Opinion ID: 2672558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Steven Miller’s Statements

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the portion of Officer Romero’s testimony that related the statements Steven Miller made outside of Eddie’s shortly after the murder. Defendant claims admission of Miller’s statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Over a defense hearsay objection, Officer Romero testified as follows regarding his encounter with Miller outside Eddie’s. Officer Romero arrived at Eddie’s within seven minutes of the 911 radio broadcast. Miller was the first person he contacted. Miller appeared to be “very nervous,” “unsettled,” and “very uneasy and shaken up” throughout the encounter. Miller said, “I think he’s dead.” Miller told Officer Romero the following. Miller had been sitting on a bus bench across the street from the liquor store when he saw two African-American males go inside. Shortly afterward, Miller heard a popping sound he recognized as a gunshot. Miller then saw the same men run from Eddie’s, head north on Butler Avenue, and turn right onto East Marker Lane. Miller immediately ran into Eddie’s, looked behind the counter, and saw the clerk on his back, unconscious and bleeding. Miller called the police. In addition, Miller told Officer Romero both males appeared to be 17 or 18 years old, five feet and seven or eight inches tall, with short “Afro style” hair and “thin builds.” One wore dark jeans and a black shirt with white stripes on the front. The second wore long dark shorts. 13 Romero radioed for police assistance. Meanwhile, Officer Holdredge, Romero’s partner, had entered Eddie’s to check on the clerk. After finding him on the floor, Holdredge called for paramedics and additional police assistance. Before the prosecution called Miller to the stand, counsel for Miller informed the court that Miller was in custody awaiting trial in an unrelated Three Strikes case and that Miller intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to testify. During a hearing on the matter, the parties indicated they were unaware of any information that would suggest Miller would incriminate himself if he testified in this case. Based on representations by counsel that they would not try to impeach Miller based on his prior criminal record, the trial court ruled Miller did not have a right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, and advised Miller of this ruling. However, when the prosecution called Miller as a witness, Miller refused to answer any questions. The court found Miller in contempt and unavailable to testify.
Evidence Code section 1200, subdivision (a), provides that “ ‘[h]earsay evidence’ is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.” Hearsay evidence is not admissible “[e]xcept as provided by law.” (Id., subd. (b).) Miller’s statements were hearsay because they were made out of court and were offered for the truth of what he had told Officer Romero. Evidence Code section 1240 provides that “[e]vidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.” Defendant concedes Miller’s statements qualified for admission 14 under this exception to the hearsay rule, but relying on the high court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 68 (Crawford), he contends the statements were not admissible under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. Crawford held the confrontation clause “prohibits ‘admission of testimonial statements of . . . witness[es] who did not appear at trial unless [the witness] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for crossexamination.’ (Crawford, [541 U.S.] at pp. 53-54, italics added.)” (People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 421 (Romero).)8 Thereafter, as we noted in Romero, in Davis v. Washington (2006) 547 U.S. 813, the high court explained that “ ‘[s]tatements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.’ ” (Romero, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 421.) After Crawford, the high court has emphasized that “ ‘not all those questioned by the police are witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment and not all ‘ “interrogations by law enforcement officers” [citation], are subject to the Confrontation Clause.’ ([Michigan v.] Bryant [(2011) 562] U.S. __ , __ ,131 S.Ct. [1143,] 1153, quoting Crawford, 8 Although Crawford was decided after defendant’s trial, while his appeal was pending, the high court’s ruling applies retroactively to his case. (People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 975 fn. 4.) Moreover, because defendant’s counsel could not have anticipated Crawford’s sweeping changes to federal confrontation clause case law, he did not forfeit this claim by failing to object to the admission of Miller’s statements on federal constitutional grounds. (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 461-462.) 15 supra, 541 U.S. at p. 53.)” (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 811 (Blacksher).) Based on the reasoning in Bryant, in Blacksher we identified six factors to consider in determining whether statements made in the course of police questioning were for the “ ‘primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony’ that implicates the confrontation clause.” (Blacksher, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 813.) These are (1) an objective evaluation of the circumstances of the encounter and the statements and actions of the individuals involved in the encounter; (2) whether the statements were made during an ongoing emergency or under circumstances that reasonably appeared to present an emergency, or were obtained for purposes other than for use by the prosecution at trial; (3) whether any actual or perceived emergency presented an ongoing threat to first responders or the public; (4) the declarant’s medical condition; (5) whether the focus of the interrogation had shifted from addressing an ongoing emergency to obtaining evidence for trial; and (6) the informality of the statement and the circumstances under which it was obtained. (Id. at pp. 814-815.) Applying Crawford to defendant’s case, we conclude that Miller’s statements to Officer Romero were nontestimonial and that their admission did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Officer Romero was the first officer to arrive at the scene, and Miller was the first person he contacted. Miller appeared to be very nervous and “shaken up.” The circumstances of the encounter, which took place outside a store where a shooting had recently occurred, reveal that Miller and Officer Romero spoke to each other in order to deal with an ongoing emergency. It was objectively reasonable for Officer Romero to believe the suspects, one of whom presumably was still armed with a gun, remained at large and posed an immediate threat to officers responding to the shooting and the public. We are convinced that Miller’s additional statements 16 concerning his observations and descriptions of the suspects were made for the primary purpose of meeting an ongoing emergency and not to produce evidence for use at a later trial. (See Romero, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 422 [statements made by an agitated victim of an ax attack were provided to police for the purpose of addressing an emergency situation and determining whether the attacker remained at large and presented a threat to others].) 2. Evidence that Wallace was Fearful of Testifying Defendant contends the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that three years prior to trial, either Johnson or his cousin accused Zonita Wallace of talking with police, contending it was irrelevant. Defendant also claims the evidence was unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352, because the jury could infer his consciousness of guilt based on evidence of his association with Johnson and Johnson’s connection to the accusation.9 9 Here, and in most other claims, defendant contends the asserted error violated various of his state and federal constitutional rights. “In most instances, insofar as defendant raised the issue at all in the trial court, he failed explicitly to make some or all of the constitutional arguments he now advances. In each instance, unless otherwise indicated, it appears that either (1) the appellate claim is of a kind (e.g., failure to instruct sua sponte; erroneous instruction affecting defendant’s substantial rights) that required no trial court action by the defendant to preserve it, or (2) the new arguments do not invoke facts or legal standards different from those the trial court itself was asked to apply, but merely assert that the trial court’s act or omission, insofar as wrong for the reasons actually presented to that court, had the additional legal consequence of violating the Constitution. To that extent, defendant’s new constitutional arguments are not forfeited on appeal. [Citations.] [¶] In the latter instance, of course, rejection, on the merits, of a claim that the trial court erred on the issue actually before that court necessarily leads to rejection of the newly applied constitutional ‘gloss' as well. No separate constitutional discussion is required in such cases, and we therefore provide none.” (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441, fn. 17.) 17 a. Factual and Procedural Background Wallace testified she dated Taylor in 1996 and 1997 and was acquainted with defendant and Johnson. On the day Moon was murdered, Wallace owned a gray Plymouth Voyager van that had two front doors and one sliding side door. Wallace had loaned the van to Taylor in June 1997 but did not recall the date. Wallace further testified that she drove her van with Compton Police Detective Catherine Chavers on June 19 after her interview with Sergeant Frederick Reynolds but did not recall that she and Chavers drove to a gas station. Wallace denied that while at the gas station with Chavers, she met someone whom she identified as Johnson. She also denied that something occurred at the gas station that caused her to be afraid. Over a hearsay objection by Johnson’s counsel, Sergeant Reynolds testified that during the June 19 interview, Wallace said she had loaned Taylor the van the week before. Reynolds testified that after the interview, he drove to a gas station where he saw Chavers with Wallace, and that Wallace appeared to be frightened. Without explaining why, Wallace said she would not go to court because she was afraid. The trial court ruled Reynolds’s testimony was admissible to explain Wallace’s failure to recall driving with Chavers to the gas station, to explain Wallace’s denials that she had identified Johnson and become frightened by something that occurred at the gas station, and to demonstrate Johnson’s consciousness of guilt. The prosecutor then made an offer of proof that Detective Chavers would testify she rode with Wallace to a gas station in Compton on June 19, that Wallace identified Johnson and his cousin Michael as the two males inside a vehicle parked at that location, that Wallace talked with the two males while Chavers waited in the van, that Chavers overheard one of the males accuse Wallace of having spoken 18 with the police, and that Wallace denied the accusation but thereafter appeared to be “frightened.” The prosecutor argued evidence of the accusation was admissible to show Wallace was fearful of testifying and to demonstrate Johnson’s consciousness of guilt. Counsel for Johnson argued that the evidence should be excluded because Wallace was not asked on direct examination whether she was afraid to testify. Also, the evidence assertedly was unduly prejudicial because there was no showing that Johnson made the accusation. Defendant’s counsel did not join in these objections. The trial court overruled Johnson’s objections and admitted evidence of the accusation on the grounds asserted by the prosecutor. Thereafter, Detective Chavers testified consistent with the prosecution’s offer of proof that Wallace identified Johnson and his cousin at the gas station, that one of the males said, “[Wallace] had spoken to the police,” and that Wallace then appeared to be frightened. b. Discussion Preliminarily, the People argue defendant forfeited this issue because he did not join in Johnson’s objections. “A litigant need not object, however, if doing so would be futile.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 793.) Here, because defendant had no reasonable basis to present additional information that might have altered the trial court’s ruling or to object that the ruling would have caused him unique prejudice, he could have reasonably believed making his own motion would have been futile. We consider this contention on its merits and find no error. We review a trial court’s rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113 19 (Guerra).) “Evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness and is therefore admissible.” (People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869 (Burgener); see generally Evid. Code, § 780.) Evidence of any explanation of the basis for such fear is likewise relevant to the jury’s assessment of the witness’s credibility and admissible for that nonhearsay purpose, but not for the truth of any matters asserted. (Burgener, at p. 869.) Evidence that Johnson or his companion accused Wallace of speaking with the police was relevant because the jury reasonably could infer that the accusation was made to persuade Wallace not to cooperate with police or testify at a trial involving the liquor store incident. The jury also reasonably could infer that the accusation frightened Wallace and affected her testimony. Here, where Wallace “professed inability to remember her previous statements [and gave] equivocal responses to many of the prosecutor’s questions, . . . the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that evidence of her fear in testifying was relevant to the jury’s assessment of her credibility.” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 137.) Defendant’s claim to the contrary, the accusation was admissible although it occurred more than three years before Wallace testified. Wallace’s testimony was riddled with claimed memory failures and evasive and inconsistent responses, many of which related to events that occurred the day the accusation was made. Wallace’s professed inability to remember her prior statements and her equivocal responses could be explained by her fear of retaliation for testifying and that fear could have reasonably originated from the accusation Detective Chavers overheard. We conclude the accusation was admissible against defendant notwithstanding the lack of evidence linking the statement to him. “For such 20 evidence to be admissible, there is no requirement to show threats against the witness were made by the defendant personally or the witness’s fear of retaliation is ‘directly linked’ to the defendant.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1142.) Because “[i]t is not necessarily the source of the threat — but its existence — that is relevant to the witness’s credibility” (Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 870), the evidence similarly was not excludable on the ground that Chavers was unable to discern whether Johnson or his cousin made the accusation. Citing Evidence Code section 352, defendant next contends admission of evidence of the accusation to show Johnson’s consciousness of guilt was unduly prejudicial to him because the testimony implied his consciousness of guilt although no evidence connected him to the accusation. Defendant, however, did not object to the evidence on this specific ground at trial, did not join in Johnson’s objection on this ground, and did not request a limiting instruction on the ground that the evidence was admissible as to Johnson but not him. The issue is therefore forfeited. (See Evid. Code, §§ 353, subd. (a) [an objection to the assertedly erroneous admission of evidence must be timely and specific], 355 [when evidence is admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another, “the court upon request shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”].) Because such a specific objection could have prevented the asserted prejudice and nothing suggests it would have been futile for defendant to object on this specific ground in the trial court, this claim is forfeited on appeal. (People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 289; People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 793.) Even if this claim were preserved, it has no merit. Neither the evidence nor the prosecutor suggested the accusation was evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Defendant’s speculation that the jury might have 21 connected the evidence to him does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the accusation. 3. Marcia Johnson’s Statements to Detective Edwards Defendant contends the trial court erroneously permitted Detective Paul Edwards to testify that during his interview with Marcia, Marcia said that the night before the murder, defendant had told her he had been to the liquor store before and saw only one clerk inside, an old man. This claim is without merit. a. Factual and Procedural Background On direct examination, Marcia testified that when she met with defendant, Johnson, and Taylor at her home the morning of the murder, defendant told the group about his plans to rob Eddie’s. He said he wanted Marcia to go inside, look for cameras, and determine how many clerks were working. Defendant said Taylor would drive, and Johnson would enter the liquor store with defendant. Only defendant spoke, and no one objected. Marcia testified she had not been to the liquor store or heard of it before that morning. During cross-examination, defendant’s counsel asked about specific discrepancies in Marcia’s statements to Detective Edwards regarding the planning of the robbery. Marcia testified she initially told Edwards that she, Johnson and Taylor “scoped out” the liquor store on the morning of the crimes. Asked whether she had mentioned to Edwards that defendant was involved, Marcia admitted she did not include defendant in that version of the events. Counsel asked whether Edwards told Marcia he did not believe her, and had suggested the planning had occurred the night before. Marcia testified Edwards did so, and that she then told Edwards the group met the night before but had not discussed a plan to rob the liquor store at that time. Counsel then asked whether she recalled telling Edwards that during the night meeting, defendant “came to me and told me that he needed 22 me to do something and he needed me to go to the store and go buy, go check out and see how many people was in there and to buy something. He said he needed the money. He was going to rob a liquor store.” Marcia then testified she recalled telling Edwards this, but testified the conversation did not relate to any plans to rob Eddie’s. Thereafter, Detective Edwards testified that when he interviewed Marcia, she initially told him that on the morning of the crimes, she, Taylor, and Johnson drove to the liquor store in a brown Cutlass. After Edwards said he did not believe her, Marcia told Edwards defendant accompanied them to the store and that they drove there in Wallace’s van. After Edwards said he believed the planning had occurred the night before, Marcia agreed and told Edwards the foursome met at her house the night before. She added that defendant said he had been to the store on a prior occasion and saw only one clerk, an old man, inside. Defendant’s counsel objected that Marcia’s statement that defendant had said he had previously been to the store was inadmissible hearsay, but the trial court ruled the statement was admissible to impeach Marcia’s testimony and for its truth under the prior inconsistent statements exception to the hearsay rule. The court reasoned the statement was inconsistent with Marcia’s direct testimony because Marcia did not mention it when the prosecutor asked about the statements defendant had made when he discussed his plans to rob the liquor store. The court then informed the parties that, although it had excused Marcia from giving further testimony, it would permit counsel to recall her to give her an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, as required under Evidence Code section 770. Marcia was not recalled to testify. 23 b. Discussion “A statement by a witness that is inconsistent with his or her trial testimony is admissible to establish the truth of the matter asserted in the statement under the conditions set forth in Evidence Code sections 1235 and 770.” (People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1219.)10 Defendant contends Marcia’s statement to Detective Edwards regarding what defendant told her about his prior visit to the liquor store was not admissible as a prior inconsistent statement because the prosecutor did not question Marcia specifically regarding whether defendant had previously been there. We need not decide the correctness of the trial court’s ruling as to whether this particular statement of Marcia’s was inconsistent with her trial testimony on that point. Marcia impliedly acknowledged to Edwards that she had heard of the liquor store the night before the murder when she told Edwards the group met that night and defendant told them he had gone to the store on a prior occasion and observed the lone clerk. On direct examination, however, Marcia denied she had “ever heard of Eddie’s Liquor Store before [the morning of the crimes].” In effect, Marcia’s prior statement to Edwards was inconsistent with that testimony as to when she first heard of Eddie’s and therefore was admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.11 (See People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 10 Section 1235 of the Evidence Code provides: “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.” Evidence Code section 770 provides: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [¶] (a) The witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or [¶] (b) The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action.” 11 Marcia’s hearsay statement to Edwards consisted of double hearsay because it also included an out-of-court statement by defendant offered for its truth. Defendant’s statement was admissible because it qualified under the hearsay exception for a party admission (Evid. Code, § 1220). (See People v. Williams 24 401, 462 [test for whether a witness’s prior statement is inconsistent with prior testimony is whether the statement is inconsistent in effect rather than an express contradiction of terms].) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Marcia’s statements to Detective Edwards.12 4. Adoptive Admission Defendant contends testimony regarding a letter Iris Johnston wrote to defendant was erroneously admitted under the hearsay exception for adoptive admissions. (Evid. Code, § 1221.) Defendant also claims the Compton Police Department violated his due process rights and right to present a defense by failing to preserve his letter to Johnston in violation of California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 485-490 (Trombetta). a. Factual and Procedural Background Over defendant’s objection, Iris Johnston testified she hand delivered a letter to defendant the evening of the murder in which she accused him of committing a robbery at the liquor store. A redacted version of her letter that omitted express or implied references to Johnson and Taylor was admitted into evidence. The redacted letter read as follows: “6-12-97 [¶] Dear Dein, [¶] What’s up? Nothing much this way, just chillin in my room being bored, I want to tell you a little something! First of all I wanted to say I have a little idea that you guys did that little robbery in Long Beach, because ya’ll ran to the T.V. to watch the news and than when ya’ll seen the helicopters ya’ll was like, ‘yeah, we know the [guys] that did that. So I had a little ideal that ya’ll did something and than when we was walking home ya’ll was getting all nervous when a police car would (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 199, fn. 3 [multiple hearsay is admissible provided that each hearsay level falls within a hearsay exception].) 12 Although our theory of admissibility differs from that of the trial court, “we review the ruling, not the court’s reasoning, and, if the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm.” (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 595, 582.) 25 pass by. Another idea I have is when we was on the phone together watching the news, you was all telling me to talk, until they showed that part about the robbery. I was like hello, you was like ‘you can’t talk while I’m watching the news. I was saying to my self they must of did it, that’s why I got off the phone with you. And then when we was on the phone (Marcia, me, you) and ya’ll was like ya’ll need to tell each other something and ya’ll didn’t want me to hear. [¶] Will all I am trying to say is that I don’t want us going any further than what we already are, because if we go to gether and you get caught doing what ever the fuck you be doing, I’m just going to be ass out! Will just get back at me whenever! . . . P.S. Don’t be afriad to tell me something! [¶] Much [heart symbol], [¶] Iris.” Defendant did not read the letter in Johnston’s presence. There is no evidence that he responded to it or discussed it with Johnston. Johnston did not speak with defendant until several years later, within months of her testimony at trial. During the search of defendant’s residence one week after the shooting, police found the letter on his bedroom dresser. Sergeant Reynolds testified that while searching Johnston’s home on August 20, police found a handwritten letter from defendant to Johnston dated August 11. Reynolds booked defendant’s letter into evidence at the Compton Police Department but did not note its contents in any report. Reynolds testified he was unable to locate defendant’s letter because it was apparently misplaced when the Compton Police Department moved its evidence storage to a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department facility. The prosecutor sought to admit Johnston’s letter as an implied admission by defendant that he had committed the attempted robbery because he failed to respond to that letter. Defense counsel objected that there was no foundation for admitting Johnston’s letter because there was no evidence defendant had read it, and, alternatively, that the letter was inadmissible because defendant may have 26 denied Johnston’s accusation in his letter that law enforcement lost. The trial court admitted Johnston’s letter into evidence, reasoning it was sufficiently accusatory to prompt a response from defendant and that none had been given. The court rejected as speculative the assertion by defendant’s counsel that defendant may have denied the accusation in his letter to Johnston. b. Johnston’s Accusation “[A] trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a party has established the foundational requirements for a hearsay exception [citation] and ‘[a] ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto . . . .’ [Citation.] We review the trial court’s conclusions regarding foundational facts for substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 132.) Johnston’s letter constituted hearsay because the prosecution offered it as an out-of-court statement to prove that defendant did admit that he committed “that little robbery in Long Beach.” (Evid. Code, § 1200.) The prosecutor sought admission of Johnston’s letter under the adoptive admission hearsay exception. In support of that theory of admissibility, the prosecution introduced evidence that Johnston delivered her letter to defendant shortly after the crimes occurred, its contents were accusatory, defendant did not respond to Johnston’s letter, that letter was found in his bedroom a week after Johnston delivered it, and he wrote a letter to Johnston two months later. “ ‘Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth.’ (Evid. Code, § 1221.) Under this provision, ‘[i]f a person is accused of having committed a crime, under circumstances which fairly afford 27 him an opportunity to hear, understand, and to reply, and which do not lend themselves to an inference that he was relying on the right of silence guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and he fails to speak, or he makes an evasive or equivocal reply, both the accusatory statement and the fact of silence or equivocation may be offered as an implied or adoptive admission of guilt.’ ” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1189.) While the letter was plainly accusatory and would call for a response if the accusations were untrue and were known to defendant, there is no evidence of the circumstances under which defendant read the letter, if he had done so, and there is no evidence of defendant’s reaction upon reading it. There was no showing that, by words or conduct, defendant manifested his adoption of, or belief in, the contents of Johnston’s letter. Defendant’s mere possession of it is insufficient to satisfy this requirement. (See, e.g., People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 499 [evidence of the defendant’s possession of drawings that purportedly bore his nickname and indicated he identified with the Penal Code section for robbery and considered himself a menace to society was insufficient to support a finding that he manifested a belief in what the drawings depicted].) We conclude the trial court erred in admitting Johnston’s letter under the adoptive admissions hearsay exception. Additionally, because there was no properly admitted evidence of an adoptive admission, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on adoptive admissions under CALJIC No. 2.71.5. Defendant argues his death judgment should be reversed because the prosecutor assertedly exploited the error in admitting the evidence during argument by stressing the evidence was critical to the People’s case whether it was considered for its substance as an implied admission by defendant or as proof of what occurred. Also, the error assertedly reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof of all elements of the capital charges in violation of his constitutional rights 28 by “filling in holes in [its] case — the identity of the perpetrators and corroboration of Marcia Johnson’s testimony.” We find the argument unpersuasive. As explained below, we are satisfied the jury reasonably did not consider the contents of the letter for their truth. Also, the court instructed the jury that statements made by counsel are not evidence. (CALJIC No. 1.02.) Therefore, the erroneous admission of the evidence was harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); see People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 76 [erroneous admission of evidence at the guilt phase is reviewed under Watson standard].) In addition, because the letter lacked substantive value, its erroneous admission had no impact on the prosecution’s burden of proof, and therefore the error was not of constitutional dimension. Defendant nonetheless contends that the error and prejudice in the admission of Johnston’s letter as an adoptive admission was exacerbated by the trial court’s error in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.71.5. Assertedly, the instructional error reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof, in violation of his constitutional rights to due process, trial by an impartial jury, and a reliable death verdict. CALJIC No. 2.71.5 as given informed the jury that “[i]f you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when a defendant: one, under conditions which reasonably afforded him an opportunity to reply; two, failed to make a denial in the face of an accusation expressed directly to him, or in his presence charging him with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial, or tending to connect him with this commission, and; three, that he heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of his silence on that occasion may be considered against him as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. [¶] Evidence of an accusatory statement is not 29 received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to a silence of the accused in the face of it. [¶] Unless you find that a defendant’s silence at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard his statement.” Under this instruction, the jury could consider evidence of the letter to infer an admission by defendant that Johnston’s accusations were true only if it found preliminarily that defendant read her letter, understood its contents to be an accusation that he committed the liquor store robbery, and was reasonably afforded an opportunity to deny the accusation but failed to do so. As discussed above, we concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish these predicate facts. In addition, the jury was instructed under CALJIC No. 17.31 to disregard an instruction that applies to facts determined not to exist. We presume the jury followed the instructions it was given. (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1115.) Under these circumstances, the jury reasonably accorded no weight to the evidence. (See People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1127 [“In analyzing the prejudicial effect of error, . . . an appellate court does not assume an unreasonable jury.”].) Moreover, because the instruction had no application to the facts alleged in the letter, defendant’s claim that the instructional error reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof is without merit. For these reasons, we conclude the error in instructing the jury under CALJIC No. 2.71.5 was harmless. (Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836; see People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955 [“ ‘ “[m]isdirection of the jury, including incorrect, ambiguous, conflicting, or wrongly omitted instructions that do not amount to federal constitutional error are reviewed under the harmless error standard articulated” in Watson ’ ”].) 30
Defendant contends that law enforcement committed prejudicial error in failing to disclose to the defense the contents of defendant’s letter to Johnston and that law enforcement’s subsequent loss or destruction of his letter violated his rights to present a defense and to due process pursuant Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51, 58, and Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at pages 488-489. “ ‘ “Law enforcement agencies have a duty, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to preserve evidence ‘that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.’ [Citations.] To fall within the scope of this duty, the evidence ‘must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.’ [Citations.] The state’s responsibility is further limited when the defendant’s challenge is to ‘the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant.’ [Citation.] In such case, ‘unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 166.) Defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court. His due process claim under Trombetta is of a type that requires a trial court to consider additional facts and apply a legal standard different than that applied in ruling on a hearsay objection. (See People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 441, fn. 17.) Therefore, the trial court’s ruling that Johnston’s letter was admissible as an adoptive admission would not have necessarily led to a rejection of the claim that defendant was denied due process of law because law enforcement had misplaced his letter to Johnston. (Ibid.) Accordingly, we conclude defendant’s Trombetta claim is 31 forfeited because defendant failed to raise the issue below. (People v. Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 289.) In any event, the claim is without merit. Defendant has not shown that his letter had “ ‘an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed [or lost].’ ” (People v Pastor Cruz (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 322, 325.) Assuming defendant’s letter to Johnston potentially was useful to his defense, nothing in the record suggests it was lost due to bad faith on the part of law enforcement, and its absence “did not deny defendant all opportunity ‘to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.’ ” (People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 929, quoting Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S at p. 489.) Defendant was able to cross-examine Johnston on the issue and, had he chosen to do so, he could have testified to the nature of his letter to Johnston. “There is no constitutional infirmity in the circumstance that if defendant had wanted to expand on the information presented by [the contents of Johnston’s letter,] and . . . by testifying himself, he might have been put in the position of choosing between his right to testify at the trial and his right to remain silent. ‘ “ ‘The criminal process . . . is replete with situations requiring the “making of difficult judgments” as to which course to follow. [Citation.] Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose.’ ” [Citations.]’ (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 153.)” (Thomas, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 929, fn. 5.) 5. Accomplice Corroboration The trial court instructed the jury that Marcia was an accomplice as a matter of law. Defendant contends his first degree murder and attempted robbery convictions and the attempted robbery felony-murder special-circumstance finding 32 must be reversed because they were based on Marcia’s uncorroborated testimony. The contention is without merit. Section 1111 provides: “A conviction cannot 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 . . . .” “ ‘Corroborating evidence may be slight, may be entirely circumstantial, and need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense.’ [Citation.] The evidence is ‘sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way as to satisfy the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth.’ ” (People v. Gonzales and Soliz (2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 303.) Marcia testified as follows. On the morning of the crimes, defendant arrived at her house wearing a black and white Nike Air T-shirt and black jeans, with a Glock tucked in the waistband. Defendant articulated his plan to rob the liquor store to Marcia, Johnson, and Taylor and assigned each a task. Marcia identified Wallace’s van as the one Taylor used to drive them. Defendant had the Glock in his waistband when he left the house and entered the van. Taylor parked a couple of blocks from the store. Marcia got out and walked to the store. Once inside, she looked around, bought some candy, and returned to the van. Marcia informed defendant that inside the store there were two cameras and one clerk. She got in the van, and defendant and Johnson got out. Defendant had a bulge in his waistband as he walked with Johnson toward the liquor store. After she heard a gunshot, she watched as defendant and Johnson ran to the van. They both reentered the van. Taylor then drove to a house in Long Beach where the group met Johnston. Marcia’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence connecting defendant to the attempted robbery and the murder at Eddie’s. Defendant stole the murder weapon during the Riteway robbery, and the loaded 33 murder weapon was found in defendant’s bedroom closet one week after the murder. Eddie’s surveillance videotape shows two African-American men entering and leaving the liquor store at the time of the crime, and defendant is African-American. One of the men wore a black T-shirt with a large white Air Nike logo on the front, and police found a similar shirt in defendant’s bedroom one week after the crimes. Additionally, evidence that defendant participated in the robbery of the Riteway clerk in which a gun was used reasonably supports an inference that defendant intended to rob the clerk working at Eddie’s when defendant shot him with the Glock stolen from Riteway. We conclude the record contains more than ample evidence that corroborates Marcia’s testimony and supports defendant’s convictions for first degree murder and attempted robbery, as well as for the attempted robbery felonymurder special-circumstance finding. Even if, as defendant asserts, section 1111 creates a “liberty interest” under Hicks v. Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343, his federal constitutional right to due process were not violated based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 6. Still Photographs from the Liquor Store Videotape Defendant contends that the trial court erred prejudicially in admitting two still photographs that were printed from the liquor store videotape using equipment at Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace). Assertedly, the photographs were enhanced and the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation. The contention is without merit. a. Factual background Officer Holdredge testified that she arrived at Eddie’s within minutes after the shooting, that she viewed the surveillance videotape police obtained at the crime scene, and that it accurately portrayed what occurred when she, Officer 34 Romero, and Miller were inside the store. Long Beach Police Sergeant Jorge Cisneros testified that he viewed the videotape at the police station and identified People’s exhibits Nos. 43A and 43B as the two still photographs that were printed from the videotape using equipment at the police station. He explained that the heads and necks of the subjects shown on the film were not visible on the still prints because the VCR “did not display the entire picture on the film,” that is, the “top and bottom” portions of the film (i.e., margins) were not visible. Sergeant Cisneros went to Aerospace and requested that still photographs be printed from the videotape. He remained at Aerospace and watched one of its employees insert the videotape in a VCR that was connected to a computer, a monitor, and a printer. Cisneros described the Aerospace monitor as having a larger screen than the one used at the police station to view the videotape. According to Cisneros, when the videotape was played, “the picture of what was on that video tape did appear on the computer screen” and it showed “the full length of the film on the VCR,” including the images recorded in the margins of the film. He pointed to the frames he wanted printed, and the employee printed the stills (People’s exhibits Nos. 41 and 42). Cisneros testified that the difference between the images that were shown on the photographs printed using the equipment at the police station and those shown on the photographs printed using the Aerospace equipment was that the latter showed defendant’s and Johnson’s heads and necks, whereas the former did not. Cisneros said that Aerospace personnel informed him that “they could not do any enhancements to the video. [B]ut we did get, like I said, we could see more of the film, I believe because of the [equipment] we were using.” Cisneros did not “ask that any of the action [on the videotape] be altered.” In ruling the evidence was admissible, the trial court found that “Aerospace equipment [could] show the whole frame, [that] the Long 35 Beach Police Department [could] only show a portion,” and that the photographs had not been enhanced. b. Discussion “No photograph or film has any value in the absence of a proper foundation. It is necessary to know when it was taken and that it is accurate and truly represents what it purports to show. It becomes probative only upon the assumption that it is relevant and accurate.” (People v. Bowley (1963) 59 Cal.2d 855, 862 (Bowley).) The general rule is that a photograph is admissible upon a showing that it accurately depicts what it purportedly shows. (Ibid; see Evid. Code, §§ 250 [a photograph is a “writing”], 1400 [“Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.”].) “This is usually shown by the testimony of the one who took the picture. However, this is not necessary and it is well settled that the showing may be made by the testimony of anyone who knows that the picture correctly depicts what it purports to represent.” (People v. Doggett (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 405, 409; see Bowley, supra, 59 Cal.2d at pp. 860-861 [citing Doggett with approval].) Evidence Code section 1553, subdivision (a), establishes a rebuttable presumption that “[a] printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent.” The presumption affects the burden of proof and is rebutted by a showing that the “printed representation of images stored on [the] video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable.” (Ibid.) The burden then shifts to the proponent of the printed representation to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it accurately represents the existence and content of the images on the video or 36 digital medium. (Ibid.) If the proponent of the evidence fails to carry his burden of showing the printed representation accurately depicts what it purportedly shows, the evidence is inadmissible for lack of adequate foundation. (Bowley, supra, 59 Cal.2d at pp. 860-861.) Once properly authenticated and admitted into evidence, a photograph may be used as demonstrative evidence to support a witness’s testimony or as probative evidence of what is shown. (Bowley, supra, 59 Cal.2d at pp. 860-861.) A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence of photographs will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (People v. Rountree (2013) 56 Cal.4th 823, 852.) Here, the still photographs were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence. Officer Holdredge viewed the videotape police retrieved from the VCR at the crime scene and testified it accurately depicted her conduct and that of Officer Romero and Miller inside the store immediately after the shooting. Thus, the videotape was shown to be an accurate representation of what it purported to be, a recording of the events that occurred inside Eddie’s at or near the time of the shooting. In addition, Sergeant Cisneros testified that that the still photographs printed at Aerospace depicted the images stored on the videotape that Officer Holdredge authenticated. He explained that the Aerospace photographs depicted the suspects’ heads and necks because the company’s equipment could print the portion of the recorded images stored in the margins of the videotape, whereas the equipment used at the police station could not. Under these circumstances, we conclude the prosecution established that the photographs printed at Aerospace depicted the images recorded on the videotape, and therefore were presumed to be accurate representations of those images. (Evid. Code, § 1553.) Defendant’s mere speculation that the photographs were manipulated or enhanced could not rebut 37 this presumption. For these reasons, we conclude the photographs were adequately authenticated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them. 7. Evidence of the Riteway Robbery Defendant claims the trial court committed prejudicial error when, despite defendant’s willingness to plead guilty to the Riteway robbery and stipulate he obtained the gun used in the capital crime in that robbery, the court cross-admitted evidence of the Riteway robbery to prove defendant was guilty of the charged attempted robbery and murder at Eddie’s. Defendant alternatively claims the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give its promised limiting instruction on the other crimes evidence. a. Factual and Procedural Background Before any evidence was introduced, the prosecutor made a motion to permit the jury to consider evidence of the Riteway robbery on the capital charges. She argued the evidence was relevant to show defendant, Johnson, and Taylor acted pursuant to a common plan or scheme and entered Eddie’s with the intent to rob. Defendant offered to plead guilty to the Riteway robbery and to stipulate he obtained the gun used in the capital crime in that robbery. Defendant’s plea offer was conditioned on the trial court finding that the Riteway robbery evidence was not admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). Counsel further argued any evidence regarding the Riteway robbery other than the fact of a guilty plea to that robbery charge and a stipulation about the gun would be inadmissible because it would be unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. The court granted the prosecutor’s motion, ruling that evidence of the Riteway robbery was relevant to prove intent and knowledge with regard to the 38 capital charges under section (b) of Evidence Code section 1101, and that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352. In response to that ruling, defendant withdrew his plea offer, and the trial court informed the parties that it would give an instruction as to defendant and Johnson on the purposes for which the jury could and could not consider the Riteway robbery evidence with regard to the liquor store charges. Prior to deliberations, the court gave a limiting instruction only as to Johnson that informed the jury it could consider the evidence on the issues of intent, identity, common plan, and knowledge. b. Discussion We first consider whether the trial court erred in admitting the Riteway robbery evidence to prove defendant’s involvement in the liquor stores crimes. “Unless evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, or against a specific party, evidence admitted at trial may generally be considered for any purpose. A corollary of this rule is that the jury is free to apply its factual findings on one count in deciding any other count to which those facts are relevant.” (People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1170, fn. omitted.) “One example of limited admissibility arises in the context of other crimes evidence. Evidence of a person’s character, also known as propensity evidence, is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character trait. [Citations.] This is the familiar ban on propensity evidence: [Evidence of other crimes] generally cannot be admitted to prove the defendant is disposed to commit crimes. [Evidence Code] [s]ection 1101 [, subdivision] (a) codifies this general rule. Notwithstanding that rule, [Evidence Code] section 1101, subdivision (b) . . . clarifies that [other crimes evidence] can be admitted for other relevant purposes, such as proving motive, 39 opportunity, intent, and so on, but they may not be admitted to prove the defendant had a disposition to commit similar bad acts.” (Id. at pp., 1170-1171, fn. omitted.) “Evidence of identity is admissible where it is conceded or assumed that the charged offense was committed by someone, in order to prove that the defendant was the perpetrator.” (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 394, fn. 2.) The admissibility of other crimes evidence for this purpose “turns on proof that the [incidents] share sufficient distinctive common features to raise an inference of identity.” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 23, italics added.) We have often commented that “ ‘[t]he pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.’ ” (Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 403.) Here, the evidence established that defendant, an African-American male, stole a Glock handgun during the Riteway robbery, and that the same Glock was used to shoot and kill Moon at Eddie’s one month after the Riteway robbery. The evidence further established that the same stolen Glock was found loaded in defendant’s bedroom closet one week after the murder at Eddie’s. The evidence also revealed that defendant mentioned the Penal Code section for murder (187) during the Riteway robbery, and that a murder at Eddie’s was committed by an African-American man using the Glock stolen from Riteway. In light of the distinctive shared features between the crimes at Riteway and Eddie’s related to the Glock handgun, evidence of the circumstances surrounding the Riteway robbery reasonably support the inference that the individual who committed the Riteway robbery and stole the Glock from Riteway is the same person who had a Glock tucked in his waistband hours before the murder at Eddie’s, was one of the two perpetrators who used the stolen Glock to murder the clerk at Eddie’s, and possessed the stolen loaded Glock in his bedroom soon after the murder. 40 Therefore, we conclude evidence related to the Riteway robbery evidence was relevant to the issue of identity with regard to the liquor store charges. The Riteway robbery evidence also was relevant to the liquor store charges on the issue of intent. “In order to be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support the inference that the defendant probably acted with the same intent in each instance. [Citations.]” (People v. Lindberg, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 23.) “ ‘The inference to be drawn is not that the actor is disposed to commit such acts; instead, the inference to be drawn is that, in light of the first event, the actor, at the time of the second event, must have had the intent attributed to him by the prosecution.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 171.) Assuming defendant was one of the two individuals who planned and committed the acts that occurred at the liquor store on June 12, the fact that he committed the Riteway robbery was relevant to the issue of intent with regard to the attempted robbery charge connected with the liquor store murder. In both cases, an armed individual confronted a lone clerk behind the checkout counter of a small store during the daytime. Force was used against both clerks. The Glock stolen by defendant during the Riteway robbery was used by one of the perpetrators at the liquor store. Based on these similarities, evidence of the Riteway robbery would reasonably support an inference that defendant harbored the same intent to rob in each instance. Having concluded evidence of the Riteway robbery was admissible on the issues of identity and intent on the liquor store charges,13 we next address 13 We need not discuss the correctness of the trial court’s ruling that Rite Way robbery was also admissible on the liquor store charges on the issue of knowledge. Assuming any error in that regard, we note that “ ‘ “a ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason.” ’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976.) That is, because as we 41 defendant’s claim that the prosecutor was required to accept his plea offer and stipulation regarding the gun he stole during the Riteway robbery. “The general rule is that the prosecution in a criminal case cannot be compelled to accept a stipulation if the effect would be to deprive the state’s case of its persuasiveness and forcefulness.” (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1007.) The key factual disputes in this trial were whether defendant committed the crimes at the liquor store, and, if so, whether he acted with an intent to rob the liquor store’s clerk. Defendant’s plea offer and proposed stipulation regarding the Riteway robbery would not have included an admission on either of these issues. Had the facts of the Riteway robbery been withheld from the jury as the result of a stipulation, the prosecution would have been deprived of significant circumstantial evidence material to the liquor store crimes. There were no percipient witnesses to the liquor store crimes, the surveillance videotape only showed the suspects entering and exiting the liquor store, and apparently nothing had been taken from the store. Under these circumstances, evidence of the Riteway robbery was crucial for the prosecution in demonstrating that defendant and Johnson possessed a similar intent to rob the liquor store in a similar fashion, in order to prove the charge of attempted robbery. In People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, we held that the prosecutor could not be compelled to accept defendant’s offer to stipulate to charges stemming from a sexual assault where the prosecution would otherwise lose material circumstantial evidence relevant to the issues of identity and consciousness of guilt on charges stemming from a murder that occurred prior to the sexual assault. (Id. at pp. 130-131.) Here, as in Arias, explain below, the trial court did not err in ruling the evidence was admissible on the issue of intent, its additional ruling that the evidence was admissible on the issue of knowledge is of no consequence. 42 the prosecution was not required to accept defendant’s plea offer and proposed stipulation. Defendant’s claim to the contrary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to exclude the details of the Riteway robbery on the capital charges under Evidence Code section 352. The robbery and attempted robbery counts from the separate incidents were properly joined as alleging crimes of the same class (§ 954; People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 622), and the details of the manner in which the Riteway robbery was carried out were not likely to inflame the jury’s passions because, as defendant’s attorney acknowledged, the Riteway robbery was a “standard robbery.” We next address defendant’s claim that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury that evidence admitted to prove the Riteway robbery could be not be considered to prove his propensity to commit the liquor store crimes. Although the trial court had informed the parties it would give a limiting instruction as to both Johnson and defendant, the court referred only to Johnson when it gave the limiting instruction prior to deliberations. Because the trial court was not obligated to provide a limiting instruction, defendant forfeited the issue by failing to request either a correction of the given instruction or a new instruction that applied specifically to the charges against defendant. (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 495.) In any event, any error in failing to give a limiting instruction as to defendant was harmless given the multiple permissible uses of the Riteway robbery evidence with regard to the liquor store charges, the absence of any argument by the prosecutor urging the jury to infer defendant’s propensity to commit robberies, the presumption that the jurors followed the instructions regarding presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt as to the liquor store charges. 43 8. CALJIC No. 17.41.1 Pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.41.1, the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]he integrity of a trial requires that jurors, at all times during their deliberations, conduct themselves as required by these instructions. Accordingly, should it occur that any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case in this guilt phase based on penalty or punishment, or any other improper basis, it is the obligation of the other jurors to immediately advise the Court of the situation.” Defendant contends this instruction infringed on his federal and state constitutional rights to trial by jury and his state constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) Although we disapproved use of this instruction in future trials in People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436,we held that “the instruction does not infringe upon defendant’s federal or state constitutional right to trial by jury or his state constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.” (Id. at pp. 439-440.) Defendant provides no persuasive reason for us to reconsider our conclusion, nor does he cite anything in the record that indicates any juror refused to deliberate or expressed an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case on an improper basis. (See People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 393.) Accordingly, we reject this claim. 9. Cumulative Error Defendant contends the cumulative effect of the asserted guilt phase errors requires reversal regardless of the prejudicial impact of any single error. To the extent there are instances in which we have found error or assumed its existence, we have concluded no prejudice resulted. We do not find reversible error by considering the claims cumulatively. 44