failed
    to satisfy the requirements for admission as a spontaneous statement, defendant
    complains that if the evidence was so unreliable as to fall outside that hearsay
    exception, it should be inadmissible for all purposes. Defendant‟s argument,
    which ignores the limited, nonhearsay purpose for which the testimony in question
    was admitted, is contrary to law. The evidence was admitted for a purpose other
    than for the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore need not have met the
    reliability requirements of a hearsay exception. (See People v. Letner and Tobin
    (2010) 
    50 Cal. 4th 99
    , 157 [because the defendant‟s statement was properly
    admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of showing his consciousness of guilt, it was
    unnecessary to show that it met the requirements for admission under Evid. Code,
    § 1221, the adoptive-admission exception to the hearsay rule]; People v. Jablonski
    (2006) 
    37 Cal. 4th 774
    , 820-821 [murder victim‟s statement that she feared the
    defendant was not admissible under the state of mind hearsay exception set out in
    Evid. Code § 1250 to establish she was actually fearful of him, but was relevant to,
    and admissible for, the nonhearsay purpose of its effect on the defendant‟s mental
    state when going to visit the victims].) Defendant‟s challenge to the reliability of
    Katrina‟s statement to Jensen, at most, goes to the weight of the evidence, and not
    its admissibility.
    Defendant‟s argument that the admission of Katrina‟s statement to Jensen
    deprived him of his federal constitutional rights likewise fails. An out-of-court
    statement properly admitted for a limited nonhearsay purpose does not render a
    90
    trial fundamentally unfair in violation of a defendant‟s Fifth Amendment right to
    due process. (People v. Livingston (2012) 
    53 Cal. 4th 1145
    , 1163.) Nor does it
    deprive a defendant of the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses
    against him within the meaning. (Crawford v. 
    Washington, supra
    , 541 U.S. at
    p. 60, fn. 9; People v. Cage (2007) 
    40 Cal. 4th 965
    , 975, fn. 6.)
    3. Admission of evidence defendant was in possession of a stolen car
    Defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to elicit
    testimony that defendant was in possession of a stolen car on the morning of the
    hours-long standoff with police that ended with his arrest. As we explain, the
    court did not abuse its considerable discretion in admitting the evidence.
    a. Background
    As previously discussed in part II.A., the defense brought a pretrial motion to
    sever trial on the murder count from trial on all other charges, including the
    various counts stemming from the incident in January 1998 that preceded
    defendant‟s arrest. In arguing for the severance of those crimes, the defense
    presented an extensive offer of proof that defendant was not the person who police
    had attempted to stop for riding a bicycle at night without a headlight. According
    to the defense brief, on the morning that preceded the incident, defendant‟s friend
    Naomi Sponza let him borrow her Ford Escort. Defendant used the vehicle to visit
    the homes of assorted friends and acquaintances in the vicinity, and a number of
    witnesses stated they had seen him driving the Ford that day. Later in the evening,
    defendant drove to a residence where his girlfriend was socializing and parked the
    car in front. Around the same time, and in close proximity to where defendant had
    just parked, police were pursuing an individual who fled on foot after being
    approached for the headlight violation. Witnesses told defense investigators that
    the individual running from police was not defendant. According to the defense
    91
    brief, the day after defendant had been taken into custody, his friend Sponza
    retrieved her vehicle from the spot where defendant had left it.
    Although the defense ultimately did not present the proffered evidence at
    trial, some of it was presented in the prosecution‟s case-in-chief during the
    testimony of defendant‟s acquaintance, Roy Miller. Miller testified in relevant
    part that he was with defendant earlier in the day before the standoff with police
    that evening.
    During cross-examination, the defense asked Miller for further details
    regarding his activities with defendant on the morning of the day the standoff
    occurred. Miller indicated that he and defendant had been partying and using
    drugs at someone‟s house the night before and parted company around 9:00 a.m.
    When defense counsel asked how defendant left the house, Miller indicated that he
    saw defendant and another individual drive off in a car.
    The prosecutor followed up on that point during redirect examination,
    eliciting from Miller that defendant had asked him to drive the car to someone‟s
    house. When the prosecutor then asked the witness whether defendant told him
    where he had gotten the car, the trial court sustained a defense relevancy
    objection.
    The court reversed its ruling, however, after hearing further argument from
    the parties at a sidebar conference. At that time, the prosecutor indicated that his
    question would elicit from Miller that the car was stolen and that defendant
    wanted Miller to help him sell it. The prosecutor argued that the evidence was
    relevant because the defense had opened the door to that issue by asking how
    defendant had left the party in the morning. The trial court agreed with the
    prosecutor, finding the evidence relevant because defense counsel‟s question
    regarding defendant‟s departure suggested the defense would be pursuing the
    theory, disclosed to the prosecution during discovery, that because defendant was
    92
    driving a car on the day of the standoff, he could not have been the person on the
    bicycle who fled from the officers.
    When questioning resumed, the prosecutor elicited from Miller that
    defendant told him the car was stolen and asked him to help drive the vehicle to
    someone‟s house to get rid of it. When defense counsel asked Miller during
    recross-examination whether defendant informed him that Naomi Sponza had
    given him the car, he replied, “I don‟t think so.” Defense counsel did not later call
    Sponza as a witness or present any other evidence during the defense case to
    challenge the testimony identifying defendant as the person officers approached
    for riding without a headlight and, in closing argument, the defense conceded
    defendant‟s guilt of the charges stemming from the incident that preceded his
    arrest.
    b. Discussion
    Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. (Evid. Code, § 350.) Under
    Evidence Code section 210, relevant evidence is evidence “having any tendency in
    reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the
    determination of the action.” A trial court has “considerable discretion” in
    determining the relevance of evidence. (People v. Williams (2008) 
    43 Cal. 4th 584
    ,
    634.) Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352
    to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the
    evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects. (People v.
    
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 893.) An appellate court reviews a court‟s rulings
    regarding relevancy and admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse
    of discretion. (People v. Linton (2013) 
    56 Cal. 4th 1
    146, 1181.) We will not
    reverse a court‟s ruling on such matters unless it is shown “ „the trial court
    exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that
    93
    resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.‟ [Citation.]” (People v. 
    Brown, supra
    , 31 Cal.4th at p. 534.)
    Defendant contends the trial court‟s ruling was in error because the defense
    had not placed before the jury the issue whether or not defendant was driving a car
    on the morning of his arrest. Defendant‟s argument misses the mark. The issue in
    dispute was not simply whether defendant was driving a car that morning but
    rather whether it could be inferred from his possession of a car at that time that he
    would not have been riding a bicycle later in the evening. Evidence that defendant
    solicited Miller‟s help early in the morning to unload a stolen vehicle was relevant
    to counter that inference.
    It is true that at the time of the trial court‟s ruling the defense had not
    presented any affirmative evidence in support of the theory, advanced prior to
    trial, that defendant was not the person stopped by police for a bicycle headlight
    violation. The trial court reasonably found, however, that the defense had begun
    to lay the groundwork for raising the inferences upon which its misidentification
    theory was premised by asking the witness during cross-examination what
    defendant did when they parted company on the morning in question. Although
    the defense ultimately declined to challenge the testimony identifying defendant as
    the bicyclist stopped by police, counsel represented to the court at the time of its
    ruling that the defense “may or may not go there.” On this record, we conclude
    that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence regarding
    defendant‟s possession of a stolen car relevant and admissible, on redirect
    examination, to counter the inferences supporting a defense theory that counsel
    had started to develop during cross-examination. (See Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th
    ed. 2012) Presentation at Trial, § 268, p. 385 [purpose of redirect examination is,
    among others, to rebut inferences developed during cross-examination].)
    94
    Defendant further contends that even if the evidence in question bore some
    relevance to a disputed issue at trial, it should have been excluded as unduly
    prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352 because it branded him as a criminal.
    We disagree. The evidence regarding the events that culminated in defendant‟s
    arrest included defendant‟s assaults on officers and his destruction of the interior
    of the house in which he had barricaded himself. Miller‟s brief testimony that
    defendant was in possession of a stolen vehicle on the morning of that incident
    would not have “ „tend[ed] to evoke an emotional bias against [him] as an
    individual‟ ” and would have had “ „very little effect on the issues.‟ ” (People v.
    
    Karis, supra
    , 46 Cal.3d at p. 638.)
    4. Admission of evidence attacking defense witness’s credibility
    Defendant‟s mother, Beverlee Sue Merriman, was the principal witness for
    the defense at the guilt phase. Defendant contends the trial court erred in
    overruling a defense objection and permitting the prosecutor to challenge his
    mother‟s credibility with irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that defendant had
    asked her to facilitate certain possibly illegal activities for him. We conclude that
    the court‟s ruling was proper.
    a. Background
    As previously noted, defendant‟s mother was charged with conspiring with
    defendant and others to dissuade the witnesses who testified against defendant at
    the grand jury proceeding that led to his indictment for murder. During trial on the
    charges against Ms. Merriman, she was shown a transcript of the recorded
    conversation between defendant and Nicassio in which defendant implicated
    himself in Katrina‟s murder by instructing Nicassio to say Katrina‟s body went
    over the catwalk, rather than through the house, so as not to involve his mother.
    Sobbing uncontrollably after reading the transcript, Ms. Merriman said she “didn‟t
    95
    know” and apologized, first to the prosecutor and then to Katrina‟s mother. The
    following day she pleaded guilty to the charges.
    In the course of the prosecutor‟s cross-examination of Ms. Merriman at
    defendant‟s trial, the court held a hearing outside the jury‟s presence to rule on the
    prosecutor‟s request to place into evidence a letter defendant wrote to his mother
    from jail chastising her for thinking she was guilty of the charges against her. The
    prosecutor pointed out that shortly after receiving that letter, defendant‟s mother
    told a probation officer she was not guilty of the charges but pleaded guilty
    because her counsel told her to. The letter impeached the witness‟s credibility, the
    prosecutor argued, because it showed Ms. Merriman would say and do whatever
    defendant wanted her to say and do. The court allowed the prosecutor to ask
    Ms. Merriman about some portions of the letter.
    When cross-examination resumed, the prosecutor elicited from
    Ms. Merriman that she had received a letter from defendant in which he told her
    he was upset about her guilty plea. She denied, however, that the letter caused her
    to tell the probation officer she was not guilty. Defendant‟s mother agreed with
    the prosecutor that when defendant asked her for something, she would do her best
    to get it for him. When the prosecutor then asked her whether she would agree to
    carry out defendant‟s wishes even if the requests involved illegal activity, the
    defense objected on relevance and prejudice grounds and the court held a sidebar
    conference.
    Outside the earshot of the jurors, the prosecutor proffered a number of letters
    from defendant to his mother that were written while defendant was in custody. In
    one series of letters, defendant asked her to retrieve a .45-caliber gun from
    someone. In another exchange, defendant wanted his mother to fill out paperwork
    in order for him to receive disability benefits on his release from prison. The court
    agreed with defense counsel that these activities were not illegal. However, it
    96
    found the evidence relevant to illustrate the prosecutor‟s point regarding the
    witness‟s relationship with defendant, and ruled it would allow a “brief inquiry.”
    Before questioning resumed in open court, the court directed the jury to
    disregard the prosecutor‟s previous reference to criminal behavior. The court then
    admitted into evidence several letters from defendant to his mother that
    Ms. Merriman read aloud to the jury. In one of the letters, defendant wrote in
    relevant part, “What up with that .45? Did you go and pick it up . . . from Mike‟s
    friend yet? No. Okay. I didn‟t think so. So this is another reminder, go pick
    up — go pick the gun up. I am not going — I am not giving my gun to them, ha-
    ha, no way.” In another letter, defendant asked his mother to help him with
    paperwork for government disability benefits, saying he could receive a monthly
    check for $700 once he was released from prison. Defendant wrote, “I‟m going to
    talk with a psych while I‟m here at Wasco [State Prison]. They always want to put
    you on those dummy pills that make me shuffle and sleep all day. I‟ll act like I
    swallowed „em, and spit „em out in the toilet when I get on my way with it. For
    700 — for $700 bills a month, why not?” In response to the prosecutor‟s question
    whether she helped defendant with his disability benefits application,
    Ms. Merriman said, “Yes and no,” adding that defendant needed assistance for a
    surgery that she could not afford.
    During closing argument, the prosecutor returned to the subject of
    interactions between defendant and his mother, remarking that the relationship
    between defendant and Ms. Merriman was relevant to her credibility because the
    person in control was defendant and he had “completely skewed her reality about
    what‟s going on in the world.” The prosecutor illustrated the point, not by
    referring to the letters concerning the .45-caliber gun or the disability benefits
    application, but rather by replaying a taped conversation at jail between defendant
    and his mother in which Ms. Merriman told defendant she was planning to give a
    97
    refrigerator to defendant‟s sister but changed her mind when defendant expressed
    his disapproval.
    b. Discussion
    Defendant contends that the trial court‟s ruling admitting evidence that he
    asked his mother to carry out on his behalf potentially criminal activity relating to
    firearms and disability benefits fraud permitted the jury to hear even more
    evidence of uncharged offenses having no bearing on Katrina‟s murder. More
    specifically, he argues that the letters in question are akin to the improper evidence
    that led to reversal of the defendant‟s voluntary manslaughter conviction in People
    v. Ortiz (1979) 
    95 Cal. App. 3d 926
    . The Court of Appeal in Ortiz concluded the
    trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the prosecutor to elicit and
    comment upon irrelevant and highly inflammatory testimony describing in detail
    how the defendant performed animal sacrifices in connection with his membership
    in a religious cult. (Id. at pp. 933-936.) In reversing the defendant‟s conviction,
    the appellate court concluded that the defendant‟s religious practice was irrelevant
    to any issue in the case (
    id. at p.
    933), and that the prosecutor‟s repeated reference
    to animal sacrifices posed a substantial danger of undue prejudice because it
    “create[d] a negative image of defendant in the minds of the jury.” (Id. at p. 934.)
    Contrary to defendant‟s contention, Ortiz is distinguishable from the present
    matter in important respects. Unlike in Ortiz, the evidence in question here was
    relevant in that it bolstered the prosecutor‟s attack on Ms. Merriman‟s credibility,
    that is, it tended to show she would do and say anything defendant told her to do
    and say. (See Evid. Code, § 210.) Furthermore, unlike in Ortiz, there was no risk
    of undue prejudice from the admission of the letters. The prosecutor‟s cross-
    examination in this regard was brief and mostly involved having Ms. Merriman
    read the letters aloud to the jury. Notably, the prosecutor did not refer to the
    98
    letters at all during closing remarks. Given the minor role this evidence played in
    the prosecutor‟s vigorous attempts to cast doubt on Ms. Merriman‟s veracity, and
    the court‟s admonition to the jury to disregard the prosecutor‟s question describing
    the evidence as requests to engage in criminal activities, defendant fails to
    persuade that the admission of the letters asking his mother to retrieve a gun and to
    help him apply for disability benefits were likely to have created such “a negative
    image of [him] in the minds of the jury” (People v. 
    Ortiz, supra
    , 95 Cal.App.3d at
    p. 934) as to outweigh the probative value of the evidence. We conclude there
    was no error in the court‟s implied finding under Evidence Code section 352
    permitting the evidence for purposes of impeaching the defense‟s main witness.
    5. Admission of items seized from defendant’s bedroom
    Defendant next challenges the admission of two pornographic magazines and
    two Polaroid photographs showing defendant and a fellow gang member with
    knives in their hands, all of which were seized during a search of his bedroom five
    years after Katrina‟s disappearance.
    Well-settled law governs our review of the trial court‟s rulings admitting the
    evidence in question. As previously explained, a trial court is authorized to admit
    only relevant evidence, that is, evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove
    or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
    action.” (Evid. Code, § 210; see 
    id., § 350.)
    A trial court has considerable
    discretion to exclude even relevant evidence, however, if it determines the
    probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible
    prejudicial effects. (Evid. Code, § 352; see People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at
    p. 893.) A trial court‟s rulings in this regard will be upheld on appeal unless it is
    shown “ „the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or
    patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.‟
    99
    [Citation.]” (People v. 
    Brown, supra
    , 31 Cal.4th at p. 534.) For the reasons
    explained below, we conclude defendant fails to show an abuse of discretion.
    a. Pornographic magazines
    During the prosecution‟s case-in-chief, the court considered the admissibility
    of two pornographic magazines proffered by the prosecutor as a representative
    sample of the 100-plus pornographic magazines discovered by investigators
    during their search of defendant‟s bedroom. One of the magazines was an adult
    sexual fantasy comic book with an “evil woman” theme that included illustrations
    of scantily clad, seductively posed women with exaggerated features. The other
    magazine was a copy of Bridled, which featured staged photographs of nude adult
    women who had been gagged and bound, with some of the photographs
    suggesting the subjects were being whipped. The court did not disagree with
    defense counsel that most people would find such images “disgusting.” The court
    was persuaded, however, that the magazines were admissible to confirm the
    testimony of the alleged sexual assault victims, whose testimony had been
    vigorously challenged by the defense during cross-examination. The court also
    found the magazines relevant to rebut character evidence, also elicited by the
    defense, that some of the female witnesses considered defendant a “good guy.”
    The magazines were admitted into evidence a short time later during the
    testimony of Detective Volpei, the investigator who conducted the search of
    defendant‟s bedroom. Volpei provided a brief description of the magazines‟
    contents and informed the jury that he had found over 100 such publications in
    defendant‟s dresser drawer. The two magazines were not provided to the jury at
    that time, however.
    Contrary to defendant‟s assertion, the court could reasonably find that the
    two pornographic magazines seized from his bedroom were relevant. Billie B.,
    100
    Robyn G., and Kristen S. each testified that defendant forced her to orally copulate
    or masturbate him while he flipped through pornographic magazines. The
    evidence of defendant‟s extensive collection of such material tended to
    corroborate their testimony regarding the circumstances of the sexual assaults.
    (See People v. Gann (1968) 
    259 Cal. App. 2d 706
    , 713 [numerous photographs
    depicting nude men and women engaged in sexual intercourse that were seized
    from the defendant‟s residence were properly admitted to corroborate the
    molestation victims‟ reports that they had been shown such photographs before the
    lewd acts occurred]; cf. People v. Scheid (1997) 
    16 Cal. 4th 1
    , 15 [crime scene
    photograph was relevant to illustrate and corroborate the witnesses‟ testimony
    regarding the circumstances of the crime].) Because the pornographic magazine
    evidence tended to corroborate the sexual assault victims‟ testimony, it was highly
    probative of the factual similarities between the sexual assaults. As previously
    discussed, the similarities between these incidents, in turn, tended to show
    defendant‟s propensity to commit such crimes. (Evid. Code, § 1108; see
    discussion ante, pt. II.C.1.)
    Defendant argues that evidence he possessed pornographic magazines would
    have been sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the sexual assault victims in
    this regard, and there was no need for the prosecutor to present the actual contents
    of these materials. It is true that the prosecutor could have asked Investigator
    Volpei merely to describe the magazines‟ contents instead of moving the court to
    admit those materials for the jury‟s possible inspection during deliberations. Our
    decisions make clear, however, that the court is not required to exclude
    photographic or other documentary evidence simply because the images they
    depict could have been described by a witness. (People v. Michaels (2002)
    
    28 Cal. 4th 486
    , 532 [evidence that was cumulative of testimony could assist the
    jury in evaluating the testimony]; People v. 
    Scheid, supra
    , 16 Cal.4th at p. 19.) So
    101
    long as the probative value of graphic or disturbing material is not substantially
    outweighed by its prejudicial effects, a prosecutor is entitled to use such evidence
    to “present a persuasive and forceful case.” (People v. Booker (2011) 
    51 Cal. 4th 141
    , 171.)
    Regarding the potential prejudicial impact, defendant argues that the
    pornography was highly inflammatory evidence that portrayed him as a person of
    low moral character. We have recognized that certain sexually explicit magazines
    and photographs “would undoubtedly be disturbing to most people.” (People v.
    Memro (1995) 
    11 Cal. 4th 786
    , 865.) On the record before us, however, it cannot
    be said that the risk of undue prejudice from the magazine evidence outweighed its
    probative value in corroborating the testimony of witnesses whose veracity was
    being vigorously challenged by the defense. Although the stylized illustrations of
    “evil women” and images of staged bondage arguably carried a risk of evoking an
    emotional bias from the jury, it is unlikely that the effect of this evidence would
    have produced a reaction that differed in any significant respect from the impact of
    the witnesses‟ testimony describing the degrading and humiliating circumstances
    of the sexual assaults against them. This court has recognized that evidence of
    pornography “may threaten to distract jurors from potentially more probative
    evidence and to consume undue amounts of time.” (People v. Page (2008)
    
    44 Cal. 4th 1
    , 41, fn. 17.) No such concerns are presented here, however. The
    pornography evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing witness
    credibility, it did not require further explanation or additional evidence, and its
    presentation comprised only a small part of the prosecution‟s case-in-chief. We
    conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value
    of the pornography evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for
    undue prejudice.
    102
    b. Photographs of defendant holding knives
    The prosecutor initially sought admission of two photographs that were taken
    in defendant‟s bedroom one or more years after Katrina‟s disappearance. After
    conducting a hearing, the court excluded one photograph and admitted the other.
    The court found unduly prejudicial and refused to admit a staged photograph that
    depicted defendant and a fellow gang member holding knives to each other‟s
    throats. Over defense objection, the court admitted the other photograph, which
    showed a hacksaw in the background and defendant and fellow gang member,
    Mitch Buley, with knives in their hands. The court agreed with the prosecutor that
    the image was probative of defendant‟s access to knives and tools in his bedroom.
    The photograph was admitted into evidence a short time later and handed to the
    jurors for their examination.
    For the next two days, the jury heard testimony by Ryan Bush, one of the two
    eyewitnesses to Katrina‟s killing. During the course of that testimony, and over
    defense objection, the court granted the prosecutor‟s request to admit another
    photograph that had been seized during the search of defendant‟s bedroom. That
    image, also taken in defendant‟s bedroom, showed Buley holding a hacksaw to
    defendant‟s head in a mock threat and defendant pointing a small knife toward the
    camera. The court found the photograph probative on the subject of defendant‟s
    use of a smaller sized knife in the alleged murder, an issue the court believed had
    become more prominent after defense counsel‟s cross-examination of Bush. The
    court explained furthermore that the proffered evidence was much less prejudicial
    than the photograph it had previously ruled inadmissible because defendant is not
    being shown holding a knife to someone‟s neck. When the prosecution‟s case
    resumed, the photograph was admitted into evidence and shown to the jury.
    Defendant asserts that the court erred in admitting the photographs of him
    and his fellow gang member because the presence of knives and a hacksaw in his
    103
    bedroom one or more years after Katrina‟s disappearance tended to prove no fact
    at issue in the case. We observe in this regard that the prosecution did not advance
    the theory at trial that defendant used the knives or the hacksaw depicted in the
    photographs to murder Katrina. (Cf. People v. Champion (1995) 
    9 Cal. 4th 879
    ,
    924 [photographs of both defendants holding the type of gun used in killing one of
    the victims were “obviously relevant”]; People v. Rinegold (1970) 
    13 Cal. App. 3d 711
    , 720 [“an implement by means of which it is likely that a crime was
    committed is admissible in evidence if it has been connected with the
    defendant”].)
    This court also has observed, however, that evidence of weapons
    unconnected to the crime may be relevant for other purposes. (People v. Prince
    (2007) 
    40 Cal. 4th 1179
    , 1249; People v. Cox (2003) 
    30 Cal. 4th 916
    , 955-956.)
    In the present case, the photographs were relevant in that they tended to show
    defendant kept knives and tools in his bedroom, which in turn tended to
    corroborate the testimony of the eyewitnesses Nicassio and Bush regarding
    defendant‟s fatal attack on Katrina. Defense counsel vigorously cross-examined
    Bush regarding his recollection of defendant coming up behind Katrina with a
    knife and stabbing her in the throat, which arguably called into question his
    account of the incident. (People v. Sassounian (1986) 
    182 Cal. App. 3d 361
    , 401-
    402 [photographs of the defendant in battle fatigues and holding various firearms
    weapons were relevant because they tended to corroborate the testimony of the
    prosecution‟s primary witness in the face of substantial attacks by the defense
    during cross-examination].) Contrary to defendant‟s argument, the photographs
    were not admitted simply to ascribe to him additional antisocial behavior. (See
    People v. 
    Prince, supra
    , 40 Cal.4th at p. 1249 [evidence of knives seized from the
    defendant‟s vehicle was relevant to his commission of crimes other than the
    murder and did not simply constitute bad character evidence].)
    104
    As for whether the trial court erred by not excluding the photographs as being
    more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352, we conclude
    the court did not abuse its broad discretion in this regard. The probative value of
    the evidence for purposes of corroborating the eyewitnesses‟ testimony was
    arguably limited, given that the photographs were taken at a time well after the
    killing. On the other side of the equation, however, the photographs were neither
    unduly inflammatory nor likely to engender an emotional response by the jury. As
    the court pointed out when ruling the evidence admissible, neither of the
    photographs showed defendant threatening anyone with a knife. Furthermore,
    other testimony presented at trial indicated that defendant and his fellow gang
    members routinely wielded knives and other weapons. For example, the
    prosecution‟s gang expert informed the jury that between 1994 and 1998, eight
    members of the SHD gang had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
    Indeed, the jury heard evidence that defendant used a large knife to slash wildly at
    officers who were attempting to apprehend him when he temporarily exited the
    tear-gas-filled house in which he had barricaded himself to avoid arrest. The court
    reasonably could determine that, on balance, the probative value of the photograph
    evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. No
    abuse of discretion appears.
    6. Admission of evidence that prosecution witnesses were reluctant to
    testify
    Defendant contends the court erred by allowing the prosecutor to elicit from
    seven prosecution witnesses that they were nervous and reluctant to testify. As we
    explain, defendant has forfeited his claim of error regarding all but two of the
    witnesses in question and his contention lacks merit in any event.
    105
    a. Background
    To support the vandalism count, the prosecution called Jennifer Bowkley to
    testify regarding defendant‟s actions inside the house in which he had barricaded
    himself prior to his arrest. At the outset of that testimony the prosecutor asked the
    witness how she was feeling. She responded that she was nervous and scared and
    “wanted to forget that night.” When the witness agreed with the prosecutor that
    she did not want to be in court, defense counsel moved to strike her answer as
    irrelevant. The court overruled the objection without comment, and the prosecutor
    elicited from the witness that after she had been subpoenaed she told investigators
    that she did not want to have anything to do with the case.
    Without objection, sexual assault victims Billie B., Susan V., Robyn G., and
    Robyn G.‟s friend, Elaine Byrd, likewise indicated at the outset of direct
    examination that they were nervous. Billie B., Corie G., Robyn G., and Kristin S.
    also expressed reluctance to openly discuss the sexual assaults against them. For
    example, before testifying regarding the details of the sexual assaults, Billie B.
    stated that the incidents were something she would “rather not talk about in front
    of people.”
    The prosecutor asked two of these witnesses whether testifying at trial was
    more difficult and stressful than testifying at the grand jury proceeding. Over
    defense counsel‟s relevancy objection, Corie G. stated that giving trial testimony
    was harder for her because defendant and his mother were “right there.” Without
    objection, Robyn G. testified to the contrary that she was more nervous testifying
    in front of the grand jury because she did not want to be labeled a rat. On further
    questioning, she indicated that she had asked to be excused from that proceeding
    because she was scared, embarrassed, and trying not to be involved.
    Also without objection, the prosecutor elicited from two witnesses that they
    felt fearful testifying in court. Billie B. admitted that she had not reported the
    106
    sexual assaults to police but indicated that she believed if she had done so, there
    would have been attacks on her home, herself, and her children. When asked
    whether she harbored similar fears by being in court, she said she did. Corie G.
    likewise testified that she did not consider reporting the sexual assault to police
    because she feared defendant and his friends. Confirming that she no longer
    resided in the area, she added, “I hate being in Ventura; there‟s fear.”
    b. Discussion
    Defendant complains that the prosecutor‟s inquiry into the female witnesses‟
    discomfort and nervousness on the witness stand should not have been allowed
    because the line of questioning was irrelevant to an assessment of these witnesses‟
    credibility and it improperly suggested to the jury that the witnesses had been
    threatened by defendant and feared him.
    As a threshold matter, we agree with the Attorney General that defendant has
    forfeited his claim of error regarding the admission of evidence that prosecution
    witnesses were reluctant to testify, except to the extent he challenges as irrelevant
    the above described testimony by Jennifer Bowkley and Corie G. Absent a timely
    objection in the trial court on the ground or grounds urged on appeal, we generally
    will not review challenges to the admissibility of evidence. (People v. Fuiava
    (2012) 
    53 Cal. 4th 622
    , 670; People v. Waidla (2000) 
    22 Cal. 4th 690
    , 717.)
    Defendant acknowledges that his counsel did not object to most of the
    testimony in question, but argues that after the initial objection it was “clear” that
    the court would have overruled any further defense challenges to similar
    questioning. Defendant‟s bare assertion that further objection would have been
    futile is unconvincing. In challenging Jennifer Bowkley‟s testimony to the effect
    that she did not want to be in court, defense counsel simply stated, “Objection,
    Your Honor; irrelevant.” The court, in turn, overruled the objection without
    107
    comment and counsel raised no further objection to the witness‟s continued
    testimony in this regard. On the present record, we cannot presume that because
    the court overruled the objection to Bowkley‟s testimony, it necessarily would
    have overruled subsequent challenges to evidence of other witnesses‟ reluctance to
    testify. (People v. Valdez (2012) 
    55 Cal. 4th 82
    , 138-139.) Defendant‟s claim is
    forfeited except to the extent it challenges the relevance of testimony by Bowkley
    and Corie G. regarding their reluctance to testify.
    Defendant‟s challenge to evidence that prosecution witnesses were nervous
    and reluctant to testify lacks merit in any event. Contrary to defendant‟s assertion,
    such evidence was relevant to the evaluation of the witnesses‟ credibility. Under
    Evidence Code section 780, which concerns the scope of questioning at trial, a
    jury may consider “any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or
    disprove the truthfulness of [a witness‟s] testimony,” unless such evidence is
    inadmissible under some other statutory provision. Such matters include the
    witness‟s “demeanor while testifying and the manner in which” the witness
    testified (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (a)), and the witness‟s “attitude toward the
    action” or “toward the giving of testimony” (Id. subd. (j)).
    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defense relevancy
    objection to Jennifer Bowkley‟s testimony that she did not want to be in court.
    (People v. 
    Williams, supra
    , 43 Cal.4th at p. 634 [a trial court is vested with
    “considerable discretion” in determining the relevance of evidence].) As the
    Evidence Code makes clear, the witness‟s attitude toward testifying would have
    assisted the jury in evaluating her credibility. (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (j).)
    Nor did the court abuse its discretion in overruling defense counsel‟s
    relevancy objection to Corie G.‟s testimony that it was more difficult for her to
    testify at trial than it had been to testify at the grand jury proceeding because
    defendant and his mother were present in the courtroom. Just prior to eliciting that
    108
    testimony, the prosecutor confirmed with the witness that she had been
    uncomfortable talking to investigators about the sexual assault and found it
    difficult to testify about the incident at the grand jury proceeding. Her testimony
    regarding the additional discomfort she felt in describing the incident in front of
    defendant and his mother was relevant to her demeanor on the witness stand.
    Although the cold record does not fully disclose the witness‟s emotional state at
    the outset of questioning, it strongly suggests she was nervous and shaken.
    Immediately following the challenged testimony, the prosecutor asked the witness,
    “Are you gonna be able to do this?” After the witness nodded her head
    affirmatively, the prosecutor reassured her, saying, “Take your time. We‟ll go
    slow, all right.” The witness‟s testimony indicating it was difficult for her to
    testify in front of defendant and his mother tended to explain her demeanor on the
    witness stand and therefore was relevant to her credibility. (Evid. Code, § 780,
    subd. (a).)
    We reach the same conclusion regarding the relevance of Robyn G.‟s
    expression of discomfort and nervousness when testifying at trial. (Evid. Code,
    § 780, subd. (a); People v. Scott (2011) 
    52 Cal. 4th 452
    , 493 [a witness‟s
    “ „demeanor is always relevant to credibility‟ ”]; Elkins v. Superior Court (2007)
    
    41 Cal. 4th 1337
    , 1358 [observing that witness demeanor is “ „ “part of the
    evidence” ‟ ” and “ „of considerable legal consequence‟ ”].) Robyn G.‟s testimony
    indicating she was uncomfortable talking openly about the sexual assaults was not
    only relevant to her demeanor at trial, but also tended to explain why she had not
    disclosed during her grand jury testimony that defendant inserted a gun into her
    vagina. (People v. McAlpin (1991) 
    53 Cal. 3d 1289
    , 1300 [evidence of factors that
    may have affected a witness‟s prior statements or testimony is relevant to the
    witness‟s credibility].)
    109
    Regarding the two witnesses who indicated that they feared retaliation for
    testifying at trial, such evidence was clearly relevant. As this court has previously
    recognized, “[e]vidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for
    testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness . . . . [as is an] explanation of
    the basis for the witness‟s fear . . . .” (People v. Burgener (2003) 
    29 Cal. 4th 833
    ,
    869; accord, People v. Guerra (2006) 
    37 Cal. 4th 1
    067, 1141-1142.) “A witness
    who testifies despite fear of recrimination of any kind by anyone is more credible
    because of his or her personal stake in the testimony. . . . [¶] Regardless of [the
    source of the threat], the jury would be entitled to evaluate the witness‟s testimony
    knowing it was given under such circumstances.” (People v. Olguin (1994)
    
    31 Cal. App. 4th 1355
    , 1368-1369, italics omitted.)
    Defendant does not dispute that the line of questioning pursued by the
    prosecutor could be relevant to a witness‟s credibility. He argues, however, that
    our decisions have limited such testimony to circumstance in which the witness
    hesitates in his or her responses or when nervousness or fear interferes with the
    witness‟s ability to testify truthfully. (See, e.g., People v. 
    Guerra, supra
    , 37
    Cal.4th at p. 1142 [“evidence that [the witness] feared retaliation for testifying
    against defendant was [properly] offered for the . . . purpose of explaining
    inconsistencies in portions of her testimony, including her equivocal responses
    when asked whether she feared retaliation”].) We do not share defendant‟s
    understanding of the law. A witness‟s hesitation in answering questions is only
    one of any number of reasons that evidence may be relevant to his or her
    credibility; our cases establish no such limitations. (See People v. 
    Mendoza, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 1086 [inconsistent testimony is not a prerequisite for
    admission of evidence of a witness‟s fear of testifying].) Indeed, as People v.
    Mendoza explains, a trial court has discretion, within the strictures of Evidence
    Code section 352, to permit the prosecution to introduce evidence supporting a
    110
    witness‟s credibility even on direct examination, so long as the prosecution
    reasonably expects the defense to attack the witness‟s credibility during cross-
    examination. (People v. 
    Mendoza, supra
    , at p. 1085.) In the present matter, the
    witnesses in question were former drug users. Most of the witnesses had been
    involved in consensual sexual relationships with defendant and none had reported
    the sexual assaults to law enforcement until years after the incidents occurred.
    The prosecutor reasonably could anticipate, first from the defense motion to sever
    charges and then from defense counsel‟s cross-examination during various pretrial
    hearings that the defense would vigorously challenge these witnesses‟ credibility
    at trial. The prosecutor was entitled to present evidence of the witnesses‟
    reluctance to testify to preemptively counter such an effort. (See People v. 
    Sapp, supra
    , 31 Cal.4th at pp. 280-281 [trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to
    present evidence that the defendant‟s friends warned the prosecution witness
    against giving the police information regarding the murder victim‟s disappearance
    in order to counter evidence that the witness had not come forward to report what
    she knew].)
    Defendant argues furthermore that the prosecutor‟s questioning was an
    improper attempt to convey to the jury that defendant had directly threatened the
    witnesses, which was especially prejudicial given that he had been charged with
    witness dissuasion. We disagree with the premise of defendant‟s assertion.
    Nothing in the prosecutor‟s line of questioning or in the witnesses‟ testimony
    suggested that the reason for anyone‟s reluctance to testify was because defendant
    had threatened or intimidated her. Indeed, there was ample evidence from which
    to infer that the witnesses were reluctant to testify, not because defendant had
    threatened them, but because of their desire to distance themselves from their prior
    association with the SHD gang‟s culture and lifestyle. There was no error in
    111
    eliciting from the seven witnesses in question that they were reluctant to testify at
    trial.
    D. Instruction on Circumstantial Evidence
    Defendant complains that he was denied due process and other constitutional
    rights because, he alleges, the instruction that explained to the jury how to
    consider circumstantial evidence were contrary to the requirement of proof beyond
    a reasonable doubt. We have repeatedly rejected similar challenges to the
    circumstantial evidence instructions, and find no basis on which to reach a
    different conclusion here.
    The court instructed with CALJIC Nos. 2.01 and 8.83 regarding the
    sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt and the special circumstance
    allegations, respectively. In relevant part, both instructions informed the jury that
    if one interpretation of the circumstantial evidence “appears to you to be
    reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the
    reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.”
    Defendant contends that telling the jurors they must accept an interpretation
    of the evidence “that appears to be reasonable” allows a finding of guilt based on
    proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Cage v. Louisiana (1990)
    
    498 U.S. 39
    , 41.) We have long rejected the identical contention. “ „When the
    questioned phrase is read in context, not only with the remaining language within
    each instruction but also together with related instructions, including the
    reasonable doubt instruction, it is clear that the jury was required only to reject
    unreasonable interpretations of the evidence and to accept a reasonable
    interpretation that was consistent with the evidence.‟ [Citations.]” (People v.
    Myles (2012) 
    53 Cal. 4th 1181
    , 1216.)
    112
    Defendant also criticizes the circumstantial evidence instructions for
    requiring the jury to draw an incriminatory inference when such an inference
    appears to be merely reasonable. According to defendant, imposing on the jurors
    a duty to accept an interpretation of evidence pointing to his guilt creates an
    impermissible mandatory, conclusive presumption. (Carella v. California (1989)
    
    491 U.S. 263
    , 265-266.) We have consistently rejected the identical contention,
    and do so again here. (People v. Jones (2013) 
    57 Cal. 4th 899
    , 972; People v.
    
    Myles, supra
    , 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1216-1217.)
    E. Juror Misconduct
    Defendant contends that a juror‟s misconduct during jury selection and later
    at the guilt phase requires reversal of the judgment. We agree with defendant that
    misconduct occurred during the guilt phase but conclude after an independent
    review of the entire record that the presumption of prejudice arising from that
    misconduct has been rebutted and that defendant is not entitled to relief.
    1. Background
    The jury returned its guilt phase verdicts on February 13, 2001, finding
    defendant guilty of murder and all other charges but one, and finding true all of the
    associated sentencing allegations, including the rape-murder and oral-copulation-
    murder special-circumstance allegations. The penalty phase of trial commenced
    just shy of two weeks later, on February 27. On March 5, during the prosecution‟s
    rebuttal case, the court met with counsel outside the jury‟s presence to inform
    them that two juror-related problems had arisen that morning. First, Juror No. 1
    had left a message saying she would be unavailable to come to court due to a
    family illness. Second, one of the sheriff‟s deputies assigned to the courtroom
    reported to the court that he had learned from a fellow officer, Deputy Kathleen
    113
    Baker, that Baker and a seated juror with whom she was acquainted may have
    discussed the case over lunch.
    With counsel‟s assent, the court called the jurors into the courtroom and
    asked them as a group whether anyone knew or may have had contact with Deputy
    Baker. No juror gave an affirmative response. Outside the jury‟s presence, the
    sheriff‟s deputy who had reported the communication to the court then provided
    more details about his encounter with Deputy Baker, which had occurred when
    they ran into each other in a bookstore the previous day. According to the officer,
    Deputy Baker told him she had had lunch with a juror who said that she had been
    on a murder trial for two months and that “they were gonna fry him.”
    A short time later, again outside the jury‟s presence but with counsel‟s assent
    and involvement, the court placed a telephone call to Juror No. 1. The court first
    inquired about Juror No. 1‟s message regarding her unavailability. She explained
    that she could not attend trial all week because she had to care for her adult
    daughter, who was recuperating from a serious surgery. When the court then
    asked her whether she was acquainted with Deputy Baker, Juror No. 1 indicated
    that Deputy Baker was her other daughter‟s sister-in-law and that her daughter had
    told her that Deputy Baker was working near the courthouse. Juror No.1 admitted
    that she had spoken to Deputy Baker by telephone on the day the jury announced
    its guilt phase verdicts and on one other occasion, between two and four weeks
    earlier, to set up a lunch date. She explained, however, that they never met for
    lunch because Deputy Baker‟s superiors ordered her not to. Juror No. 1 repeatedly
    denied telling Deputy Baker, “We‟re gonna fry him.” According to Juror No. 1,
    Deputy Baker ascertained during their first telephone conversation that she was
    serving as a juror in defendant‟s case, although Juror No. 1 could not remember
    whether she or Deputy Baker commented on the trial.
    114
    With no objection from counsel for either side, the court excused Juror No. 1
    from the jury and appointed an alternate juror to take her place. A hearing
    regarding possible misconduct commenced the same afternoon.
    a. Hearing on juror misconduct
    Deputy Baker was the first witness to testify at the hearing. She confirmed
    that her brother was married to Juror No. 1‟s daughter and indicated that she had
    seen Juror No. 1 once a year or so at family gatherings. Deputy Baker testified
    that Juror No. 1 had left a message on her home answering machine about three or
    four weeks earlier, mentioning that she was on jury duty in the Ventura County
    courthouse and suggesting they meet for lunch. Under the impression that Juror
    No. 1 had simply been summoned to appear for jury selection, Deputy Baker
    returned the call. During the course of that five-minute conversation, they spoke a
    little about Deputy Baker‟s brother. In response to Deputy Baker‟s questions
    about jury duty, Juror No. 1 told her she had been a juror on defendant‟s case for
    the past two months and that she liked the experience. Deputy Baker recalled
    Juror No. 1 then blurting out, “Yeah, we . . . we all want to fry him.” According to
    Deputy Baker, she “really didn‟t think anything of [Juror No. 1‟s statement]” and
    did not respond to it. During questioning by the prosecutor, however, Deputy
    Baker described Juror No. 1 as a “sweet,” “older gal” and agreed with him that it
    seemed unlikely Juror No. 1 would use that type of language. Deputy Baker
    acknowledged it was “possible” she was only interpreting what Juror No. 1 had
    said to her. She was certain, however, that Juror No. 1 had not discussed the case
    or the jury‟s deliberations with her. Deputy Baker believed their first conversation
    had occurred three or four weeks earlier, on a Sunday. A couple of days after that,
    they had a second, very brief telephone conversation in which Deputy Baker told
    Juror No. 1 that, at her supervisor‟s directive, she could not have lunch with her.
    115
    Deputy Baker indicated during questioning that she had related Juror No. 1‟s
    statement to several individuals, including her husband and two supervising
    officers, all of whom testified at the hearing when it resumed the following day.
    Sergeant Richard Barber testified that Deputy Baker mentioned to him she was
    planning to have lunch with a “Merriman juror” who said they were going to
    “hang him” or “fry him.” Captain Gordon Hansen testified that he overheard
    Deputy Baker‟s conversation with Barber and recalled hearing Baker say the juror
    indicated “[they] were anxious to convict [defendant] of the charges” and “looking
    forward to frying this guy.” Captain Hansen could not recall the precise date he
    overheard Deputy Baker relate the juror‟s statement to Sergeant Barber, but he
    believed it was midmorning on the day before the newspaper reported the guilty
    verdicts.
    The testimony of Deputy Baker‟s husband Michael, who also was a deputy
    sheriff, mostly echoed that of his wife but differed in one significant respect. Like
    Deputy Baker, he described Juror No. 1 as a family acquaintance with whom they
    had socialized no more than four or five times, and not a close relative. He also
    indicated that within the last 30 days Juror No. 1 had called their residence several
    times when his wife was not at home, and that she once left a message on their
    answering machine. Deputy Baker‟s husband testified that if his wife had told him
    that her brother‟s mother-in-law was a juror in the Merriman case, it likely “would
    have went in one ear and out the other.” He did not recall his wife telling him that
    Juror No. 1 said “they‟re going to fry Merriman,” but he believed that such
    terminology would be something he would remember.
    The sheriff‟s deputy who had first reported to the trial court Deputy Baker‟s
    communication with a juror also gave sworn testimony at the hearing, repeating
    his account of the casual, off-duty conversation with Deputy Baker two days
    116
    earlier in which she told him she had had lunch with a Merriman trial juror who
    told her “they were looking forward to frying him.”
    At one point during the hearing, the trial court judicially noticed the jury‟s
    guilt phase verdicts in the case. Specifically, the court took judicial notice that the
    verdicts on the murder count and special circumstance allegations were dated
    Tuesday, February 13, 2001, and the verdicts on all other counts and allegations
    were dated Friday, February 9.
    Juror No. 1 was the hearing‟s final witness and she was extensively
    questioned by the court and the attorneys, this time while under oath. After her
    telephone conversation with the court on the previous morning, she had been
    trying to recall the events in question and brought along the notes she had written
    in this regard, which she referred to during the hearing and later gave to the court.
    Some of Juror No. 1‟s testimony was consistent with that given by Deputy
    Baker and Baker‟s husband. For example, she indicated that, at her daughter‟s
    suggestion, she had called the Bakers‟ residence, and that when Deputy Baker
    returned her call, they chatted for three to five minutes about family matters and
    Deputy Baker‟s job, and made tentative plans to have lunch. A second
    conversation occurred when she called Deputy Baker from the courthouse on
    February 13, 2001, during a recess between the time the verdicts had been signed
    and when they were formally announced in open court. Deputy Baker informed
    her at that time that she was not permitted to have lunch with her, and neither of
    them discussed the case.
    Juror No. 1 confirmed that the subject of the Merriman trial arose at one
    point during her first telephone conversation with Deputy Baker. But her
    recollection of the exchange was markedly different from Baker‟s. According to
    Juror No. 1, Baker “said something like, „I hope you put him away,‟ ” to which
    Juror No. 1 replied, “He will be put away” or “He will be.” As Juror No. 1
    117
    explained at the hearing, “it was a capital case and [defendant] was either gonna
    spend his life in prison or [get] the death penalty.”
    Juror No. 1 repeatedly testified she was unsure when the first conversation
    took place but believed it was before, rather than during deliberations. When the
    prosecutor pointed out that Juror No. 1‟s response to Deputy Baker‟s comment
    suggested that defendant already would have been convicted of something, Juror
    No. 1 explained that the reason for her remark was that the evidence was so
    overwhelming. She further explained that her response was an expression of her
    own opinion, no one else‟s, and that she did not discuss the conversation with
    anyone else, including any of her fellow jurors.
    Referencing Juror No. 1‟s statement regarding the overwhelming evidence of
    guilt, defense counsel observed that it sounded as though she had made up her
    mind prior to deliberations. Juror No. 1 replied, “[t]hat probably is true.” She
    then explained, however, that deliberations were conducted “very conscientiously”
    and “everything that was deliberated upon was . . . judged by evidence.”
    Juror No. 1 did not recall saying, “We‟re gonna fry him,” even jokingly, and
    she agreed with the prosecutor that those were words she normally would not use.
    She acknowledged it was possible she did so, however.
    When the court resumed questioning, it focused initially on whether there
    was any comment or conversations either before or during deliberations with
    regard to penalty. Juror No. 1 did not recall any.
    The court then further probed Juror No. 1‟s affirmative response to defense
    counsel‟s suggestion that she probably had made up her mind before deliberations
    because the evidence at trial was overwhelming. When the court asked Juror
    No. 1 whether she went into deliberations with an open mind and considered
    everything the other jurors had to say, she indicated that she did. Highlighting the
    apparent conflict between those responses, the court asked Juror No. 1 to explain.
    118
    She clarified that she and the other jurors did not vote on the counts until they had
    examined all of the exhibits that backed up each of the charges. In response to the
    court‟s question whether she based her votes on her impressions before
    deliberations had started or on the deliberations, Juror No. 1 said she voted based
    on “when we found the evidence.” As she further explained, “everything was
    backed up so we knew.”
    The court continued its inquiry into whether Juror No. 1 had prejudged the
    case by focusing on her purported statement to Deputy Baker that defendant “will
    be put away.” Juror No. 1 indicated that she had not actually made up her mind
    when she made that statement. As she explained, the evidence was overwhelming
    but during deliberations she and the other jurors examined each count individually
    to determine whether it was verified by the exhibits and then voted on it.
    At the conclusion of questioning, Juror No. 1 apologized for making an
    inappropriate remark to Deputy Baker, and she assured the court she would abide
    by the court‟s admonition not to discuss the case or the present proceeding until
    informed otherwise.
    The next day, at the behest of defense counsel, the trial court individually
    questioned each juror and the remaining alternate juror, asking whether he or she
    had participated in or overheard any discussions with another juror or nonjuror
    regarding what the penalty or punishment should or was likely to be in the case.
    All jurors but one indicated that they had neither participated in nor were aware of
    any such discussions. Juror No. 4 related that she had told an acquaintance that
    she was a juror in the penalty phase of a capital case and that the choice was
    between two penalties. In response to further inquiry, the juror assured the court
    that she could potentially vote either way on penalty and planned to participate
    fully in deliberations.
    119
    Defense counsel then moved for mistrial on the ground that Juror No. 1 had
    committed prejudicial misconduct by prejudging defendant‟s guilt, and the penalty
    he should receive, before engaging in guilt phase deliberations. Counsel further
    argued that Juror No. 1 had committed misconduct during voir dire by concealing
    her relationship with Deputy Baker. Had her relationship with a Ventura County
    Sheriff‟s Department deputy been mentioned in the juror questionnaire, counsel
    asserted, the defense would not have wanted to keep Juror No. 1 on the jury. After
    hearing the prosecutor‟s argument opposing the motion, the court took the matter
    under submission.
    b. Denial of the mistrial motion
    The court denied the mistrial motion the day following the hearing, giving an
    extensive explanation of its factual findings and legal conclusions. Regarding
    certain conflicts in the testimony, the court credited the testimony of Juror No. 1
    over that of Deputy Baker.
    The court found that on Friday, February 9, 2001, the jury reached guilt
    phase verdicts on all counts except the murder charge and special circumstance
    allegations and there was a three-day recess until deliberations resumed on
    Tuesday, February 13. During that recess, Juror No. 1 either contacted, or was
    contacted by Deputy Baker, the sister of Juror No. 1‟s son-in-law. The court
    determined that Juror No. 1 and Deputy Baker were acquaintances with infrequent
    contact, not close relatives.
    The reason for the communication, the court found, was because Juror No. 1
    had learned from a family member that Deputy Baker worked in the same county
    government complex where the trial was being held. Deputy Baker either was
    aware or became aware that Juror No. 1 was a juror in a criminal case, but she
    knew little about the case itself.
    120
    With regard to the substance of the conversation between Juror No. 1 and
    Deputy Baker, the court found that Deputy Baker said something to the effect that
    she hoped the jury would put defendant away. Juror No. 1 responded that
    defendant “would be put away one way or the other.” By this, Juror No. 1 was
    contemplating only two possible penalties, life without parole or death. The court
    found it “highly likely” that Juror No. 1 added some sort of statement to the effect
    that she expected death would be imposed, either using the word “fry” or possibly
    assenting to Deputy Baker‟s use of the word. The court was of the view that it
    could not make a definitive finding in that regard. In either case, the court found,
    Juror No. 1‟s remark was an “ „off-the-cuff‟ comment in response to a provocative
    statement by Baker.” The court further found that Juror No. 1‟s “prediction”
    regarding penalty was not the result of improper discussion of penalty by some or
    all of the jurors, and that Juror No. 1 did not interject into the conversation with
    Deputy Baker any issue or information related to defendant‟s case or commit any
    other improprieties.
    As for Juror No. 1‟s state of mind at the time of deliberations, the court
    credited Juror No. 1‟s testimony and found that she remained open-minded and
    able to vote either way on the murder count and special circumstance allegations.
    Noting the numerous charges of which defense counsel conceded defendant‟s guilt
    during closing argument, the court found the jury would have begun deliberating
    on the murder count on Friday, February 9, before the conversation between Juror
    No. 1 and Deputy Baker occurred.
    Based upon its factual findings, the court saw several areas of possible
    misconduct and addressed each in turn. First, the court found Juror No. 1‟s failure
    to mention Deputy Baker in her juror questionnaire did not amount to misconduct.
    In the court‟s view, the omission was inadvertent and understandable in light of
    the distant nature of the relationship and their limited contact. The court found it
    121
    significant that during voir dire Juror No. 1 was not questioned directly about the
    extent of her acquaintances with individuals in law enforcement.
    The court concluded that Deputy Baker‟s comment to Juror No. 1 to the
    effect that she hoped defendant would be “put away,” and the response it
    prompted from Juror No. 1, did constitute misconduct. It further concluded,
    however, that the presumption of prejudice arising from that misconduct had been
    rebutted, finding no reasonable likelihood the improper conversation influenced
    the verdicts. The court noted that the exchange was brief and not initiated by the
    Juror No. 1. It also observed that the conversation had little prominence in Juror
    No. 1‟s mind and that she did not share it with any other juror. In the court‟s
    view, the misconduct occurred at a stage in the proceedings in which Juror No. 1
    would be expected to be forming opinions on guilt, and it credited her testimony
    regarding being open-minded. The court also found that the brevity of
    deliberations suggested the jury shared Juror No. 1‟s view regarding the strength
    of the evidence of guilt.
    Regarding the question whether Juror No. 1 had prejudged the case, the
    court‟s answer was twofold. The court found that the substance of Juror No. 1‟s
    comment suggested that she had prejudged penalty but that because she no longer
    was a seated juror, the question of prejudice was moot. The court further
    concluded that Juror No. 1 had not prejudged defendant‟s guilt. Crediting Juror
    No. 1‟s testimony, the court reasoned in relevant part that Deputy Baker‟s
    comment, which put Juror No. 1 on the spot, prompted a response (that defendant
    “would be put away one way or the other”) that should be interpreted as a
    prediction of what would happen were the case to proceed to the penalty phase.
    122
    2. Discussion
    Defendant claims that Juror No. 1 committed prejudicial misconduct in two
    separate, but interrelated ways, first, by failing to mention in her juror
    questionnaire or during voir dire questioning her relationship with Deputy Baker
    and second, by communicating with Deputy Baker about the case. Defendant
    argues that the misconduct was prejudicial because, he contends, Juror No. 1 had
    made up her mind regarding defendant‟s guilt prior to deliberations and therefore
    was actually biased against him. The judgment must be reversed, he asserts,
    because Juror No. 1‟s presence on the jury deprived him of his state and federal
    constitutional rights to an unbiased jury, fair trial, effective representation of
    counsel, and due process of law.
    The legal principles that guide our consideration of defendant‟s claim of
    prejudicial juror misconduct are well established. A criminal defendant has a
    constitutional right to trial by an impartial and unbiased jury. (U.S. Const., 6th
    and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16; In re Hitchings (1993) 
    6 Cal. 4th 97
    ,
    110.) A deprivation of that right occurs even if only one juror is biased. (People
    v. Nesler (1997) 
    16 Cal. 4th 561
    , 578 (lead opn. of George, C.J.).)
    A juror‟s misconduct or involuntary exposure to certain events or materials
    other than what is presented at trial generally raises a rebuttable presumption that
    the defendant was prejudiced and may establish juror bias. (In re Hamilton (1999)
    
    20 Cal. 4th 273
    , 295-296.) As relevant here, it is misconduct, and therefore
    presumptively prejudicial, for a juror to conceal relevant facts during the jury
    selection process (In re 
    Hitchings, supra
    , 6 Cal.4th at p. 111), or to discuss the
    case with a nonjuror during trial (In re 
    Hamilton, supra
    , at p. 295). A nonjuror‟s
    unauthorized communication with a juror during trial that concerns the matter
    pending before the jury likewise raises a presumption of prejudice. (In re Price
    (2011) 
    51 Cal. 4th 547
    , 560; In re 
    Hamilton, supra
    , at pp. 295, 305-306.)
    123
    Relevant to defendant‟s claims of misconduct here, the presumption of
    prejudice is rebutted, and the verdict will not be disturbed, if a reviewing court
    concludes after considering the entire record, including the nature of the
    misconduct and its surrounding circumstances, that there is no substantial
    likelihood that the juror in question was actually biased against the defendant.
    (In re 
    Price, supra
    , 51 Cal.4th at p. 560; In re Carpenter (1995) 
    9 Cal. 4th 634
    ,
    654.) Our inquiry in this regard is a “mixed question of law and fact” subject to
    independent appellate review. (People v. 
    Nesler, supra
    , 16 Cal.4th at p. 582.) But
    “ „[w]e accept the trial court‟s credibility determinations and findings on questions
    of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.‟ [Citations.]” (People v.
    Schmeck (2005) 
    37 Cal. 4th 240
    , 294.)
    Applying these principles, we conclude that although misconduct occurred,
    the presumption of prejudice was rebutted and defendant is not entitled to reversal
    of the judgment, as explained more fully below.
    a. Failure to mention Deputy Baker during jury selection
    Question No. 32 on the jury questionnaire asked, “Do you have any relatives
    or close friends who are in law enforcement or are lawyers, or judges?” Juror
    No. 1 checked “Yes” and answered question No. 32a, which asked prospective
    jurors who had responded affirmatively to question No. 32 to list the relationship,
    occupation, and name of such persons. Juror No. 1 wrote, “Richard Walsh —
    Guard — Tehachapi Prison.”
    The subject of relatives or close friends in law enforcement did not arise
    during voir dire questioning, and Juror No. 1 did not offer any additional
    information in that regard. When the trial court asked Juror No. 1 in the post-
    guilt-phase telephone call on March 5, 2001, whether she was acquainted with
    124
    Deputy Sheriff Kathleen Baker, however, Juror No. 1 readily indicated that the
    officer was her daughter‟s sister-in-law.
    During the hearing on possible juror misconduct, Deputy Baker and her
    husband both testified that their contact with Juror No. 1 had been infrequent,
    possibly four or five times in as many years, and that they were not close to her.
    Deputy Baker‟s husband testified further that when Juror No. 1 called the house
    the first time, she introduced herself to him and reminded him who she was.
    Based on this evidence, the trial court found that Juror No. 1 had infrequent
    contacts and only a distant relationship with Deputy Baker, and concluded that
    Juror No. 1‟s failure to mention Deputy Baker in her questionnaire and during voir
    dire questioning was an inadvertent omission that did not amount to misconduct.
    Defendant insists the trial court mischaracterized the relationship between
    Juror No. 1 and Deputy Baker, arguing that they were instead well-acquainted
    relatives. We reject defendant‟s assertion. As recounted above, substantial
    evidence supports the trial court‟s finding that the relationship between Juror
    No. 1 and Deputy Baker was distant. (People v. 
    Schmeck, supra
    , 37 Cal.4th at
    p. 294.)
    Indeed, there is some question that Juror No. 1 and Deputy Baker could be
    considered “relatives” at all. Deputy Baker was the sister-in-law of Juror No. 1‟s
    daughter. Although Deputy Baker certainly was a relative of Juror No. 1‟s
    daughter and son-in-law, it is not clear what the nature of her familial relationship
    was, if any, to Juror No. 1. (Cf. People v. Tuggles (2009) 
    179 Cal. App. 4th 339
    ,
    373 [juror did not improperly conceal during voir dire her acquaintance with a
    man under investigation for rape whom she barely knew by not mentioning him in
    response to the court‟s question whether a “close friend” had been accused of any
    offense]; People v. Duran (1996) 
    50 Cal. App. 4th 103
    , 107, 114-115 [juror‟s
    failure during jury selection to identify a certain individual as a person “close” to
    125
    her who had been the victim of a violent crime did not amount to misconduct
    because there was no evidence establishing her relationship with him was anything
    more than casual].)
    But even were we to conclude that Juror No. 1 should have included Deputy
    Baker in her list of relatives in law enforcement, reversal is not warranted. We
    have made clear that “an honest mistake on voir dire cannot disturb a judgment in
    the absence of proof that the juror‟s wrong or incomplete answer hid the juror‟s
    actual bias.” (In re 
    Hamilton, supra
    , 20 Cal.4th at p. 300.) The trial court
    concluded that Juror No. 1‟s failure to mention Deputy Baker in her questionnaire
    and during voir dire questioning was an inadvertent omission. Based on our own
    review of the record, we reach a similar conclusion that Juror No. 1‟s failure to
    report that relationship during jury selection was, at most, an inadvertent omission
    and not a deliberate attempt to conceal bias. Juror No. 1 testified that she learned
    from her daughter that Deputy Baker worked near the courthouse and that, at her
    daughter‟s suggestion, she called Deputy Baker to set up a lunch date. Such
    testimony, when coupled with the court‟s finding of a mere distant relationship
    between Juror No. 1 and Deputy Baker, supports the inference that Deputy Baker
    was not someone who would have come to mind when Juror No. 1 was responding
    to the questionnaire item regarding relatives and close friends in law enforcement.
    Notably, neither the court nor the parties asked Juror No. 1 any questions on that
    subject or made any statements during voir dire questioning that might have
    jogged her memory or clarified for her the types of relationships that would be of
    interest to the parties in their evaluation of prospective jurors. When Juror No. 1
    was asked by the court in their post-guilt-phase telephone conversation whether
    she was acquainted with Deputy Baker, she did not hesitate to report that she was.
    The record as a whole strongly supports the conclusion that Juror No. 1‟s failure to
    mention Deputy Baker, if a mistake, was honestly made.
    126
    Nor is there anything in the record from which to infer Juror No. 1
    deliberately concealed her relationship with Deputy Baker in order to hide any
    alleged bias against defendant. We have observed that “good faith when
    answering voir dire questions is the most significant indicator that there was no
    bias.” (In re 
    Hamilton, supra
    , 20 Cal.4th at p. 300; accord, In re Boyette (2013)
    
    56 Cal. 4th 866
    , 890.) After hearing the testimony of Juror No. 1 and others, the
    trial court found that her failure to mention Deputy Baker during voir dire was
    inadvertent, not deliberate. That finding amply supports the conclusion that Juror
    No. 1 did not omit any mention of Deputy Baker in order to conceal her bias
    against defendant. (See In re 
    Boyette, supra
    , at p. 890 [referee‟s findings that
    juror‟s failure to disclose his own criminal history and drug use and that of his
    friends and relatives was neither intentional nor deliberate supports the conclusion
    that the juror was not biased against the defendant].)
    b. Conversation with Deputy Baker
    The trial court determined that misconduct occurred when Juror No. 1 and
    Deputy Baker spoke by telephone about the case shortly before the conclusion of
    the guilt phase deliberations, but concluded that the presumption of prejudice
    arising from that misconduct had been rebutted. Based upon our independent
    review, we reach a similar conclusion.
    As set forth in more detail above in the summary of the hearing on possible
    juror misconduct, substantial evidence supports the court‟s factual findings
    regarding the substance of the improper conversation and its surrounding
    circumstances. To briefly recap the court‟s findings, Juror No. 1 and Deputy
    Baker had a short telephone conversation on the weekend between the second and
    final day of guilt phase deliberations during which Deputy Baker said something
    to the effect that she hoped the jury would put defendant away. Juror No. 1
    127
    responded to Deputy Baker‟s comment by saying that defendant “would be put
    away one way or the other,” and the court found it “highly likely” she added that
    she expected a death verdict, either using the word “fry” herself or by assenting to
    Deputy Baker‟s use of that word.
    As previously mentioned, any unauthorized communication between a juror
    and a nonjuror regarding the matter pending before the jury is misconduct and
    presumptively prejudicial. (In re 
    Hamilton, supra
    , 20 Cal.4th at p. 295.) In the
    present case, the communication between Juror No. 1 and Deputy Baker was not a
    trivial violation of the court‟s directive not to discuss the case with anyone. (Cf.
    People v. 
    Stewart, supra
    , 33 Cal.4th at p. 510 [a juror‟s technical violation of the
    court‟s admonition not to discuss the case with nonjurors was “ „trifling‟
    misconduct” that could not have prejudiced the defendant].) Rather, it amounted
    to serious misconduct. (See People v. Pierce (1979) 
    24 Cal. 3d 199
    , 207 [juror
    who conversed midtrial with his police officer neighbor regarding shortcomings in
    the prosecution‟s case committed serious misconduct].)
    Having determined that serious misconduct occurred, we examine whether
    the presumption of prejudice arising from that misconduct has been rebutted.
    Based upon our review of the nature of the misconduct and its surrounding
    circumstances, and taking into account the court‟s credibility determinations and
    factual findings supported by substantial evidence, we conclude that the
    presumption of prejudice has been rebutted because there is no substantial
    likelihood that Juror No. 1, or any other juror, was actually biased against
    defendant, as we explain below. (In re 
    Price, supra
    , 51 Cal.4th at p. 560.)
    Juror No. 1‟s telephone call to Deputy Baker was prompted, not by a desire
    to discuss the case, but rather to make arrangements for a lunchtime get-together
    suggested by her daughter. During that conversation, Juror No. 1 spoke generally
    about her positive experience as a juror, but not about the case specifically. As the
    128
    trial court found, it was Deputy Baker‟s unsolicited comment to the effect that she
    hoped the jury would “put defendant away” that prompted Juror No. 1‟s “off-the-
    cuff” response predicting that death would be imposed, and there was no further
    discussion regarding the pending case. The nature and surrounding circumstances
    of the misconduct do not suggest Juror No. 1 was actually biased against
    defendant.
    The misconduct in this matter is distinguishable in significant respects from
    the misconduct at issue in cases in which we have concluded that the presumption
    of prejudice was not rebutted. In In re 
    Hitchings, supra
    , 
    6 Cal. 4th 97
    , for
    example, the juror engaged in repeated conversations with a friend regarding the
    defendant‟s trial while it was pending and on one occasion spoke directly about
    the case, heatedly expressing her view that the defendant deserved to be “horribly
    mutilated for his crimes.” (Id. at p. 120, see 
    id. at pp.
    106-107, 120-122.) Nor is
    Juror No. 1‟s misconduct comparable to that at issue in People v. 
    Pierce, supra
    ,
    
    24 Cal. 3d 199
    . In Pierce, after the prosecution had rested, a juror initiated a
    conversation with his police officer neighbor to inquire about the fingerprinting
    process. The information obtained by the juror allayed his concerns regarding the
    sufficiency of the prosecution‟s evidence in that no fingerprints had been lifted
    from the murder weapon. (Id. at pp. 206, 208-209.)
    Our conclusion that the record shows no substantial likelihood that Juror
    No. 1, or any other juror, was actually biased against defendant is further bolstered
    by the court‟s findings, supported by substantial evidence, that Juror No. 1 did not
    share with her fellow jurors the fact or substance of her conversation with Deputy
    Baker, and that the jurors did not discuss penalty during the guilt phase. (See
    People v. Danks (2004) 
    32 Cal. 4th 269
    , 307, 310.) Moreover, there is no evidence
    suggesting that, but for Juror No. 1‟s conversation with Deputy Baker, she would
    have held out for acquittal on the murder count. To the contrary, Juror No. 1
    129
    testified at the hearing that she found the evidence of defendant‟s guilt on that
    charge “overwhelming.” As the trial court observed, the speed with which
    deliberations were carried out strongly suggested that the other jurors shared that
    view. (Cf. People v. 
    Pierce, supra
    , 24 Cal.3d at p. 208 [rejecting as “sheer
    speculation” the People‟s argument that the errant juror necessarily would have
    voted to convict even had he not spoken with his police officer neighbor].)
    Defendant argues that Juror No. 1‟s actual bias was demonstrated by
    evidence that she made up her mind regarding defendant‟s guilt prior to
    deliberations. He acknowledges the court‟s finding that Juror No. 1 remained
    open-minded and capable of voting either way on the murder count after her
    conversation with Deputy Baker. According to defendant, however, that
    determination was “fundamentally flawed” because Juror No. 1 was neither
    forthright nor honest, and clearly testified that she had already made up her mind.
    His argument fails because, in essence, he is asking this court to reweigh the trial
    court‟s credibility determinations, a task we do not undertake when those
    determinations are supported by substantial evidence. (See People v. 
    Schmeck, supra
    , 37 Cal.4th at p. 294.) As we explain, the court‟s finding that Juror No. 1
    maintained an open mind regarding defendant‟s guilt is supported by substantial
    evidence, and that finding further supports our conclusion that the presumption of
    prejudice arising from the juror‟s misconduct was adequately rebutted.
    Admittedly, there is some evidence in the record suggesting that Juror No. 1
    had made up her mind based on the evidence prior to deliberations. For example,
    when defense counsel remarked to Juror No. 1 at the hearing that it sounded as
    though she had done so, Juror No. 1 responded that it “probably [was] true.” And
    in the hearing transcript pages cited by defendant to support his argument, Juror
    No. 1 did indicate that she went into deliberations with the impression that the
    evidence was strong. When then asked by the court whether she could have been
    130
    persuaded otherwise if someone was able to convince her, Juror No. 1
    equivocated, saying, “Well, I suppose, but, um, the evidence was all there by
    then.”
    However, Juror No. 1 indicated in her responses to the court‟s further
    questioning on the subject that she had an open mind during the deliberative
    process. The court asked Juror No. 1 directly, “Is it possible you had already
    made up your mind on how you were going to vote [at the time you spoke with
    Deputy Baker] as opposed to remaining open-minded through the time you
    actually did vote?” Juror No. 1 replied, “No. . . I hadn‟t actually made up my
    mind at that time, at that point. All the evidence was so overwhelming, but when
    we got into deliberations, it was all . . . individually verified by [the] exhibits.
    Whatever the charges were, they were all examined, each one of them
    individually, and then everybody voted.” The court was entitled to credit Juror
    No. 1‟s more precise and fully developed description of her state of mind over her
    earlier, equivocal responses.
    We conclude based upon the record summarized above that substantial
    evidence supports the court‟s finding that Juror No. 1 remained open-minded as
    deliberations continued on the murder count. The court observed firsthand Juror
    No. 1‟s responses and demeanor and this court has recognized in a different
    context that “ „ “a trial judge who observes and speaks with a . . . juror and hears
    that person‟s responses (noting, among other things, the person‟s tone of voice,
    apparent level of confidence, and demeanor), gleans valuable information that
    simply does not appear on the record.” [Citation.]‟ [Citation.]” (People v. Bramit
    (2009) 
    46 Cal. 4th 1221
    , 1235.)
    We observe furthermore that, contrary to defendant‟s suggestion, a juror who
    forms an opinion regarding the strength of the prosecution‟s case before the start
    of deliberations has not necessarily prejudged the case. As this court recently
    131
    explained, “[t]he reality that a juror may hold an opinion at the outset of
    deliberations is . . . reflective of human nature. It is certainly not unheard of that a
    foreperson may actually take a vote as deliberations begin to acquire an early
    sense of how jurors are leaning. We cannot reasonably expect a juror to enter
    deliberations as a tabula rasa, only allowed to form ideas as conversations
    continue. What we can, and do, require is that each juror maintain an open mind,
    consider all the evidence, and subject any preliminary opinion to rational and
    collegial scrutiny before coming to a final determination.” (People v. Allen and
    Johnson (2011) 
    53 Cal. 4th 60
    , 75.) We concluded above that there is substantial
    evidence in the record supporting the court‟s finding that Juror No. 1 maintained
    an open mind and, with her fellow jurors, considered all the evidence before
    casting her vote on the murder count. That she held an opinion regarding the
    strength of the prosecution‟s case before deliberating does not undermine the
    court‟s finding.
    We observe finally that the evidence of prejudgment in the present matter is
    far different from, and significantly less than, the circumstances that required
    reversal of the judgment for juror misconduct in People v. Weatherton. The juror
    in that case repeatedly discussed the case with fellow jurors prior to deliberations,
    conveying to them his belief that the defendant was guilty, and advocating for a
    verdict of guilt, long before the prosecution had finished its presentation of
    evidence and the defense had an opportunity to call that evidence into question.
    Indeed, the record showed that as early as the first day of trial, the errant juror
    indicated to some jurors that “there was no denying” the veracity of the
    prosecution‟s star witness and that he believed her testimony was dispositive of
    guilt. Both before and during deliberations, the juror expressed the view that the
    defendant deserved the death penalty, further suggesting that he had made up his
    mind regarding defendant‟s guilt. (People v. Weatherton (2014) 
    59 Cal. 4th 589
    ,
    132
    598-601.) By contrast here, substantial evidence supports the court‟s finding that
    Juror No. 1 remained open-minded as deliberations continued on the murder count.
    There was no substantial likelihood that she or any other juror was actually biased
    against defendant.
    F. Cumulative Effect of Asserted Errors at the Guilt Phase
    Defendant contends that his convictions must be reversed because, even if
    none of the errors at the guilt phase is prejudicial individually, their cumulative
    effect is sufficiently prejudicial as to violate due process. (Taylor v. Kentucky
    (1978) 
    436 U.S. 478
    , 487, fn. 15.) We have concluded that juror misconduct
    occurred but that the presumption of prejudice arising from the misconduct was
    rebutted. We also have assumed for argument that the trial court abused its
    discretion in admitting evidence of Katrina‟s out-of-court statement to her mother
    describing a sexual assault by defendant that occurred several months before the
    murder, but concluded furthermore that any error was harmless. Defendant fails to
    establish any other error at the guilt phase. Accordingly, there can be no
    prejudicial cumulative effect warranting reversal. Contrary to defendant‟s
    assertion, he received a fair trial on guilt.
    G. Admission of Evidence in Aggravation
    Defendant claims he is entitled to reversal of the penalty judgment because
    much of the evidence the jury was permitted to consider during the penalty phase
    concerned his unsavory lifestyle, neo-Nazi beliefs, and other evidence of his bad
    character that did not correspond to any of the statutorily permissible aggravating
    factors. We reject defendant‟s argument both procedurally and on the merits.
    As a threshold matter, we agree with the Attorney General that defendant has
    forfeited his claim of error by not objecting to the admission of the “bad character”
    evidence on the ground he now asserts. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v.
    133
    Kipp (2011) 
    26 Cal. 4th 1100
    , 1135.) Defendant cites no authority for his
    contention that the trial court was obligated, on its own initiative, to reassess the
    balance of prejudice and probative value of evidence adduced at the guilt phase
    before placing it before the jury for its consideration during the penalty
    proceedings. In any event, defendant‟s claim of error fails on the merits.
    Defendant is correct that a prosecutor is not permitted to present aggravating
    evidence that is irrelevant to the factors in aggravation listed in section 190.3.
    (People v. Boyd (1985) 
    38 Cal. 3d 762
    , 772-776.) He also correctly observes, more
    specifically, that “[e]vidence of a defendant‟s background, character, or conduct
    that is not probative of any specific sentencing factor is irrelevant to the
    prosecution‟s case in aggravation and therefore inadmissible.” (People v. Nelson
    (2011) 
    51 Cal. 4th 198
    , 222; People v. 
    Boyd, supra
    , at pp. 773-774.) Under section
    190.3, aggravating factors include the circumstances of the capital offense, other
    violent criminal conduct by the defendant, and the defendant‟s prior felony
    convictions. (§ 190.3, factors (a)-(c).) These three factors, and the defendant‟s
    age at the time of the crime (§ 190.3, factor (i)), are the only factors that may be
    considered in aggravation of penalty. (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004)
    
    34 Cal. 4th 1
    , 108-109, but see 
    id. at p.
    109 [evidence presented by the prosecution
    to rebut defense evidence in mitigation need not relate to an aggravating factor].)
    Defendant‟s argument that the jurors at the penalty phase were exposed to
    inadmissible evidence of his bad character unrelated to the aggravating factors
    mostly reprises his claims of error regarding (1) the joinder of the murder charge
    with all other counts and (2) the admission of evidence of his uncharged crimes.
    As we have explained, ante, in parts II.A. and II.C.1., the joinder of the counts in
    question and admission of uncharged crimes evidence did not violate state law or
    deprive defendant of any state or federal constitutional rights. Because the counts
    were properly joined and the challenged evidence properly admitted at the guilt
    134
    phase, evidence supporting the uncharged crimes involving violence and the
    felony offenses of which defendant was convicted was relevant to one or more of
    the statutory factors in aggravation and properly could be considered by the jury
    during the penalty phase. (See People v. Blair (2005) 
    36 Cal. 4th 686
    , 749
    [“ „circumstances of the crime‟ ” includes that which surrounds it “ „ “materially,
    morally, or logically” ‟ ”]; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 
    7 Cal. 4th 988
    , 1013-1014
    [evidence of circumstances surrounding the conduct that amounts to a statutory
    factor in aggravation is admissible to give context to the incident in question, even
    when such circumstances include activity that, standing alone, would not be
    admissible].) We note that, in an apparent abundance of caution, the trial court
    expressly instructed the jury it could not consider the vandalism and drug offense
    convictions associated with the incident that culminated in defendant‟s arrest.
    Defendant acknowledges that the court also expressly instructed the jury that
    it could not consider evidence of defendant‟s “lifestyle or background” as an
    aggravating factor. He argues, however, that the instruction was so vague as to
    provide no practical guidance for the jury to be able to distinguish between his
    “lifestyle and background” and the circumstances of the crime. Defendant is
    barred from challenging the adequacy of the court‟s instruction because the
    defense asked that it be given.
    Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot complain that the court
    erred in giving an instruction that he requested. (People v. DeHoyos (2013)
    
    57 Cal. 4th 79
    , 138.) The invited error doctrine applies when the defense has made
    a “ „ “ „conscious and deliberate tactical choice‟ ” ‟ ” in asking for the instruction
    in question. (People v. Harris (2008) 
    43 Cal. 4th 1269
    , 1293.) The record
    supports the conclusion that counsel made such a choice in this case. During
    discussion regarding penalty phase instructions, defense counsel pointed out that
    the jurors would be told they could consider as aggravating factors defendant‟s
    135
    convictions, including the gang finding. But he expressed concern that jurors
    might not realize it would be improper to also consider as aggravating evidence
    defendant‟s membership in the SHD gang, or certain aspects of his lifestyle such
    as getting tattoos, drinking beer while underage, and going to punk rock concerts.
    Indeed, when the court suggested that the word “lifestyle” might not be
    appropriate in this context, defense counsel insisted that it was. Defendant may
    not now complain about the inadequacy of the instruction.
    Defendant argues finally that permitting the jury to consider at the penalty
    phase the evidence regarding his membership in a skinhead gang, and the beliefs
    espoused by that gang, contravened his First Amendment rights to freedom of
    association and speech. For support, he relies upon the United States Supreme
    Court‟s decision in Dawson v. Delaware (1992) 
    503 U.S. 159
    , but that decision
    does not assist him. In Dawson, the prosecution introduced a stipulation at the
    penalty phase that the defendant belonged to a “ „white racist prison gang‟ ” called
    the Aryan Brotherhood. (Id. at p. 165.) The high court held the admission of the
    Aryan Brotherhood stipulation violated the defendant‟s First Amendment rights.
    As the court explained, evidence of the gang‟s racist beliefs was not linked to the
    murder, nor was it relevant to help prove any other aggravating circumstance or to
    rebut any mitigating evidence. Rather, it showed only the defendant‟s “abstract
    beliefs.” (Id. at p. 167.)
    In the present case, by contrast, evidence of defendant‟s membership in the
    SHD gang, and the gang‟s shared antisocial beliefs, proved more than defendant‟s
    association and abstract beliefs. Such evidence was highly relevant to the
    circumstances surrounding the capital offense (§ 190.3, factor (a)), as previously
    discussed ante, in part II.A.4. For example, testimony regarding defendant‟s
    leadership role in the SHD gang and the gang‟s code of silence helped explain
    why the investigation into Katrina‟s disappearance languished for so many years.
    136
    Evidence relating to defendant‟s gang membership also bore on defendant‟s other
    violent criminal behavior and some of the noncapital convictions. (§ 190.3,
    factors (b)-(c).) Evidence of defendant‟s White supremacist views, for example,
    tended to show reasons for his 1990 attack on a fellow ward at the juvenile
    detention facility, and his fight with Black inmates at the Ventura County jail in
    1994. (See People v. Gurule (2002) 
    28 Cal. 4th 557
    , 653-654 [evidence of the
    defendant‟s membership in a juvenile gang was properly admitted at the penalty
    phase as a circumstance of his prior acts of violence].) Dawson made clear that
    “the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence
    concerning one‟s beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those
    beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment.” (Dawson v.
    
    Delaware, supra
    , 503 U.S. at p. 165.) No constitutional violation occurred here.
    (See People v. Smith (2003) 
    30 Cal. 4th 581
    , 626 [admission of evidence of the
    defendant‟s racist remarks, properly admitted at the penalty phase as relevant to
    his actual criminal conduct, did not violate the defendant‟s free speech rights].)
    H. Constitutionality of California’s Death Penalty Scheme
    Defendant raises numerous challenges to the constitutionality of California‟s
    death penalty law. He acknowledges that his contentions are identical to those that
    previously have been considered and rejected by this court. We decline his
    request to reconsider our prior conclusions. (People v. 
    Schmeck, supra
    , 37 Cal.4th
    at pp. 303-304.)
    1. Narrowing function
    The various special circumstances in section 190.2 that render a murderer
    eligible for the death penalty, including the felony-murder special circumstance,
    are not so numerous and broadly defined that they fail to genuinely narrow the
    class of murderers who are subject to capital punishment, as required by the
    137
    Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Contrary to defendant‟s assertion, voters did
    not intend by their enactment of the 1978 death penalty law to make all murderers
    death eligible. (People v. 
    Jones, supra
    , 54 Cal.4th at p. 85; People v. 
    Myles, supra
    , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1224; People v. Williams (2010) 
    49 Cal. 4th 405
    , 469.)
    2. Circumstances of the crime as a factor in aggravation
    Application of section 190.3, factor (a), which allows jurors to consider as a
    factor in aggravation the “circumstances of the crime,” does not result in the
    “ „wanton, and freakish‟ ” imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth,
    Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by permitting prosecutors to
    characterize as aggravating almost all features of every murder, including polar
    opposite and mutually exclusive circumstances. (People v. 
    Jones, supra
    , 54
    Cal.4th at p. 85; see People v. Brown (2004) 
    33 Cal. 4th 382
    , 401; see also People
    v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 1007.) As defendant acknowledges, the high
    court has found no constitutional infirmity in factor (a). (Tuilaepa v. California
    (1994) 
    512 U.S. 967
    , 975-976.)
    3. Penalty phase procedures
    The federal Constitution does not require the jury to make written findings
    unanimously concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors
    exist, that they outweigh the factors in mitigation, or that death is the appropriate
    penalty. (People v. 
    Whalen, supra
    , 56 Cal.4th at pp. 90-91; People v. 
    Clark, supra
    , 52 Cal.4th at p. 106; People v. Manriquez (2005) 
    37 Cal. 4th 547
    , 589.) Nor
    is there either a constitutional or statutory command that these determinations be
    proved by some lesser standard of proof, or that the jury be told explicitly that
    neither side bears the burden of proof. (People v. Leonard (2007) 
    40 Cal. 4th 1370
    , 1429; People v. Hawthorne (1992) 
    4 Cal. 4th 43
    , 79 [penalty phase
    determinations are not subject to burden of proof quantification because they are
    138
    “ „moral and normative, not factual‟ ”].) Contrary to defendant‟s argument, the
    high court‟s decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment, from Apprendi v. New
    Jersey (2000) 
    530 U.S. 466
    and Ring v. Arizona (2002) 
    536 U.S. 584
    through
    Cunningham v. California (2007) 
    549 U.S. 270
    , do not compel a different
    conclusion. (People v. Williams (2013) 
    58 Cal. 4th 197
    , 295; People v. 
    Whalen, supra
    , at pp. 90-91.) As we have explained, determining the balance of evidence
    of aggravation and mitigation and the appropriate penalty do not entail the finding
    of facts but rather “a single fundamentally normative assessment [citations] that is
    outside the scope of Ring and Apprendi.” (People v. 
    Griffin, supra
    , 33 Cal.4th at
    p. 595; People v. Prieto (2003) 
    30 Cal. 4th 226
    , 262-263.)
    California‟s automatic appeals procedure does not violate constitutional
    guarantees by failing to provide for intercase proportionality review. (People v.
    
    Whalen, supra
    , 56 Cal.4th at p. 91; People v. 
    Myles, supra
    , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1224.)
    Nor does the jury‟s reliance on evidence of defendant‟s unadjudicated
    criminal activity as a factor in aggravation, in the absence of unanimous
    agreement that such activity was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, violate due
    process or render a death sentence unreliable. (People v. Thomas (2012) 
    53 Cal. 4th 771
    , 836; People v. 
    Martinez, supra
    , 
    47 Cal. 4th 399
    , 455.)
    There is no constitutional requirement that the jury be instructed regarding
    which of the statutory factors in section 190.3 are aggravating, which are
    mitigating, and which could be either aggravating or mitigating. (People v.
    Edwards (2013) 
    57 Cal. 4th 658
    , 766 [the statutory instruction directing “ „the jury
    to consider “whether or not” ‟ ” certain mitigating factors exist did not invite the
    jury to aggravate defendant‟s sentence on “ „ “ „the basis of nonexistent or
    irrational . . . factors‟ ” ‟ ”].) The use of the adjectives “extreme” and
    “substantial” to describe mitigating factors involving “mental or emotional
    disturbance” and “duress or domination” (§ 190.3, factors (d), (g)), does not erect
    139
    a barrier to the jury‟s consideration of mitigating evidence in violation of
    constitutional guarantees. (People v. 
    Manibusan, supra
    , 58 Cal.4th at p. 100;
    People v. 
    DeHoyos, supra
    , 57 Cal.4th at p. 150.)
    Prosecutorial discretion and the absence of standards for deciding whether or
    not to seek the death penalty in an eligible case do not create a substantial risk of
    arbitrary outcomes that vary from county to county or otherwise offend
    constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection, or the prohibition
    against cruel and unusual punishment. (People v. 
    Myles, supra
    , 53 Cal.4th at
    p. 1224; People v. Keenan (1988) 
    46 Cal. 3d 478
    , 505.)
    Because capital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated, the
    death penalty scheme does not violate equal protection by failing to provide
    capital defendants with the same procedural protections that are afforded to
    noncapital defendants. (People v. 
    Edwards, supra
    , 57 Cal.4th at p. 768; People v.
    
    DeHoyos, supra
    , 57 Cal.4th at p. 151.)
    4. International law
    Defendant contends that, even assuming that the death penalty itself does not
    violate international norms of decency, the broad reach of California‟s capital
    punishment scheme and use of the death penalty as a regular form of punishment
    for substantial numbers of crimes is contrary to those international standards and
    constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have addressed and
    repeatedly rejected the identical argument that California imposes death as
    “ „regular punishment for substantial numbers of crimes.‟ ” (People v.
    Demetrulias (2006) 
    39 Cal. 4th 1
    , 43, italics omitted; accord, People v. 
    DeHoyos, supra
    , 57 Cal.4th at p. 151; People v. Souza (2012) 
    54 Cal. 4th 90
    , 142.)
    Defendant presents no new arguments that would prompt reconsideration of our
    prior conclusion.
    140
    I. Cumulative Effect of Asserted Guilt and Penalty Phase Errors
    Defendant argues that even if none of the asserted errors at the guilt and
    penalty phase warrant reversal when considered individually, the cumulative
    weight of those asserted errors was prejudicial, depriving him of a fair trial and
    penalty determination and other constitutional rights. We have concluded that
    there was no cumulative effect of error at the guilt phase (see ante, pt. II.F.), and
    found no error at the penalty phase. Accordingly, there were no additional errors
    to cumulate and therefore no cumulative prejudice.
    III. CONCLUSION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    BAXTER, J.
    WERDEGAR, J.
    CHIN, J.
    CORRIGAN, J.
    LIU, J.
    SIMONS, J.*
    * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five,
    assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
    Constitution.
    141
    See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
    Name of Opinion People v. Merriman
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished Opinion
    Original Appeal XXX
    Original Proceeding
    Review Granted
    Rehearing Granted
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    Opinion No. S097363
    Date Filed: August 18, 2014
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    Court: Superior
    County: Ventura
    Judge: Vincent J. O‟Neill, Jr.
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    Counsel:
    Glen Niemy, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C.
    Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Jaime L. Fuster, Deputy Attorneys General,
    for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
    Glen Niemy
    P.O. Box 764
    Bridgton, ME 04009
    (207) 647-2600
    Jaime L. Fuster
    Deputy Attorney General
    300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
    Los Angeles, CA 90013
    (213) 897-2354
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S097363

Citation Numbers: 60 Cal. 4th 1, 332 P.3d 1187, 177 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 2014 WL 4056547, 2014 Cal. LEXIS 5746

Judges: Cantil-Sakauye

Filed Date: 8/18/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/3/2024

Authorities (67)

People v. Story , 45 Cal. 4th 1282 ( 2009 )

People v. Hawthorne , 46 Cal. 4th 67 ( 2009 )

People v. Anderson , 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 ( 2001 )

People v. Keenan , 46 Cal. 3d 478 ( 1988 )

Elkins v. Superior Court , 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483 ( 2007 )

People v. Page , 2008 D.A.R. 9692 ( 2008 )

People v. Lewis , 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 ( 2006 )

People v. Hannon , 19 Cal. 3d 588 ( 1977 )

People v. Memro , 11 Cal. 4th 786 ( 1995 )

People v. Lewis , 46 Cal. 4th 1255 ( 2009 )

People v. Boyer , 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677 ( 2006 )

People v. Michaels , 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 285 ( 2002 )

People v. Manriquez , 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340 ( 2005 )

In Re Hitchings , 6 Cal. 4th 97 ( 1997 )

People v. Danks , 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 ( 2004 )

People v. Kraft , 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 ( 2000 )

People v. Jablonski , 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98 ( 2006 )

In Re Carpenter , 9 Cal. 4th 634 ( 1995 )

People v. Boyd , 38 Cal. 3d 762 ( 1985 )

Dawson v. Delaware , 112 S. Ct. 1093 ( 1992 )

View All Authorities »