Full opinion text
Opinion LUCAS, C.J. —This is an appeal from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law (Pen. Code, § 190.1 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated). Following a change of venue from Sierra County to San Joaquin County, defendant Bruce Wayne Morris was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder (§ 187) and robbery (§211) of Rickey Van Zandt. The jury found as a special circumstance that the murder was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd.(a)(17)(i).) It fixed the penalty for the homicide at death. On defendant’s automatic appeal from the judgment (§ 1239, subd. (b)), we find no reversible error. We affirm the judgment in its entirety. Facts and Proceedings Summary The body of Rickey Van Zandt was found facedown at the bottom of a hill by Sierra County law enforcement officers. His skull was crushed; he had been beaten to death. Defendant admitted on several occasions before and after his arrest that he had hit Van Zandt over the head at least 13 times with a rock and a stick in order to steal his van. After striking the fatal blows, defendant left the scene in the van with his two female companions and drove out of the state, where he was apprehended. At his trial, defendant repudiated his numerous admissions of guilt and blamed his companions for Van Zandt’s murder. The jury rejected his testimony and found him guilty. After it heard penalty phase evidence that focused on defendant’s prior offenses of attempted rape and kidnapping, it returned a verdict of death. The Prosecution On September 9, 1985, defendant began hitchhiking from Sacramento toward the north shore of Lake Tahoe. He was accompanied by his girlfriend, Avette Barrett, and her sister, Allison Eckstrom. The three were picked up by Rickey Van Zandt in his van on September 11 or 12. They accompanied him to Truckee, where he stopped at a store and went in, leaving his car keys in the ignition. While Van Zandt was in the store, defendant suggested that he and his companions steal the van. Eckstrom pulled out a knife from a pouch behind the passenger seat, and defendant suggested he could “stick” Van Zandt and they could take the van. The women expressed reservations. Defendant then suggested taking Van Zandt to a nearby river and stabbing him there. When Van Zandt returned to the van, he and defendant discussed going fishing. They drove to a remote area off a dirt road in Sierra County. While the women were cooking dinner, defendant and Van Zandt walked together toward the river to begin fishing. Defendant returned alone and asked Eckstrom for the knife. He told the women that he would get behind Van Zandt while they were fishing and “get him.” Barrett replied, “Whatever,” and Eckstrom said it was good that she and Barrett would not have to see it. Defendant took the knife and went down to the river. When defendant and Van Zandt returned 20 to 30 minutes later, defendant explained to Eckstrom that he had not been able to stab him because he could not get behind him. Van Zandt, who had been drinking, continued to do so while having dinner with defendant and the women in the van. After dinner, Van Zandt lay down on a bed in the rear of the van. At defendant’s request, the women left. Emerging a few minutes later, defendant announced: “He’s out.” He put his arm around Barrett and asked Eckstrom for a rock. He rejected her choice of rocks and directed her to pick up another. He took the rock from Eckstrom, told Barrett he loved her, and said he was going to hit Van Zandt on the head. Defendant reentered the van. Eckstrom and Barrett heard Van Zandt exclaim, “Ouch, that hurts, stop,” and then heard smacking sounds (“like someone hitting a melon”) and screams. Defendant later told Eckstrom that he had hit Van Zandt on the head 13 times with the rock. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, the women observed Van Zandt’s body drop out of the van. Covered with blood, defendant emerged and dragged the body to the front of the van. Van Zandt was still alive. He was moaning; blood and brain fluids oozed from his head. Defendant dragged Van Zandt’s body from the area of the van and rolled it down a slope. He went down to the body and looked through Van Zandt’s pockets. He told Barrett that he was searching for a wallet. Van Zandt continued moaning and holding his head. Eckstrom, who had been asked by defendant to watch the body, called out that it was moving. Defendant replied that he already knew this. He picked up a stick, lifted it over his head, told Van Zandt that he was sorry, and hit him on the back of the head three times. Van Zandt collapsed to the ground. As the three drove away in Van Zandt’s van, Eckstrom observed him still lying on the ground, quivering. Van Zandt’s dead body was found by officers on September 17, five or six days after he was left at the bottom of the slope. A post mortem examination established that he died from massive trauma to the skull. His head was stationary when the trauma was inflicted. There were fragments of wood in his brain. His injuries were consistent with the infliction of nine to fourteen blows with a blunt object such as a rock or stick. After leaving Van Zandt, defendant and the two women drove around the Western and Central United States, eventually entering Nebraska. They used credit cards found in the glove compartment of the van to make purchases. On September 14, they picked up hitchhiker Tom Logan. Eckstrom told Logan that defendant had killed Van Zandt. Defendant asked Logan whether he had noticed the blood and brain tissue in the van and explained that he had killed Van Zandt in order to steal the vehicle. Eckstrom told Logan that they “really rocked and rolled him.” Later, at a campground, defendant told Logan that he had been “kind of coerced into killing this man.” According to defendant, he merely wanted to knock Van Zandt out, but Barrett wanted to kill him. Logan fled the trio and called the police. The three were arrested the next day. Among the items seized at the time of arrest were defendant’s jeans, which were spattered above the knees with blood. Shortly after he was taken into custody, defendant asked to speak to an officer. He was properly advised of his constitutional rights and agreed to make a statement. When permitted to talk to Barrett before his interview, he assured her that he would not “let [her] suffer for something [she] didn’t do.” In a 1-hour interview with officers, defendant admitted hitting Van Zandt on the head 12 to 14 times with a rock and a stick. He described the rock as the size of a softball. He first stated that he might have talked about killing Van Zandt to acquire the van, but then modified his statement to say that he only wanted to knock him out and tie him up. He stated that Barrett and Eckstrom told him not to do anything to Van Zandt, but that he told them to “take off” while he “finished what [he was] going to do.” He said that after the women left, he “knocked the man out and pulled him off to the side of the hill.” According to defendant, he hit Van Zandt with the stick when he started to get up, swinging the stick like a baseball bat. Later, while in custody in California, defendant wrote a letter to Barrett. The letter was postmarked October 7, 1985, and was intercepted by jail authorities the next day. It stated in part: “I’ve killed once for you, and if I have to I’ll do it again!!! And you know that I can, and I don’t need a rock to do it either.” Defendant also acknowledged in front of two other Sierra County jail inmates that he had “bashed” a man’s skull with a rock thirteen times. The Defense Defendant testified on his own behalf. He denied killing Van Zandt, claiming that he had admitted doing so only to protect Eckstrom and Barrett. Defendant stated that Van Zandt was killed by the two women when he tried to rape Barrett. According to defendant’s testimony, Van Zandt had returned to the van while defendant was still fishing. When defendant later returned, he found Eckstrom upset and Barrett crying. Both women had blood on their dresses. Barrett explained that she had killed Van Zandt by hitting him with a rock when he had tried to rape her in the van. Defendant then pulled Van Zandt, still alive, out of the van. Eckstrom hit him with a stick and mumbled that she had killed him. A serologist called as a defense expert testified that she had found traces of semen on the fly of Van Zandt’s underwear; however, she conceded on cross-examination that these traces could have been deposited anytime since the underwear was last laundered, that they could have been deposited by a partial voiding of the bladder upon death, and that they were not necessarily deposited by ejaculation. She found no semen on Van Zandt’s jeans. Several female Nevada County jail inmates also testified to statements made by Barrett implying that defendant was taking responsibility for Van Zandt’s murder out of misplaced love for her. All three conceded, however, that Barrett had made inconsistent statements about the murder. One witness offered her opinion that Barrett was a liar. At the close of the guilt phase, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and robbery, and further found as a special circumstance that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of the robbery. The Penalty Phase In aggravation, the prosecution introduced defendant’s prior felony convictions. Defendant was convicted in 1978 of kidnapping, attempted rape, and assault with intent to commit rape on a 15-year-old girl. He was also convicted in 1980 of stealing a car and kidnapping its driver, a 61-year-old woman. In mitigation, the defense presented evidence of defendant’s troubled childhood. He was hyperactive and unable to read until he was 15. He was harshly disciplined by his parents and choked by a teacher. Defendant had once helped people involved in a car accident at some risk to his own safety and had saved his brother’s life when he suffered a heart attack. The defense also presented evidence of defendant’s artistic ability, his love for animals, and his leadership in the Boy Scouts. Two experts with experience as prison officials testified that defendant would be a successful life prisoner. They observed that he had developed work skills while in jail (landscaping and sewing) and had learned the deaf alphabet to assist deaf prisoners. However, he had also been involved in a stabbing incident. A psychologist testified that defendant has mild-to-moderate brain dysfunction. In her view, although defendant knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offense, he lacked the ability to control his conduct because the brain dysfunction rendered him unable to understand the long-term consequences of his acts. A psychiatrist testified that defendant has a borderline personality with dependent and antisocial features, and an atypical brain syndrome. He attributed defendant’s “antisocial behavior” to his brain condition and psychological disorders. Jury Selection Issues I. Discovery of the Prosecutor’s Jury Book Defendant begins his challenge to the jury selection process by arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to order discovery of the prosecutor’s “jury book.” Before jury selection began, defendant moved to discover prosecution records showing the arrest records of venirepersons and how they had voted as jurors in other trials. The prosecutor responded that his office kept evaluation sheets summarizing the prior jury service of each prospective juror, which included a date of trial, charges against the defendant, the verdict, a rating presumably directed to the desirability of the juror from the prosecution standpoint (excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory), and comments. He argued that the evaluation and comments of the deputy district attorney filling out the evaluation sheet were protected work product. The trial court denied the defense motion. In People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 765-767 [175 CaI.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446], we announced a rule giving trial judges “discretionary authority to permit defense access to jury records and reports of investigations available to the prosecution.” {Id. at p. 767.) The rule was founded on our power to supervise the administration of criminal procedure and arose from a concern that prosecutors would have more information about prospective jurors than defense lawyers because of their superior ability to finance investigations of the venire. As we stated: “Such a pattern of inequality reflects on the fairness of the criminal process.” (Id. at pp. 766-767.) In People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1225 [255 CaI.Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047], we declined to decide whether the defense was improperly precluded from questioning jurors with prior jury experience about the result reached by the prior jury, holding that any error in precluding such questioning was harmless. Johnson is applicable here. Even assuming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order discovery of arrest records and prior jury votes from prosecution records, defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice. Murtishaw itself endorses this result in the following observation: “As the prior cases have pointed out, in any individual case it is entirely speculative whether denial of access caused any significant harm to the defense. Consequently, under the test of prejudice established in the California Constitution (art. VI, § 13) and People v. Watson [(1956)] 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243], the denial of access is not reversible error.” (People v. Murtishaw, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 767.) Having shown no impairment of his defense resulting from the absence of the prosecutor’s jury book at defense counsel table, defendant is not entitled to reversal. II. The Trial Court’s Remarks to the Jury About the Number of Capital Cases Reversed by the California Supreme Court At the beginning of voir dire, the court explained the pending charges and the voir dire procedure, including the need to inquire into each potential juror’s attitudes about the death penalty. Its explanation included the following statement: “As far as the process is concerned, let me explain a little about that. You need not, and will not, have to worry about the death penalty in the event that you find, first of all, that there was not a murder or that the murder wasn’t in the first degree . . . . You may never get to that point, but we still have to talk to you about how you feel about the death penalty. The supreme court, for the last 56 cases that they have decided about the death penalty, and I’m sure all of you read about the supreme court. There have been 56 cases, ladies and gentlemen, since 1972,1 believe, that have talked about death penalty cases. Fifty-three of them were reversed, three of them were affirmed. In those cases, we were given guidelines. I, as a trial judge, was given guidelines as to how we talk to you about this matter. Those guidelines are still in effect. I’m still bound by them and so are you. None of us are above the law. So I have to talk to you about how you feel about the death penalty.” Defense counsel called the trial court’s attention to the portion of its statement dealing with the large proportion of appellate reversals in death penalty cases and expressed concern that its remarks might cause some jurors to regard their consideration of the death penalty as an academic exercise. Counsel asked for an admonition to the jury, expressing the view that with the new composition of this court brought about by the judicial retention elections of 1986, “death may mean exactly that.” The trial court agreed and gave the following corrective instruction: “Ladies and gentlemen, I have been requested to admonish you a bit about what I said in the beginning concerning the amount of cases heard by the supreme court, 56,1 believe I mentioned in number and reversals thereon. The Court, me, personally, did not mean to indicate to you one way or the other how I felt about the matter. The Court only wanted to indicate to you that those 56 cases gave us guidelines, which I am obligated—and I think I told you that, that I’m obligated to follow in cases of this nature. And that’s all I intended to do. I did not intend to indicate my favor or disfavor of those decisions. I only indicated it was a threshold, the comment concerning the guidelines, that we have to follow. And now I’m going to tell you about those guidelines.” Defendant argues that the trial court’s statement minimized the jury’s sense of responsibility for returning a death verdict by suggesting that 90 percent of such verdicts would likely be overturned at the appellate level. He relies on Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 341 [86 L.Ed.2d 231, 247, 105 S.Ct. 2633], in which the United States Supreme Court found that a prosecutor’s comments regarding the role of appellate courts in reviewing capital cases resulted in a denial of due process. From Caldwell, he reasons that similar remarks by a trial judge are necessarily more egregious. Viewed in their context in defendant’s trial, we find the trial court’s remarks irrelevant and improper, but not prejudicial. Initially, we observe that the court’s reference to appellate reversals was a brief and isolated one, made at the beginning of voir dire and not during the penalty phase where the death penalty and the jury’s sentencing responsibility were the focus of the jury’s attention. (See People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 254 [758 P.2d 25], affd. on other grounds sub nom. Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 [108 L.Ed.2d 316, 110 S.Ct. 1190]; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 770 [239 Cal.Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250].) It was a small part of a larger statement designed to explain to the jurors an aspect of trial procedure that might engender confusion and frustration, i.e., why they would be individually questioned about the death penalty at the outset, even though the penalty issue might never be reached. As such, the reference was not necessarily critical in the development of the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict. Moreover, the trial court’s corrective statement, although not specifically directed to the issue of the jury’s responsibility for a death verdict, was apparently sufficient to satisfy defendant’s trial counsel, who did not request a mistrial or ask for other or further admonitions or remedial steps. Under these circumstances, we are especially reluctant to infer prejudice. (Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) 484 U.S. 231 [98 L.Ed.2d 568, 579, 108 S.Ct. 546, 552].) Finally, the remainder of the record demonstrates that the trial court imposed and the jury accepted the full burden of responsibility for a death verdict. Both the court’s instructions and the arguments of counsel emphasized the awesome character of the jury’s responsibility. At the beginning of the penalty phase, the court told the jury that it would have difficult decisions to make. The penalty phase instructions emphasized that the jury must not impose the death penalty if sympathy or compassion based on mitigating circumstances persuaded it to do otherwise. They further admonished that a reasonable doubt as to the appropriate penalty required a verdict of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. With reference to the consequences of a death verdict, the final charge included the caveat: “And you are instructed that a death verdict means exactly what it says. That the defendant will be executed. For you to conclude otherwise would be to rely upon speculation or conjecture and would be a violation of your oath as a juror.” In light of the entire course of instuctions and argument, our observation in People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583 [268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127], in which we upheld the verdict despite a similar claim of Caldwell error, is apropos here: “The tenor of the argument and the remaining instructions made it clear to the jury that it and it alone was to decide whether defendant should live or die. Although the instruction should not have been given, it was not prejudicial.” {Id. at p. 634.) III. The Trial Court’s Decision to Excuse Prospective Juror Clinton Lee for Cause When asked by the court whether he had ever been “arrested” or “in jail for anything,” prospective juror Clinton Lee responded in the negative. The prosecutor produced a rap sheet showing Lee’s convictions for various misdemeanor offenses including, on two occasions, drunk driving. It also showed two charges of obstructing and resisting an officer (§ 148), one of which was dismissed upon a plea of guilty to drunk driving and another which showed no disposition. The prosecutor moved to excuse Lee, arguing that he had committed perjury. Over objection by defense counsel that “ignorance and stupidity are not grounds for disqualification,” the trial court granted the motion. Defendant claims error, noting that Lee was not specifically asked whether he had been charged with a crime and his answers could have been correct (e.g., he might have surrendered himself as opposed to being arrested and might not have spent time in jail). Observing that Lee had expressed no preconceived views on the death penalty, he further asserts that any error was prejudicial. The qualification of a juror challenged for cause is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and is seldom a ground for reversal on appeal. (Odle v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 932, 944 [187 CaI.Rptr. 455, 654 P.2d 225]; People v. Sanchez (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 721, 732 [256 CaI.Rptr. 446].) There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. Whether Lee was taken into custody or surrendered himself, he was nonetheless arrested numerous times. “An arrest is taking a person into custody in a case and in a manner prescribed by law.” (§ 834.) “An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer.” (§ 835, italics added.) In view of Lee’s rap sheet, his responses to questions about his arrest record were lacking in candor and completeness. Concealment by a potential juror constitutes implied bias justifying disqualification. (People v. Diaz (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 926, 934-936 [200 Cal.Rptr. 77]; see also Clark v. United States (1932) 289 U.S. 1, 10-11 [77 L.Ed. 993, 997-998, 53 S.Ct. 465].) Lee’s disqualification was justified. Moreover, even apart from whether or not Lee concealed his arrest record on voir dire examination, the trial court had ample cause for disqualification. The prosecutor represented to the court that he had personally prosecuted Lee for some of the charges listed on the rap sheet. The trial court could have reasonably inferred that Lee might harbor ill feelings amounting to bias from these experiences. (See People v. Williams (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 469, 476-478 [245 Cal.Rptr. 61]; People v. Farris (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 376, 385-387 [136 Cal.Rptr. 45].) IV. The Trial Court's Denial of Defendant's Challenges for Cause of Six Prospective Jurors Because of Their Attitudes About the Death Penalty Defendant assails the trial court’s decisions overruling challenges for cause to six prospective jurors who he claims were prejudicially disposed toward the death penalty. We reject his argument for several reasons. None of the challenged jurors sat on defendant’s jury. Defendant excused two of them by peremptory challenge, but used only six of his twenty-two peremptory challenges. In order to complain on appeal about the trial court’s decisions overruling his challenges for cause, defendant must show: (1) he used a peremptory challenge to remove the juror in question; (2) he exhausted his peremptory challenges or can justify his failure to do so; and (3) he was dissatisfied with the jury as selected. (People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1087 [259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 770-771 [251 Cal.Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260]; Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81 [101 L.Ed.2d 80, 108 S.Ct. 2273].) Defendant fails the last two essential elements of the test. He did not exhaust his peremptory challenges; he offers no legally sufficient excuse for failing to do so. (See, in contrast, People v. Box (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 461, 465-466 [199 Cal.Rptr. 532] [reversing conviction when defendant was allowed only 10 of the 26 peremptory challenges to which he was entitled and explained his failure to exercise the 10th challenge by observing that he could not have removed the 5 or 6 unfavorable jurors with his single remaining challenge and that he risked obtaining a more unfavorable juror from the remaining venire if the challenge were exercised].) Defendant’s conduct indicated no dissatisfaction with the jury that heard his case—a jury that included none of the persons he unsuccessfully sought to challenge for cause. Defendant seeks to distinguish the case law, observing that previous decisions did not involve the so-called “struck jury” system of jury selection that was used in this case. (See, e.g., United States v. Ricks (4th Cir. 1986) 802 F.2d 731, 733.) We described one variation of the struck jury system in our recent opinion in People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 395-398 [276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221]. Under the standard or “jury box” system of jury selection used in our state, 12 jurors are voir dired, subjected to challenges for cause, and replaced until 12 qualified jurors remain. Both sides then exercise peremptory challenges. A juror removed by peremptory challenge is replaced by another juror who is voir dired and then challenged both for cause and peremptorily. This process continues until peremptory challenges have been exhausted or waived. The 12 remaining persons become the jury. At defendant’s request, a variation of the struck jury system was used in this case instead of the jury box system. Prospective jurors were first individually voir dired and challenged for cause. As a result of this process, a panel of 76 persons was found qualified. A randomly ordered list of the qualified persons was given to both sides showing the order in which these persons would be called to sit as jurors. Starting from the beginning of the list, each side exercised its peremptory challenges until they were exhausted or waived. The first 12 persons remaining on the list became the jury. Defendant observes that in the jury box system a party exercising a peremptory challenge does not know whether, from his point of view, the next juror will be better or worse. In the struck jury system, the parties know what the entire panel looks like from the individual voir dire examinations. Thus, each party can develop an ongoing sense as to whether the exercise of each peremptory challenge is likely to yield a more or less favorable jury. This difference was undoubtedly the reason defendant requested the struck system. Defendant reasons that he should not be required to exercise all of his peremptory challenges under a struck jury system in order to assign error in refusing challenges for cause. His argument is a non sequitur. The difference between the two systems bears no relationship to the requirement that a defendant exercise peremptory challenges to exclude jurors he believes to be biased against him. Regardless of the system of jury selection, a party’s failure to exercise available peremptory challenges indicates relative satisfaction with the unchallenged jurors. Having so indicated in this case, defendant cannot reasonably claim error. He is entitled to an impartial jury, not to one of his own choosing. (People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal. 3d 1046, 1087.) He makes no showing that the jury hearing his case was anything but impartial. As we did in Wright, supra, we caution trial courts against experimentation with statutory jury selection procedures in capital cases: “[Adherence to the Legislature’s prescribed jury selection procedures remains the proper and authorized way to ensure selection of a fair and impartial jury.” (52 Cal.3d at p. 398.) V. The Prosecution's Use of Peremptory Challenges to Excuse Jurors Skeptical About the Propriety of the Death Penalty Defendant contends the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse seven jurors whom defendant describes as “death penalty skeptics.” He argues that the prosecutor’s use of challenges for this purpose denied him his right to a neutral and impartial penalty phase jury in violation of the United States and California Constitutions. (U.S. Const., Amends. VI, VIII & XIV; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 7, 15, 16 & 17.) Initially, defendant waived any error in this regard by failing to object to the prosecutor’s use of challenges. (People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 331, fn. 29 [261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 111 P.2d 121].) Moreover, we have repeatedly rejected any claim of constitutional infirmity in a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to remove jurors with reservations about the death penalty. (Id. at pp. 331-332; People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 58 [246 Cal.Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1].) For these reasons, we reject defendant’s contention. VI. Cumulative Prejudice in the Jury Selection Phase Defendant maintains that the cumulative effect of jury selection errors has deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree. As discussed above, there is no merit in any of defendant’s jury selection contentions, with the sole exception of the trial court’s improper remarks to the jury concerning death penalty reversals. As to those remarks, any error was both cured and harmless. Although a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, he is not entitled to a perfect one. (People v. Hamilton (1988) 46 Cal.3d 123, 156 [249 Cal.Rptr. 320, 756 P.2d 1348], quoting Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 432 [31 L.Ed.2d 340, 345, 92 S.Ct. 1056].) Because defendant has failed to demonstrate any unfairness or partiality in the process used to select the jury, there is no merit in his argument. (See Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1087-1088.) The Guilt Phase VII. The Immunity Agreements for the Testimony of Accomplices Allison Eckstrom and Avette Barrett Defendant’s girlfriend, Avette Barrett, and her sister, Allison Eckstrom, testified for the prosecution pursuant to written immunity agreements that ultimately spared them from being tried for the murder of Rickey Van Zandt. The agreements provided in part that the prosecutor would dismiss all charges pending against each woman if, among other things: (1) her statements to authorities that she did not personally inflict any injuries on Rickey Van Zandt were true and correct; and (2) she testified completely and truthfully at the preliminary hearing and at trial. The first of these conditions was deleted as to Barrett before trial, but remained in effect as to Eckstrom. Barrett’s agreement further required that she take and pass a lie detector test, a condition that was also waived by the prosecutor before trial. Defendant challenges the testimony of the two women, arguing that it was tainted by coercive conditions imposed by the prosecutor. The Attorney General argues that defendant has waived any error by failing to object when the two women testified. Defendant did, however, make a motion in limine to exclude their testimony on the same ground he urges here, i.e., the alleged existence of coercive conditions in their plea bargains. The motion was denied. The Attorney General responds that, notwithstanding the motion, defendant must repeat his objection when the evidence is actually offered to preserve an assignment of error. A party desiring to preserve for appeal a challenge to the admission of evidence must comply with the provisions of Evidence Code section 353, which precludes reversal for erroneous admission of evidence unless: “There appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion.” The reason for the requirement is manifest: a specifically grounded objection to a defined body of evidence serves to prevent error. It allows the trial judge to consider excluding the evidence or limiting its admission to avoid possible prejudice. It also allows the proponent of the evidence to lay additional foundation, modify the offer of proof, or take other steps designed to minimize the prospect of reversal. (See Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 772, 776 [87 P. 622].) Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance. No particular form of objection or motion is required; it is sufficient that the presentation contain a request to exclude specific evidence on the specific legal ground urged on appeal. (Assem. Com. com., 29B West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1966 ed.) § 353, p. 245; see also 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) § 2018, p. 1979; People v. Gibson (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 119, 137 [128 CaI.Rptr. 302].) Motions in limine are a commonly used tool of trial advocacy and management in both criminal and civil cases. Such motions are generally brought at the beginning of trial, although they may also be brought during trial when evidentiary issues are anticipated by the parties. In either event, they are argued by the parties, either orally or in writing or both, and ruled upon by the trial judge. The usual purpose of motions in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party. A typical order in limine excludes the challenged evidence and directs counsel, parties, and witnesses not to refer to the excluded matters during trial. (3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, § 2011 at p. 1969.) “The advantage of such motions is to avoid the obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell’ in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury.” (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [145 CaI.Rptr. 47].) Motions in limine serve other purposes as well. They permit more careful consideration of evidentiary issues than would take place in the heat of battle during trial. They minimize side-bar conferences and disruptions during trial, allowing for an uninterrupted flow of evidence. Finally, by resolving potentially critical issues at the outset, they enhance the efficiency of trials and promote settlements. (See Cotchett & Haight, Cal. Courtroom Evidence (3d ed. 1988) p. 28-3.) Under appropriate circumstances, a motion in limine can serve the function of a “motion to exclude” under Evidence Code section 353 by allowing the trial court to rule on a specific objection to particular evidence. In Sacramento, etc. Drainage Dist. ex rel. State Reclamation Bd. v. Reed (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 60, 68 [29 CaI.Rptr. 847], defendant made a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of an expert on the ground that he was not qualified. The trial court denied the motion and allowed the expert to testify, although it limited the scope of his testimony. Although defendant did not renew his objection when the expert testified, the Court of Appeal considered his assignment of error, observing: “The motion in this case was precisely directed at a well-defined issue. It was an entirely proper mode of objection. Once the trial court ruled on it, no further objections or motions were necessary to preserve the point for appeal purposes.” However, in a series of recent cases, we have stated: “Generally when an in limine ruling that evidence is admissible has been made, the party seeking exclusion must object at such time as the evidence is actually offered to preserve the issue for appeal.” (People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 975, fn. 3 [251 Cal.Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475]; see also People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 708 [268 Cal.Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887]; People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 849-850 [268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983]; People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 270, fn. 13 [256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610].) In contrast, relying primarily on Sacramento, etc. Drainage Dist. ex rel. State Reclamation Bd. v. Reed, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d 60, Witkin states: “If the motion [in limine] is denied, the ruling may be reviewed on appeal without making an objection to the prejudicial matter at the trial.” (3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, §2011 at p. 1971.) The apparent contradiction in these general statements can be reconciled by focusing on the provisions of Evidence Code section 353. In some cases, a specific objection to a particular body of evidence can be advanced and ruled upon definitively on a motion in limine, thus satisfying the requirements of the statute. In this case, for example, defendant made a motion in limine to exclude all of the testimony of the two female witnesses based on allegedly coercive terms in their written plea agreements. The motion was clearly and unequivocally denied. The objection was specific, it was directed to an identifiable body of evidence, and it was advanced at a time when the trial judge could give fair consideration to the admissibility of the evidence in its context. Moreover, the Attorney General does not point to any event in the trial occurring after the in limine ruling and before the evidence was offered that so changed the context as to constitute a basis for reconsideration of the ruling. Under these circumstances, defense counsel was justified in concluding that a mere repetition of the same objection advanced on the motion in limine would serve no useful purpose. The objection having been made and ruled upon, the issue was preserved for appeal. (Sacramento, etc. Drainage Dist. ex rel. State Reclamation Bd. v. Reed, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d at pp. 67-68.) In other cases, however, a motion in limine may not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Code section 353. For example, it may be difficult to specify exactly what evidence is the subject of the motion until that evidence is offered. Actual testimony sometimes defies pretrial predictions of what a witness will say on the stand. Events in the trial may change the context in which the evidence is offered to an extent that a renewed objection is necessary to satisfy the language and purpose of Evidence Code section 353. As we observed in People v. Jennings, supra, “[Until the evidence is actually offered, and the court is aware of its relevance in context, its probative value, and its potential for prejudice, matters related to the state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on admissibility.” (46 Cal.3d at p. 975, fn. 3.) In these kinds of circumstances, an objection at the time the evidence is offered serves to focus the issue and to protect the record. As one trial practice text advises: “An unsuccessful motion [in limine] can serve the same purpose as an objection at trial in preserving the record on appeal .... However, the motion should be sufficiently clear and specific to allow the appellate court to determine whether it would have been redundant to have also objected at the time the evidence was going to be introduced.” (Cal. Trial Objections 2d (Cont.Ed.Bar 1984) § 1.7, p. 11.) In summary, we hold that a motion in limine to exclude evidence is a sufficient manifestation of objection to protect the record on appeal when it satisfies the basic requirements of Evidence Code section 353, i.e.: (1) a specific legal ground for exclusion is advanced and subsequently raised on appeal; (2) the motion is directed to a particular, identifiable body of evidence; and (3) the motion is made at a time before or during trial when the trial judge can determine the evidentiary question in its appropriate context. When such a motion is made and denied, the issue is preserved for appeal. On the other hand, if a motion in limine does not satisfy each of these requirements, a proper objection satisfying Evidence Code section 353 must be made to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal. Our holding in this regard is necessarily confined to classic in limine motions, i.e., those motions heard at the beginning of or during trial by the trial judge. Other kinds of pretrial motions not heard by the trial judge, e.g. those made under section 1538.5, will continue to be governed by their own particular rules and standards regarding the preservation of error for appeal. Notwithstanding our holding, the better practice in handling motions in limine is undoubtedly for the parties to stipulate to the effect of the court’s rulings (as they did in People v. Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d 963) or for the trial judge to make it clear to counsel at the end of in limine arguments not only what the ruling on the motion is, but whether further objection or argument is desired when the evidence is presented. If this is done, the stipulation or order of the trial court will be respected in the appellate court’s determination whether error has been properly preserved. As one commentator has cautioned: “[W]hen an in limine motion to exclude evidence is denied, counsel should get a clear understanding on the record that counsel need not object when the evidence is sought to be introduced during trial so as to preserve the right to argue the point on appeal. If this is not done, counsel should consider objecting during trial when the evidence is sought to be introduced so as to avoid any possibility of waiving the right to argue the point on appeal.” (1 Cal. Civil Procedure During Trial (Cont.Ed.Bar 1982) § 6.48, p. 246.) As we have noted, defendant’s in limine motion satisfied the requirements of Evidence Code section 353 as we have described them. Therefore, we will consider his argument on the merits. Relying on the rule of People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 455 [116 Cal.Rptr. 133], defendant initially argues that conditioning the grant of immunity to Eckstrom on the fact that she did not personally injure Van Zandt necessarily tainted her testimony. As we observed in People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1251-1252 [232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115]: ‘“[A] defendant is denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially upon accomplice testimony and the accomplice witness is placed, either by the prosecution or the court, under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion.’ (People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 455 [116 Cal.Rptr. 133].) Thus, when the accomplice is granted immunity subject to the condition that his testimony substantially conform to an earlier statement given to police (id., at p. 450), or that his testimony result in the defendant’s conviction (People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 837-839 [228 P.2d 867]), the accomplice’s testimony is ‘tainted beyond redemption’ (Rex v. Robinson (1921) 30 B.C.R. 369) and its admission denies the defendant a fair trial. On the other hand, although there is a certain degree of compulsion inherent in any plea agreement or grant of immunity, it is clear that an agreement requiring only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid. (People v. Fields [(1983)] 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [197 Cal.Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680]; People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 266 [324 P.2d 556].)” (Italics added, fn. deleted.) Barrett’s testimony was admissible because the only condition remaining at the time of trial was that she testify completely and truthfully. As to Eckstrom’s testimony, we need not reach the issue whether the no-injury-to-the-victim condition in her plea agreement is impermissibly coercive under the rule of Medina, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 438. (See People v. Knox (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 420, 430-431 [157 Cal.Rptr. 238].) Defendant has not shown any prejudice from the allegedly coercive condition. The prosecution’s case did not depend substantially on Eckstrom’s accomplice testimony. Defendant’s several detailed pretrial admissions of guilt were the cornerstone of the case against him. The accomplice testimony served primarily to supply details and to clarify occasional vagueness in defendant’s admissions. In view of the abundant “corroborating circumstances” showing that Eckstrom was testifying truthfully, including defendant’s pretrial admissions, Barrett’s testimony, and the physical evidence, there was no reversible error in allowing the testimony. (People v. Watson (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 376, 381-382 [152 Cal.Rptr. 471]; People v. Sepeda (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 700, 708-709 [136 Cal.Rptr. 119].) Defendant attacks the immunity agreements on other grounds as well. He suggests improper conduct by the prosecutor, cryptically observing that James Reichle, the attorney who negotiated the immunity agreement on behalf of Barrett, became Sierra County District Attorney shortly thereafter and before defendant’s trial. Defendant’s suggestion ignores the fact that his case was not prosecuted by Mr. Reichle or anyone on his staff, but by Special Prosecutor Gary Rossi, a former San Joaquin County deputy district attorney, who was specifically appointed to handle this prosecution. Defendant made no motion to recuse the prosecutor. He points to no evidence that Mr. Reichle or anyone under his supervision or direction either influenced or was in a position to influence the prosecution of defendant in any unfair way. In the absence of such evidence, we will not indulge in any speculation that the prosecutor did not exercise his discretion in an evenhanded manner or that personal animus, bias, or improper receipt of confidential information played any role in defendant’s prosecution. (See People v. Hamilton, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 140-141; In re Charles L. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 760, 764-765 [132 Cal.Rptr. 840].) Finally, defendant urges that Barrett and Eckstrom’s testimony should have been excluded not only because they were accomplices, but because they were “teenage sisters.” Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that teenage sisters are incompetent or inherently unreliable witnesses. Although we have observed that minor accomplices may face parental pressure to testify and to blame others, including the accused (In re Miguel L. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 100, 108-109 [185 Cal.Rptr. 120, 649 P.2d 703]), there was no evidence of any such pressure in this case. In any event, the jury was allowed to consider fully the credibility of Barrett and Eckstrom after full disclosure of their sibling relationship, their immunity agreements, their prior statements, and other factors relevant to their trustworthiness as witnesses. Because their testimony was not subject to any blanket rule of exclusion, their credibility was a matter to be weighed and evaluated by the jury. VIII. Exclusion of Polygraph Evidence The defense sought to introduce evidence that Eckstrom had failed a polygraph examination and that Barrett had refused to take one. The trial court rejected the offer of proof, ruling that such evidence was prohibited by Evidence Code section 351.1, which provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any references to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence in any criminal proceeding . . . unless all parties stipulate to the admission of such results.” Defendant attacks the ruling by challenging the statute on a host of constitutional and other grounds. We need not consider defendant’s challenges because the ruling is sustainable regardless of the effect of Evidence Code section 351.1. Defendant’s offer of proof was simply that Eckstrom took a lie detector test and did not pass it. Because defendant did not offer to prove the polygraph’s acceptance in the scientific community, the evidence was properly excluded. As we said in People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1094-1095 [255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619]: “Absent an offer of proof that the polygraph is now accepted in the scientific community as a reliable technique, the evidence was presumptively unreliable and inadmissible.” Having failed to make the proper offer of proof, defendant is in no position to assign error in the trial court’s ruling. Finally, defendant claims error in the receipt of testimony of Allison Eckstrom’s mother, Michele Roberts, that “Allison had to have a polygraph test.” Roberts’s statement is a classic example of blurted-out testimony. It came on cross-examination by defense counsel concerning a prior statement made by the witness. It was offered by the witness by way of background and was not responsive to counsel’s question. Defense counsel immediately moved to strike the response and the trial court granted the motion and admonished the jury as follows: “And ladies and gentlemen, you are not to take into consideration anything concerning any mention of any polygraph test. Polygraph tests are not admissible in court. They are not part of this case. You are not to talk about it in your deliberations. You’re not to form any opinions one way or the other about any kind of polygraph test, and you are to strike that from your minds.” The trial court’s timely and specific admonition, which the jury is presumed to have followed, cured any prejudice resulting from the witness’s inadvertent and improper statement. (People v. Rosoto (1962) 58 Cal.2d 304, 352 [23 Cal.Rptr. 779, 373 P.2d 867]; People v. Eads (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 393, 402 [268 P.2d 561].) In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see pt. XXIII, post), there was no prejudice requiring reversal. IX. Admission of Defendant’s Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachment On defendant’s motion in limine, the trial court ruled that defendant’s prior convictions for kidnapping, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and car theft would be admitted for impeachment, but that his conviction for escape would not. Defendant maintains that the court did not properly weigh the probative value of his prior convictions for impeachment against their prejudicial effect. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 307 [211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111].) Defendant initially argues the trial court did not make an adequate record of the weighing process preceding its ruling to admit the convictions. To the contrary, the court entertained the arguments of counsel bearing on probative value and prejudice, made several remarks from the bench about remoteness and relevancy, and reviewed each conviction separately during the course of its ruling. Although the court did not specifically articulate all of the factors identified in case law in making its ruling, defendant cites no authority imposing such a requirement. The trial court’s ruling was adequately stated and supported by the record. (People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207]; People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 [251 Cal.Rptr. 40].) Moving to the merits of the trial court’s ruling, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court distinguished among defendant’s convictions by excluding escape and admitting the others. The admitted convictions were seven and nine years old at the time of trial and thus not so remote in time as to preclude their relevance for impeachment. The offenses were crimes of moral turpitude, i.e., they evinced a “general readiness to do evil,” and could therefore properly be considered by the jury as impeachment. (People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 314). They were not identical to the charges against defendant in this case so as to suggest present guilt merely because of past conduct. Recent case authority supports the trial court’s decision to admit the convictions. (People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 646-647 [248 Cal.Rptr. 891]; People v. Castro (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1211, 1216-1217 [231 Cal.Rptr. 269]; People v. Lewis (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1288, 1297 [237 Cal.Rptr. 64].) Defendant cites no contrary authority. X. Defendant’s Conversation With a Fellow Jail Inmate About Escaping Anthony David Brooks, a jail inmate whom defendant met while in custody awaiting trial, testified that defendant asked his assistance in escaping. Brooks reported defendant’s request to jail authorities. Defendant denied making the request. Citing out-of-state cases, defendant argues that evidence of an escape attempt was not probative on the issue of his guilt because he was being held on more than one charge and that “it is impossible to determine from which charge defendant escaped and fled.” (E.g., State v. Sanders (Mo. 1971) 473 S.W.2d 700, 703.) He invites us to reverse his conviction because of the alleged prejudicial effect of the escape-attempt evidence. We decline the invitation. At trial defendant moved to exclude Brooks’s testimony, asserting that jailhouse informants are unreliable witnesses. The trial court held a pretrial hearing on the motion, but made no ruling. Defendant failed to request a ruling and made no objection when Brooks’s testimony was offered. As a result of these events, defendant has waived any claim of error in the introduction of Brooks’s testimony for two reasons. First, defendant failed to object to the escape evidence when it was offered. (People v. Rodgers (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 508, 517 [126 Cal.Rptr. 719].) In contrast to the immunity agreement issue (see pt. VII, ante), the trial court never made a ruling on Brooks’s testimony. Defendant was obligated to press for such a ruling and to object to Brooks’s testimony until he obtained one. He failed to do so, thus depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error. Second, defendant failed to advance in the trial court the specific ground for exclusion he now urges. Defendant’s motion was directed to the alleged unreliability of jailhouse informants, not to any inherent ambiguity in escape-attempt evidence when multiple crimes are charged. The motion was therefore not sufficiently specific to preserve the alleged error. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 777; People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 766.) Because of defendant’s procedural omissions, the trial court had no fair opportunity to consider excluding this evidence. Therefore, defendant cannot challenge its ruling on appeal. We also reject the claim on the merits. Evidence of a planned escape permits an inference of consciousness of guilt, even if the escape was not actually attempted. (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1143-1144 [245 Cal.Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901].) California follows the majority rule in allowing evidence of an attempted escape even when multiple crimes have been charged. (People v. Remiro (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 809, 845 [153 Cal.Rptr. 89, 2 A.L.R.4th 1135]; Annot., Attempted Escape (1981) 3 A.L.R.4th 1085, 1087-1093.) We see no reason to consider changing the rule. In any event, as in People v. Williams, any error in the abbreviated reference to escape plans was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. XI. The Admission of Statements Made by Defendant to Nebraska Law Enforcement Officers Defendant challenges the trial court’s admission, over his objection, of three statements he made to Nebraska law enforcement officers, one before and two after his arrest. He argues that the use of these statements violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. For convenience, the challenged statements will be referred to as: (1) the prearrest statement, (2) the prearraignment statement, and (3) the postarraignment statement. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of defendant’s rights in the admission of any of the statements. A. The Prearrest Statement. Thomas Logan, a hitchhiker who was picked up by defendant and his two female companions in the van, left their company and placed a “911” call to Nebraska police about 10 p.m. on September 15, 1985. Logan reported that the van’s occupants had killed the owner and that the van was full of marijuana. He described the van as a green Dodge camper with California license plates. Logan’s report was relayed to state, county, and local police in the area where he was picked up. The green van was traced to a motel parking lot in Lexington, Nebraska. Police converged on the spot and verified that defendant, whose name had been reported by Logan, had rented room 238 and had indicated that he was driving a green van with California license plate number 231 NVL. Two officers, a state trooper and a chief deputy sheriff, approached the van and, with the aid of the lighting in the motel parking lot and their flashlights, observed four or five pounds of marijuana as well as stains on the curtains. The van’s California license plate was J2/NVL. The officers proceeded to room 238. The state trooper knocked and identified himself as a peace officer. Defendant opened the door. The state trooper asked defendant if he was Bruce Morris and defendant answered affirmatively. When the chief deputy asked if the officers could come in, defendant stood back and motioned for them to enter. The state trooper then asked defendant if he was driving the green Dodge van in the lot; defendant responded affirmatively. The state trooper then told defendant that he was under arrest for possession of marijuana. Although no Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]) had been given at this point, the trial court admitted evidence of defendant’s answers to the officers’ questions. It committed no error. Miranda requires that a criminal suspect be admonished of specified Fifth Amendment rights. But in order to invoke its protections, a suspect must be subjected to custodial interrogation, i.e., he must be “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way.” {Id. at p. 444 [16 L.Ed.2d at p. 706].) “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is ‘a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” (California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 [77 L.Ed.2d 1275, 1279, 103 S.Ct. 3517], quoting Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492, 495 [50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719, 97 S.Ct. 711].) Whether custody has occurred short of a formal arrest depends upon the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: (1) the site of the interrogation; (2) whether the investigation has focused on the suspect; (3) whether the indicia of arrest are present; and (4) the length and form of the questioning. No one factor is dispositive. (People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal. 3d 247, 272.) And, contrary to defendant’s argument, the mere fact that he was a suspect does not establish custodial interrogation. As the Supreme Court observed in Oregon v. Mathiason, supra: “[P]olice officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the . . . questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody. ’” (429 U.S. at p. 495 [50 L.Ed.2d at p. 719], italics added.) In this case, the police questioning was brief and nonaccusatorial—two yes-or-no questions designed to elicit only defendant’s identity and his relationship to the van. The inquiry did not take place in jail or on police premises, but in defendant’s own motel room with his two female friends present. (See People v. Butterfield (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 586, 590 [65 Cal.Rptr. 765].) It was not accompanied by traditional indicia of arrest, i.e., defendant was not physically restrained or directed to say or do anything. The officers asked whether they could enter, and defendant consented. In view of the confusion concerning the license number of the vehicle, a routine question on that subject did not amount to an accusation or a restraint on defendant’s freedom. In light of t