Opinion ID: 1405904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claims of guilt phase error

Text: (1a) Boyde contends that the trial court's refusal to order separate trials for the defendants constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The California Penal Code provides for joint trials of defendants jointly charged with criminal offenses. When two or more defendants are jointly charged with any public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, they must be tried jointly, unless the court orders separate trials.... (§ 1098.) (2) The Legislature has in this manner expressed a preference for joint trials. (See People v. Lara (1967) 67 Cal.2d 365, 394 [62 Cal. Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202]; People v. Isenor (1971) 17 Cal. App.3d 324, 330-331 [94 Cal. Rptr. 746].) The statute nevertheless permits the trial court to order separate trials, and the decision to do so is one largely within the discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 312 [208 Cal. Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669]; People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 330 [78 Cal. Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153].) Whether denial of a motion to sever constitutes an abuse of discretion must be decided on the facts as they appear at the time of the hearing on the motion to sever. ( People v. Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 312.) (3) The grounds which may justify a severance were summarized in People v. Massie (1967) 66 Cal.2d 899 [59 Cal. Rptr. 733, 428 P.2d 869]: (1) Where there is an extrajudicial statement made by one defendant which incriminates another defendant and which cannot adequately be edited to excise the portions incriminating the latter; (2) where there may be prejudicial association with codefendants; (3) where there may be likely confusion from evidence on multiple counts; (4) where there may be conflicting defenses; and (5) where there is a possibility that in a separate trial the codefendant may give exonerating testimony. ( People v. Massie, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 916-917.) In arguing the motion, Boyde's counsel conceded that there was no longer an Aranda problem ( supra, 63 Cal.2d 518) after Ellison's waiver of a jury trial. Counsel nevertheless argued strenuously in favor of severance on the ground of inconsistent defenses. Counsel's principal concern was about the prejudice that would result from Boyde's jury hearing Ellison's testimony. Counsel noted that the defendants' defenses were inconsistent and mutually antagonistic in that each attempted to place primary responsibility on the other for the robbery and murder. Although several California decisions have stated that the existence of conflicting defenses may compel severance of codefendants' trials, none has found an abuse of discretion or reversed a conviction on this basis. (See People v. Massie, supra, 66 Cal.2d 899; People v. Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d 302; People v. Jones (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 237 [88 Cal. Rptr. 871]; People v. Wheeler (1973) 32 Cal. App.3d 455 [108 Cal. Rptr. 26].) Indeed, we recently rejected such a claim in People v. Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pages 311-313, where Turner presented no defense and his codefendant Souza testified that Turner was the killer and that he had assisted in the robbery because he feared Turner. We noted that there is a statutory preference for joint trials (see § 1098) and that the instant case provided the classic situation for joint trial  defendants charged with common crimes against common victims. [¶] As to conflicting defenses, counsel could articulate no reason for separate trials except to point out that the prosecution would simply put on its case, then sit back and watch as defense counsel became the real adversaries. Of course, if that point has merit, separate trials would appear to be mandatory in almost every case. (37 Cal.3d at pp. 312-313.) On the basis of the showing made in Turner at the time of the motion  two defendants charged with murders under circumstances in which they were jointly involved and might be expected to attempt to cast primary blame on the other  we concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying separate trials. We noted, however, that such a ruling could still be the basis for reversal after trial if the reviewing court determined that, because of the consolidation, a gross unfairness has occurred such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial or due process of law.... [However,] no denial of a fair trial results from the mere fact that two defendants who are jointly tried have antagonistic defenses and one defendant gives testimony that is damaging to the other and thus helpful to the prosecution. (37 Cal.3d at p. 313.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to find an abuse of discretion in similar circumstances. In United States v. Brady (9th Cir.1978) 579 F.2d 1121 (cert. den. 439 U.S. 1074 [59 L.Ed.2d 41, 99 S.Ct. 849]), each of the two defendants facing manslaughter charges defended by claiming that the other inflicted the fatal blows to the victim of their joint assault. Acknowledging the obvious hostility and conflict in the positions taken by defendants, the court found that the prejudice which either appellant may have suffered from the testimony of the other is relatively slight. It is undisputed that each appellant participated in the incident. Consequently, it would only be natural for one to try to place the blame on the other. The jury had the responsibility of assessing each of the appellants' credibility. Moreover, the testimony of each appellant was merely cumulative of the government's case against the other and considering the simplicity of the case, there is no sound reason to suggest that members of the jury, being properly instructed as they were, could not realistically appraise the evidence against each appellant. ( Id. at p. 1128.) (1b) As in Turner, supra, 37 Cal.3d 302, and Brady, supra, 579 F.2d 1121, it cannot be said here that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance or that Boyde was denied a fair trial by the procedure employed. Although the defense positions might be characterized as antagonistic on the issue of the identity of the actual killer, it was undisputed that each defendant participated in the incident. Ellison's testimony  while critical as a percipient witness in placing the gun in Boyde's hand  only corroborated the other details of the offense established by Boyde's own extrajudicial statements and physical evidence presented by the prosecution. Ellison did not present the kind of extensive evidence against Boyde which would have turned the trial into more of a contest between the defendants than between the prosecution and either of them, and his counsel made no arguments to the Boyde jury. No evidence inadmissible as to Boyde was introduced as a result of the joint trial; Boyde himself introduced Ellison's extrajudicial statements, and Ellison was available and fully cross-examined. (See Nelson v. O'Neil (1971) 402 U.S. 622 [29 L.Ed.2d 222, 91 S.Ct. 1723].) The prosecutor did not simply sit back and let the defendants convict each other; his case-in-chief against both successfully withstood the test of sections 1118 and 1118.1, and he aggressively cross-examined Ellison as well as Boyde. Boyde's assertions of unfair prejudice are likewise unpersuasive. He claims that Ellison's status as a defendant-witness permitted the prosecutor to benefit from Ellison's accusation against Boyde while being relieved of the responsibility of informing the jury that the testimony contained perjury. But since the prosecutor did not present Ellison's testimony, he did not impliedly vouch for its credibility. Boyde's claim that Ellison's status as codefendant prevented discovery of a secret deal between Ellison and the prosecution must fail because of the lack of any factual support in the record that such a deal in fact was made. Boyde cannot complain that he was unfairly prejudiced by his testimony, when his case was damaged by his own lack of credibility as a witness. Although Boyde may have been surprised by Lucinda Taylor's testimony that he had an opportunity to return the gun to Ellison's mother's room, he did rebut it with testimony from Preston Scott that both were in Whittier at that time. Similarly, though Boyde may have been surprised by Otharean Owens's testimony  elicited on cross-examination by Ellison's counsel  that Boyde had admitted guilt, he was able to rebut this testimony with his own witnesses who denied that he made any affirmative reply to Ms. Owens. And although the prosecutor's remarks at Ellison's sentencing hearing acknowledge the importance of Ellison's testimony in establishing Boyde as the actual killer, there was nothing improper about this testimony at a joint trial.
(4a) Boyde claims the prosecutor's failure to disclose an inducement given for Ellison's testimony constituted the suppression of substantial material evidence relating to the credibility of a key witness which denied him due process of law. ( People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399, 406 [121 Cal. Rptr. 261, 534 P.2d 1341, A.L.R.4th 3132]; see also, People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 45-49 [222 Cal. Rptr. 127, 711 P.2d 423].) Although Ellison was not called as a witness for the prosecution, and although no plea bargain was entered, Boyde asserts that Ellison's decision to waive jury and submit to a court trial and his decision to testify in his own defense were prompted by an express or implied agreement that the prosecutor would not seek the death penalty against Ellison, and would agree that any special circumstances found true as to Ellison should be stricken. (5) In People v. Ruthford we held that the duty on the part of the prosecution to disclose all substantial material evidence favorable to an accused extends to disclosure of evidence which relates to the credibility of a material witness and that the suppression of substantial material evidence bearing on the credibility of a key prosecution witness constitutes a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (14 Cal.3d at pp. 406, 408.) To demonstrate the existence of a secret deal between the prosecutor and Ellison, Boyde quotes from the statements of counsel and the district attorney made at the time of the jury waiver and later at Ellison's sentencing hearing. On October 6, 1981, while hearing another motion pertaining only to Ellison, counsel announced that Ellison had elected to waive jury trial. The prosecutor joined in the waiver as to trial on guilt, special circumstances, and penalty. The prosecutor stated on the record this is not a slow plea by any stretch of the imagination, and there are no concessions being made by either side, and it will be anticipated a fully contested trial down the line on the issue of guilt. The prosecutor also stated, As the Court well knows, and since there will not be picking a jury, there will be no evidence presented in aggravation other than the facts of the crime and the special circumstances. [¶] While I  I'm not going to come out in court and concede something at this point in time  it suggests to me that at some point in time the law is going to require the Court  will not put the Court in a position to come back with a finding of death in this case. [¶] We would not be willing to waive jury to put you in that kind of a predicament in a case like this. [¶] I think it is not part of the negotiations for the jury waiver, or anything else. It is just an understanding that there will be no further evidence in aggravation, and that as I interpret the factors under 209 [ sic ] of the Penal Code, the Court will be required as a matter of law, to come back if, in fact, special circumstances are found, of course, with life without parole, and I wanted the Court to be aware of that. Ellison's counsel then commented that Mr. Ellison will take part in the regular full-blown trial. There's been no concessions made by the District Attorney. In fact, it was after a little agonizing soul searching and conferences that my proposal to waive jury was accepted by him, and then I had to reconsider all the facets. [¶] We will take part in the trial. Evidence will be presented and Mr. Ellison will testify. The court, in taking Ellison's waiver of constitutional rights, informed Ellison that under the court's prior rulings the special circumstances would be applicable even if he had not actively participated in the murder and that he therefore faced a potential sentence to prison for life without possibility of parole. Boyde also points to statements made by Ellison's counsel in closing argument to the court: This was a pretty unique case to me. I've defended a lot of them but never assisted in the prosecution of one and during this trial, I did have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Boyde and this sort of thing. [¶] Without Mr. Ellison, I think possibly Mr. Ellison's cooperation and assistance, I think possibly it would have been very difficult  maybe not impossible, but it would have been difficult to have a verdict of guilty come in on Mr. Boyde. [¶] But all those things aside, there was no plea bargain struck. Plea bargains are not struck in cases such as this. There was no plea bargain and no assurances made. At the sentencing hearing on June 21, 1982, Ellison's counsel reiterated: Mr. Ellison cooperated after he finally realized his uncle, Richard Boyde, the codefendant, was taking him down with intent. Mr. Ellison has been helpful. I believe that it would have been a great  there would have been a great deal of difficulty, not impossibility, but difficulty in convicting Mr. Boyde without Mr. Ellison's assistance. [¶] Mr. Ellison's testimony, I believe, was the turning point in making Mr. Boyde come forth and begin to show his true colors. Ellison's counsel thereupon urged the court to strike the special circumstances and the prosecutor agreed, stating: In large part, I think Richard Boyde  the conviction of Richard Boyde  resulted probably, even perhaps unintentionally from the posture Mr. Ellison and his attorney took in this case. Had Mr. Ellison not waived jury and obviously streamlined the entire proceeding, the case could have been severed. I don't think the Boyde jury would have then heard Ellison's statements made to the police officers on tape. They would not have been able to compare Ellison's statements with Boyde's statements. They would not have had Boyde's testimony.... And once they got to see what Mr. Boyde was really all about, and they got to hear the respective knowledge about the facts of the case, that each of the two defendants had, it became clear that Mr. Boyde was the killer and more culpable. So Mr. Ellison has, perhaps not intentionally, done a tremendous service to the People of the State of California by his posture in this particular case. The prosecutor also argued that Ellison was less culpable for the murder and concluded, I believe that if this defendant is sentenced to a 25 to life sentence, rather than a Life Without Parole, justice will have been served, or at least not disserved. (4b) The weakness of Boyde's argument lies in the fact that the record contains no direct evidence or admission of the existence of an agreement, but does contain express denials. While the facts recited by appellant would be consistent with the existence of an agreement, both the district attorney and defense counsel stated that no agreement had been made. The court never inquired on the record into the nature and extent of the discussions between Ellison and the district attorney leading to the mutual waiver of jury trial on guilt, special circumstances and penalty. Although Boyde's counsel was absent when the waiver was made, he did not raise the question on any other occasion and never suggested there had been a secret deal. The district attorney's position regarding the appropriate sentence for Ellison remained consistent throughout the prosecution: he charged only Boyde with personal use of a firearm and had apparently determined that Boyde was the leader and actual killer. The fact that Ellison later successfully moved to have his conviction reduced to second degree murder, pursuant to People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [194 Cal. Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697], and that the district attorney at that time agreed the reduction would be appropriate, is not determinative either. The district attorney's position as to the relative culpability of the codefendants remained consistent. On this record, we cannot conclude that there was an agreement between Ellison and the prosecutor which was not disclosed to Boyde.
Boyde challenges the admission of his various statements to the police, claiming they were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have been voluntarily given. ( People v. Jimenez, supra, 21 Cal.3d 595.) Specifically, he argues that: (1) the January 22 statement in which he admitted knowledge of the 7-Eleven robbery-homicide was induced by an implied promise of leniency with regard to the charges arising out of the gas station robbery-kidnapping ( People v. Jimenez, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 611-612); (2) he did not waive his rights with regard to the offense of murder (see U.S. v. McCrary (5th Cir.1981) 643 F.2d 323, 328); (3) the statement was given while he was in a state of extreme emotional upset and was not therefore the `product of a rational intellect and a free will' ( People v. MacPherson (1970) 2 Cal.3d 109, 113 [84 Cal. Rptr. 129, 465 P.2d 17]; In re Cameron (1968) 68 Cal.2d 487, 498 [67 Cal. Rptr. 529, 439 P.2d 633]); (4) the January 23 statements in which he admitted involvement in the robbery-homicide were the fruits of the earlier, involuntary statement ( People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691, 703-704 [159 Cal. Rptr. 684, 602 P.2d 384]); and (5) the final statement on January 23, in which he confessed the 7-Eleven robbery was induced by police deception as to the legal consequences of his prior admission of some involvement (see People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101, 112, fn. 12 [127 Cal. Rptr. 360, 545 P.2d 272]). (6) It is axiomatic that the use in a criminal prosecution of an involuntary confession constitutes a denial of due process of law under both the federal and state Constitutions. [Citations.] In California, before a confession can be used against a defendant, the prosecution has the burden of proving that this was voluntary and was not the result of any form of compulsion or promise of reward. [Citations.] ( People v. Jimenez, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 602.) The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and the proof must establish voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Id. at p. 608.) At the trial level, the determination is made by the trial court outside the presence of the jury. ( People v. Jimenez, supra, at p. 604.) The appellate court must examine the uncontradicted facts to determine independently whether the trial court's conclusion of voluntariness was properly found. With respect to conflicting testimony, the appellate court accepts that version of the facts most favorable to the finding below, to the extent it is supported by the record. ( Id. at p. 609.) Here the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt all statements were voluntary.
(7) In general, a confession is considered voluntary if the accused's decision to speak is entirely `self-motivated' [citation], i.e., if he freely and voluntarily chooses to speak without `any form of compulsion or promise of reward....' [Citation.] ( People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 327-328 [165 Cal. Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883].) However, where a person in authority makes an express or clearly implied promise of leniency or advantage for the accused which is a motivating cause of the decision to confess, the confession is involuntary and inadmissible as a matter of law. ( People v. Brommel (1961) 56 Cal.2d 629, 632 [15 Cal. Rptr. 909, 364 P.2d 845].) Mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth, when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise, does not, however, make a subsequent confession involuntary. ( People v. Jimenez, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 611.) (8a) Boyde claims that his initial statement admitting knowledge of the Gibson robbery-homicide was induced by an implied promise that a statement would lead to more favorable disposition of the charges of robbery and kidnapping for robbery of Baker, for which he had been arrested. Because Detective Callow admitted that he considered appellant a potential suspect in the Gibson homicide at the time of the January 22 interview regarding the Baker robbery-kidnapping, Boyde asserts the officer was motivated by a desire to obtain an incriminatory statement. Further, although Callow repeatedly informed Boyde that the police could not promise leniency but could only pass any information along to the district attorney who had the authority to make such an offer, Boyde argues Callow made it crystal clear that he had no hope of anything other than incarceration unless he gave a statement on the homicide. (See In re Roger G. (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 198 [125 Cal. Rptr. 625].) The argument is unpersuasive. The evidence shows that there was no promise of leniency, no attempt to induce a confession, and no confession. Appellant initiated discussion of the homicide because of his own hopes of obtaining leniency on the robbery-kidnapping charges. The statement he gave was neither a confession nor an admission, but an attempt to lay blame for the crime on Big Mike and Ellison. Detective Callow's role in eliciting the story was responsive rather than aggressive, and he repeatedly and clearly stated that he had no authority to make any promise of leniency regarding the pending robbery-kidnap charges, but could only pass information on to the district attorney. The cases upon which Boyde relies are inapposite. In In re Roger G., supra, 53 Cal. App.3d 198, for instance, officers engaged in a lengthy effort to induce a minor to abandon his claim of innocence of a shooting for which he had been arrested. They told him he might be incarcerated for `seven or eight or ten or life, you know ...' and said, `... it's gonna help you out for a chance of probation or getting parole if you are honest about the thing .... [but] if you go in there ... and... try to cover up, do you think we'd give you a chance at probation or parole? No way.' Although they subsequently stated they could not promise probation or parole, that it was only a possibility, the appellate court found the evidence established an implied, if not express threat of harsher punishment if Roger did not confess, and an implied, if not express, promise of the possibility of more lenient treatment if he did. ( Id. at pp. 200-202.) And although dictum in People v. Nelson (1964) 224 Cal. App.2d 238 [36 Cal. Rptr. 385] indicates that a confession to crimes for which defendant was arrested might be involuntary if induced by promises of lenient treatment on an unrelated pending charge, that is not the factual posture of appellant's case. At the time of his January 22 statement Boyde made a voluntary, if unwise, decision to offer false information in hope of obtaining favorable treatment. The trial court's determination that the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt is correct.
(9) Boyde argues that the failure to inform him he was a suspect in the robbery-murder rendered his January 22 statement involuntary because his decision to waive his rights to remain silent and to consult counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. He acknowledges that no California decision had held that Miranda warnings ( Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436) must specify the actual charge pending against the person being interrogated and that the Court of Appeal rejected such an argument in People v. Neely (1979) 95 Cal. App.3d 1011, 1017 [157 Cal. Rptr. 531]. He also acknowledges that the Court of Appeal has held that new Miranda warnings are not necessarily required whenever an interrogation about one crime leads to discussion of another. ( People v. Schenk (1972) 24 Cal. App.3d 233, 236 [101 Cal. Rptr. 75].) He urges that the position taken by a minority of courts which require such information to implement Miranda is the better approach. Boyde relies upon United States v. McCrary, supra, 643 F.2d 323, Schenk v. Ellsworth (D.Mont. 1968) 293 F. Supp. 26, and Commonwealth v. Dixon (1977) 475 Pa. 17 [379 A.2d 553]. The argument does not fit the facts of this case. On January 22 Boyde volunteered information about these crimes, and as noted above, admitted no complicity but claimed to know that others had committed the offenses. This statement was damaging because it led directly to the later statements in which Boyde admitted his guilt, but was incriminating only by comparison to those later statements.
(10) Boyde asserts that his January 22 statement was taken within minutes after he was removed from the holding cell because he was completely unnerved by an apparent attack of claustrophobia, and in terror of being incarcerated in the Riverside County Jail. He cites Detective Callow's description of his very hyper, very nervous condition to show that his decision to give a statement was not `the product of a rational intellect and a free will.' ( People v. MacPherson, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 113; In re Cameron, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 498.) The evidence does not indicate Boyde was so distraught that his will to resist confession was overborne. Detective Callow testified that Boyde seemed to calm down after being removed to an interview room and being given coffee and a cigarette. Boyde presented no contradictory evidence. There was no indication of intoxication or mental illness.
(8b) This argument falls with the conclusion that the January 22 statement was voluntarily given.
When Detectives Lund and Ropac approached Boyde on January 23 they first told him they thought the story he told Callow was not truthful. They asked if he was willing to talk with them again about the robbery-homicide and when he indicated he would, took a full Miranda waiver. Boyde then told his second story. He admitted he had been with Ellison and Big Mike at the 7-Eleven, that Big Mike had pulled the robbery and that he (Boyde) had driven the car from the store to the orange grove. But he claimed he did so under protest, denied assisting in the killing and denied any advance knowledge of Big Mike's intent to rob or kill. (11) Boyde claims that at the conclusion of this statement Lund told him it amounted to a full confession, that he believed Boyde had in fact been more deeply involved than he had admitted, and that any further statement could not result in any greater liability than he had already incurred. After this confrontation Boyde told his final version, which implicated him at least as an accomplice in the robbery and felony murder. Boyde contends this incriminating statement was induced by Lund's misrepresentation as to the legal effect of the prior statement, and that this deception amounts to psychological coercion which rendered the statement involuntary. (See People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 840-841 [183 Cal. Rptr. 817, 647 P.2d 93].) Boyde's description of the encounter is factually inaccurate. The transcript of the interview shows that at the conclusion of the I was just along for the ride story, Lund stated: I'll tell you the problems I'm having, and, and I'm no lawyer, but I would think ... what bothers me is you, you got such great detail, you sure you weren't in the store? You sure you didn't walk in? Boyde repeated he had not gone in. Lund continued questioning whether Boyde might have been in the doorway of the store and whether he could have seen the money go into the bag or heard Big Mike saying it was a robbery without having been in the store. Finally, Lund stated: It doesn't make no difference whether you were sitting in the car the whole time or whether you were right in Big Mike's back pocket, you're, you're involved in this the same, if everything else is the truth.... While Lund made it clear he believed appellant was more deeply involved in the crimes than he was admitting, he did not tell Boyde that his prior statement amounted to a confession or that any further statement could not result in any greater liability. Lund's statements amounted to harsh questioning, but did not rise to the level of psychological coercion or misrepresentation of the legal consequences of appellant's prior statement.
The prosecutor offered evidence of the circumstances of appellant's 1976 robbery and kidnapping of Lou Creech pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) to show appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the Baker offenses, to show his identity as the dominant figure in the Gibson robbery-murder, to show that appellant participated in the Gibson offenses with the intent to commit robbery and kidnapping for robbery, and to show that appellant had a motive for killing Gibson. The trial court found that the prior and charged offenses shared a sufficient number of distinctive common marks to establish a unique modus operandi, that the evidence of modus operandi was relevant to the material issue of appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the Baker robbery-kidnapping, and that the evidence was relevant to show Boyde's intent, if he was found to be an aider and abettor in the Gibson incident, or, alternatively, to show that he was the leader in perpetration of that crime. (12) Boyde contends the 1976 and 1981 7-Eleven offenses lacked sufficient common, distinctive marks to establish a modus operandi, that the evidence was merely cumulative on the question of the identity of the participants in the Gibson offenses, that the evidence had no significant probative value regarding the identity of the actual killer of Gibson, and that the trial court failed to properly weigh the prejudicial effect of the prior crimes evidence against its probative value pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. We need not determine the merits of this contention since it is clear that any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. There is no reasonable probability that Boyde would have obtained a more favorable result had the evidence been excluded. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].) Boyde's defense was damaged beyond repair, even without consideration of the prior crime, by Ellison's testimony, inferences from the placement of the footprints in the orange grove, and Boyde's extensive knowledge of the details of the robbery and shooting.
(13) Boyde claims the trial court erred in giving CALJIC No. 2.27  which permits proof of any fact by the testimony of a single witness [4] in this case where critical evidence on a central issue came from an accomplice whose testimony is required by law to be corroborated (§ 1111; CALJIC Nos. 3.11, 3.18). Although the court also instructed on the principles that an accomplice's testimony should be viewed with caution (CALJIC No. 3.18), that a defendant cannot be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is corroborated (CALJIC No. 3.11), and that if anyone committed the robbery, kidnapping and murder Ellison was an accomplice as a matter of law, Boyde claims No. 2.27 effectively nullified these instructions. This claim is unpersuasive. Although Boyde is correct that use of No. 2.27 is discouraged in cases where one witness's testimony requires corroboration (see use note to CALJIC No. 2.27 (4th ed. 1979)), so long as the appropriate instructions on the use of accomplice testimony are given, the giving of No. 2.27 is not error. ( People v. Cooks (1983) 141 Cal. App.3d 224, 333 [190 Cal. Rptr. 211]; People v. Stewart (1983) 145 Cal. App.3d 967, 974-975 [193 Cal. Rptr. 799].)
(14) Boyde contends that the court prejudicially erred under Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 [197 Cal. Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862], in failing to instruct the jury that it could not find the felony-murder special circumstances true unless it found that defendant intended to kill at the time of the homicide. His contention must be rejected. In People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147 [240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306], we held that, with respect to the actual killer, the court need not instruct on intent to kill in connection with felony-murder special circumstances. Such an instruction is required only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was an accomplice rather than the actual killer. Although an instruction was warranted on the basis of Boyde's testimony that he was not the killer, the error in failing to give it was cured by the jury's special verdict that Boyde personally killed Dickie Lee Gibson with express malice aforethought and premeditation and deliberation. Boyde nevertheless argues that he should not be bound by this finding because he did not have reasonable advance notice that the special verdict would be presented to the jury. We do not agree. Boyde argued throughout pretrial proceedings that it would be unconstitutional to impose the death penalty in the absence of proof that he actually killed or intended that a killing occur. He addressed the issue in his defense testimony by denying any knowledge or intent that a killing would occur. Thus he was neither unfairly surprised nor denied an opportunity to present all the evidence at his command on the issue of intent. The trial court instructed the jury on premeditated and deliberate murder and malice aforethought, as well as felony murder; all of the elements of the special verdict were explained to the jury.