Full opinion text
Opinion BAXTER, J. Defendant Timothy Pride was convicted of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) with personal use of a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). Under the 1978 death penalty law, a special circumstance of multiple murder was found true. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The jury sentenced defendant to death, and the trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We find no prejudicial error affecting the guilt or penalty phases of defendant’s trial. The judgment will be affirmed in its entirety. I. Guilt Phase Evidence A. Prosecution Case The victims, Kimele S. and Catherine K., were Caucasian, in their 20’s, and employed by the Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in Sacramento (Progressive). The crimes occurred in the Progressive building on September 3, 1984, Labor Day. That morning, Kimele and her husband, Jeff, an attorney, decided to spend the first part of the day at their separate offices and to visit his parents sometime after 2 p.m. Kimele and Jeff had sexual intercourse and then he left for work. He returned to an empty house at 12:30 p.m. and waited for Kimele. At 2:15 p.m., she told him over the phone that she was still working but would be home in two hours. This was the last time Kimele was heard from alive. Catherine—who was single and lived with her parents—spent the night before Labor Day at the home of her sister-in-law. Tlie next morning, the two women decided to spend a few hours apart at work and then meet for dinner. The sister-in-law left for work first at 1:45 p.m. At 4 p.m., Catherine called and said she was at Progressive. This was the last time Catherine was heard from alive. Because of the holiday, few people were working in the Progressive building. Three management level employees, Charles Chokel, Pat Cadden, and Steve Andrews, were there at various times between 7:15 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. to interview a prospective employee. Andrews spoke briefly with Kimele no later than 11 o’clock, and Chokel saw her at her desk around noon. None of these men saw Catherine that day. A gardening crew, consisting of Jerry Wade and members of his household, worked outside the Progressive building from 9 a.m. until 3:30 p.m on Labor Day. Wade saw some people he assumed were Progressive employees enter the building around noon. Apparently, one or more doors were unlocked most of the day. Between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m., Jeff called Progressive but got no answer. He assumed Kimele was running late, left a note for her, and went to his parents’ home alone. He returned to an empty house at 5:45 p.m. After another unsuccessful attempt to reach Kimele by phone, Jeff became concerned for her safety and drove to Progressive. He arrived shortly before 6 o’clock and saw her car in the parking lot. The Progressive building was a large one-story structure about 180 feet long from north to south, and 120 feet wide from east to west. The main entrance was located in the southeast corner. Inside, the building consisted primarily of open space bisected by a north-south corridor running the full length of the building. On the east and lower west sides, there were shelves stacked with files and employee work stations divided by partitions. A lunchroom, janitorial closet, and restrooms were clustered together along the main hall towards the middle of the west wall. There was an enclosed conference room in the northeast corner and a construction area in the northwest corner. Kimele worked in an alcove directly south of the lunchroom. Catherine worked across the hall, in the southeast section. Jeff entered the building through an unlocked door in the lunchroom. Most of the lights were on. He saw bloodstains and a pile of bloody paper towels in the hallway outside the women’s restroom. A blouse and bloodstained sweater were lying nearby, both wet with water. Jeff did not enter the women’s restroom, but investigators ultimately found a pool of blood on the floor and blood spatters on the wall below one of the sinks. A mop stood in one corner, and several bottles of cleanser were left in apparent disarray on the sinks. Cigarette ash was found in one of the sink basins. A long trail of bloody footprints—later determined to have been made by Catherine—led down the hall from the restroom and ended in the southeast part of the building. There, on the floor between two partitions, Jeff discovered Catherine’s dead body. She was lying on her back with her legs spread apart and was naked except for a “tank top.” Her pants were down around one ankle, and there were bloody paper towels nearby. Catherine had been stabbed many times and her face was battered and swollen. At first, Jeff thought he had found Kimele but soon realized the dead woman was too large and was wearing unfamiliar clothing. Jeff frantically searched throughout the building but did not find Kimele. He called his parents and Progressive manager Cadden to see whether they knew her whereabouts. Jeff also told Cadden to call the police. Sheriff’s detectives arrived around 6:30 p.m. They ultimately found Kimele’s dead body behind a table and between two chairs on the floor of the darkened conference room. She was lying on her side in a semifetal position and was nude except for a bra. There was a bloodstained sweater underneath her body, and her pants and underwear were down around one ankle. Kimele had been stabbed several times and her face was battered and swollen. A jug of cleaning fluid and a plunger sat on the floor nearby. Detectives also found Kimele’s open purse sitting on a table near her work station. Her wallet and checkbook were missing. Pathologist Hall examined the bodies at the crime scene that night and at the coroner’s office the next morning. Kimele’s jaw was broken, her body was scratched and bruised, and she had been stabbed 18 times. All but one of the stab wounds were located in her back and chest, including one that penetrated the heart. No defensive knife injuries were found. Dr. Hall concluded that Kimele died between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. A vaginal examination revealed a moderate amount of semen and minor labial skin irritation. The results of other forensic tests performed on Kimele will be discussed below. Dr. Hall determined that the other victim, Catherine, had been stabbed 69 times. Thirteen stab wounds were located in her chest, including three that made a “symmetrical” pattern around the left nipple and one that penetrated the heart. Of the 30 stab wounds found on Catherine’s back, many were “clustered” on the left side. There were bruises and abrasions on her body and defensive knife wounds on her hands and forearms. Catherine’s time of death was placed between 2 and 4 p.m. Pathologist Hall apparently found no semen in Catherine’s vagina and discovered her hymen to be intact. However, forensic serologist Blake detected an “extremely small” amount of semen on a swab taken from inside the vagina, near the opening. Assuming the semen was deposited near the time of death, Blake attributed it to penetration by a non- or postejaculatory penis. The results of other forensic tests performed on Catherine will be discussed below. Defendant, who is Black, was employed by the American Building Maintenance Company (ABM) and worked as a janitor in the Progressive building. A few people (Chokel, Cadden, and Andrews) saw him cleaning inside the building the morning of the crimes. Wade, the gardener, saw defendant remove cleaning supplies from his car the same morning. Defendant’s car was still parked in the Progressive lot when Wade left the premises at 3:30 p.m. In the middle of the day, about 1 p.m., ABM manager, Richard Leppington, arrived at Progressive and found defendant vacuuming in the northeast section. As previously arranged, the two men toured most of the building and discussed certain cleaning chores that needed attention. Leppington noticed that the women’s restroom and surrounding areas had already been cleaned. Only some additional vacuuming and “edging” between the walls and carpet remained to be done. Defendant said he would be finished by 2 p.m. Leppington left the premises at 1:30 p.m. Leppington’s Labor Day visit was prompted by events that had occurred a few days earlier. Specifically, on August 30, Leppington received a phone call from Kimele’s supervisor, Kevin Legendre, complaining about the quality of defendant’s janitorial services. Pursuant to company policy, Leppington prepared a written complaint and gave it to defendant’s supervisor at ABM, Jesse Rubalcaba. Rubalcaba showed the complaint to defendant the same day. Rubalcaba testified that defendant reacted violently; he clenched his fists, moved towards Rubalcaba, and said the complaint was a “fucking lie.” Defendant also threatened to “get the person [at Progressive who] made the complaint,” and asked who it was. Rubalcaba testified that he did not respond because he did not know the complaint had come from Legendre. Legendre testified, however, that defendant knew he (Legendre) and Kimele were jointly responsible for monitoring janitorial services. Rubalcaba immediately reported defendant’s outburst to Leppington, said it was grounds for termination, and refused to continue working with defendant. All three men discussed the problem the next day (August 31), and Leppington decided not to fire defendant. As noted, Leppington and defendant met at Progressive shortly before the crimes to discuss job improvement. Sheriff’s Detectives Biondi and Bell visited defendant’s home at 12:30 a.m. on September 4—the day after the crimes—to interview him as a possible witness. Defendant answered the door in his underwear and invited the officers inside. He said he was babysitting his children but was willing to discuss the case after his “wife” came home. When asked what he wore to work the previous day, defendant pointed to a shirt and pair of pants that had been freshly laundered and folded. No unusual marks were seen on his body. The same detectives subsequently interviewed defendant on September 4, from 3 to 5 a.m., and on September 5, from 4:30 to 11:30 p.m. (with rest breaks). In both interviews, defendant denied any involvement in the crimes and was “adamant” that he left Progressive around 2 p.m. the day they occurred. However, he gave slightly different accounts of what happened next. In the first interview, defendant said that his car stalled, that he received a jump start from someone in a red Camaro, and that he arrived home at 2:30 p.m. In the second interview, defendant said the car was started by fixing a loose wire and that he might have arrived home as late as 3:30 p.m. Defendant also said he wore a “smock” during the repair, but that he returned it to the trunk of his car before going home. When asked in the second interview if he owned or carried a knife, defendant said, “no.” On September 6, detectives acquired fingerprint evidence that connected defendant to the crimes in a manner described below. They telephoned defendant—who had been under police surveillance for a day—and told him to submit to arrest at the station. He immediately complied. Defendant’s live-in companion, Brenda, testified that he arrived home at 5 p.m. on Labor Day. His work clothes were covered by the “jumpsuit” he kept in the trunk of his car. Defendant disrobed for a shower while Brenda prepared to go shopping. When she returned, defendant was laundering his work clothes—something he did only “once in a blue moon.” A few days after the crimes, a local resident found a knife with a trace of blood on it in a field near Progressive, and called police. Prosecution experts determined that the blood was human, but could not otherwise identify it. However, other forensic data suggested the knife was the murder weapon. Hair and fiber particles on it could have come from the victims and their clothing, and the blade was “consistent” with the victims’ wounds. Brenda testified that defendant possessed a knife “similar” to the purported murder weapon. She first noticed the knife on top of their refrigerator and last saw it on the bedroom dresser two weeks before Labor Day. Defendant told her after his arrest that it had been stolen. Brenda observed that both defendant’s knife and the purported murder weapon had the same distinctive carved wood handle and folding blade, but she questioned whether each had the same number of finger grooves. Four relatives and friends who had seen defendant’s knife one or two months before the crimes made similar observations at trial. A few days after the crimes, a young woman on horseback found Kimele’s wallet lying open and face down along a road not far from Progressive. The wallet contained identification and credit cards but no money. The sheriff’s department was notified and searched the area. Kimele’s checkpad was discovered near where the wallet had been found. A bank receipt and checkbook cover containing miscellaneous papers belonging to Kimele were found a quarter-mile down the road. Further investigation of Progressive revealed defendant’s fingerprints on several surfaces in the women’s restroom (e.g., soap and towel dispensers, trash can, stall doors). A fingerprint was also lifted from each of two bloody paper towels found crumpled together near Catherine’s body. One of the prints was positively identified as defendant’s, and the other one was similar to his in several respects but could not be positively identified. Two Kool cigarette butts were found at the scene: one in the northwest area and the other in the hall not far from the women’s restroom. Serologist Blake determined that both items had been smoked by someone with type A secretor blood. Defendant is a type A secretor, and testified at trial that he regularly smoked Kool cigarettes. A few drops of blood were found in the northwest section of the building, near the cigarette butt. Electrophoretic testing by Dr. Blake disclosed that the bloodstains were compatible with Kimele’s blood type, but not with Catherine’s. Similar tests run on bloodstains found in the women’s bathroom and near Catherine’s body were consistent with her blood type, but not with Kimele’s. A pubic hair was found on a semen-stained portion of carpet underneath Kimele’s body. Criminalist Garbutt testified that the hair almost certainly came from a Black person; that it was “inconsistent” with the pubic hair of the victims or Sean Collins; and that it was “consistent” with defendant’s pubic hair. No conclusive information was obtained about the donor of semen found in each victim’s vagina. ABO and electrophoretic tests by Dr. Blake revealed that all genetic markers could have been contributed by the victims themselves, and that no one could be eliminated as a donor. Semen stains were found on three “zones” of carpet underneath Kimele’s body and on her panties. Again, ABO and electrophoretic tests were inconclusive because all markers could be attributed to the victim. However, because a relatively large amount of semen was found on the panties, Dr. Blake inferred from the absence of certain markers that the donor necessarily had type A or type O blood. Another test—“GM” or “Allotype”—was performed by Dr. Moses Schanfleld, a geneticist, on semen found on the carpet underneath Kimele and on her panties. The test identifies genetic markers grouped by class (Gm, Km, Am, etc.) on immunoglobulin antibodies (IGG, IGA, etc.) found in blood and, to a much lesser extent, semen. Schanfield compared markers found on the stained items with markers found in blood samples provided by Kimele, Catherine, Jeff, Sean Collins, and defendant. The import of Schanfield’s testimony was that Jeff and Sean Collins could not have deposited the semen; that defendant could have deposited it; and that only 1 to 4 percent of the Black population could have contributed a particular foursome of genetic markers found in the underpants stain. However, forensic experts for the prosecution (Dr. Blake) and defense (criminalist Wraxall) vigorously disputed the accuracy of Schanfield’s results at trial, and indicated that no meaningful “GM” inferences could be drawn about the semen donor in this case. B. Defense Case 1. Defendant’s testimony Defendant, who was 30 years old at the time of the crimes, testified as follows: he and Brenda had lived together for 10 years and had 2 young daughters. The family moved from East Palo Alto to Sacramento a few months before the crimes. Defendant had worked part time at Progressive for a total of two months, and also worked full time at a car wash. He knew Kimele and Catherine, and thought they had always been polite to him. On September 3, Labor Day, defendant arrived at Progressive early in the morning. He saw Kimele and at least one other employee (Chokel) working at their desks around 9 a.m. Defendant spent the next few hours performing his usual work routine, which included cleaning the women’s bathroom and restocking the paper towel dispenser. At 1 p.m., defendant and ABM manager Leppington discussed the extra chores requested by Progressive. While the two men toured the building, defendant purportedly smoked a Kool cigarette and discarded the butt in the northwest section. Leppington left the premises around 1:30 p.m. Defendant testified that after Leppington’s departure, he started vacuuming the building and probably finished around 3 p.m. He then cleaned some shelves, windows, and doors. He saw Kimele at her desk twice during this period and believed they were the only two people in the building. Defendant claimed he never saw Catherine that day. Defendant testified that he did not know when he left Progressive. He remembered seeing several Black men loitering nearby as he drove out of the parking lot. It usually took defendant 30 minutes to get home, but his car purportedly stalled along the way. A man in a red Camaro stopped to help defendant. They waited for the engine to cool down, fixed some loose wires, and jump-started the car. Afterwards, defendant put on the smock to protect his seat covers from car grease that had soiled his clothes. He wore the smock home. Defendant testified that he did not know when he arrived home. He laundered his clothes because he planned to wear them the next day. Defendant further testified that at some point before the crimes, his knife was stolen from his car while it was parked at Progressive. Defendant insisted that the knife identified by prosecution witnesses as the probable murder weapon did not belong to him. His knife purportedly had a longer blade and more finger grooves. He originally bought it from Brenda’s brother to resell it and because the brother needed the money. Defendant denied committing the crimes. He acknowledged that his prearrest statements differed from his trial testimony on certain issues, including the timing of his movements on Labor Day and whether he wore the smock home or owned a knife. He blamed these discrepancies on the fact that he was tired during interviews with detectives. Defendant described his confrontation with ABM supervisor Rubalcaba three days before the crimes as follows: Rubalcaba threw the written complaint at defendant and demanded to know “what [the] fuck this was.” Defendant read it and said it was a “fucking lie.” Defendant asked who made the complaint and Rubalcaba purportedly identified Kimele’s supervisor, Legendre. Defendant admitted raising his voice at Rubalcaba and becoming angry, but denied making any threat. Defendant further testified that he told Leppington the next day that he became angry as a result of Rubalcaba’s “attitude.” Leppington purportedly replied that he had a “pretty good idea” of what had happened between Rubalcaba and defendant, and that defendant would not be fired but would work directly with Leppington from then on. 2. Other defense witnesses Defendant tried to suggest through other witnesses that someone else committed the crimes. For example, a woman who worked at Progressive drove by the building about 4 p.m. on Labor Day. She thought she saw a parked car similar to one which two Black men had previously used to cruise through the lot and flirt with female employees. Another woman who drove by the building twice the same day saw a Black man lying on the lawn in the morning and several “scruffy” Caucasian men nearby in the afternoon. II. Penalty Phase Evidence A. Prosecution Case The prosecution presented evidence of four prior violent crimes by defendant, one of which resulted in a felony conviction: 1. The rape of Gloria G. The parties stipulated that defendant was convicted in January 1972 of forcibly raping Gloria G. The crime occurred in October 1971, two months before defendant’s 18th birthday. The facts underlying the conviction, including defendant’s guilty plea, were not introduced at the penalty trial. 2. The rape of Josephine H. In exchange for the above mentioned guilty plea, charges that defendant forcibly raped Josephine H. a few months before the rape of Gloria G. were apparently dismissed. Josephine testified at the penalty trial as follows: in January 1971, 16-year-old Josephine and defendant lived in the same neighborhood and knew each other from high school. Defendant saw Josephine on the street and insisted she immediately come to his house and pick up a record he had supposedly borrowed from her boyfriend. When they arrived, Josephine said she would wait for defendant outside. However, he pulled her inside the empty house and insisted she accompany him to his bedroom. Josephine complied only because defendant became upset and started threatening her. Defendant momentarily left the bedroom and returned wearing only pajama pants. Defendant demanded sex, slapped Josephine, and pushed her onto the bed. She resisted, but he removed her pants and raped her twice. Defendant let Josephine leave only after she promised to return later that day. Josephine soon reported the rape to her parents and the police. 3. The assault on the Marks family Sandy Marks testified as follows: One afternoon in May 1976, she and her sister Jackie and their four young children were present in Jackie’s apartment. Defendant, who apparently managed the building, appeared at the door and demanded the rent. Jackie indicated that she would not pay rent until she spoke to the owner about building repairs. Defendant became upset and shoved Jackie—who was seven months pregnant—across the room. Sandy— who was on crutches with a broken foot—stood up to help her sister but was slapped by defendant and knocked to the floor. Defendant then “smacked” Sandy’s son on the head as he ran outside to call the police. Defendant picked up a broom and threatened the women until the police arrived a short time later. One of the responding officers testified that defendant was arrested for battery and that Sandy had an abrasion on her cheek. Sandy and the officer each testified that defendant threatened the women in the officers’ presence (“you bitches are dead”). The penalty jury learned through stipulation of the parties that battery charges involving the two women were dismissed in exchange for defendant’s plea of guilty to one count of disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. 4. The rape of Leonie D. Leonie D. testified as follows: In September 1980, she attended and worked part time at a local college where she met defendant, the janitor. She agreed to meet him one night to discuss his supposedly ill father. They drove to a nearby park, drank some beer, and apparently smoked some marijuana. When they returned to campus, defendant insisted Leonie wait while he used the restroom. Once they were inside the building, defendant pulled Leonie into one of the rooms and became sexually aggressive. Leonie tried to leave but defendant punched her in the face, knocked her to the ground, and started choking her. Defendant threatened to kill Leonie and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse and “other things” for a “long time.” Defendant let Leonie leave only after he had mopped some blood off the floor. Leonie soon reported the incident to two schoolmates and the police. The schoolmates testified that Leonie was bloody, hysterical, and crying when they saw her that night. The doctor who examined Leonie shortly after the alleged rape remembered seeing scratches on her neck. A police officer who investigated the case noticed that the floor where the rape allegedly occurred had been freshly mopped. The same witness also testified that defendant was arrested, but later released at the request of the district attorney. B. Defense Case The penalty defense consisted primarily of testimony by defendant’s relatives attesting to his good character at certain times of his life. For example, defendant’s mother, grandmother, and half-sister agreed that defendant was a good child. Defendant’s mother explained that he grew up in a stable, two-parent home in a decent neighborhood. As a boy, defendant participated in wholesome recreational activities, enthusiastically performed chores at home, and performed fairly well in school. The half-sister also noted that defendant helped her recuperate from surgery for several days in 1976. In addition, defendant’s mother and half-sister testified that defendant was a good parent. They asked that his life be spared. III. Pretrial Issues A. Venue Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue made before jury selection began and renewed when it was complete. A change of venue must be granted when the defendant shows a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot otherwise be had. The trial court typically considers the nature and gravity of the offense, the size of the community, the status of the defendant and the victim, and the nature and extent of the publicity. On appeal, the defendant must show that denial of the venue motion was error (i.e., that it was reasonably likely a fair trial could not be had at the time the motion was made) and that the error was prejudicial (i.e., that it was reasonably likely a fair trial was not in fact had). We will sustain the court’s determination of the relevant facts where supported by substantial evidence. We independently review the court’s ultimate determination of the reasonable likelihood of an unfair trial. (People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 806-807 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436].) The charged offenses were serious and predictably attracted the attention of the media. But, as the trial court recognized, the same could be said of most multiple or capital murders. This factor is not dispositive. (See Edwards, supra, at p. 807.) The record indicates that when defendant moved to change venue, Sacramento had a total population exceeding 875,800 and was at least the seventh largest county in the state. Defendant claims Sacramento County is unusually “homogeneous” and “isolated” in a cultural sense, but the trial court found no credible evidence to support this claim. We have rejected similar challenges to trial in the same locale. (People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1001-1002 [248 Cal.Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017]; see also People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 942 [251 Cal.Rptr. 467, 760 P.2d 996].) The court properly found that the size and metropolitan nature of the county weighed heavily against a change of venue. Defendant correctly observes that certain news stories mentioned his prior criminal record, the possibility that he committed other crimes in the area, and a jailmate’s claim that defendant admitted the charged crimes. However, as found by the court, there was comparable coverage of a sympathetic and positive nature. Several articles noted that defendant was a local resident— not an outsider or drifter—and that he held two jobs in order to support his family. Coworkers were quoted as saying defendant was “polite” and “hardworking.” Defendant’s status in the community did not weigh strongly in favor of a change of venue. (Compare Martinez v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 574, 584-585 [174 Cal.Rptr. 701, 629 P.2d 502].) While the victims were evidently loved and respected in their circle of family and friends, they were not especially prominent. Defendant emphasizes their relative youth and “innocence,” as well as the fact that they were killed while working overtime on a holiday. These facts, however, would not change with a change of venue. Prospective jurors would have reason to sympathize with the victims and their families wherever the case was tried. (People v. Edwards, supra, 54 Cal.3d 787, 808.) Defendant insists that “sexual and racial overtones” in the case were exploited. Not so. News accounts described the crime scene and investigation in factual terms. Some stories were accompanied by pictures of defendant and/or the victims but—as defendant concedes—race was not overtly mentioned. The record also supports the finding that coverage was not excessive—23 articles and 43 minutes of broadcast time. Almost all publicity occurred within a few weeks of the crimes. The initial venue motion was denied a year and four months after the crimes. The guilt trial began another eight months later, i.e., two years after the crimes. Passage of time weighs heavily against a change of venue. (People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 677-678 [250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217].) At the first venue hearing, the defense presented expert testimony concerning the results of a “venue survey” it had recently conducted in Sacramento County. Contrary to what defendant argues, this evidence did not show that the pool of prospective jurors had been tainted by pretrial publicity. Of the 450 people responding to the survey, a high percentage remembered the case but most of them still had an open mind on the question of guilt. While a minority of those who remembered the case believed defendant committed the crimes, almost the same number of people believed any person brought to trial was probably guilty as charged. Defendant stresses that his primary expert, Dr. Bronson, testified at the first venue hearing that prospective jurors could not be trusted on voir dire to remember or reveal the full extent of their exposure to pretrial publicity. However, the court found Bronson was “biased” in favor of a change of venue. The court also found when rejecting the second venue motion that all jurors selected in this case had been “honest and truthful” when they denied being exposed to or affected by publicity. Nothing in the record of voir dire undermines this conclusion. A few days after the court denied the second venue motion and one day before the guilt trial began, defendant informed the trial court that there had been four new articles and one radio broadcast about the case. The defense asked that voir dire be resumed or that jurors be polled on whether they had been exposed to the information. The court denied the request. It noted that the jury had been repeatedly admonished to avoid any coverage of the case and to inform the court if such exposure had inadvertently occurred. There was no indication any juror was aware of the new coverage. Absent a contrary indication in the record, it must be assumed the jury followed its instruction to avoid all publicity in the case. (People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 252-253 [253 Cal.Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906].) The court was not obliged to inquire into the matter based on mere speculation or conjecture that some impropriety had occurred. (Id., at p. 253.) The court did not err in failing to ask further questions on the publicity issue. In light of the foregoing, defendant has not established error or prejudice in the denial of his venue motions. B. Jury Selection Issues 1. Introduction With the approval of the parties, the following procedure was used to select the jury (compare People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 955-956 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214]): Prospective jurors were first examined for hardship and some were excused. Following preinstruction and individual voir dire, the parties’ challenges for cause were made and resolved. At the end of this process, 57 persons remained in the jury pool. Twelve jurors were then called at random and seated in the jury box. The prosecution and defense alternately exercised their peremptory challenges, and a new prospective juror was randomly called into the box each time a vacancy was created. Ultimately, the prosecution struck 17 prospective jurors and no prospective alternates. Defendant used all 26 of his challenges against prospective jurors and none of his 4 challenges against prospective alternates. Defendant used a peremptory challenge to strike a prospective juror in every case in which he claims on appeal that a defense challenge for cause was erroneously denied. Toward the end of the peremptory-challenge process, defendant requested “at least ten” additional challenges. The trial court denied the request. Defendant expressed dissatisfaction with the jury as sworn, primarily on grounds it was racially unbalanced and biased in favor of the death penalty. 2. Representative jury Defendant argues here—as he timely but unsuccessfully did below—that exclusion of ex-felons and resident aliens from juries in this state denied him a representative jury. We thoroughly discussed and rejected the same claim in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 631-634 [250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]. Defendant does not ask that we reconsider Karis, but raises the issue solely to preserve federal review. 3. Discovery of information about prospective jurors Before jury selection began, defendant moved to compel disclosure of any prosecution records and reports containing information about prospective jurors. The court denied the motion. Defendant claims the ruling was erroneous under People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 767 [175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446] (trial court has discretion to give defense access to jury records and reports). Defendant asserts that because there is no record of what information the prosecution possessed, we must “presume” it had a “significant advantage” over the defense during jury selection and that defendant was prejudiced thereby. However, defendant concedes Murtishaw itself rejected this approach. “[I]n any individual case it is entirely speculative whether denial of access caused any significant harm to the defense.” (Ibid., italics omitted.) Thus, even assuming error occurred, it was necessarily harmless. (See also People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 180 [279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949]; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1225 [255 Cal.Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047].) 4. Defense challenges for cause Defendant argues the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to four prospective jurors (Gluyas, Waterman, Gomez, Bardon) on grounds their views on capital punishment would “ ‘prevent or substantially impair’ ” performance of their duties as jurors under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852, 105 S.Ct. 844] (Witt) (citation omitted). Defendant also claims the court erroneously prevented him from asking one of these jurors (Gluyas) an assertedly key question about capital punishment. Defendant notes the trial court apparently assessed all such challenges for cause under Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770]. Witherspoon indicated that a prospective juror could be excluded for cause based on his views of the death penalty where he made it “unmistakably clear” he would “automatically” vote a certain way. (Id., at p. 522, fn. 21 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at page 424 [83 L.Ed.2d at pages 851-852], “clarified]” Witherspoon and was decided about a year and a half before jury selection began in this case. While both cases dealt specifically with prosecution attempts to exclude prospective jurors based on their views against the death penalty, the Witherspoon/Witt standard has since been applied to defense attempts to exclude prospective jurors assertedly biased in favor of death. (See Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81, 85 [101 L.Ed.2d 80, 87-88, 108 S.Ct. 2273]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 763-765 [251 Cal.Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260].) We conclude defendant is estopped to argue that the court applied the erroneous standard or that its rulings on these four challenges for cause were incorrect. Here, the court and counsel discussed the effect of Witt before jury selection began. The court opined that no California cases had yet interpreted Witt but that it seemed to have “changed” Witherspoon. Defense counsel disagreed, arguing that Witt “brought no substantial changes of any kind” to the Witherspoon rule. The court immediately replied that it would “stick with the old way”—an apparent reference to Witherspoon. Under the circumstances, any erroneous departure from Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412, occurred at the request and with the approval of the defense. The tactical purpose behind such a stance was both plausible and clear: under Witherspoon, supra, 391 U.S. 510, the prosecution could excuse only those pro-life jurors who made their inability to impose the death penalty “unmistakably clear.” Defendant does not dispute that rejection of his four challenges to allegedly pro-death jurors was correct under Witherspoon, and he seems to explicitly concede the point as to prospective Juror Gluyas. Hence, defendant is precluded from complaining about the trial court’s handling of voir dire or defense challenges for cause on the issue of capital punishment. Defendant also contends the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to four prospective jurors who were assertedly biased on issues unrelated to capital punishment. Defendant maintains that three of them (Eldridge, Bardon, and Blattel) had prejudged the case based on their exposure to pretrial publicity, and that the fourth one (Chamberlain) was biased in favor of police officer witnesses. No error occurred. Defendant is correct that the three individuals who had heard or read about the case before voir dire indicated that they initially formed certain opinions about defendant’s guilt, his background, and/or the manner in which the crimes occurred. The fourth juror acknowledged that he assumed police officers were “more honest” than other people. Nevertheless, all four individuals insisted they could apply the presumption of innocence, follow the evidence and instructions, and be fair and impartial if they served on the jury. Where a prospective juror gives such conflicting or equivocal answers concerning his impartiality, the trial court’s assessment of his state of mind is generally binding on the appellate court. (People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1089 [259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659].) For this reason, we find no impropriety here. 5. Wheeler/Batson claim Of the fifty seven individuals left in the jury pool at the start of peremptory challenges, eight were Black and at least five were apparently Hispanic. The prosecution’s first twelve peremptory challenges included four against Blacks and two against Hispanics (Gipson, Grayson, Richey, Shaw, Morales, and Solorio). The defense peremptorily dismissed, among others, two Blacks and one Hispanic. The prosecution thereafter used five more peremptory challenges, two of which were made against the last two Blacks (Murchison and Williams). Defendant twice objected to the prosecution’s use of its peremptory challenges under People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748] (Wheeler) and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712] (Batson). (See Powers v. Ohio (1991)_U.S. _[113 L.Ed.2d 411, 111 S.Ct. 1364].) Each time, the court “required” the prosecution to fully state its reasons for striking minority candidates. The prosecutor complied, and cited particular pages from the voir dire transcripts and jury questionnaires that he believed supported his decisions. The court concluded that each of the proffered reasons was “bona fide” and “legitimate” and that the prosecution had “carried [its] burden” under Wheeler and Batson as to all eight questioned challenges. It appears that at least two Hispanics, but no Blacks, sat on the jury. As noted by defendant, the prosecutor said he excused all eight minority candidates because, among other things, they had expressed reservations about imposing the death penalty. Defendant insists this type of justification is “improper” per se. We have previously rejected this claim and see no reason to reconsider it here. (People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 624-625 [253 Cal.Rptr. 863, 765 P.2d 70].) Defendant next argues the record does not support the prosecutor’s claim that three (as opposed to all eight) of the challenged minority jurors were reluctant to impose the death penalty (Murchison, Williams, and Richey). Assuming a prima facie case of Wheeler discrimination was made, the trial court could properly sustain these challenges. Murchison and Williams said during voir dire that they had “strong doubts” about or “generally opposed” the death penalty. Murchison’s reservations stemmed from an overt distrust of the legal system, particularly its treatment of indigent defendants, while Williams was deeply concerned that an innocent person might be executed. The third individual, Richey, avoided answering most questions concerning the criminal justice system. The prosecutor concluded—and the court did not disagree based on its observations during voir dire—that all three individuals might not be willing or able to impose a death sentence if appropriate in this case. Defendant does not dispute that the prosecutor properly identified the five other minority jurors he excused as also having reservations about the death penalty. Because the trial court found at least one legitimate race-neutral explanation for each questioned peremptory challenge, no abuse of discretion occurred. (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277 & fn. 18.) 6. Failure to grant additional peremptory challenges Defendant contends the trial court erred in not granting his timely and repeated request for “at least 10” more peremptory challenges. He insists he was entitled to additional challenges as a “matter of right” under the federal Constitution. Defendant also claims that by, among other things, “artificially limiting” the number of prospective jurors against whom peremptories might be exercised, the trial court improperly precluded itself from exercising its state law discretion to grant additional challenges during the selection process. Both claims must be rejected. “[T]o establish the constitutional entitlement to additional peremptory challenges argued for here, a criminal defendant must show at the very least that in the absence of such additional challenges he is reasonably likely to receive an unfair trial before a partial jury.” (People v. Bonin, supra, 46 Cal.3d 659, 679.) Logic dictates that no more lenient standard applies to nonconstitutional claims of error in denying additional peremptory challenges. The standard of “likely partiality” is not met here. As noted above, defendant has not demonstrated that the trial court erroneously denied any challenges for cause. Nor did any of the allegedly biased prospective jurors he identifies on appeal actually serve on the jury. No basis for reversal appears. IV. Guilt Phase Issues A. Shackling In June 1986, before jury selection was complete, a two-day hearing was held concerning the need to physically restrain defendant in court. Several witnesses testified, including four sheriff’s deputies and defendant. At the close of the hearing, the court ordered that defendant henceforth be secured to his chair by a single waist chain that would be concealed from the jury by his suit coat and by a special “flap” in the chair. The court found such measures were “necessary” based on evidence of defendant’s threats of violence and hostile behavior towards deputies who transported him to and from the courtroom. The court was concerned that defendant might be difficult to control if he became disruptive, emphasizing, among other things, his “muscular” build and “imposing” size and the “physical layout" of the courtroom. Defendant correctly observes that shackling may be ordered during trial only upon a showing of a “manifest need,” and that an appellate court will uphold the order absent a clear abuse of discretion. (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 403 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610]; People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-292 [127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322, 90 A.L.R.3d 1].) Defendant claims the court abused its discretion because there was insufficient evidence that he was physically disruptive or dangerous. The record of the hearing belies this claim. Deputy Hayden described three occasions between December 1985 and early 1986 on which defendant threatened to harm him. The first incident occurred after Hayden asked defendant to promptly leave the courtroom during recess and walk toward the elevator. Defendant (who was not restrained at the time) said, “Don’t rush me when I’m talking to my attorney” and “This is my mother fucking life we are dealing with.” Inside the elevator, defendant initially complied with Hayden’s request to face the rear but then suddenly turned around, assumed a fighting stance, and said, “Don’t cut me no slack.” When Hayden called for assistance, defendant said he would “get back” at the officers. The next incident occurred when Hayden insisted that defendant be shackled before escorting him from the holding tank into the courtroom. Defendant warned, “This is personal now” and Hayden would “pay for it.” The third incident occurred when defendant told another deputy to remove his restraints so that he could “slap” Hayden. Deputy Sterling testified that defendant threatened him in March 1986 while he and another officer were escorting defendant from the courtroom to the holding area. When Sterling asked defendant about counsel’s efforts to have his shackles removed, defendant said, “They are going to take these chains off of me in a few days [and] I am going to take some of you mother fuckers out.” Defendant boasted that he could “take on” five or more deputies at one time. Deputy Wilcox testified that defendant threatened him in June 1986, 10 days before the shackling hearing. While being transported between jail and the courthouse, defendant repeatedly refused to carry a special shirt associated with his protective custody status. When Wilcox reminded defendant to carry the shirt, defendant (who was shackled) became angry and clenched his fists. He called the officer a “punk” and said, “Let’s get it on right now, let’s get down to it.” Deputy Varney testified that a few days after the foregoing incident, defendant was accused of misconduct by another inmate, Cortez, in the holding tank. The inmate was visibly upset, and asked to be removed from the tank on grounds defendant sexually taunted him (“suck my dick”). The appellate record also shows an outburst by defendant during an evidence-suppression hearing in April 1986. Defendant interrupted Detective Biondi’s testimony and called him a “damn liar.” The court cited this incident in support of the shackling order, but said defendant had apologized for it. As noted, defendant testified at the shackling hearing. He denied most of the alleged threats, but admitted that his dealings with the deputies were often tense. He insisted that Deputy Hayden was “immature” and that he and the other officers conspired to harass defendant. Another inmate, Avalos, corroborated defendant’s testimony that he did not bother inmate Cortez in the holding tank. However, the court was not required to accept defendant’s version of events and implicitly resolved any credibility questions against him. Prosecution evidence showed a series of threats or outbursts over a six-month period preceding the shackling hearing, with two incidents occurring shortly beforehand. The court could reasonably infer that defendant was “experiencing increasing difficulty in controlling his violent impulses[,]” and that “unless restrained physically, [he] would resort to violence in the courtroom if he became irritated or frustrated with the proceedings.” (People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th 324, 404, fn. omitted.) The court need not have waited until such violence occurred before ordering restraints. There was no abuse of discretion. Defendant attacks the shackling order on other miscellaneous grounds. For example, the court purportedly erred in preventing Deputy Hayden from answering defense questions about “problems” he may have had with three other inmates. The court sustained prosecutorial objections to this line of questioning under Evidence Code section 352. We reject defendant’s claim that this ruling constituted an abuse of discretion or that it violated defendant’s federal constitutional right to confront witnesses. As noted, Hayden was one of four deputies who implicated defendant in several potentially violent episodes. The court could reasonably conclude that the probative value of Hayden’s unrelated work experiences was low, while the risk of consuming an undue amount of time was high. Defendant also argues that the shackling order violated various federal and state constitutional rights (due process, right to effective assistance of counsel, and reliable death judgment). For purposes of this claim, defendant asks us to “assume” that his restraints were actually seen by the jury and that they affected his ability to assist in his defense. However, these assertions are speculative. Indeed, the court emphasized that it would be virtually impossible for the jury to see the waist chain when defendant was sitting down; that special care would be taken to ensure it was not seen when he moved inside the courtroom; and that the waist chain would not “interfere with his ability to cooperate with [counsel].” We reject defendant’s claims of constitutional error and prejudice. B. Defendant’s Tape-recorded Statements Defendant willingly participated in two separate interviews with detectives before his arrest. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed, and involved about six and one-half hours of dialogue. Defendant claims the court erred in denying his midtrial motion to play the tapes for the jury. As we will explain, no basis for reversal appears. On direct examination, the prosecution asked Detective Biondi to recount defendant’s statements on a narrow range of interview topics, particularly the time defendant left Progressive and arrived home the day of the crimes. According to Biondi, defendant consistently maintained that he left Progressive around 2 p.m., and stated at one point that he arrived home as early as 2:30 p.m. This information conflicted with testimony previously given by two prosecution witnesses (the gardener and Brenda) that defendant had not left Progressive by 3:30 p.m. and that he arrived home at 5 p.m. On cross-examination of Biondi, defense counsel tried to elicit defendant’s interview statements on two subjects not previously raised. The prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds. Outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel explained he was “laying a foundation” for introduction of the entire tape-recorded interviews. Counsel asked that the tapes be played so that the jury could assess his “state of mind.” The prosecutor conceded that defendant could introduce any testimony or taped portion of the interviews that clarified excerpts already given by Biondi, but insisted no such clarification was necessary here. The court ruled defendant’s “state of mind” was not “in issue” and denied the motion to admit the tapes. The court also sustained the prosecutor’s hearsay objections and limited cross-examination of Biondi to topics raised on direct examination. Defense counsel subsequently cross-examined Biondi at length concerning defendant’s statements about the timing of his movements the day of the crimes. Related sections of the transcribed interviews were also read into evidence. On at least two subsequent occasions, defendant renewed his request to play the tapes. Each time, the court cited its prior ruling and denied the motion. Thereafter, defendant testified he was tired during the interviews and did not know when he left Progressive or arrived home on Labor Day. Defendant contends the tapes suggest that he was disoriented during the interviews and that his time estimates were “mere guesses” made in response to “highly suggestive” questioning. The court assertedly erred in excluding this evidence under state law because it rebutted any inference that he lied to police. Defendant also suggests the court’s ruling violated various federal constitutional guarantees (due process, presentation of a defense, and reliable death judgment). Defendant correctly observes that where one party has introduced part of a conversation, the opposing party may admit any other part necessary to place the original excerpts in context. (Evid. Code, § 356; People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1174 [259 Cal.Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730].) It follows that if excerpts of a recorded conversation are admitted in a form —such as participant testimony or written transcripts—that creates a misleading impression, the recording itself may be proffered as necessary to correct that misimpression. For several reasons, however, no reversible error occurred here. In the first place, any claim that evidence was wrongly excluded cannot be raised on appeal absent an offer of proof in the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 354.) Defendant made no offer of proof as to how the tapes of his police interviews might correct any misimpressions allegedly created by the testimony and transcripts actually before the jury. In addition, a trial court has broad discretion to exclude evidence it deems irrelevant, cumulative, or unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. (Evid. Code, § 352.) Here, the court heard the entire tape recording of defendant’s interviews before trial. In denying defendant’s midtrial motion to play the tapes, the court rejected a vague claim that the tapes were necessary to illustrate a pertinent “state of mind.” One reasonable inference is that the court implicitly exercised its discretion and concluded the tapes would not materially assist the defense. Finally, we have independently reviewed the tapes and conclude it would have been an abuse of discretion to admit them on the theory now urged. Defendant speaks in a relaxed and confident tone throughout, and no evidence of psychological coercion or strain appears. The tapes amply support Detective Biondi’s testimony that defendant was “adamant” about the time he claimed to have left the crime scene. Thus, any failure by the court to exercise its discretion in excluding the tapes was harmless under any standard. C. The Complaint About Defendant’s Work Over defendant’s objection, his janitorial supervisor, Rubalcaba, testified that three days before the crimes, defendant learned Progressive had complained about his work and that defendant had angrily threatened to “get” the responsible party. Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude this evidence under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant suggests here, as below, that the evidence unfavorably characterized him as a bad employee and had little bearing on whether he was guilty of first degree murder or any other charged crime. No abuse of discretion occurred. The “complaint” and “threat” evidence tended to show a motive to harm Progressive and its employees. It bore powerfully on the prosecution’s claim of first degree premeditated murder as to both victims, and was not inconsistent with the alternative theory of murder in the course of a rape or attempted rape. The trial court could reasonably conclude that such evidence was substantially more probative than prejudicial. Defendant next observes that Rubalcaba’s supervisor, Leppington, was called as a prosecution witness immediately after Rubalcaba. Leppington stated on direct and cross-examination that he discussed the foregoing incident with Rubalcaba and defendant the next day; that Rubalcaba and defendant shouted at each other during the meeting; that defendant behaved civilly towards Leppington; and that Leppington decided not to fire defendant. When defense counsel asked Leppington what reason defendant gave during the meeting for his confrontation with Rubalcaba, the prosecution objected on hearsay grounds. Defense counsel argued that the evidence was being offered to prove the “state of mind of the several parties.” The trial court summarily sustained the objection. Defendant now claims Leppington’s testimony would have disclosed a “personality conflict” between Rubalcaba and defendant, and would have rebutted any inference of a motive to harm Progressive or its employees. Defendant contends the court erroneously failed to apply the “mental state” exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1250), and that its ruling violated various federal constitutional guarantees (due process, confrontation of witnesses, presentation of a defense, and reliable death judgment). No basis for reversal appears. Absent an offer of proof as to what Leppington’s testimony would have been, defendant has not preserved any challenge to its exclusion on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 354.) In any event, the court’s ruling was harmless under any standard now urged. Defendant explained at trial that he did not make any threats when presented with the Progressive complaint, and that he told Leppington the next day that he became angry as a result of Rubalcaba’s “attitude.” Leppington’s description of the meeting corroborated defendant’s apparent theory that Rubaicaba and defendant disliked each other and that Leppington took that fact into account in deciding what employment action to take. The proffered evidence would have added little to the jury’s understanding of the incident. D. Jeff’s Testimony Defendant argues that restrictions on defense cross-examination of Kimele’s husband, Jeff, violated rules governing admission of “third-party culpability” evidence. We disagree. Before trial, the prosecution moved in limine to prevent Jeff from being asked about his remarriage and personal life after the crimes. The matter was argued at least twice before Jeff was called to the stand and again immediately before his cross-examination began. On each occasion, defendant offered to introduce circumstantial evidence of Jeff’s “motive” to kill Kimele, e.g., that he received $40,000 in life insurance benefits, bought a house, traveled abroad at some point after her death, and remarried over a year later. Defendant insisted this evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt when considered in light of Jeff’s presence and “bizarre” behavior at the crime scene and the apparent lack of corroboration of his whereabouts between 2:15 and 4 p.m., when the victims most likely died. The prosecutor sought to exclude the evidence under Evidence Code section 352, suggesting it would trigger extensive rebuttal testimony. The court concluded that the proffered “motive” evidence was irrelevant and granted the prosecution’s motion to exclude it. ' Defendant argues that the court’s ruling violated People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826 [226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99] and various federal constitutional guarantees (due process, confrontation of witnesses, presentation of a defense, and reliable death judgment). Hall refused to impose a distinct and elevated standard of admissibility on defense evidence of a third party’s guilt of the charged crimes, and said such evidence “need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.” (Id., at p. 833.) Hall made clear, however, that commonsense r