Opinion ID: 844163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attempted murder counts

Text: Defendant contends that the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that he shot at Boggess, Collazo, Gipson, Graham, Hinojosai, Kaze, Martinez, Rodriguez, Scarberry, and Yanez with the specific intent to kill necessary for attempted murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) “Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. [Citation.] Attempted murder requires express malice, that is, the assailant either desires the victim‟s death, or knows to a substantial certainty that the victim‟s death will occur.” (Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 177-178.) Defendant contends that the evidence at trial did not demonstrate that he intended to kill the attempted murder victims, none of whom he knew. Defendant notes that, for some of the attempted murder victims, there was no evidence that he specifically aimed at them. Also, for some of the victims, the evidence showed that although they were clearly alive after they had been shot, defendant made no further attempt to kill them. Defendant relies on People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733 (Murtishaw) overruled on another point by People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 772-773, in which we examined the jury instructions for the defendant‟s conviction of assault with intent to commit murder. There, the jury was instructed that the crime required evidence of a specific intent to commit murder, but the jury was also given definitions of murder that did not require an intent to kill, that is, implied malice murder or felony murder. (Id. at p. 763.) Defendant here, however, does not contend the jury was improperly instructed about the necessary intent. Instead, he contends that the evidence at trial did not demonstrate an intent to kill. 35 The act of shooting a firearm toward a victim at close range in a manner that could have inflicted a mortal wound had the shot been on target is sufficient to support an inference of an intent to kill. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741 (Smith).) Moreover, attempted murder does not necessarily require a specific target. We have held that an indiscriminate would-be killer who fires into a crowd is just as culpable as one who targets a specific victim. (E.g., People v. Perez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 222, 230.) The totality of the evidence established that defendant repeatedly and intentionally discharged a shotgun loaded with antipersonnel, multiprojectile ammunition at close range toward his victims in a manner that could have inflicted a mortal wound. This is sufficient to sustain these convictions. In addition, motive is not an element of the crime of attempted murder. (E.g., Smith, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 740-741.) That defendant did not know his victims or bear them any ill will does not demonstrate that he lacked the intent to kill. Although motive is often probative of an intent to kill, the absence of a clear motive does not demonstrate the lack of an intent to kill. Moreover, as with Davis, Hill, and White, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that the attempted murder victims were simply targets of defendant‟s misdirected anger or part of his scheme to draw attention to his plight. That defendant did not shoot even more people does not mean he lacked a motive or the specific intent to kill those whom he did shoot. Similarly, it is not dispositive that defendant did not kill some of his wounded victims. That defendant may have fired once and then abandoned his efforts does not compel the conclusion he lacked the intent to kill in the first instance. (E.g., Smith, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 741.) Defendant may not have finished off these victims for any number of reasons, such as the desire to continue his rampage. Defendant contends that the evidence showed he intended only to wound or disable these victims. Again, while such a scenario might be possible, we presume in support of the verdict the existence of every fact that can be reasonably inferred from the evidence. 36 Given the evidence of defendant‟s behavior both before and during the carnage, coupled with his choice of lethal ammunition, the annotated book recovered from his car, and the torn-up note expressing his interest in death and killing, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that defendant harbored the specific intent to kill these 10 victims and thus could have found him guilty on the attempted murder counts. 3. Judicial Misconduct Defendant contends that the trial court was biased against mental health professionals and the study of psychology in general, thus violating his right to a fair trial. A court commits misconduct if it creates the impression that it is denigrating the defense or otherwise allying itself with the prosecution. (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 824 (Blacksher).) During defendant‟s examination of his psychologist, Dr. Rubinstein, the following colloquy occurred: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You were asked yesterday about the relative number of criminal cases that you had examined or patients that you had examined as opposed to [noncriminal] cases. [¶] Does that — is that significant or is it for your purposes a matter of a brain is a brain is a brain? “[DR. RUBINSTEIN]: A brain is a brain is a brain. I don‟t believe a heart surgeon needs to know whether his patient has been accused of a crime or not to perform the procedures that he‟s been trained to perform. “THE COURT: Is that Gertrude Rubinstein? I‟m sorry. Go ahead with your answer, Doctor.” This exchange was apparently a play on the words of Gertrude Stein‟s famous line in her poem “Sacred Emily”: “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.” (Stein (1922) Geography and Plays.) 37 Almost immediately after this exchange, defense counsel asked Dr. Rubinstein, “There is oft times a criticism of psychiatry and psychology that contends that psychology and psychiatry [are] nothing more than Freud and Freud is nothing more than saying people have problems because they hate their mother or their father. [¶] You may have heard different forms. How do you respond to that?” The prosecutor objected to the question as leading and implied that it was confusing as well. The trial court responded, “Well, I‟m going to overrule the objection. It is proper to ask an expert a leading question. And I think it‟s an understandable question. It’s really all the psychology stuff is mumbo jumbo stuff.” (Italics added.) During his penalty phase closing argument, the prosecutor belittled the evidence of defendant‟s state of mind, calling it “mumbo jumbo.” Defendant did not object to either of the trial court‟s remarks. Ordinarily, the lack of an objection at trial forfeits the claim on appeal. (Blacksher, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 825.) However, a failure to object to judicial misconduct does not preclude appellate review when an objection could not have cured the prejudice or would have been futile. (People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1237 (Sturm).) In Sturm, we ruled the defendant had not forfeited his claim of judicial misconduct, despite his lack of objections, because the hostility between the trial court and defense counsel was evident. (Ibid.) Moreover, Sturm involved numerous, extensive disparaging remarks. (Id. at pp. 1233-1236.) Neither of those circumstances is present here. Accordingly, defendant has forfeited this claim because a timely admonition could have cured any potential prejudice. Even if we considered this claim on the merits, it would fail. “[T]his court has repeatedly stated that a trial court must avoid comments that convey to the jury the message that the judge does not believe the testimony of the witness.” (Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1238.) The trial court‟s reference to “Gertrude Rubinstein” did not do so 38 and was simply an ill-advised attempt to interject some levity into the proceedings, “always a risky venture during a trial for a capital offense.” (Ibid.) This remark is unlike those found improper in People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555 (Geier), overruled on another point by Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305. The trial judge in Geier facetiously associated one defense witness with Forrest Gump, “a dim-witted fictional character,” and made a reference to “Oprah” to suggest that the personal life of another defense witness “was the stuff of tabloid television.” (Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 614.) We held that these remarks “could have been perceived by jurors as derogatory comments on the credibility of those witnesses.” (Ibid.) That is not the case here. The trial court‟s apparent reference to the poet Gertrude Stein did not denigrate the expert witness. Neither would the trial court‟s use of the phrase “mumbo jumbo” in overruling an objection to the prosecutor‟s question to the expert require us to reverse the judgment. The court did not express the opinion that psychiatry and psychology were “mumbo jumbo.” It simply restated a common criticism in colloquial but ill-advised terms in explaining why the question was proper. The jury heard extensive testimony, offered by both parties, from a total of four mental health professionals. Although defendant contends that the trial court harbored a “scornful” opinion of his case, the remarks in context do not show that the court was no longer an impartial arbiter. Even if improper, these two brief remarks “ „fall short of the intemperate or biased judicial conduct [that] warrants reversal.‟ ” (Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 614.) Accordingly, we also reject defendant‟s contention that the trial court‟s remarks prejudiced him during the sanity trial and penalty phase. 4. Admission of Lay Opinion Defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing Rewerts to testify that if defendant had been molested by Brens, he believed defendant would have told him about 39 it. Under section 800 of the Evidence Code, a witness may provide an opinion if it is rationally based on what he or she perceived and if it is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony. During the prosecutor‟s rebuttal case, the following colloquy occurred: “[PROSECUTOR]: In your opinion based upon the relationship and the type of relationship you had with [defendant], is that the type of thing, having sexual contact with Mr. Brens, that the defendant would have talked to you about had it occurred? “[REWERTS]: Yeah. We were friends. I believe that he would have told me such a thing about Mr. Brens touching him or doing anything else. I believe that he would have told me.” The Attorney General preliminarily contends that defendant has forfeited this claim by failing to object at trial. (See Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) Before Rewerts testified, however, defendant requested an offer of proof as to the substance of his proposed testimony. The prosecutor summarized Rewerts‟s proposed testimony, and defendant raised various objections, including an objection that the offer of proof indicated that Rewerts intended to speculate about what information defendant would choose to reveal to him. The trial court permitted Rewerts to testify on this subject, and he did so. Defendant therefore properly preserved this issue for appeal. Defendant contends that the trial court improperly allowed Rewerts to testify about defendant‟s veracity. Defendant is correct that generally a lay witness may not express an opinion about the veracity of another person‟s statement because the statement‟s veracity is for the jury to decide. (E.g., People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 744; but see People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 379-384.) However, Rewerts did not provide an opinion about the veracity of any of defendant‟s statements. Although Rewerts‟s belief about what information defendant would have shared with him, coupled with the fact that defendant did not share such information, might have implied that 40 Rewerts thought defendant‟s molestation allegations were false, he did not actually offer an opinion on this ultimate issue of fact. Rewerts‟s testimony that he and defendant often discussed sexual matters was relevant and admissible. The same is true for Rewerts‟s testimony that defendant never discussed with him the claimed molestation by Brens. It also would have been proper for Rewerts to express his opinion that it would be normal for them to discuss such personal matters, as such testimony would shed light on the nature of their relationship. But in the testimony at issue, Rewerts went a step farther. He did not say it would have been normal for defendant to discuss with him the alleged molestation by Brens. Instead, he specifically testified that defendant “would have told me such a thing.” This statement was speculative and not based on anything Rewerts might have perceived through his physical senses, and his opinion on the matter did not help the jury understand the rest of his testimony. (See Blacksher, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 808 [lay witness may testify about objective behavior but may not give an opinion about another‟s state of mind].) Although it is reasonable to infer that, in light of the nature of their relationship, defendant would have told Rewerts about the alleged molestation by Brens, it is the role of the trier of fact, not the witness, to make such an inference. The trial court should not have permitted Rewerts‟s specific testimony about what defendant would have told him. Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant‟s guilt, however, he is not entitled to relief based on this error under the applicable federal or state standard of review. (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24; Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) We similarly reject defendant‟s contention that this error prejudiced him during the sanity trial and penalty phase. 5. Prosecutorial Misconduct During the Guilt Phase “A prosecutor commits misconduct when his or her conduct either infects the trial with such unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, or 41 involves deceptive or reprehensible methods employed to persuade the trier of fact.” (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 711 (Avila) [applying both federal and state standards].) During his guilt phase closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “And if you‟ve noticed throughout this trial, during defense counsel‟s opening statement and during their argument, the defendant cried. But when we talked about [the victims, there] was no emotion. Because all [defendant] cares about is [defendant]. And [defendant] can do no wrong, because everybody else has screwed it up for him.” Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument by this comment on his demeanor. As the Attorney General correctly notes, this claim is forfeited because defendant failed to object or request a curative admonition in the trial court. (E.g., Avila, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 710-711.) Even were we to consider the claim on the merits, we are not persuaded. Defendant is correct that a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant‟s demeanor or behavior during the guilt phase unless it is to tell the jury to ignore a defendant‟s demeanor or behavior. (E.g., People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 434.) To the extent the prosecutor asked the jury to ignore defendant‟s crying, there was no misconduct. We agree with defendant, however, that it was misconduct for the prosecutor to ask the jury to note defendant‟s lack of crying, which in this context implied a lack of remorse. But given the overwhelming evidence of defendant‟s guilt, he is not entitled to relief based on this comment under the applicable federal or state standard of review. (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24; Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) Defendant also contends that the prosecutor‟s comment improperly highlighted his exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent in the face of criminal charges (Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609), but nothing in the prosecutor‟s comment either 42 directly or indirectly implicated the decision not to testify. (E.g., People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 866-867 (Combs).) 6. Jury Instruction Regarding Accomplice Testimony Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury to view the testimony of Rewerts, his best friend, with caution because it could have found that Rewerts was an accomplice. Section 1111 provides in pertinent part: “A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense . . . .” When a jury receives substantial evidence that a witness who has implicated the defendant was an accomplice, a trial court on its own motion must instruct it on the principles regarding accomplice testimony. (Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 466-467.) This includes instructing the jury that an accomplice‟s testimony implicating the defendant must be viewed with caution and corroborated by other evidence. (Ibid.; see CALJIC Nos. 3.11, 3.18; CALCRIM Nos. 334, 335.) Rewerts testified that, a few months before the shootings, he had told defendant about his own desire to “destroy[] things,” and defendant responded by saying he wanted to go to the high school and “shoot[] a couple of people.” Rewerts initially thought to himself, “ „No, it can‟t be. If he is, that‟s stupid.‟ It‟s so stupid of him to go through with such a bizarre idea.” The pair discussed, two or three times after that initial conversation, going to the school and “shoot[ing] a couple rounds.” One scenario involved them “using robots.” Rewerts described these conversations as “passé talk,” “just idle talk” “between two friends,” and “stupid.” He explained “[e]verybody says that they‟re going to go out and in anger that they‟re going to kill a person, but they don‟t.” Rewerts also testified defendant had read to Rewerts passages from a book on military tactics and police procedures. Rewerts further testified that he and defendant had gone target shooting together. 43 During his interrogation, defendant told law enforcement personnel that Rewerts had not helped him. Defendant also said his initial conversation with Rewerts about this topic was about a dream he had had and not about an actual plan or desire to attack the school. An accomplice is someone subject to prosecution for the charged crimes by reason of aiding and abetting or being a member of a conspiracy to commit the charged crimes. (§ 1111; e.g., People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1201-1202.) “ „An accomplice must have “ „guilty knowledge and intent with regard to the commission of the crime.‟ ” ‟ ” (Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 467.) In People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, we explained what is required for aiding and abetting liability. In Beeman, the defendant was convicted of robbery and other crimes on an aider and abettor theory of liability. We reversed the defendant‟s convictions because the jury instructions did not explain that an aider and abettor must act “with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.” (Id. at p. 560, italics in original.) In other words, an aider and abettor of a specific intent crime shares the perpetrator‟s specific intent when he or she knows of the perpetrator‟s criminal purpose and aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates the perpetrator with the intent of encouraging or facilitating the commission of the crime. (Ibid.; see CALJIC No. 3.01; CALCRIM No. 401.) Moreover, if an accomplice aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates a confederate to commit a crime, but the confederate instead commits another, more serious crime, the accomplice may be liable for the more serious crime if it was a “natural and probable consequence” of the crime that the accomplice intended to aid and abet. (E.g., People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 259-263; see CALJIC No. 3.02; CALCRIM No. 402.) Thus, defendant contends, if Rewerts aided and abetted his “shooting a couple [of] people” or even just “shoot[ing] a couple of rounds” while inside the school, then Rewerts was an aider and abettor to the natural and probable consequences of those 44 crimes, that is, murder, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant therefore concludes Rewerts was an accomplice as a matter of law because he knew of defendant‟s criminal purpose and encouraged him to act, which resulted in defendant attacking the school. There was no evidence indicating that Rewerts intended to aid, facilitate, or encourage defendant‟s actions, or that Rewerts even knew what defendant intended to do. Moreover, defendant admitted that Rewerts had not helped him. Although on multiple occasions they discussed going to the school, the record shows that Rewerts thought the two of them were engaging in an idle fantasy, not planning a crime. There was no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that Rewerts was an accomplice such that the trial court was required to instruct the jury on accomplice liability. Similarly, that the two went shooting together is not dispositive because there was no evidence those excursions were in any way related to defendant‟s crimes. Even if we were to agree that substantial evidence showed Rewerts actually was an accomplice and that the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury, the error was harmless under any applicable standard because the corroborating evidence of defendant‟s guilt, including his state of mind, was overwhelming. (Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 467.) 7. Life Sentences for the 10 Attempted Murder Counts Defendant contends that he was improperly sentenced to life imprisonment for each count of attempted murder because the indictment failed to allege that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. At the time of defendant‟s 1992 indictment, former subdivision 1 (now subdivision (a)) of section 664 stated in pertinent part, “[I]f the crime attempted is willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, as defined in Section 189, the person guilty of that attempt shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole; provided, further that if the crime 45 attempted is any other one in which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death the person guilty of the attempt shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of five, seven, or nine years. The additional term provided in this section for attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder shall not be imposed unless the fact that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact.” (§ 664, subd. 1, as amended by Stats. 1986, ch. 519, § 2, p. 1859.) The indictment in this case alleged, with respect to each of the 10 attempted murder victims, that defendant violated “Section 664/187 . . . , to wit: did willfully and unlawfully attempt to commit the crime of murder in violation of Section 187 . . . in that he did willfully and unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, attempt to murder [the victim], a human being.” It did not allege that the attempted murders were deliberate and premeditated. At the end of the first day of defendant‟s presentation of his case, the trial court presented the parties with a preliminary draft of the verdict forms, which indicated that the court would ask the jury to determine whether the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The trial court stated: “And the final thing that is not completely clear in the verdict form, because I don‟t think I had it clear in my mind when I was putting it together, is the distinction between the two kinds of attempted murder, and if I understand what the prosecution is doing in [the attempted murder counts], I believe the prosecution is intending to charge premeditated attempted murder. “If that’s not right, you should tell me now, or as soon hereafter as you are able to, because it would help me. “In other words, the type of attempted murder [that is] punished by life imprisonment rather than five, seven, nine.” (Italics added.) 46 One week later, the trial court announced its intent to have the attempted murder verdict form list deliberate and premeditated attempted murder as “a special finding.” Then, after the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jurors on the definition of attempted murder and further instructed them to determine whether the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Defendant did not object before the court submitted the case to the jury or at sentencing. As noted, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the 10 attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The Attorney General concedes that the indictment failed to allege that the attempted murders were deliberate and premeditated, but contends defendant has forfeited this claim. We agree. It is uncontested that the indictment failed to comply with the requirements of section 664. People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652 (Bright), overruled on another point by People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, however, is instructive. In Bright, the jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder, but was unable to agree on whether the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. (Bright, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 658.) The defendant argued double jeopardy prevented the prosecution from retrying him on the premeditation allegation, reasoning premeditated attempted murder was a greater degree of the offense of attempted murder. (Id. at pp. 658-660.) As part of our rationale in rejecting the defendant‟s claim that premeditated attempted murder was a greater degree of the offense of which he was convicted, we noted the charging document and jury instructions adequately apprised the defendant that he was charged with a single offense, rather than one of degrees. (Id. at p. 670.) “Under these circumstances, where defendant failed to object at trial to the adequacy of the notice he received, any such objection is deemed waived.” (Id. at p. 671.) Due to the high court‟s subsequent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi), we have since concluded that the federal double jeopardy clause does bar retrial of a premeditation 47 allegation following a determination that the evidence was insufficient. (Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 550, fn. 6.) But neither Apprendi nor Seel is helpful to defendant. Those cases did not discuss whether the defendant received adequate notice, but rather whether the facts alleged were established beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Famalaro (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1, 37.) In the present case, it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempted murders were deliberate and premeditated. A defendant has a due process right to fair notice of the allegations that will be invoked to increase the punishment for his or her crimes. (E.g., People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 747 (Mancebo).) To the extent defendant contends he was not provided adequate notice of the punishment he faced, we are not persuaded. During the defense‟s presentation of its case, the trial court expressly noted that defendant, if convicted, would be sentenced to life imprisonment, and the court asked the parties to say if there was a problem with the proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. One week later, the court said the attempted murder verdict form would include deliberate and premeditated attempted murder as a special finding. At the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury to determine whether the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and indicated that a special finding on this question appeared on the verdict form. Had defendant raised a timely objection to the jury instructions and verdict forms at any of these stages of the trial on the ground that the indictment did not allege that the attempted murders were deliberate and premeditated, the court could have heard arguments on whether to permit the prosecutor to amend the indictment. (See § 1009 [trial court may permit amendment of an indictment at any stage of the proceedings].) If the trial court was inclined to permit amendment, defendant could have requested a continuance to permit him to prepare a defense. (See Murtishaw, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 751, fn. 11.) On the facts here, defendant received adequate notice of the sentence he faced, and the jury made an express finding that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. A timely objection to the adequacy of the 48 indictment would have provided an opportunity to craft an appropriate remedy. Because defendant had notice of the sentence he faced and did not raise an objection in the trial court, he has forfeited this claim on appeal. (See People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 869 [claim of inadequate notice of intent to seek a felony-murder conviction forfeited on appeal because the defendant failed to move to reopen after prosecutor requested the applicable jury instruction on this particular theory of murder].) Defendant‟s case is similar to People v. Arias (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1009, which in turn relied upon our decision in Mancebo. In Arias, the defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder but the charging document failed to allege that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. (Id. at p. 1017.) The trial court proposed a set of jury instructions and verdict forms to which neither party objected. (Id. at p. 1017, fn. 4.) The trial court instructed the jury that if it found the defendant guilty of attempted murder, then it must make a separate finding whether the attempted murder was done willfully and with premeditation and deliberation. (Id. at p. 1017.) The verdicts did not include any special findings with regard to premeditation and deliberation, but rather found “first degree attempted murder” as to both victims, even though attempted murder is not divided into degrees (Bright, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 668). On that basis, the trial court imposed life imprisonment for the convictions. (Arias, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.) The Court of Appeal struck the sentences, rejecting the Attorney General‟s argument that the defendant had forfeited his claim that the indictment was inadequate and reasoning that this court had “rejected this same argument in materially indistinguishable circumstances” in our decision in Mancebo. (Arias, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.) In Mancebo, the jury had found that the defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense, but the prosecution was forced to choose between using that fact to impose an enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), or a life term under the One Strike Law (§ 667.61, former subd. (e)(4)). (Mancebo, supra, 27 Cal.4th 49 at pp. 742-743.) Although the prosecution had intended to rely on the defendant‟s gun use to impose an enhancement under the One Strike Law, for the first time at sentencing the prosecutor sought to dismiss the gun-use allegation under the One Strike Law and substitute a multiple-victim circumstance (§ 667.61, former subd. (e)(5)) so that both the determinate-term enhancement and the life term could be imposed. We ruled that section 667.61, subdivision (f) “precluded the trial court from striking those circumstances in order to free up gun use as a basis for imposing lesser enhancement terms under section 12022.5(a)” and held that the defendant did not forfeit the claim by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. (Mancebo, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 749-750, fn. 7.) We need not and do not decide whether the Arias court erred in ruling that the defendant there did not forfeit his claim that the indictment was inadequate. The Arias jury was instructed that if it found the defendant guilty of attempted murder, it must determine whether the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and the defendant did not object to that instruction. But it is unclear when the trial court issued its proposed jury instructions and verdict forms to the parties and whether this issue was discussed. In contrast, the trial court here actually notified defendant of the possible sentence he faced before his case was submitted to the jury, and defendant had sufficient opportunity to object to the indictment and request additional time to formulate a defense. In addition, the jury was properly instructed and made an express finding that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. On these facts, we conclude that defendant forfeited his claim that the indictment did not comply with section 664. 50 C. Sanity Trial Claim: Assertedly Incorrect Jury Instructions Defining Insanity Defendant contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the definition of insanity. When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. (E.g., People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 (Jablonski).) At the end of the sanity trial, the court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 4.00 in pertinent part as follows: “A person is legally insane by reason of mental disease or mental defect [if] he was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the crime.” Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury on the definition of “wrong” and provided a proposed instruction. After a slight modification, the following was read to the jury: “Wrong refers to both legal wrong and moral wrong. Wrong in the sanity phase of a trial means the violation of generally accepted standards of moral obligation. A person who understands that his act is against the law but is incapable of distinguishing whether it is morally right or morally wrong is legally insane.” (Italics added.) Defendant first contends that these instructions impermissibly required him to prove that at the time of the crimes he could not generally distinguish between right and wrong. Defendant correctly notes that the M’Naghten test‟s definition of insanity (M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 210 [8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722]), from which CALJIC No. 4.00 is derived, requires the defendant to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong in relation to the crimes. (E.g., Jablonski, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 831.) Because of this claimed variance between the M’Naghten test and CALJIC No. 4.00, defendant contends that it would have been possible for the jury to believe he did not know his 51 actual shooting of people was wrong but nonetheless had the general ability to distinguish right from wrong and to conclude, on that basis, that he was legally sane. We rejected a nearly identical claim in Jablonski. There we noted that the jury received, in addition to CALJIC No. 4.00, the instruction that if “ „during the commission of the crime the defendant was incapable of understanding that his act was morally wrong or was incapable of understanding that his act was unlawful, then he is not criminally liable.‟ ” (Jablonski, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 831, italics in original.) Although we disagreed with the defendant‟s claim that CALJIC No. 4.00 was ambiguous, we concluded that any assumed ambiguity was clarified by the additional instruction because it explained to the jury that it was to focus on the defendant‟s capacity to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the commission of the crimes. (Jablonski, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 832.) Defendant contends that Jablonski did not resolve the problem with CALJIC No. 4.00 because the instructions as a whole still failed to focus the jury‟s attention on the nature of the incapacity. Even were we to agree with defendant that CALJIC No. 4.00 is ambiguous or incomplete, the instructions as a whole adequately explained to the jury that it was to decide whether he had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong in relation to his criminal conduct. The additional instruction given here, like the additional instruction given in Jablonski, eliminates any reasonable likelihood that the jury was told to focus on defendant‟s ability to generally distinguish between right and wrong as opposed to his ability to discern whether “his act” at the time of the commission of the crimes was right or wrong. Defendant also contends that CALJIC No. 4.00‟s use of the phrase “by reason of mental disease or mental defect” precluded the jury from finding him insane due to a combination of mental diseases and mental defects. We rejected this contention in People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535-536, and see no reason to revisit that conclusion here. 52 D. Penalty Phase Claim: Prosecutorial Misconduct in Argument Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly referred to his lack of remorse. “ „A prosecutor may properly comment on a defendant‟s lack of remorse, as relevant to the question of whether remorse is present as a mitigating circumstance, so long as the prosecutor does not suggest that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor.‟ ” (Combs, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 866.) During his penalty phase closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “And [defendant] would like you to have sympathy for him. He didn‟t show very much sympathy for the people who were in building C on May the 1st, 1992. [¶] As a matter of fact he has shown absolutely no remorse during this entire trial as to what happened to those kids and teachers at Lindhurst High School on May the 1st, 1992. Not even when he took the stand yesterday and was given the opportunity did he show any real remorse. Any real I‟m sorry for what I did type attitude.” Later in his argument, the prosecutor stated, “And to this day, [defendant] has not shown any remorse for any one of those individuals who were injured on May the 1st, 1992. He has not shown any emotion about their loss of life. His whole concentration has been on [defendant] and [his] family. [¶] If you remember Edith Houston, when she testified yesterday, stated or was asked if [defendant] had ever talked about the victims, and her answer was he was just sorry for what he did to the family.” As noted, defendant‟s mother, Edith, testified that he had apologized to her about the problems he had caused for his own family. She did not testify that he had ever expressed remorse about the pain he might have caused to anyone else. When defendant testified during the penalty phase, however, he apologized to the living victims and to families of those who had died. 53 As the Attorney General correctly notes, this claim is forfeited because defendant failed to object or request a curative admonition in the trial court. (E.g., Avila, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 710-711.) Even were we to consider the claim on the merits, given the circumstances of his crimes, defendant would not be not entitled to relief based on this comment under the applicable federal or state standard of review. (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24; Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) E. Constitutional Challenges to the Death Penalty Defendant reiterates various constitutional challenges to California‟s death penalty law that we have previously rejected. Adhering to precedent, we reject defendant‟s arguments that (1) a broad application of section 190.3, factor (a) is unconstitutional; (2) the jury must make written findings; (3) the jury must achieve unanimity as to the existence of aggravating circumstances; (4) the jury‟s entire verdict must be premised on findings made beyond a reasonable doubt; (5) the jury must be instructed that the aggravating circumstances must outweigh the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, or alternatively, the court was required to instruct that there is no burden of proof; (6) the jury must be instructed to determine whether death is an appropriate punishment; (7) intercase proportionality review is required; (8) use of terms such as “extreme” or “substantial” impermissibly limit the consideration of mitigation evidence; (9) the trial court was required to instruct the jury that certain statutory factors were relevant only in mitigation; (10) California‟s sentencing scheme violates the right to equal protection; and (11) California‟s death penalty violates international law and norms. (People v. Jones (2011) 51 Cal.4th 346, 380-381, and cases cited therein.) Moreover, we have held that the jury may consider evidence of unadjudicated criminal activity under section 190.3, factor (b). (Lee, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 653.) Further, neither Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, its progeny, nor Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 render the death penalty statutes invalid. (People v. 54 Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 938.) The death penalty statutes adequately narrow the classes of murderers eligible for the death penalty and do not result in “arbitrary and capricious” or “wanton and freakish” determinations. (Ibid.) A death sentence that comports with state and federal statutory and constitutional law does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Id. at pp. 938-939.) In addition, we agree with Murtishaw v. Woodward (9th Cir. 2001) 255 F.3d 926, 960-961, that the enactment of article I, section 27 of the California Constitution did not violate the due process, equal protection, or guarantee clauses of the United States Constitution. (See also People v. Weaver (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1056, 1093 [rejecting claim that California‟s death penalty was unconstitutional because the special circumstances were enacted by voter initiative].) We decline defendant‟s invitation to revisit People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 186-187, in which the lead opinion of this court reasoned that article I, section 27 was a permissible amendment to the California Constitution. (See Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364, 429-430 & fn. 21 [“resolution of the issue is now a firmly settled determination”]; People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 315, overruled on another point by People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 901, fn. 3.) Even when these contentions are considered collectively, there is no violation of the state or federal Constitutions. (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 741.) F. Cumulative Error Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the errors during the guilt phase, sanity trial, and penalty phase mandates reversal. We disagree. No reasonable possibility exists that the jury would have reached a different result absent any of the acknowledged or asserted errors under the applicable federal or state standard of review. (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24; People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844-845, overruled on another point by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13.) 55