Opinion ID: 1130834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: guilt phase error robbery-related counts

Text: Gay challenges his conviction of the counts charging him with robbery, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. We conclude that reversal of the robbery-related counts is required because the trial court failed to instruct on the elements of robbery, other than the intent to permanently deprive the owner of property which was explained in general instructions on specific intent. It is nonetheless necessary to set out the evidence connecting Gay with the robberies and to address his other claims since he argues that errors during trial on the robbery counts and incompetence of trial counsel in relation to those counts prejudicially affected the murder and penalty verdicts.
The jury found Gay guilty on two counts of attempted robbery, ten counts of robbery, and one count charging conspiracy to commit robbery. The robberies and attempted robberies involved seven separate incidents.
One victim of this robbery identified Cummings as one of the two perpetrators. None of the three victims was able to identify the second robber. Pamela, who drove the getaway car, testified that Gay was that person and had admitted striking one victim. Her testimony was corroborated in part by the testimony of two young men, but neither of them identified either of the perpetrators. On April 25, 1983, about 7:45 p.m., the Granada Hills dry cleaning business owned by Hagop Parunyan was closed. He and Lisa Pina, an employee, were inside the shop. His brother-in-law, Sahan Somunjian, was outside the back door. Somunjian testified that a man whom Somunjian did not see put a gun to the back of his head and asked where the safe and the money were. When Somunjian said he did not know and that his wallet was in his car, the man dragged Somunjian, who was then lying down, to the car and took Somunjian's wallet and keys. The man then hit Somunjian several times on the back of the head. The beating broke one of Somunjian's fingers, made a hole in his head, and left scars. Parunyan testified that while this man was hitting Somunjian, a Black man, who was not Gay, entered the shop and ordered Parunyan to lie down on his face and hit him twice with a handgun on the back of his neck. He then took Pina to the front of the shop, after which he returned, put Pina down on top of him and ordered him not to raise his head. Pina testified that she was standing by the open back door of the shop when two men ran up. One, a Black man whom she identified as Cummings, asked if they had a safe. He then saw Somunjian who he ordered to lie down. He took Pina to the cash register from which he took the money. She saw him striking Somunjian. Todd Husk and Troy Gann were in an alley behind the cleaning shop. Todd observed a dark blue or green car behind the shop. A woman was in the car. He also saw two men, one of who popped around the corner when the automobile horn honked. He had identified one of those men as Cummings. Troy also saw the car and saw two men sneaking around. One peeked around the corner. Another was bending over behind a trash can. He had identified one man as Cummings. He heard the horn on the car honk, after which both men got into the car which then turned and drove down the alley where it turned again and went back to where it had been. Troy identified a photo of the car. The photo depicted Robin's car. Pamela testified that she, Cummings, and Gay drove to the Kenn Cleaners and parked against a wall about 10 or 15 feet from the back of the shop. She remained in the car while the two men got out, walked closer to the cleaners and looked to see who was there. While she was waiting two young kids walked through the alley. She honked the horn at that time. Cummings and Gay went into the cleaners where they remained about 10 minutes. When they returned and got into the car, Cummings divided about $300, and he said that two men in the shop had been told to lie down and he had taken a girl to the cash register to get the money. [50] Gay said that he had hit a man over the head.
Neither of the two victims of this robbery identified the two Black perpetrators. Pamela testified that after she entered the shop to see who was present, Cummings and Gay committed the robbery while she and Robin waited outside in Gay's car. Abdul Shamji testified that on May 6, 1983, about 8:10 p.m. he was in his restaurant, a salad bar, with his brother Madatali. The restaurant was closed. Two Black men entered the unlocked back door. One told him to open the cash register and took about $200 from the drawer when he complied. The man then told Shamji to open the safe and took about $1,200 and some jewelry from the safe. This victim was then told to lie down in the kitchen and was hit several times on the head with a gun. His finger was broken and he suffered a head injury. A shot was fired into the door. Madatali Shamji testified that he was told to put his hands on his head and lie on the floor. One of the robbers sat on him and held a gun to his head. The man struck him on the head with the gun inflicting several cuts and bruises. Pamela testified that she, Robin, Cummings, and Gay had driven to a Baskin-Robbins shop about five doors from the Salads Plus restaurant in Robin's car. After watching the Baskin-Robbins shop, which had many people passing and had large windows, for about two hours, they turned their attention to the restaurant. Pamela went in by the back door, learned that it was closed, and returned to the car. Cummings and Gay then went in and remained about 10 minutes. Pamela heard a shot while they were inside. They returned to the car and drove to Robin's apartment. Cummings said that the gun had gone off accidentally and that when he forced the man to open the safe the man gave him money and jewelry.
Gay was identified by the victim of this robbery who was deceased at the time of trial. His preliminary hearing testimony was read. In that testimony Richard Hallberg said that on May 13, 1983, about 8:55 p.m. he was in his recreational vehicle repair shop in Reseda. The shop was closed. Two men, one Black and the other possibly Black, entered. Gay told Hallberg to give him the money. Hallberg said he did not have it there and started toward the cash register. Gay asked where he was going and when Hallberg said he was going to where the money was, Gay began to hit him over the head with a revolver. The other man also hit him on the head with a revolver. Hallberg was hit about 15 times, suffered 13 cuts, and the area of his right eye and his left ear were split open. His nails were bruised. Two hundred dollars was taken from the register, $1,300 from Hallberg's pocket, $100 was taken from his wallet, and a knife and belt buckle were taken. A metal revolver part was later found in the place where Hallberg was beaten. The knife taken in the robbery was found in the pocket of the jacket worn by Gay at the time of his arrest. Pamela testified that she, Cummings, and Gay drove in Robin's car to the repair shop. She parked about 15 to 20 feet away. Cummings and Gay left the car and returned after about 10 minutes. Later, at Robin's apartment, Gay said that he had hit the man over the head with a gun and the gun broke. She saw about $1,000 which was divided in half.
Carmen Rodriguez, the victim of this robbery, could not identify Gay in court, and testified that he was not there. She also testified, however, that Kenneth Gay had attempted to rob her in her flower shop, Designer Florist, on May 20, 1983, about 9:45 a.m. She described him as a light-skinned Black man with loose curly hair. She had identified Cummings as the other man in a police photo lineup and during a grand jury hearing. [51] When she had seen Gay on television he looked totally different than the day of the attempted robbery. His hair was different. He had shaved off his moustache, and he was bruised. She testified that in her report to the police she had described him as a light-skinned Black man with loose curly hair and a moustache. Rodriguez testified that Gay and Cummings entered the Chatsworth shop about 9:45 a.m. on May 20, 1983, while her back was turned. Cummings pointed a knife at her waist, threatened to kill her if she screamed, and dragged her to the office where he demanded that she open the safe. Gay hit her over the head with a gun as she did so. When she had difficulty opening the safe, Gay told Cummings to shoot her. She opened the safe which held no money, after which the men grabbed her and told her to get on the floor. Gay beat her over the head with the gun. A nearby merchant testified that he observed the car and identified Pamela as the woman in it. He also identified a photo of the car. The car was a green Plymouth that belonged to Robin. Pamela testified that she drove Cummings and Gay to the shop, parked in the back, and went into the shop. She returned and told her companions what she saw, after which Cummings and Gay went in. They returned after about 10 minutes. Cummings said that when the lady didn't open the safe Gay hit her over the head with the gun. Pamela saw blood on both Cummings's and Gay's clothes. It had not been there before. Pamela testified that Gay had said he was hesitant about committing a robbery in the shopping complex in which the florist shop was located because his mother worked in a nearby drugstore. Pamela was familiar with the drugstore which was about 500 feet from the florist shop. It was possible to see the florist shop from the drugstore.
Corey Glick testified that Gay could be one of the two men who robbed him and his mother, Joyce Glick, in their Ventura Boulevard Artistic Bath shop about 5 p.m. on May 31, 1983, just as they were closing. About one-half hour earlier two women had come in, looked around the bath salt area and left. He identified a photo of Pamela as one of the women. The man who could have been Gay tapped on the door and said that he needed bath salts for his wife. Glick admitted him, showed him the bath salts, and went to turn on the lights. As he did so Gay pulled a gun on Glick's mother and ordered her to the back of the store. A second man, holding a knife, entered and told Glick to get down on the floor, threatening to slit Glick's throat. The man then took Glick's eyeglasses and asked where the safe was. When Glick told him that his mother's purse was the safe, the man took about $500 and a ring from the purse and took Glick's keys. Joyce Glick testified that the first man who entered was very light complected. She thought he was White. Pamela testified that she, Robin, Cummings and Gay went to the bath shop in Robin's car. They looked around and reported back to the two men who then went into the back door of the bath shop. The men remained about 10 minutes. They were walking fast when they returned. Gay ripped off his shirt. Cummings said he held a knife to the man's throat. Gay said he had held a gun on the lady. Pamela saw about $300 and a ring. Pamela divided the money in half and gave half to Gay. She kept the ring which was identified by Joyce Glick as the one taken in the robbery.
Bruce Anderson, manager of the Pizza Man delivery service in Sylmar, testified that he and two employees, Mark Litke and Casey Graham, were in that shop about 7:30 p.m. on May 29, 1983, when Cummings entered with a gun. Cummings said he wanted the money. All three gave Cummings the money in their wallets. Pamela testified that shortly after May 29, 1983, Cummings told her that he and Gay had robbed a pizza shop. Gay was present when Cummings said this.
Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. (§ 211.) The fear may be: 1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family; or [¶] 2. The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery. (§ 212.) (36) The trial court must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. ( People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [112 Cal. Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913].) That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. ( People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 60 [246 Cal. Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1].) Neither Gay nor the People submitted robbery instructions to the court, and the court did not include an instruction defining robbery when instructing the jury. The court did instruct the jury, however, that ... the crime of attempted robbery ... requires the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of its property. [52] (37)(See fn. 54.), (38) Gay contends that the failure of the court to instruct on four of the five elements of robbery, [53] is federal constitutional error that is reversible per se. [54] The People concede that the omission of the instruction was error, but contend that it was harmless because the evidence established that all of the robberies were accomplished at gunpoint and the jury was instructed on the intent to permanently deprive. In addition, Gay did not dispute that the offenses shown by the evidence were robbery, challenging only the identification of himself as one of the robbers. Therefore, they argue, the harmless error analysis followed in People v. Dyer, supra, 45 Cal.3d 26, 63, and People v. Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d 386, 410-416, should be applied here even though the jury was not instructed that to convict, it must find that personal property was taken from the robbery victims against their will by means of force or fear, and that it was not instructed on these elements with regard to the attempted robbery and conspiracy counts. Odle and Dyer are not authority for affirmance when the trial court's instructions fail to advise the jury of the elements of a charged offense. In Odle, the trial court had omitted instructions on the elements of the special circumstance of intentionally killing a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duty (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7)) alleged in conjunction with a murder charge. We were persuaded that the standard of review to be applied to that error was not the reversible per se rule subject only to the exceptions recognized in People v. Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703 and People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539 [205 Cal. Rptr. 265, 684 P.2d 826], the  Cantrell-Thornton  exception ( People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672 [105 Cal. Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256]; People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738 [114 Cal. Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267]). The error could instead be tested under the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065]. ( People v. Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d 386, 410-414.) Our conclusion was based in part on the unique status of a special circumstance allegation. Although by statute in California the special circumstances which make a defendant eligible for the death penalty are to be charged in the information and found by the jury, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial on that issue which, but for the statutory mandate, would be a sentencing issue. ( People v. Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d 386, 411-412.) We also recognized, however, that as to elements of the offense the United States Supreme Court had recently held in Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 [92 L.Ed.2d 460, 106 S.Ct. 3101], reversal is mandated if instructional error on the elements of a crime, whether an impermissible presumption or omission of an element, necessarily rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, if it aborted the basic trial process or denied it altogether.... ( People v. Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d 386, 413.) In Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. 570, where the jury had been given an instruction creating a rebuttable presumption of malice in all homicides, the Supreme Court suggested that a trial would not be fundamentally unfair or the basic trial process aborted if the predicate facts conclusively establish intent, so that no rational jury could find that the defendant committed the relevant criminal act but did not intend to cause injury. [Citation.] In that event the erroneous instruction is simply superfluous: the jury has found ... `every fact necessary' to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Id., at pp. 580-581 [92 L.Ed.2d at p. 472].) That cannot be said in this case. A finding that property was taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner does not compel a conclusion that the jury has found the facts necessary to establish the remaining elements of the offense. The Supreme Court extended the reasoning of Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. 570, to instructions which withdraw part of an element of a crime from jury consideration in Pope v. Illinois (1987) 481 U.S. 497 [95 L.Ed.2d 439, 107 S.Ct. 1918]. There, in an obscenity prosecution based on the sale of magazines, the jury had been instructed erroneously that the value of the material, i.e., whether it had serious literary, artistic, or political value, was to be determined by community standards. As a result, the jury was not required to find whether a reasonable person would find that the material, taken as a whole, has such value. The high court analogized the error to that in Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. 570, noting that the jury was not precluded from considering the question of value altogether. The court held that in those circumstances the convictions could be upheld if the reviewing court concluded that no rational juror, if properly instructed, could find value in the magazines. (481 U.S. at 503 [95 L.Ed.2d at p. 447].) People v. Dyer, supra, 45 Cal.3d 26, on which the People also rely, does not aid them. There, too, only one aspect of the intent element of the definition of aiding and abetting had been omitted from the court's instructions. That error was subject to review under the harmless error analysis of Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. 570. We noted in so doing that the error was not equivalent to a directed verdict and was not an error that wholly prevented the jury from considering the issue. (45 Cal.3d at p. 63.) More recently in Carella v. California (1989) 491 U.S. 263 [105 L.Ed.2d 218, 109 S.Ct. 2419], Sandstrom error ( Sandstrom v. Montana (1979) 442 U.S. 510 [61 L.Ed.2d 39, 99 S.Ct. 2450]) had occurred when two mandatory presumptions were included in jury instructions on grand theft  one creating a presumption of intent to commit theft by fraud and the other creating a presumption that a person who willfully and intentionally failed to return a leased or rented vehicle within five days of the expiration of the lease or rental agreement embezzled it. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the People, one similar to that made here, that because the defendant had not disputed the presumed facts the error was harmless. The court reasoned that the error in creating the mandatory presumptions relieved the People of their burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby denied the defendant his due process rights, subverted the presumption of innocence, and invade[d] the truth-finding task assigned solely to juries in criminal cases. ( Carella v. California, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 265 [105 L.Ed.2d at p. 221].) Noting that it had held that Sandstrom error was subject to the harmless error test in Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. 570, the court held that the judgment could be upheld only if no rational jury could find the predicate facts but fail to find the fact presumed. ( Carella v. California, supra, 491 U.S. 263, 267 [105 L.Ed.2d 218, 222-223]; see also, Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. ___ [114 L.Ed.2d 432, 448-449, 111 S.Ct. 1884].) These decisions make a clear distinction between instructional error that entirely precludes jury consideration of an element of an offense and that which affects only an aspect of an element. Moreover, none suggests that a harmless error analysis may be applied to instructional error which withdraws from jury consideration substantially all of the elements of an offense and did not require by other instructions that the jury find the existence of the facts necessary to a conclusion that the omitted element had been proved. Therefore, regardless of the merits of the People's argument that Gay did not dispute the existence of the predicate facts and that the evidence overwhelmingly established all of the elements of robbery, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery, the conviction of Gay on counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIII, XIV, and XVI, must be reversed.
Gay was tried on the robbery-related counts, before his jury only, prior to the joint trial on the murder count. Before the introduction of any evidence an extensive hearing was conducted pursuant to Evidence Code section 405 to determine the admissibility of statements made by Gay during a pretrial interview with the prosecutor, his investigator Jack Holder, and John Helvin, a police detective who at that time was also assigned to investigate the death of Officer Verna. Gay objected to admission of his statements on grounds that the statements, which included admissions and confessions, were made during plea negotiations and thus were involuntary. He also objected that the prosecutor had not advised the defense of an intent to use the statements. The trial court denied the motion to exclude the statements. Gay renews the arguments made in the trial court in support of a claim that the trial court erred and also argues that trial counsel was incompetent in recommending that he make the statement. Because Gay attacks counsel's competence on additional grounds that relate to other stages of the proceedings, we treat the ineffective counsel claim separately in the concluding section of the opinion. The evidence relevant to admissibility of Gay's statement must be set out at some length because it is also relevant to Gay's claim that the court improperly denied his motion to relieve counsel and represent himself and his claim that counsel afforded constitutionally inadequate representation. Daye Shinn, who had been retained by Gay and was later appointed to represent him, sought to arrange for a polygraph examination of Gay to be administered by the People's expert examiner. He hoped, if Gay passed the examination, to arrange to have Gay testify as a prosecution witness. Gay had asserted his innocence of all charges at that time. Shinn contacted the prosecutor to say that Gay wanted to take a polygraph examination. The prosecutor said he would consider the proposal only after speaking to Gay and only if he believed Gay was truthful. If he did, Gay would be permitted to undergo a polygraph examination. A plea bargain would be arranged only if Gay also passed that examination. The prosecutor assumed that Gay was going to deny everything. He could not understand why Gay would agree to the interview otherwise. At the outset of the taped interview Officer Helvin advised Gay of his constitutional rights ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]), all of which other than the right to counsel he waived. Gay was expressly advised that anything he said during the interview could and would be used against him at trial. The prosecutor preceded his questioning with an admonition that nothing has been promised to you in any way shape or form, a promise hinted at or anything else, in order to ... convince you to take this examination or to convince you to ... participate in this interview. Isn't that right? Gay replied, That's right. Shinn was asked whether all of the agreements under which Gay was making his statement had been placed on the record on the tape. Shinn added nothing and said they should go ahead. Shinn asserted during the Evidence Code section 405 hearing that Gay had made the statement with the understanding that the tape would not be used if he were not allowed to testify for the prosecution. Helvin testified that no such agreement had been reached. The prosecutor testified that there was no agreement with Shinn. Shinn testified that he believed that only a polygraph examination was contemplated and was surprised to see a tape recording machine in the interview room. He acknowledged that the prosecutor told him that questions would be asked first, but Shinn maintained that he believed that Gay's statements would not be used if Gay was not given a polygraph examination or used as a witness for the People. He did not respond to the prosecutor's cross-examination asking where the understanding came from other than to say the question was ambiguous. Shinn then resumed his direct testimony and said that he had told Gay that the statements would not be used and Gay made his statement only on that representation. Gay testified that nothing was said to him by Shinn about the use of his statements if he was not given a polygraph examination. It was his impression from the prosecutor that if the prosecutor believed he was not truthful he would be sent back to jail. It was also his impression that the tape would not be used. He thought, even after Helvin told him the statement would be used, that the tape would not be used because he would end up being a state's witness. He had no knowledge of an agreement between the prosecutor and Shinn. The trial court found that neither Gay nor Shinn had been lulled into making the statement and the statement was voluntary. Gay resumed the stand at that point and testified that Shinn had advised him to cop out to the robberies because the polygraph examination would show that he was lying. He and Shinn plotted to trick the prosecutor into allowing him to take the polygraph examination. At the time of the hearing he felt that he had been tricked by Shinn. He did not feel he had been tricked by the prosecutor. Shinn was then called by the prosecutor and asked if he had heard Gay's testimony. Shinn testified that he did not recall either Gay's testimony or his own past conversation with Gay, but he had never told anyone to lie. (39) The court again found the statements to be voluntary. [55] Gay claims that the court erred because the statement was made on the advice of his own attorney, and it was made in the course of plea negotiations. [56] The claim lacks merit. There was no coercion or coercive police activity, and he was advised of his right against self-incrimination, was advised that the statement would be used against him, understood his rights, and voluntarily waived them. Therefore, the statement was not involuntary ( Colorado v. Connolly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 167 [93 L.Ed.2d 473, 484-485, 107 S.Ct. 515]; People v. Clark, supra, 50 Cal.3d 583, 620, fn. 30) and was not taken in violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, or under their California constitutional counterparts. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) [57] That conclusion is not affected by the fact that Gay's own attorney advised him to admit his complicity in the robberies. The statement was not made in the course of plea negotiations, but as a precondition to initiation of any discussion of disposition of the charges. [58] If there was any doubt as to that nature of the interview the express advice that the statement would be used against Gay was adequate to warn him and his attorney that the prosecutor intended to use Gay's statement at trial. [59] We reject, for the same reasons, Gay's claim that the prosecutor should be estopped from introducing his statement, and we find no merit in his claim that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof on the question of voluntariness to him. The latter claim is based on a comment made by the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the People that it had not found any testimony to show that Shinn or Gay had been lulled into confessing. The People presented ample evidence of voluntariness after that remark.
Before the court's third finding of voluntariness and ultimate denial of the motion to exclude Gay's taped statement, Shinn stated that he would have to confer with his client and that a conflict then existed between him and his client. After the motion was denied, Gay stated: Your honor, in light of that ruling, I feel that Mr. Shinn has not adequately represented me, and I would thereby relinquish [ sic ] him of the responsibility at this time and take over the case myself, and I will need time to prepare. (40)(See fn. 60.) The court denied the motion, but on the next court date held a  Marsden  hearing ( People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal. Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44]) at which Gay further explained the reasons for his request. [60] At that hearing Gay stated that the revelations regarding the circumstances of Shinn's advice to admit the robbery-related charges led Gay to believe that Shinn had not acted in Gay's best interest. Gay said that although it had not been determined whether the prosecutor deceived Shinn, or the opposite, he, Gay, bore the consequences and to protect himself it was necessary to eliminate any party to the deception. Gay again expressed a need for additional time to prepare, and he asked that the jury be disbanded so that he could conduct voir dire. In further support of his motion Gay stated that he had been denied the right to participate in his defense since he was unaware of any negotiations and that if Shinn had engaged in the private negotiations he claimed, Shinn had deceived Gay regarding them. [61] The court denied the motion citing People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121 [137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187] and People v. Spencer (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 931 [200 Cal. Rptr. 693], thereby finding that the motion was untimely. The court also explained that although Shinn had represented Gay for over a year, the case had been underway for over four months, forty motions had been disposed of, there had been no prior claim that a conflict existed or motion for self-representation. Shinn's representation had been proper and no conflict that would preclude continued representation had been demonstrated. [62] (41a) Gay contends now that his motion to dismiss counsel was timely, that even if the motion was untimely the court abused its discretion in failing to consider all factors relevant to a decision, and that as a result he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of self-representation. (42) A defendant who is competent to understand the dangers of self-representation and voluntarily waives his right to representation by counsel has a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to represent himself. ( Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; People v. Joseph (1983) 34 Cal.3d 936, 943 [196 Cal. Rptr. 339, 671 P.2d 843].) The defendant must, however, invoke that right within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial. ( People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121.) When a request is made after the commencement of trial, granting such a request is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Frierson, supra, 53 Cal.3d 730, 742; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 854 [258 Cal. Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270].) In the exercise of its discretion the court must consider the quality of counsel's representation of the defendant, the defendant's prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. Having established a record based on such relevant considerations, the court should then exercise its discretion and rule on the defendant's request. ( People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-129; see also People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 368-369 [247 Cal. Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109].) (41b) Gay's motion was not timely. It may be true, as Gay now argues, that the motion was made as soon as he became aware of Shinn's deception. Timeliness under People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121, is measured with respect to the time trial commences, however. ( People v. Burton, supra, 48 Cal.3d 843, 853; cf. People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 204-205 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302]; People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118.) Although no evidence had been presented when Gay made his motion, the trial had commenced. Jury selection had commenced more than four months earlier and Gay's jury had been sworn. Pretrial motions had been heard and disposed of. Gay was not ready to proceed and stated that if his request were granted a continuance would be necessary. Since the motion was not timely, it was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Clearly the court did consider the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Delaying trial would have necessitated discharge of the jury. Jury selection had been prolonged and difficult because of the projected length of the trial and because of the capital charge. The Cummings's jury had also been selected and a joint trial was to be held on that charge. The court had the opportunity to observe the quality of Shinn's representation over several months. The evidence at the hearing did not compel a conclusion that his overall representation was incompetent. The Windham factors weighed heavily against granting Gay's motion which was conditioned on granting a continuance.
(43a) Gay next contends that, over his hearsay and relevance objections, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of Cummings's guilty pleas and the conviction of Robin when evidence was presented on the robbery-related charges. Because we have determined that the robbery-related counts must be reversed, we address the question of admissibility of the evidence only to give guidance to the trial court in the event that those counts are retried. For the reasons discussed earlier, we agree that evidence of Robin's conviction was inadmissible at this phase of the trial also. (44), (45)(See fn. 63.) Evidence of a guilty plea is distinguishable, however, since a guilty plea falls within the hearsay rule exception for declarations against penal interest. (Evid. Code, § 1230.) [63] (43b) Gay argues that if Cummings's pleas were relevant they were so because they necessarily implicated him in the robberies. Therefore, he reasons, evidence of those extrajudicial statements may be admitted only if the declarant is available for purposes of confrontation and cross-examination as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. ( Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123; People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d 518.) If, as the People suggested, Cummings's guilty pleas imply that Gay, too, participated in the robbery-related offenses, there is merit in that argument. The trial court ruled that evidence of Cummings's guilty pleas was admissible because it corroborated Pamela's testimony regarding the robberies and the conspiracy. It did so only insofar as she had testified that Cummings participated in those offenses, however. It does not corroborate her testimony that Gay was a participant unless one infers that Gay was Cummings's crime partner in all of the robberies committed by Cummings. Any probative value attached to that inference is clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the evidence. (Cf. People v. Leonard (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 188 [193 Cal. Rptr. 171, 666 P.2d 28].) The People argue that the evidence was also admissible because Pamela's credibility was in issue. Again we disagree. Evidence of a codefendant's guilty pleas which is more prejudicial than probative when offered to raise an inference of the defendant's guilt is per se more prejudicial than probative when offered simply to bolster the credibility of another witness. The People also argue that because the guilty pleas fall within an exception to the hearsay rule there is no confrontation clause problem. People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d 527, 552, on which they rely does not create a blanket exception to the right of confrontation and cross-examination for all extrajudicial statements which are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, however. It assumes relevance. The Morales declarant had stated, several months before the murder for which the defendant was on trial, that he planned to commit another murder, and possibly the offense for which the defendant was being tried, saying that the defendant would be with him and would help him. We held that the statement was admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1250) and was relevant to show the declarant's intent to engage the defendant in a conspiracy that might include the murder. Here, however, the guilty pleas of Cummings, while admissible against Cummings as a declaration against his own penal interest, or as a confession or admission, say nothing about Gay. The inference, if any, to be drawn from the pleas bears none of the indicia of reliability which justify exceptions to the hearsay rule and, in turn, to the right of confrontation and cross-examination. The reasoning of People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d 527, is simply inapplicable. We conclude therefore that the evidence of Cummings's guilty pleas was inadmissible.
(46) Gay did not admit complicity in the attempted robbery charged in count VII, that committed at the Designer Florist, and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We do not agree. The only issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence is that of identifying Gay as a perpetrator. Rodriguez testified that two Black men entered her shop. She named Raynard Cummings and Kenneth Gay as those men, naming Gay as the person who grabbed her, told her to get to the floor, and beat her over the head with a gun. [64] Rodriguez did not identify Gay at trial, and when asked if she had looked at him testified that he was not in the courtroom, a statement she repeated several times. When Gay was pointed out to her, she said that he was not the man who had assaulted her. She had, however, given the police a description of her assailant in which she had stated that he was a light-skinned Black man with loose curly hair and a moustache, who was between five feet, ten inches and six feet tall, weighing about one hundred fifty pounds. Pamela testified, however, that she, Gay, and Cummings had driven to the florist shop on May 20, 1983. She looked around in the shop and then advised the two men what she had seen, and saw both men enter the shop where they remained for about 10 minutes. They returned walking quickly. Both had blood on their clothes. The owner of a nearby store testified that he saw the car in which Pamela was waiting parked at the rear of the florist shop at the time of the attempted robbery. Gay contends that Pamela's testimony was not corroborated. (§ 1111.) He also argues that if, as the People argue, there was corroboration in the inference that because Gay was Cummings's crime partner he was the second man in the florist shop, that corroboration was so slight that admission of evidence that Cummings had pleaded guilty to that offense was necessarily prejudicial. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that it is not reasonably probable that had evidence of Cummings's guilty plea been excluded a different result would have been reached. Pamela's testimony was corroborated, not only by an inference that Gay was the second robber because he was Cummings's crime partner in other recent robberies, but by Rodriguez herself. Although she did not recognize Gay in court, her description of the second robber, given at the time of the offense when Gay's appearance was different, closely matched his height and skin color, and the description given by other witnesses who testified later during the trial of the murder charge regarding Gay's appearance only two weeks after the attempted robbery of Rodriguez. [65] Those witnesses also testified that at that time Gay had a moustache and gericurls. Ms. Rodriguez's description tended to implicate Gay in the crime and thus was sufficient corroboration. ( People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1228 [283 Cal. Rptr. 144, 812 P.2d 163].) Evidence of corroboration is sufficient if it connects the defendant with the crime, even though it is slight and would be entitled to little consideration when standing by itself. ( People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th 324, 444.) The corroboration here was more than slight.
(47) Although we have concluded that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Cummings's pleas of guilty to the robbery-related counts, and of Robin's conviction as an accessory to the murder, and that instructional error necessitates reversal of the robbery-related counts, those errors did not affect the Gay jury's consideration of the murder and special circumstances charges. Evidence regarding the recent criminal conduct of both Gay and Cummings was admissible for the purpose of establishing that when they were stopped and questioned by Officer Verna, Gay and Cummings had good reason to believe that an arrest was imminent. The existence of that motive was relevant, in turn, to establish that the murder was intentional, deliberate, and premeditated, and that defendants killed Officer Verna to avoid arrest. The omission of instructions on robbery could not have affected the jury's consideration of the evidence for that purpose. It is not reasonably probable that the Gay jury would have reached a different verdict absent the error, therefore. We reach the same conclusion with respect to the erroneous admission of evidence of Cummings's guilty pleas and Robin's conviction. The evidence of both guilt of the murder and the motive for it was overwhelming. The evidence of motive was not limited to evidence of the robberies of which Gay was convicted, but included evidence of the joint commission of another robbery, evidence that the car used by defendants was stolen, and evidence of parole violation. It is not reasonably probable that the Gay jury would have reached a more favorable result with respect to the murder absent knowledge of this evidence.