Opinion ID: 2639471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: DiscussionGuilt Phase

Text: Defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to conflicts of interest arising from his attorneys' prior representation of four prosecution witnesses. We disagree.
Prior to the preliminary hearing, Defense Counsel Patrick Forester, an assistant public defender, informed the court that a year earlier his office had represented Darlene's mother, Shirley W., who was then a prospective witness in a separate case in which the state sought to have Darlene declared a ward of the court on the basis of alleged sexual molestation by Gerald W., her stepfather. John Sudman, a deputy public defender in the same office as Forester, appeared as Shirley W.'s counsel at the detention, jurisdictional, dispositional, and review hearings. The petition was found true on January 27, 1984, and Darlene was made a ward of the court. On October 2, 1984, the public defender's office ceased its representation of Shirley W. In light of this information, the trial court appointed John Olson as counsel for Shirley W. in order to advise her of her attorney-client privileges arising from that earlier representation. After consulting with Olson, Shirley W. agreed in open court to waive any privileges she may have had, and agreed that she could be cross-examined as to any discussions she had with Sudman. On March 1, 1985, Forester declared a conflict of interest in a case involving James Carter, a potential prosecution witness. Forester never represented Carter. Attorney Stephen Tapson was appointed to represent Carter. On March 6, Tapson was replaced by another attorney, in anticipation of his appointment in the Cox case as second attorney. On March 7, Tapson was appointed as second attorney in the Cox case. Tapson represented that at no time had he talked to Carter. Forester informed the court that he explained the situation to defendant. Defendant then indicated to the court that despite this possible conflict of interest, he still wanted Tapson appointed. Defendant specifically agreed to waive any possible conflict of interest. Another potential witness, Darin McArthur, had previously been represented by Tapson's firm. Tapson informed all parties that he had had no contact with McArthur. Defendant again agreed to waive any possible conflict of interest arising from that case. Forester indicated for the record that he fully discussed this situation with defendant, including the nature of the cases in which witnesses Carter and McArthur were involved, and defendant still wanted Tapson appointed. Defendant confirmed this statement to the court. During trial, Lisa D. was called as a prosecution witness. Tapson indicated that the witness had previously been represented in juvenile court by another member of his firm. Tapson also indicated that his firm did not currently represent Lisa D. Tapson told the court that he was unsure if these facts constituted a conflict of interest. Forester indicated the defense would seek to impeach Lisa D. with her juvenile grand theft conviction. The prosecutor thereafter agreed to raise this issue on direct examination. The court ruled there was no conflict of interest. Defendant never objected to his continued representation by counsel in light of any of these alleged conflicts of interest.
The right to effective assistance of counsel, secured by the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution, and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, includes the right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest. ( People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 833, 254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460 ( Bonin ).) To establish a federal constitutional violation, a defendant who fails to object at trial must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. ( Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333.) The Sullivan court made clear that the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. ( Ibid. ) To show a violation of the corresponding right under our state Constitution, a defendant need only demonstrate a potential conflict, so long as the record supports an `informed speculation' that the asserted conflict adversely affected counsel's performance. [Citations]. ( People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 998, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) But `[p]ermissible speculation giving rise to a conflict of interest may be deemed an informed speculation ... only when such is grounded on a factual basis that can be found in the record.' ( People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 776, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310 ( Belmontes ), quoting People v. Cook (1975) 13 Cal.3d 663, 670-671, 119 Cal.Rptr. 500, 532 P.2d 148.) To determine whether counsel's performance was adversely affected, we have suggested that Sullivan requires an inquiry into whether counsel pulled his punches, i.e., whether counsel failed to represent defendant as vigorously as he might have, had there been no conflict. ( People v. Easley (1988) 46 Cal.3d 712, 725, 250 Cal.Rptr. 855, 759 P.2d 490.) In undertaking such an inquiry, we are, as stated, bound by the record. But where a conflict of interest causes an attorney not to do something, the record may not reflect such an omission. We must therefore examine the record to determine (i) whether arguments or actions omitted would likely have been made by counsel who did not have a conflict of interest, and (ii) whether there may have been a tactical reason (other than the asserted conflict of interest) that might have caused any such omission. ( Id, at p. 727, 250 Cal.Rptr. 855, 759 P.2d 490.) In any event, a defendant may properly waive his right to the assistance of an attorney unhindered by a conflict of interest. ( Holloway v. Arkansas (1978) 435 U.S. 475, 483, fn. 5, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426; Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 837, 254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460.)
This is not a case in which defense counsel has undertaken multiple representation of defendants with competing interests. (See, e.g., Holloway v. Arkansas, supra, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426.) Nor is it a case in which a former client was called as a witness, and was alleged to have masterminded the crime in which the current client was presently on trial. ( Leversen v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 530, 194 Cal.Rptr. 448, 668 P.2d 755.) Instead, this is a case where three of four witnesses were previously represented by other attorneys in counsel's firm in matters that were unrelated to the current trial, and where counsel was appointed to represent the fourth witness, but never spoke to the witness before being replaced. (See, e.g., Belmontes, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 776, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310.) A conflict may arise if a former client is a witness in a new case because the attorney is forbidden to use against a former client any confidential information acquired during that attorney-client relationship. ( Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 835, 254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460; Leversen v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 538, 194 Cal.Rptr. 448, 668 P.2d 755.) But if the attorney possesses no such confidential information, courts have routinely held that no actual or potential conflict of interest exists. For example, in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 145-146, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461, we upheld the trial court's ruling that no conflict existed, given that advisory counsel possessed no confidential information stemming from his prior representation of a prosecution witness in several factually unrelated cases. Similarly, in People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1001-1002, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099 ( Clark ), we held that no actual or potential conflict existed where the public defender possessed no confidential information stemming from his prior representation of three prosecution witnesses. In Belmontes, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pages 774-777, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310, we held that the record did not establish that counsel had an actual or potential conflict of interest stemming from his firm's prior representation of the codefendant, because the attorney possessed no confidential information stemming from that earlier representation. (See also Vangsness v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1089-1092, 206 Cal.Rptr. 45 [same].) In the present matter, defendant has made no showing that an actual or potential conflict existed that adversely affected counsel's performance. Instead, defendant makes only the conclusory assertion that defense counsel could not effectively cross-examine witnesses Lisa D., McArthur, and Carter as to the circumstances of the charges upon which counsel formerly represented them. Defendant makes no claim that defense counsel could not effectively cross-examine these witnesses as to their testimony in the current case, nor does he assert that defense counsel even possessed confidential information acquired during the former representation. Defendant's assertion falls far short of an informed speculation grounded in a factual basis that can be found in the record. ( Belmontes, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 776, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310.) For example, Lisa D. testified that while she was with Lynda and two other girls, defendant asked them: Hey sluts, does your mama know where you are? She also stated she saw defendant and Lynda together in the downtown parking lot. Forester, not Tapson, vigorously cross-examined Lisa D. This last fact is relevant because any alleged conflict as to Lisa D. arose from her relationship with Tapson, not Forester. We have held that it is appropriate for a cocounsel who has no conflict with a witness to conduct cross-examination. (See, e.g., Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1002, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099 [no conflict where cocounsel, who had not represented witness, conducted cross-examination].) We hold that no actual or potential conflict existed as to witness Lisa. D. James Carter testified that he saw Denise the night she disappeared and that the last person he saw her with was not defendant. Darin McArthur testified that he saw defendant and Lynda together the night she disappeared. Nothing in the record suggests, nor has defendant alleged, that Forester possessed confidential information stemming from the public defender's prior representation of Carter. Tapson stated he had never met Carter and represented to the court that he possessed no confidential information. Tapson also stated that he had no confidential information regarding McArthur stemming from his firm's prior representation of him. Based on this record, we hold that no actual or potential conflict of interest existed as to witnesses Carter and McArthur. Finally, as to Shirley W., after consultation with an independent lawyer, she waived, in open court, any attorney-client privilege she possessed and agreed she could be cross-examined as to any discussions she had with the public defender's office. As defendant's counsel were not forbidden from using any confidential communications against Shirley W., there was no actual or potential conflict of interest.

During the testimony of Joanna, the sole eyewitness to the murder of Denise, the prosecutor asked on direct examination, Did someone come along from the District Attorney's Office and talk to you, a man that gave you a polygraph? Joanna replied, Yes, sir. The prosecutor then asked, Did you tell him what had happened .... The prosecutor was interrupted and Forester asked for a bench conference. He vigorously objected. The jury was excused and the matter was heard. The prosecutor informed the court that Joanna had been untruthful during this polygraph examination. The judge nonetheless chastised the prosecutor: [T]he evil of the question when you ask if she met with someone who gave her a polygraph examination, because of your position, it would seem to me a logical inference for the jury to conclude is that the District Attorney had a polygraph given to this lady, he's an honorable man, and she didn't pass it, so he wouldn't be here seeking her testimony in the court. I see it as error on your part to have asked the question. The defense declined the prosecutor's offer to stipulate that Joanna was untruthful. The court restated that the question itself was clear error and gave the defense the weekend to decide if it wanted to request a mistrial. In the interim, the court ruled that Joanna's testimony would continue, and the answer would be struck. The court gave the jury the following admonition: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a question was put to you shortly before the recess that was to the effect as to whether or not the witness recalled talking to a polygraph operator. That question is struck. You are cautioned to disregard it. You are to treat it as though you never heard it. Thereafter, the prosecutor asked Joanna if she recalled talking to a Gene or Raymond Hawkins from the district attorney's office. When she replied yes, the prosecutor elicited that she was untruthful to him and, later, to other members of law enforcement. Joanna testified that she told the truth only after her last counseling session with Dr. Dougherty on November 7, 1984. Defendant's subsequent motion for a mistrial was denied.
Evidence Code section 351.1, subdivision (a) prohibits any reference to an offer to take, the failure to take, or the taking of a polygraph examination, unless all parties stipulate to the admission of such results. Defendant claims (1) that the prosecutor committed gross misconduct by asking the polygraph question and the court should have granted the mistrial because the court's admonition did not cure the prejudicial impact of the question; and (2) the mere asking of the question denied him the right to effectively cross-examine Joanna. Defendant's first claim is fairly broken down into two parts: (a) that the prosecutor committed misconduct by informing the jury that Joanna took a polygraph test and such misconduct prejudiced defendant; and (b) that the trial court should have granted the motion for a mistrial because of the prejudicial impact of the prosecutor's question.
It is, of course, misconduct for a prosecutor to `intentionally elicit inadmissible testimony.' [Citations.] ( People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 689, 250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217.) To preserve such a claim, the defendant must generally object and request the court to admonish the jury to disregard the misconduct. The reason for this rule, of course, is that `the trial court should be given an opportunity to correct this abuse and thus, if possible, prevent by suitable instructions the harmful effect upon the minds of the jury.' [Citations.] ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27, 164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468 ( Green ).) `What is crucial to a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is not the good faith vel non of the prosecutor, but the potential injury to the defendant.' [Citation.] ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 252-253, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 ( Williams ).) Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct contentions must fail. Here, it cannot be said that the prosecutor's asking of a single question in violation of Evidence Code section 351.1 constituted a pattern of conduct so egregious that it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in denial of defendant's federal constitutional right to due process of law. ( People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2.) Moreover, even assuming the prosecutor's action amounted to misconduct under state law, no prejudice appears. In response to defendant's objection, and before Joanna could respond, the trial court immediately struck the prosecutor's question and forcefully told the jurors to disregard it. (See People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036, 1093, 248 Cal. Rptr. 510, 755 P.2d 960 [concluding that a timely objection to a question pertaining to polygraph examinations of witnesses other than the defendant would have cured any error].) Additionally, the conduct at issue was an isolated instance in an otherwise well-conducted month-long trial in which 90 witnesses testified. (See People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 961, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171 [no prejudice resulting from isolated instance of a prosecutor's attempt to elicit inadmissible opinion from an expert witness].) No basis for reversal appears.
We review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. ( People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 984, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 428, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610 ( Price ).) A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We have explained that `[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.' ( People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 985-986, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044, quoting People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776 ( Haskett ).) In the context of erroneously offered polygraph evidence, we have held that a trial court's timely admonition, which the jury is presumed to have followed, cures prejudice resulting from the admission of such evidence. For example, in Price, a prosecution witness admitted, on cross-examination, having taken lie detector tests. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial because the information gave the witness a false aura of credibility. We disagreed: The mention of polygraphs in [the witness's] testimony was brief and nonresponsive. He did not state what questions he was asked or what the examiner concluded about his truthfulness. The admonition the court gave was thorough and forceful; it was sufficient to prevent any prejudice to defendant. ( Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 428, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) We reached the same conclusion, under very similar facts, in People v. Morns (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 193-194, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949. (See also People v. Carpenter (1979) 99 Cal. App.3d 527, 532-533, 160 Cal.Rptr. 386 [prosecutor's single remark, in his opening statement, that a polygraph operator was called in was cured by defense counsel's prompt objection and the trial court's strong admonition to the jury].) We therefore conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion. No case cited by defendant compels a contrary result. For example, in People v. Basuta (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 370, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 285 ( Basuta ), the prosecutor, in trying to rehabilitate the lone witness and bolster her credibility, violated a preexisting court order not to mention that the witness had taken a polygraph test. The court held that this error, in combination with another, more serious error by the trial court (excluding evidence that the baby's mother was physically violent to the baby, which might have been the proximate cause of the baby's death) was prejudicial. ( Id. at pp. 390-391, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 285.) In People v. Schiers (1971) 19 Cal. App.3d 102, 108-114, 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ( Schiers ), the court reversed the judgment of conviction where there was extensive testimony that the defendant had failed a polygraph exam. The admonition to the jury to disregard this testimony was not given promptly, but hours later. In People v. Andrews (1970) 14 Cal.App.3d 40, 92 Cal.Rptr. 49 ( Andrews ), the key prosecution witness (and former codefendant), when asked by the court whether he had taken a lie detector test and whether charges against him were dismissed thereafter, replied in the affirmative. ( Id, at pp. 44-45, 92 Cal.Rptr. 49.) The Court of Appeal reversed the resulting judgment of conviction, as the court's question was tantamount to receiving the results of a lie detector test into evidence. ( Id, at p. 45, 92 Cal.Rptr. 49.) These three cases are inapposite to the facts here. There was no combined error here (see Basuta, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th 370, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 285), there was no receipt into evidence of defendant's failure to take a polygraph examination (see Schiers, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d 102, 96 Cal.Rptr. 330), nor was there the court's admission of the results of a lie detector test taken by a former codefendant (see Andrews, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d 40, 92 Cal.Rptr. 49). As noted, there was one improper question that was immediately struck, and the jury was given a strong admonition. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a mistrial.
Defendant conclusorily alleges that he was denied the right to cross-examine Joanna as a result of the prosecutor's reference to the polygraph examination. However, defendant does not explain how, where, or when this alleged deprivation took place. While this claim may stem from defense counsel Forester's statement, outside the jury's presence at the mistrial hearing, that the polygraph reference prevented him from asking questions about Joanna's being a witness to Denise's killing and finding Debbie's clothes on August 10, 1984, Forester assured the court that at the time [I] come to that particular [point] in cross-examination, [I will] put in the record that I am not asking these questions for that reason. However, Forester made no such representation during cross-examination. As the issue was not preserved for appeal, it is deemed to have been forfeited. ( People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 331, 246 Cal.Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082.) Regardless, a careful review of the record reveals that counsel was not precluded from pursuing these areas in his cross-examination of Joanna. Nor was counsel prevented from asking Larry Wright about his and Joanna's discovery of Debbie's clothes. In short, this claim is without merit.
Defendant claims that the introduction into evidence of the three guns found during the search of his car on August 12, 1984, was prejudicial error as they were never shown to have any connection with the commission of the offenses. While we agree that admission of the guns might have been improper if offered as other crime evidence, under the facts of this case, the guns were sufficiently connected to the crimes; thus, their admission into evidence was proper. Darlene testified that she and defendant often went camping, and that while camping, defendant would shoot his gun. Darlene stated defendant had handcuffs and guns in his car, and kept a knife over the sun visor. When the prosecutor asked how many guns, the defense objected on relevance grounds, and argued that because Darlene's testimony would be that defendant stabbed the girls, there was no evidence showing that guns were used. The court sustained the objection on Evidence Code section 352 grounds. [4] At the prosecutor's request, the court later revisited this ruling. The prosecutor offered two theories of admissibility. First, given that the cause of death of the three victims could not be determined, it was reasonably possible that a firearm was the cause of death. Second, given that there was evidence that Debbie was afraid of defendant, the guns might have been used to coerce her into his car. Defense counsel argued that the guns were being introduced to show that defendant was a bad person. The court reversed its earlier ruling, reasoning that because the cause of death was not known, the prosecution should be allowed to show that defendant had instruments that would allow him to overpower and cause the death of these young girls. An appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard to review any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of the evidence, including a ruling on an Evidence Code section 352 objection. ( People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46.) The trial court's ruling was correct. In People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 305 P.2d 1, the defendant murdered two people during a robbery. The killing was committed with a Smith and Wesson .38-caliber Special revolver. The gun was never recovered. ( Id. at p. 573, 305 P.2d 1.) Riser was found with three holsters, one of which could hold a .38-caliber Smith and Wesson Special revolver. Riser also possessed a Colt .38-caliber revolver, which could not have been the murder weapon. ( Id. at p. 577, 305 P.2d 1.) We stated the rule of admissibility as follows: When the specific type of weapon used to commit a homicide is not known, it may be permissible to admit into evidence weapons found in the defendant's possession some time after the crime that could have been the weapons employed. There need be no conclusive demonstration that the weapon in defendant's possession was the murder weapon. [Citations.] When the prosecution relies, however, on a specific type of weapon, it is error to admit evidence that other weapons were found in his possession, for such evidence tends to show, not that he committed the crime, but only that he is the sort of person who carries deadly weapons. [Citations.] ( Ibid. ) Because the murder weapon was known, we ruled that the admission of the Colt .38-caliber revolver was error, but such error was not prejudicial. ( Ibid. ) Here, it is not known how the three victims were killed. Although the prosecutor argued that the evidence pointed to a stabbing, such argument did not preclude the reasonable possibility that one or all three of the victims had been shot. (See, e.g., People v. Manson (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 102, 207, 132 Cal.Rptr. 265 [The trier of fact is not limited to any hierarchy of theories selected by the prosecution].) Moreover, given Lynda's statement to Sher when she walked off with defendant, that she would be right back, and given the evidence of Debbie's fear of defendant and that she presumably was alone when she entered defendant's car, it is also reasonable to infer that defendant, who had unfettered access to three weapons, may have used the same to get Lynda and Debbie into his car and keep them in his car during the drive to the location of their murder. In People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1052, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 988 P.2d 531, we held it was proper for a witness to testify that the defendant told her he kept a gun in his van. Although the witness did not establish the gun was necessarily the murder weapon, it might have been.... The evidence was thus relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence that he committed the charged offenses. ( Ibid. ) We have also held that when weapons are otherwise relevant to the crime's commission, but are not the actual murder weapon, they may still be admissible. ( People v. Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 877, 896, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 189, 864 P.2d 460; People v. Lane (1961) 56 Cal.2d 773, 784, 16 Cal. Rptr. 801, 366 P.2d 57.) Thus, in Neely we admitted evidence of a rifle located in the defendant's truck parked near the crime scene even though the rifle was not the murder weapon, as it was not irrelevant to the charged offenses. ( Neely, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 896, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 189, 864 P.2d 460.) In Lane, we upheld the admission of guns found in an abandoned truck miles from the scene of the homicide, not as relevant to the homicide per se, but as weapons of a character which could be used in armed robbery ... in furtherance of the criminal plan. ( Lane, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 785, 16 Cal.Rptr. 801, 366 P.2d 57.) Here, the guns were relevant either as possible murder weapons, or as weapons that could have been used to coerce the victims into defendant's car or otherwise subdue them, in furtherance of the criminal plan to kill them. There was no error in admitting the guns in evidence.

Joanna testified on direct examination that several days before Debbie's disappearance, Darlene and Debbie had an argument about defendant and defendant said to Debbie, I'm going to get you. Joanna also testified that in the month after Denise died, Debbie appeared to be afraid of defendant. Defendant did not object to this testimony. Shawn Philpott testified regarding three instances in which Debbie hid from defendant. In the defense case, however, testimony was elicited that Joanna and Larry Wright told Sergeant Scholtz that Debbie would get into a car with a stranger. Defendant contends that it was prejudicial error to admit Philpott's testimony that Debbie hid from defendant because the evidence was not material to any disputed issue in the case and was thus irrelevant. The prosecutor's theory of admissibility was that, because Debbie's fear of defendant would prevent her from voluntarily getting into his car, it was a permissible inference that he used a weapon, such as a gun, to get Debbie into his car. The evidence was properly admitted. Circumstantial evidence showing that the victim feared the defendant may be admissible if the acts or conduct of the victim prior to the crime are at issue. ( People v. Lew (1968) 68 Cal.2d 774, 779, 69 Cal.Rptr. 102, 441 P.2d 942; People v. Armendariz (1984) 37 Cal.3d 573, 586, 209 Cal.Rptr. 664, 693 P.2d 243 [evidence that the victim feared the defendant is admissible when the victim's conduct in conformity with that fear is in dispute]; cf. People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 608, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200, 749 P.2d 854 [victims' expressions of fear of the defendant were inadmissible where neither the states of mind of these victims prior to their deaths ... nor their acts or conduct ... were an issue in the case which might have been resolved or assisted by the challenged evidence].) In the present case, the prosecutor's theory was that defendant drove Debbie to the murder scene in his vehicle. The circumstances surrounding Debbie's entry into defendant's carwhether she would enter the car voluntarily or whether defendant may have overcome any resistance by forcewere at issue. In People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 628-629, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 17, 995 P.2d 152, we stated that evidence that the murder victim feared the defendant was admissible to show that she would not have voluntarily given him any of her personal property and thus it could be inferred the property was obtained by force. Here, evidence that Debbie had acted as though she feared defendant was admissible to show that she would not have voluntarily entered defendant's car and thus he may have forced her into his vehicle the night she disappeared. Even assuming Philpott's testimony was admitted in error, such error would be harmless. Joanna had previously testified, without objection, that Debbie was afraid of defendant. As we stated in Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at page 27, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468, where evidence of fear is admitted in error but is cumulative of other properly admitted evidence to the same effect, such error is not prejudicial. It is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred in the absence of Philpott's testimony. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.)
On cross-examination, defendant elicited the fact that two significant events preceded Darlene's November 1984 revelation that defendant had confessed to her at the Exxon station: (1) Darlene spoke to Joanna at the sheriff's station about Joanna's witnessing Denise's murder; and (2) defendant left Darlene in November 1984, less than two months after they were married. In this manner, defendant attempted to show that Darlene fabricated the confession. The prosecutor then stated that, pursuant to the state of mind exception (Evid. Code, § 1250, subd. (a)), [5] he wanted to present evidence that on August 12, 1984, Darlene told Officer Dannaker she was afraid that defendant would hurt her if he knew she talked to the police, as well as testimony from Barbara Rugg that on August 12, 1984, Darlene told her a couple of times that she was afraid [defendant] would find out about her talking to the police. The prosecutor's theory was that such evidence of fear would explain why Darlene waited so long to come forward, and would rebut the defense claim of recent fabrication. Evidence Code section 1250, subdivision (a)(1) provides that if the declarant's state of mind is itself an issue, evidence of a statement of declarant's then existing state of mind or emotion is admissible. Typical statements considered of a state of mind include belief and knowledge. (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.2003) § 14.7, p. 212.) Here, defendant's claim that Darlene fabricated defendant's confession at the Exxon station squarely put Darlene's state of mind in issue. Because her fear of defendant on August 12 tended logically to provide a legitimate reason for her withholding this confession, the statements were admissible. Defendant claims that the court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in admitting the prejudicial evidence that Darlene feared defendant. Evidence Code section 352 rulings are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. ( People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 214-215, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365.) The court did not abuse its discretion, as the evidence of fear was properly admitted under Evidence Code section 1250 and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the probability of undue prejudice.
Sergeant Wilson told the jury that Joanna was placed in protective custody after she directed police to the location where Denise was killed. The court requested a sidebar conference. At sidebar, the court stated that, although there was no objection, he thought the reference to protective custody was prejudicial because the jury could infer that Joanna was placed in protective custody for fear that she would be harmed. The prosecutor told the court she was placed in protective custody to keep her from abusing herself and offered to cure any potential misconception. The court suggested that the prosecutor talk to the witness, and a brief recess was taken. When testimony resumed, the prosecutor asked Sergeant Wilson if he was fearful if you weren't able to put [Joanna] where you had a string, so to speak, of bringing her back and forth that she might abuse herself? After Sergeant Wilson replied yes, the prosecutor asked, And that's the predominant reason why you effected that arrangement? Defendant objected and another sidebar conference was held. The court agreed with defendant's objection to the word predominant, and the answer was struck. When testimony resumed, the prosecutor asked Sergeant Wilson, [W]as that the reason she was placed in that kind of situation? Sergeant Wilson replied, [T]hat was one of the reasons. Defendant again objected. At sidebar, the court explained that it was concerned about the unstated implication that [Joanna] was placed in protective custody because of the fear that [d]efendant might do some harm to her. When testimony resumed, Sergeant Wilson stated that the other reason Joanna was in protective custody was that she was possibly a witness to a homicide. Contrary to defendant's assertions, nothing in the record suggests that the prosecutor intentionally elicited the term protective custody to show that Joanna could be harmed by defendant. Instead, this unstated implication was a product of the court's speculation. Simply stated, defendant was arrested three days after Joanna was put in protective custody. There was no evidence admitted showing that, during this three-day period, defendant knew Joanna had returned to Placerville one week earlier, or that she had spoken to police. The jury heard only that Joanna was an alcoholic and that the police were afraid that, as a potential witness, she might run away. When [a prosecutorial misconduct] claim focuses on comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, a court must determine at the threshold how the remarks would, or could, have been understood by a reasonable juror. [Citations.] If the remarks would have been taken by a juror to state or imply nothing harmful, they obviously cannot be deemed objectionable. ( People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 793, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.) There was no prosecutorial misconduct based on these facts.
Joanna claimed that earlier in the evening of Denise's murder, she saw defendant in his car and he told her he wanted to speak to her. Joanna entered his vehicle. They drove to the city park and stayed in the automobile. The prosecutor asked Joanna if she could relate the substance of their conversation without repeating the specific words. Defendant objected and requested a sidebar conference. Defense counsel wanted to ensure that the specific words of defendant and Joanna's conversation, which were sexual in nature, would not be put before the jury. The prosecutor agreed that there was no need to elicit vulgarisms. When testimony resumed, the prosecutor asked Joanna, without using the exact words, if she could kind of put into a category what defendant said to her. Joanna replied that defendant suggested having anal sex with me. Defendant objected. The prosecutor explained, at sidebar, that Joanna related to him that defendant actually told her he wanted to fuck her in the ass and he instead expected to elicit from Joanna that defendant made a sexual overture. The court struck the question and answer and admonished the jurors to disregard it as though they had never heard it. Defendant claims that Joanna's explicit reference to anal sex was so prejudicial that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial. We disagree. As noted, the court immediately struck the question and answer and admonished the jury to disregard it as though they never heard it. Recognizing that the evidence was excluded as more prejudicial than probative (Evid.Code, § 352), the prejudice to defendant was not incurable by admonition or instruction. ( Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 431, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) It must be presumed that the jurors acted in accordance with the instruction and disregarded the question and answer. (See, e.g., People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 901, 92 Cal.Rptr. 172, 479 P.2d 372; People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 710, 31 Cal.Rptr. 67, 381 P.2d 947.) In People v. Duncan (1960) 53 Cal.2d 803, 3 Cal.Rptr. 351, 350 P.2d 103, a murder case in which the prosecutor sought to portray the defendant as a sexually promiscuous woman, the trial court struck all such questions and answers and told the jury to disregard them. The defendant requested a mistrial because the questions tended to degrade and debase her. ( Id. at p. 818, 3 Cal.Rptr. 351, 350 P.2d 103.) We declared: Even if we accept defendant's contentions that the evidence objected to was inadmissible, it is clear that it did not go to the main issue in the case, and we must assume the jury obeyed the court's instructions to disregard it. ( Ibid. ) As in Duncan, the trial court here properly ruled that a mistrial was not warranted under these circumstances.
Defendant contends it was error to admit Sergeant Wilson's testimony that on November 2, 1984, he, Detective Harnage, and Dr. Dougherty asked Joanna to direct them to the murder location. She eventually directed them to the Four Corners intersection on Ferrari Mill Road. Joanna was insistent that the windows be rolled up; she did not want to go further and was crying. Defendant also contends it was error to admit Sergeant Wilson's testimony that on November 6, 1984, the four returned to the Four Corners intersection. Joanna remembered an incline and she indicated that they (Joanna, defendant, and Denise) went down that road, which was the road near which Denise's body was located. She also recognized a tree stump with yellow writing. The court admonished the jury that Joanna's statements were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but simply to allow [the jury] the indicia of what her state of mind was at that time and what the demeanor was during the course of the trip[s]. And after a sidebar conference, the court further admonished the jury that Joanna's statements concerning directions to a particular location were not being offered as direct evidence but to show her knowledge at the time the trips were made. The defense also objected to Sergeant Wilson's testimony that he told Joanna on June 22, 1985, to take him to the exact place where Denise was killed, which was well after the trial started and after extensive press coverage of the case. Defendant claims that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay that did not come within the state of mind exception set forth in Evidence Code section 1250, subdivision (a), and instead is prohibited under subdivision (b) of that statute. We disagree. Evidence Code section 1250, subdivision (a) provides that evidence of a statement of a declarant's then existing state of mind is admissible when such state of mind is itself an issue in the action, or when the evidence is offered to prove or explain acts by the declarant. [6] Joanna's statements made during the three trips fall within the Evidence Code section 1250 exception because typical statements considered of a state of mind include belief and knowledge. (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, § 14.7, p. 212.) And, as we rejected defendant's Evidence Code section 1250 claim as to Darlene's statements, ante, we similarly reject defendant's Evidence Code section 1250 claim that Joanna's statements were inadmissible, because these statements tended to show that Joanna knew where Denise was murdered. One court explained the Evidence Code section 1250 state of mind exception in the following manner: The evidence admitted under section 1250 is hearsay; it describes a mental or physical condition ... and is received for the truth of the matter stated. [Citation.] If offered to prove the declarant's state of mind, the statement may be introduced without limitation, subject only to [Evidence Code] section 352. However, the declarant's state of mind must be at issue in the case. ( People v. Ortiz (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 377, 389, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 ( Ortiz ).) The Ortiz court continued: In contrast, a statement which does not directly declare a mental state, but is merely circumstantial evidence of that state of mind, is not hearsay. It is not received for the truth of the matter stated, but rather whether the statement is true or not, the fact such statement was made is relevant to a determination of the declarant's state of mind. [Citation.] Again, such evidence must be relevant to be admissiblethe declarant's state of mind must be in issue. ([Evid.Code,] § 210.) A limiting instruction is required with declarations used as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's mental state; that is, the declaration is not received for the truth of the matter stated and can only be used for the limited purpose for which it is offered. ( [Evid.Code,] § 355.) ( Ortiz, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 389-390, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) As a threshold matter, Joanna's state of mind was clearly at issue in this trial. The defense heavily attacked her credibility by pointing out, for example, how long it took for her to come forward as a witness, that she passed up several opportunities to inform law enforcement officials about the crime, and that she admitted telling a different story on November 7, 1984, as compared to a tape-recorded interview that took place on November 2. Indeed, the defense's theory was that Joanna was not present when Denise was murdered. Applying the principles outlined in Ortiz, Joanna's demeanor and her ability to give directions to the scene of the crime, the exact location of which was unreported, constituted nonhearsay circumstantial evidence of her state of mind, in this case, knowledge. This testimony was admitted with the proper limiting admonishment. It must be presumed that the jury followed the court's admonition. ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 689, 286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.)
Defendant claims that he was denied due process of law because he was absent from the readback of testimony, which was a critical stage of the proceedings. This contention is without merit. We have repeatedly stated that the rereading of testimony is not a critical stage of the proceedings. (See, e.g., People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 288, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3 ( Ayala ); People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1120, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478.) Moreover, defendant and his attorneys specifically waived their presence at the readback of testimony. Fisher v. Roe (9th Cir.2001) 263 F.3d 906, cited by defendant, is not on point. In contrast to the situation here, the defendant and his lawyer there were excluded from the readback of testimony without their consent. ( Id. at p. 916.)