Full opinion text
Opinion BAXTER, J. Defendant Michael Hill was convicted of two first degree murders (Pen. Code, § 187) and one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with the personal use of a firearm. The jury found to be true the special circumstances that the murders were committed during a robbery (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) and that defendant was guilty of multiple murders (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. Guilt Phase Facts I. The police investigation On August 15, 1985, the bodies of Anthony Brice, Sr. (Brice), and his four-year-old son, Anthony Brice, Jr. (Anthony), were found by police on the floor of the jewelry store operated by Brice in Oakland, California. Each victim had been shot in the head at close range with a .38-caliber gun. The appearance of the crime scene suggested there had been a robbery. Within a week after the killings, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors offered a $5,000 reward for information resulting in the arrest and conviction of the killer(s). Oakland Police Department Sergeant Gerald Medsker was the primary investigator assigned to the Brice killings. He first learned on August 22, 1985, of defendant’s possible involvement. The following day, Sergeant Medsker contacted Robert Fox, a jewelry salesman, who had been in Brice’s store the day of the killings. Based on a photographic lineup, Fox identified defendant as having been in the store while Fox was there. On September 10, 1985, after further investigation, Sergeant Medsker obtained from the Alameda County Superior Court an order allowing police to transport defendant from the county jail in Santa Rita to police department headquarters for questioning. (Defendant was in jail for having violated the terms of his probation for a prior conviction unrelated to the Brice killings. He had not been in jail when the Brices were killed.) On September 11, 1985, defendant was taken to headquarters and was informed that the police were investigating the Brice killings. Defendant signed a written waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974], and provided police with three statements recorded on audiotape. He incriminated his acquaintance Michael McCray, an illegal drugs dealer. The police arrested McCray on the evening of September 11. He consented to a search of his automobile, and police found a pouch of jewelry, which McCray told them he had won in a poker game. With McCray’s consent, police also searched the room where he was residing. They found twenty-eight assorted gold chains in an envelope, two shotguns, three baseball bats, an assortment of shotgun, rifle, and pistol ammunition, empty .38- and .44-caliber shells, and narcotics paraphernalia. When interrogated by the police, McCray incriminated defendant by asserting as follows: Defendant had owed McCray $600 for cocaine. On the day of the Brice killings, McCray loaned defendant a .38-caliber handgun and ammunition. McCray provided defendant with the gun because defendant had said he intended to use it in a robbery. Defendant returned to McCray’s house the afternoon of the killings with a brown paper bag containing at least three dozen gold chains and one dozen watches. Defendant also had about $300 in cash, which he claimed to have taken from a jewelry store. He gave McCray $150 in cash and jewelry worth about $450. II. The criminal charges After further investigation, defendant was charged by information on May 19, 1986, with two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187), one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), two statutory special circumstances—multiple murder (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and murder committed during a robbery (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i))—use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.06 and 12022.5), and infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.075 and 12022.7). The information also alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of the possession of narcotics for sale. Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the special circumstances and other allegations. He subsequently amended his plea to admit the allegation of a prior criminal conviction. The prosecution amended the information by striking the allegations of great bodily injury. III. The trial A. The prosecution’s case The prosecution’s theory of the case was that defendant robbed and killed the Brices because defendant was under pressure to repay a drug debt to Michael McCray. The prosecution also contended McCray was defendant’s accomplice as a result of having loaned the gun to defendant with knowledge that defendant intended to use it to commit a robbery. Several persons testified regarding defendant’s actions and statements during the period shortly before and after the Brice killings. Derek Agnew testified that he knew Brice and had entrusted him with cash to keep in the store’s safe. On August 13, two days before the killings, Agnew went to the store and gave Brice an additional $150 for safekeeping. Defendant was in the store at that time. Agnew already had about $550 being kept in the store’s safe. He testified that, “As I started counting my money I like say, you know, he [defendant] was in my business.” Robert Fox, the costume jewelry salesman who had previously identified defendant to police (see p. 972, ante), testified that he (Fox) had been in Brice’s store on about 10 occasions before the killings. Fox purchased costume jewelry from Brice, who engraved it with the false notation, “14k.” Fox sold the fake jewelry, known as “slum,” for about double the amount he had paid Brice for it. Fox was in Brice’s store about noon on the day of the killings. Fox noticed that Brice had a large amount of currency in his pocket. While Fox was in the store, defendant knocked on the door and was allowed to enter. Fox did not see a gun on defendant. When Fox left about 15 minutes later, the only persons in the store were defendant and the Brices. Denine Houston testified that in August 1985 she was living in a house on 23d Avenue in Oakland (the group house) with her boyfriend and several other persons including defendant. On the morning of August 13, 1985, defendant was in her room watching television. She heard defendant tell her boyfriend that defendant “had a lick up at a slum shop.” “Lick up” meant a robbery. “Slum shop” meant a fake jewelry store. According to Houston, defendant said that “It was a slum shop on Foothill off of 38th and he can get in because he know the people real good, and he had to have some money ‘cause he was tired of being broke. ” (Brice’s jewelry store was located at 38th and Foothill in Oakland.) Houston’s boyfriend, Sam Dartez, also testified that a day or two before the killings, defendant said that “He got a lick up and he’s going to have some money.” Houston further testified that, on the morning of August 15, defendant “was talking about going to get his piece [gun], going to take care of his business.” Defendant returned about an hour or two later with a gun that Houston identified as being similar to People’s exhibit No. 4-A, a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. Defendant told Houston he was tired of being broke. Defendant left and returned about three or four hours later with a brown paper bag (approximately five or six inches square and fifteen to eighteen inches high) containing “a bunch of slum jewelry,” “pockets full of money,” and an “eight ball [one-eighth ounce] of cocaine.” Three other witnesses testified similarly. Annie Mae Smith, who also lived in the group house, testified that on August 15 she saw defendant at the house. “He had a bag of jewelry, some money and a gun.” The gun was substantially similar to the .38-caliber Smith & Wesson introduced into evidence as People’s exhibit No. 4-A. Defendant said, “This is the way to get yours.” Rudolph Wilkins, another resident of the group house, is defendant’s cousin. He testified that on the morning of August 15, defendant came into Wilkins’s bedroom, showed him a .38-caliber revolver similar to People’s exhibit No. 4-A, and asked for some .38-caliber bullets. Wilkins had no bullets. Defendant left and returned midafternoon with a brown paper bag full of gold-colored necklaces. He also had a “wad of money” in his pocket and repaid Wilkins $30. Defendant said that “he had knocked over a jewelry store and he had snuffed somebody.” Marta Daniels, who had lived with Michael McCray for several years and was his “common law” sister-in-law, testified that on the morning of the killings she asked defendant to give her a dollar and that he told her he had no money but would have one “when he got through with his lick.” To Daniels, a “lick” meant a “robbery,” a “scam,” a “con,” or “any kind of thing where you get something for doing something wrong.” Later that same day, defendant gave Daniels $50 to buy some cocaine. He had a “fan of money” that Daniels estimated to be “about 600 dollars.” He said “that he had to have his and he was going to get it and this is what he got.” Three days later, she observed defendant on a street corner selling jewelry and watches. Sam Dartez moved into the group house about two to three weeks before the killings. Dartez had known defendant for three to four years and sold slum jewelry with him. On the afternoon of August 15, Dartez was leaving the house (to appear in court on a charge of possessing cocaine) when he saw defendant coming down 23d Street toward the house. Defendant had a “big grocery bag" containing “slum jewelry, watches, chains, a whole bunch of chains.” Dartez had never before seen defendant with so much jewelry. Defendant told Dartez, “Man, we got work to do,” meaning to Dartez that they needed to sell the jewelry. Defendant gave Dartez $20 to buy cocaine. He bought some, brought it to the group house, and consumed it with defendant. Dartez then left for his court appearance. He returned later than afternoon. Someone brought cocaine to the house, and defendant paid for the drug. He had “a lot of money ... a wad.” Wilbert Winchester testified that he had known defendant for many years and that, shortly after the Brice killings, perhaps a day or two, maybe a week, afterwards, defendant approached him on an Oakland street and asked if he wanted to buy a .38-caliber pistol. Winchester did not see a gun. He declined the offer because he did not want a pistol and because he was on parole. Ranee Bennett, a methadone addict, testified that she first met defendant on August 19, 1985, while she was “hanging out” at a taco restaurant in Pittsburg, California. “He said he was trying to down [sell] some pills and a gun.” She could see the gun tucked into his waistband, and he said it was a .38-caliber. It resembled the gun introduced as People’s exhibit No. 4-A. Defendant left but returned later that day to the restaurant. He told Bennett he had no place to stay, and she offered to let him stay at her residence. They drove to her home. He no longer had the .38-caliber gun. On or about August 30, she told him she had been hearing things and asked him about a robbery and murder. “He said he had did it but—and I asked him why did he shoot the kid and he said because they knew him. ... He said it was a jewelry store. ... It was in Oakland. ... It was a man and his son. . . . [Defendant] Said it was a robbery. . . . The robbery was supposed to have been done with a .38. ... I was just stunned. I just kept asking why. Q: And what did he say? A: He said ‘cause they knew him.” Bennett told defendant that he should surrender himself to the police. The prosecution also introduced testimony by two jailhouse informants. Arthur Allen was incarcerated in September 1985 at the Santa Rita jail for receiving stolen goods and was defendant’s cellmate. Allen testified: “He [defendant] said he shot two people and robbed a jewelry store. Q: Did he say why he had shot the two people? A: He shot the one—the older man because I guess he thought he was going for a gun or some kind of weapon, but he just shot the boy because [the] boy could have recognized him.” On cross-examination, Allen asserted that defendant had said “there was blood all over the counter” at the jewelry store. (A police officer testified that no blood was found on the counter.) Allen was released from custody earlier than normal after informing his jailers of defendant’s admission. Clifford Turner met defendant in May or June 1985, at which time defendant offered to sell IXirner a gun. Turner was arrested in August 1985 and incarcerated at Santa Rita in Greystone, a building for high risk inmates including informers. When defendant arrived at Santa Rita, he was placed in the cell next to Turner’s. Defendant admitted that he had robbed Brice and killed Anthony because “the little boy knew him as Uncle Mike.” In December 1985, Turner pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and a petty theft with a prior conviction. While awaiting his sentencing, Turner wrote a letter to the district attorney, offering to “help the state . . . if the state is willing to help me, and if not I’m still willing to help the District Attorney’s office.” At the time, Turner was “very angry” at defendant. Oakland Police Department Sergeant Medsker testified regarding his investigation, including the circumstances of his interrogation of defendant on September 11, 1985. (Those facts and the substance of defendant’s statements are set forth in detail below, in connection with defendant’s claim that his statements were involuntary. [See pp. 979-981, post.]) Portions of defendant’s three tape-recorded statements were introduced into evidence and played for the jury. Sergeant Medsker’s investigative partner, Sergeant Jerry Harris, testified that Michael McCray was arrested on September 11, 1985, on the basis of the statements made earlier that day by defendant. McCray then made a series of taped statements. Sergeant Harris testified as to portions of those statements. McCray told Sergeant Harris that defendant owed McCray $600 for cocaine and that defendant came to McCray’s house early in the afternoon of August 15 with a brown paper bag containing 36 or more gold chains and 12 watches. Defendant also counted out about $250 to $300, which he said he had taken from a jewelry store. Defendant gave about two dozen chains and six watches and $150 to McCray in payment of the drug debt. Defendant also had a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol, which he removed from his waistband and unloaded. McCray was “pretty sure” there were three empty shells taken from the gun. McCray had given the gun earlier that day to defendant with five rounds of ammunition in it because defendant had “said that he was going to pull a robbery.” Dr. Thomas Rogers, a pathologist, testified that the cause of death of Brice and his son Anthony was gunshot wounds to their heads. Dr. Rogers extracted two slugs from Brice’s head and one from Anthony’s head. Chester Young, a police department criminalist, testified that all three slugs had been fired from a .38-caliber gun. The gun introduced as People’s exhibit No. 4-A was one of four brands of .38-caliber handguns that could have fired the slugs. B. The defense The defense was that Michael McCray had killed the Brices and was attempting to exculpate himself by incriminating defendant. Defendant testified on his own behalf. He contended several of the prosecution witnesses were either lying or mistaken as to his alleged statements and actions. He had known Brice about 12 years and was a friend of both Brice and his son Anthony. Defendant went to their store the morning of August 15 to get some slum jewelry and to attempt to sell some videocassette recorders (VCR’s). He knocked on the door and was let into the shop by Robert Fox. Brice and Anthony were in the store. Fox then left and Brice asked defendant to buy some cigarettes. He used the door keys to let himself out of the store and went to get the cigarettes. As he was walking down the street to a grocery, he saw McCray in a car parked across the intersection from Brice’s store. As defendant was returning from the grocery, McCray called out to him, and he approached McCray. McCray asked who was in the jewelry store and whether Brice had any money. Defendant told McCray both Brices were there, and defendant returned to file store, using the keys to reenter. He told Brice about the conversation he had just had with McCray. About 10 minutes later, there was a knock at the door. Defendant looked out a window, saw McCray, and told Brice that McCray was at the door. Brice threw the keys to defendant and told him to open the door. McCray entered and pulled out a gun, went behind Brice, and fired the gun. Defendant ducked and fled the store. He heard a second shot while fleeing. Defendant paid a passing motorist to drive him away from the scene. A few blocks away, he got out, and as he was walking down the street, he saw Alonzo Hill, a friend to whom he had sold VCR’s. At this time, Alonzo Hill paid defendant $650 for the VCR’s. As this was happening, McCray drove up in his car. McCray gave defendant a grocery bag of slum jewelry like that he had seen in Brice’s store. Defendant did not want the jewelry because he knew it was stolen, but he took it anyway. Defendant began walking toward the group house where he was residing. On the way there, he came across Sam Dartez. Defendant asked him to help sell the slum jewelry. Dartez declined. Defendant gave him $20 to buy cocaine. They went to the group house and smoked the cocaine. Dartez then left for a court appearance, and defendant remained at the house. Later that afternoon, more cocaine was delivered to the house. Defendant paid $150 for the drug. About 4:30 p.m. Marta Daniels came to the house. Defendant gave her the grocery bag and about one-half of the jewelry he had obtained earlier that day from McCray. Several prosecution witnesses testified on cross-examination that later on the evening of August 15 McCray came to the group house several times looking for defendant. McCray said he “wanted his shit.” Defendant testified on cross-examination that several statements he made to police during his interrogation on September 10 were false and that he had initially concealed McCray’s alleged involvement because defendant was afraid of McCray. Guilt Phase Issues I. Admissibility of defendant’s statements to the police The trial court denied defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1538.5 and Evidence Code section 402 to suppress his statements to the police. Defendant contends the statements were the result of an illegal arrest or detention and were involuntary. We reject both contentions. A. Alleged illegal arrest or detention Defendant was in the Santa Rita jail when police needed to interrogate him. Sergeant Medsker preferred to conduct the questioning at police headquarters because he had more information about the case there and thought it might be necessary to conduct a polygraph examination of defendant. On September 10, Sergeant Medsker obtained a removal order from the Alameda County Superior Court that directed defendant’s transfer from Santa Rita to police headquarters. Defendant was transported the next day and was interrogated at headquarters. Defendant contends his transfer from Santa Rita was equivalent to an arrest without probable cause. (Sergeant Medsker testified at the suppression hearing that, as of September 10, he did not believe he had sufficient evidence to arrest defendant.) Defendant does not contend the interrogation would have constituted an arrest or detention if it had been conducted at the Santa Rita jail. Defendant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for his conclusion that his transfer from one facility to another was an arrest or detention that required probable cause. Defendant relies on People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 267-268 [256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610], for the proposition that he was under arrest at the time of the transfer because a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave. Boyer is inapposite. Of course, defendant was not free to leave. He was already properly in custody for an unrelated offense. That is why his argument must fail. The transfer from one jail to another did not effect a seizure of defendant for the obvious reason that he was already lawfully in custody. Likewise, “An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law.” (Pen. Code, § 834.) Because defendant already was lawfully in custody, he was not taken “into custody” when he was transferred, and the transfer was not an arrest. B. Whether defendant’s statements were voluntary During his interrogation on September 11, 1985, defendant gave three tape-recorded statements to the police. In his motion in limine to suppress them, he contended the third statement, and perhaps the second as well, was involuntary because the interrogation was unduly long and coercive. On appeal he challenges only the third statement—in which he admitted, contrary to his prior statements, that he was present at the time of the robbery and killings. Our task is to examine the facts and determine independently whether the prosecution met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s statements were voluntary. (People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 166 [266 Cal.Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857]; People v. Markham (1989) 49 Cal.3d 63, 71 [260 Cal.Rptr. 273, 775 P.2d 1042].) Defendant’s contention of involuntariness is not supported by the record. Defendant arrived at police headquarters at 9:22 a.m. and was placed in an interview room. He was left alone for about three minutes and at his request was then taken to the restroom. He was returned to the interview room. Sergeant Medsker identified himself and explained that he was investigating the Brice killings. Sergeant Jerry Harris was also present. Defendant was orally advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), and he signed a written acknowledgment that he had been so advised. He also indicated in writing that he nevertheless wished to speak with the police. Defendant was interrogated for about 50 minutes, during which time Sergeant Medsker took written notes. At 10:35 a.m. Sergeant Medsker began an audio recording of defendant’s statement. Defendant asserted that he first learned of the Brice killings while watching the television evening news on August 15. The taping session lasted 27 minutes—until 11:02 a.m. Defendant was then left alone for a few minutes, taken to the restroom, and returned to the interview room. Sergeant Medsker asked defendant whether he wished to eat, defendant said, “Yes,” and Sergeant Medsker brought him food at 11:35 a.m. He was not questioned while he ate. At 12:04 p.m., Sergeant Medsker asked defendant if he was willing to take a polygraph examination. Defendant agreed. The examiner readvised defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant signed an acknowledgment of the advisement. The polygraph examination then began and continued until shortly before 1:22 p.m. when defendant was returned to the initial interview room. In the presence of defendant and Sergeants Medsker and Harris, the polygraph examiner explained that defendant had not “passed” the examination. At 1:58 p.m. Sergeant Medsker resumed questioning defendant and continued until 3:13 p.m., a period of one hour and fifteen minutes. This session was not tape-recorded. Sergeant Medsker left the room. Four minutes later, defendant knocked on the door, Sergeant Medsker responded, and they spoke briefly. Sergeant Medsker again left the room and did not return until 3:52 p.m. When he returned, Sergeant Medsker showed defendant two photographs, left the room, and returned at 4:18 p.m. Three minutes later, he began a second taping session with defendant. Defendant was not given a third set of Miranda warnings before this session. He asserted that he knew the identity of the person who killed the Brices and that his first story to police was false because he did not want to “snitch” on the killer, “so that I [defendant] don’t get killed next.” The second recording session lasted until 5:15 p.m., about 54 minutes. Sergeant Medsker left defendant alone in the interview room and returned about 15 minutes later to take him to the restroom. On the walk back to the interview room, defendant stated that he thought the killer’s surname was “McCray.” Sergeant Medsker returned defendant to the interview room and left to obtain a photograph of McCray. At 5:48 p.m., Sergeant Medsker came back with a “hot print” photograph of McCray. Defendant identified the photograph subject as being the person responsible for the Brice killings. At 6:50 p.m. defendant was given a sandwich. Questioning resumed at 7:10 p.m. and continued until 10:05 p.m. Defendant was not readvised of his Miranda rights. Sergeant Medsker tape-recorded the latter portion of this session—from 9:16 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. In this third recorded statement, defendant admitted for the first time that he was present in Brice’s jewelry store at the time of the robbery and killings. After this interrogation session, defendant was returned to jail. The next morning, after police had arrested and questioned Michael McCray, Sergeant Medsker sought again to interrogate defendant. For the first time, defendant invoked his Miranda rights. Defendant does not dispute the foregoing chronology of his interrogation. He contends, rather, that approximately eight hours of actual interrogation (in five separate sessions) over a twelve-hour period was unduly lengthy and thus coercive, rendering involuntary his third recorded statement. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that such a length of time is, in and of itself, unfairly coercive. The voluntariness of a confession must be tested by “the totality of all the surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 226 [36 L.Ed.2d 854, 862, 93 S.Ct. 2041]; People v. Thompson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 134, 166; 1 LaFave, Criminal Procedure (1984) § 6.2(c), p. 444.) Defendant points to no circumstance other than the length of his interrogation. We are aware of no authority that would support a specific time limit on interrogation that would apply to all cases, regardless of their facts. Drawing such a bright line for all cases would be contrary to the “totality of the circumstances” test. Of course, custodial interrogation might continue for so long as to become unduly coercive under the circumstances of a particular case. (Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) 322 U.S. 143, 153 [88 L.Ed. 1192, 1199, 64 S.Ct. 921] [suspect interrogated for 36 hours without sleep or rest by relay teams of police officers and lawyers].) This, however, is not such a case. The 12-hour period on September 11 was not one of continuous interrogation. The actual interrogation, which was divided into five sessions, comprised only about eight hours. The breaks between sessions were not of insignificant duration. Nor was the period of interrogation unduly lengthy under the circumstances. It took place during normal waking hours—from approximately 9:30 a.m. until 10 p.m. Defendant was promptly provided with food, beverages, and restroom breaks whenever he requested them. (He was fed shortly before the final session to which he now objects.) The final session lasted only three hours. The record does not reflect that defendant was unduly distressed or subjected to any abusive or improper interrogation techniques. Most important, defendant never once requested any break in the interrogation or asked that it be terminated. This weighs heavily against his claim of excessively long questioning. He was twice given Miranda warnings, which he acknowledged both times in writing. The record reflects that he was fully aware he could terminate the interrogation at any time. For example, the next morning, September 12, when Sergeant Medsker attempted to resume questioning, defendant invoked his Miranda rights. Interrogation ceased immediately. Neither the length nor circumstances of defendant’s interrogation indicate that any of defendant’s statements, including the third and final statement, was involuntary. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. II. Alleged ineffectual waiver of Miranda rights Defendant contends his September 11 waiver of his rights under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, was ineffectual because he was not specifically informed of the possibility he could receive the death penalty if found guilty of the Brice killings. We reject the contention for two reasons. Defendant failed to raise the ineffective-waiver argument in support of his motion under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436. The argument is therefore waived. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) We also reject the contention on the merits. Under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, a custodial suspect must be warned prior to interrogation “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” (Id., at p. 444 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 706-707].) Defendant acknowledges no court has adopted his view that the Miranda warning should be expanded to include possible punishment. In Colorado v. Spring (1987) 479 U.S. 564 [93 L.Ed.2d 954, 107 S.Ct. 851], the court rejected the defendant’s contention that his Miranda waiver was invalid because he had not been advised of all crimes about which he might be questioned. “The Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege. ... [f] .. .[][].. . *[W]e have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.’ [Citation.] Here, the additional information could affect only the wisdom of a Miranda waiver, not its essentially voluntary and knowing nature. . . . [S[] This Court’s holding in Miranda specifically required that the police inform a criminal suspect that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used against him. There is no qualification of this broad and explicit warning.” (Id., at pp. 574 and 576-577 [93 L.Ed.2d at pp. 966-968], brackets and italics in original, fn. omitted.) If a suspect need not be informed of the possible charges against him, there is no basis for concluding that he must be advised of the possible punishment for those charges if proven. Defendant’s Miranda waiver was constitutionally sufficient. III. Trial court’s jurisdiction over Juror Magann Defendant contends the Alameda County Superior Court was without jurisdiction to try this case because one of the jurors, Marie Magann, resided in Santa Clara County at the time of trial and was therefore not within the trial court’s jurisdiction. We reject the contention. During the examination of prospective jurors, Magann informed the court and counsel that she (Magann) was then residing in the town of Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County. This was undisputed. Magann apparently had received a summons for jury duty because she had previously resided in Alameda County, but she had not notified the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of her change of address. Magann, however, had crossed off her former Alameda County address on her driver’s license and had written her Morgan Hill address on the back of the license. The following colloquy then ensued in chambers between the court, Magann, and counsel: “Court: As far as not having changed it [with the DMV], you certainly might have said something to the office a long time ago, but at this point it’s too late to excuse you. Magann: I didn’t want to get into any trouble. Court: As long as we know? Magann: Okay. [Magann then left the chambers conference.] Court: It’s my understanding for the record neither side wanted to issue any challenge for cause or give her an excuse; is that right? Prosecutor: That’s right. Defense counsel: That is correct, your honor.” (Italics added.) Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) includes within the categories of ineligible jurors, “[p]ersons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they are summoned to serve.” Respondent contends there was no error under section 203 in allowing Magann to serve as a juror because the evidence was in conflict as to Magann’s residence. This assertion is belied by the record. Magann unequivocally stated that she was residing in Santa Clara County at the time of trial and that she had changed her address accordingly on her driver’s license. The fact that she had not timely notified the DMV of her address change did not render her a resident of Alameda County, and neither the trial court nor counsel for either party made any such assertion. Respondent also asserts no error because the county residency requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) was not enacted until 1988—after defendant’s trial in 1987. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1245, § 2, p. 4144.) Defendant responds that section 203 codified existing law and thus applied to his trial, but he does not identify the “existing law” to which he is referring. If he means statutory law, he is incorrect. Code of Civil Procedure former section 198, the statutory predecessor to current section 203, provided that a competent juror “. . . shall have been a resident of the state and of the county or city and county for one year immediately before being selected and returned . . . .” (Stats. 1971, ch. 1748, § 29, p. 3748, italics added.) In 1975, however, the Legislature amended section 198 by deleting the county residency requirement. (Stats. 1975, ch. 172, § 1, p. 317.) Both the language and the history of the 1975 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 198 make clear the Legislature intended to delete the county residency requirement. The amendment was presented in Assembly Bill No. 501 as follows: “A person is competent to act as a juror if he be: 1. A citizen of the United States of the age of 18 years who ZZ'MZZZZZZZZZZZZ /^y<fWZMZ^ZZZV4ZZZMZZfZZW/WZtMZZWZZWZ<MM)WWAAZZZAZZZZZZ ZZMZ$ZZ0ZZZZZZZZZZZfyZZWMZ/ZZZZZZZZZZZ meets the residency requirements of electors of this state . . . .” (Assem. Bill No. 501 (1975-1976 Reg. Sess.) § 1, language with strike marks deleted, language in italics added.) The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explained, “Existing law requires a prospective juror to be a resident of the state and of the county or city and county for one year immediately before being selected and returned. [][] This bill repeals that provision, and with respect to residency, provides that a person is competent to act as a juror if he meets the residency requirements of electors of this state.” (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 501, 2 Stats. 1975 (Reg. Sess.) Summary Dig., p. 45.) The present requirement that a juror must be a resident of the jurisdiction did not reappear until 1988. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1245, § 2, p. 4144.) The 1988 amendment was not a codification of existing statutory law because, at the time of defendant’s trial, there was no statutory requirement that a trial juror reside in the county of trial. Because Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) was not enacted until after defendant’s trial, we, of course, do not apply or construe that statute in this case except to the extent we have noted that it does not reflect any statutory juror residency requirement existing at the time of defendant’s trial. The statutory law at the time of trial, however, is not dispositive of defendant’s claim of error. Although he does not frame his challenge to Juror Magann in constitutional terms, “The common law vicinage right to trial by jury selected from the vicinage or county is implied in the state Constitution.” (Hernandez v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 713, 721 [263 Cal.Rptr. 513, 781 P.2d 547] (Hernandez), citing People v. Powell (1891) 87 Cal. 348, 354-360 [25 P. 481].) In Hernandez, supra, 49 Cal.3d 713, we also considered the vicinage right under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution and held that, “[i]n California the boundaries of the vicinage are coterminous with the boundaries of the county.” (Id., at p. 729, italics added.) Defendant had a federal and state constitutional right to a trial by jurors who resided in the county where the trial was held. Defendant, however, waived his vicinage right. The trial court specifically asked defendant’s counsel whether he wished to challenge Magann, and counsel declined. Moreover, he did so after having extensively questioned Magann on voir dire. We have made clear that a defendant’s counsel, even over the explicit objection of his client, may properly waive the vicinage right. (People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 937 [248 Cal.Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917].) We also have long held that a defendant’s objection to a juror’s competency, first made after trial, is belated and not cognizable on appeal. (People v. Evans (1899) 124 Cal. 206, 210 [56 P. 1024]; People v. McFarlane (1903) 138 Cal. 481, 490 [71 P. 568].) Defendant contends he is not subject to this rule because in prior cases the incompetency was not discovered until after the trial, whereas in this case he and the trial court were fully aware of the juror’s incompetency. The argument has no basis in common sense or precedent. Defendant asks us to conclude that a defendant (or his counsel) who failed to, but should have discovered a juror’s incompetency, is precluded from raising the objection after trial, but that a defendant who accepted the juror despite knowing of the juror’s incompetency is allowed to so object. Such is not the law. In People v. Sanford (1872) 43 Cal. 29, a defendant convicted of murder objected for the first time on appeal to a juror’s competency on the ground that the juror’s name was not on the property tax assessment rolls. We rejected the objection. “It was the duty of the defendant in the first place to have examined him [the juror] as to his competency in the respect referred to at the time the jury was impaneled. He does not seem to have made any objection to his competency even afterwards, but took his trial before him with a knowledge of the fact that his name was on the poll tax list only, and not on the real or personal property tax list. Having deliberately taken his chance of a favorable verdict, he cannot be heard to object now that a juror of his own choosing was lacking in a qualification of this technical character.” (Id., at pp. 31-32, italics added.) We more forcefully reiterated this view in People v. Mortier (1881) 58 Cal. 262: ‘“To permit prisoners to avail themselves, after verdict, of preexisting objections to the competency of jurors, as a matter of right, would not only be unreasonable, but most mischievous in its consequences. ... A prisoner knowing or willfully remaining ignorant of the incompetency of a juror, would take the chances of a favorable verdict with him upon the jury; and if the verdict should be adverse, would readily enough make the affidavit necessary to avoid its effect.’ ” (Id., at p. 267, italics added, quoting Commonwealth v. Bristow (Va. 1859) 15 Gratt. 634, 648.) We see no need to depart from the well-established rule. Defendant compounded his waiver by failing to use all his peremptory challenges. “[T]o complain on appeal of the composition of the jury, the defendant must have exhausted those challenges.” (People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 770 [251 Cal.Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260].) This rule has a pragmatic foundation: If defendant had genuinely desired his case to be tried by a jury that did not include Juror Magann, defendant could have exercised one of his peremptory challenges to exclude Magann. Having failed to do so, defendant has no fair or cognizable ground for complaint on appeal. In summary, at the time of his trial defendant had no statutory right to only those jurors who resided in the county of trial. He did have a constitutional vicinage right to such jurors, but he waived it as to Juror Magann by declining to object to her despite full knowledge that she was not a resident of the county and by failing to exercise all his peremptory challenges. Even if defendant had not waived his vicinage right, the trial court’s allowing her to sit on the jury would not have been reversible error. His counsel extensively questioned Juror Magann on voir dire. Nothing in the record remotely suggests she held any prejudice or bias against defendant, and he does not contend otherwise. Thus, Magann’s inclusion in the jury “. . . did not result in a jury particularly apt to impose the death penalty, and there is no indication that the jury before which defendant was tried was anything other than fair and impartial.” (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal.3d 749, 768.) IV. Exclusion of statements by McCray and Daniels Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor’s hearsay objection against defendant’s proffered testimony as to extrajudicial statements allegedly made to him by McCray and prosecution witness Marta Daniels. Defendant’s contention is partly correct, but the trial court’s error was not prejudicial to defendant. A. Alleged statement by McCray The defense was that McCray killed the Brices. Defendant testified that he was present at the jewelry store when McCray entered and began shooting. Defendant also testified that shortly after he fled the store he saw McCray driving on Foothill Boulevard, that McCray stopped his car, and that he spoke with defendant. The prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds when defendant’s counsel asked what McCray had said. Defendant’s offer of proof was that McCray had handed a bag of jewelry to defendant and told him, “Here’s the jewelry. Would you sell it?” or something like “Would you sell the jewelry? I want you to sell it.” The trial court sustained the prosecutor’s hearsay objection. Defendant contends the alleged statement was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but was nonassertive background material that explained defendant’s state of mind and conduct. Such extrajudicial statements are not hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200; People v. Roberson (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 429, 431 [334 P.2d 666]; 1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Bench-book (2d ed. 1982) § 1.4, illus. 2, p. 58.) Respondent does not dispute that the proffered testimony would have been relevant to such a showing, but argues that defendant’s state of mind was not a material issue. Defendant has the better view. To undercut defendant’s contention that McCray killed the Brices, the prosecutor introduced evidence that several witnesses had observed defendant with a large quantity of jewelry like that taken from Brice’s store. Defendant attempted to rebut this damaging evidence by showing that he had taken the jewelry from McCray because defendant knew McCray was the killer and feared that McCray would kill him if he did not follow McCray’s commands. Defendant’s state of mind and ensuing conduct—more particularly, the alleged reason why he took the jewelry from McCray—were disputed intermediate facts. “An intermediate fact of consequence in an action is a fact from which the ultimate fact may reasonably be inferred. Intermediate facts include facts such as the state-of-mind . . . and similar facts from which it may be inferred that the person possessing the particular state of mind or emotion conducted himself in conformity with that state of mind . . . .” (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (June 1990 supp.) § 21.3, p. 199.) If the jury believed defendant’s assertion that he took the jewelry from McCray because defendant feared for his own safety, the jury could have reasonably rejected the prosecution’s implication that defendant had taken the jewelry from the store, which implication pointed to defendant as the killer. The reason defendant had some of the jewelry from Brice’s store was therefore an intermediate fact of consequence. McCray’s alleged statement to defendant was relevant to this intermediate fact. (Respondent does not contend otherwise.) “Proffered evidence is relevant to prove or disprove a disputed fact if: [][]... [j[] [s]uch evidence, in the light of logic, reason, experience, or common sense, has, by reasonable inference, a tendency to prove or disprove such disputed fact.” (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, § 21.3, p. 198; Evid. Code, § 210.) McCray’s alleged statement, if believed by the jury, would have tended to prove defendant’s explanation of why he had possession of the jewelry. The alleged statement by McCray was therefore relevant, nonhearsay evidence. The trial court erred in excluding defendant’s proffered testimony as to McCray’s alleged statement. The error, however, was not prejudicial. After the trial court sustained the hearsay objection, defendant was nevertheless allowed to testify as follows: “Q: You cannot say what Michael [McCray] said to you. Did Michael give you anything at that time? A: Yes, he did. Q: What did he give you at that time? A: A bag of costume jewelry. Q: Did he tell you what—don’t tell me what he did [say], but did he tell you what to do with it? A: Yes, he did. Q: Did you take this bag of costume jewelry? A: Yes, I did. . . . Q: Did you recognize as best you can that kind of jewelry? A: Yes, I did. Q: And where had you seen that type of jewelry before? A: At Anthony’s [Brice’s] shop.” Defendant was allowed to support his contention that he received the jewelry from McCray. Similarly, although the trial court excluded the alleged statement by McCray, defendant was not precluded from testifying as to why he was afraid of McCray or why defendant attempted to sell the stolen jewelry. Finally, in light of the entire record, it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [299 P.2d 243].) B. Alleged statement by Marta Daniels Prosecution witness Marta Daniels, who had lived with McCray for several years and was his “common law” sister-in-law, testified on direct examination that on the morning of the killings she asked defendant to give her a dollar and that he told her he had no money but would have one “when he got through with his lick.” To Daniels, a “lick” meant a “robbery,” a “scam,” a “con,” or “any kind of thing where you get something for doing something wrong.” Later that same day, August 15, defendant gave Daniels $50 to buy some cocaine. Three days later, she observed defendant with jewelry and watches. Defendant testified that on the afternoon of August 15, Daniels came to the house where defendant was staying. The prosecutor made a hearsay objection when defendant was asked to recount the substance of his conversation with Daniels that day. Defendant’s offer of proof was, “She [Daniels] asked me if I had sold the stuff [the jewelry].)” The trial court sustained the hearsay objection, explaining that the alleged inquiry by Daniels was being offered to prove the truth of the implied assertion that McCray had told her that he had given the jewelry to defendant. Defendant contends the alleged question by Daniels as to whether defendant had sold the jewelry was nonhearsay because it was not being offered to prove the truth of the matter implicitly asserted (i.e., McCray’s ownership of the jewelry) but rather to explain defendant’s state of mind and conduct in giving part of the jewelry to Daniels. We reject the contention for two reasons. First, in his offer of proof to the trial court defendant contended only that the alleged inquiry by Daniels was not hearsay because it was in the form of a question rather than a statement. Defendant did not assert that the alleged inquiry was in any way relevant to his state of mind or conduct. To preserve an alleged error for appeal, an offer of proof must inform the trial court of the “purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a).) This is in accord with “the general rule that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.” (People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal.3d 542, 548 [146 Cal.Rptr. 732, 579 P.2d 1048], italics added.) Defendant’s present contention as to his state of mind comes too late. Second, Daniels’s alleged inquiry was irrelevant. Defendant contends Daniels’s alleged inquiry would help to explain why he gave her jewelry. He seems to reason as follows: (1) Evidence that he gave jewelry to Daniels suggested to the jury that defendant had obtained the jewelry and thus was the Brice killer; and (2) the alleged inquiry by Daniels would have contradicted this implication, apparently by suggesting that defendant gave her jewelry because he knew she was a friend of McCray and that defendant was afraid of McCray because the jewelry belonged to McCray rather than to defendant. The first prong of this reasoning is not supported by the record. Daniels did not testify that defendant gave her jewelry. To the contrary, she testified that he never gave her jewelry. At the time of defendant’s offer of proof, there was no evidence he had given jewelry to Daniels. The reason why he allegedly gave her the jewelry was irrelevant. Moreover, the subsequent record makes clear that the alleged inquiry was being introduced for a hearsay purpose. After the trial court excluded the evidence, defendant himself testified that he had given Daniels approximately one-half of the jewelry that defendant had allegedly obtained from McCray. The obvious purpose of this testimony, which was contrary to Daniels’s testimony, was to suggest to the jury that defendant gave the jewelry to Daniels because it belonged to her friend McCray, rather than to defendant. That implied assertion, in turn, would have tended to support defendant’s claim that McCray committed the robbery and killings. The purpose of the alleged inquiry by Daniels was therefore to prove the truth of the implied assertion that the jewelry belonged to McCray rather than to defendant. Defendant’s own testimony as to the transfer of jewelry to Daniels was meant to exonerate himself. Defendant’s contention that he needed to refute a harmful implication based on his alleged transfer of jewelry to Daniels ignores the fact that defendant himself introduced evidence of the transfer. The trial court did not err in excluding defendant’s testimony as to the alleged inquiry by Daniels. Even if defendant were correct that the excluded testimony would have demonstrated his state of mind or his conduct—the reason why he gave jewelry to Daniels—exclusion of testimony as to Daniels’s alleged inquiry was not prejudicial. Defendant was allowed to testify that he gave her the jewelry, and he could have further testified as to why he did so. The choice not to do so was his. Moreover, according to defendant’s own offer of proof, Daniels’s alleged question was simply whether defendant had sold the jewelry. This question would have added almost nothing to defendant’s contention that he was afraid of McCray. It is not reasonably probable in light of the entire record that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached if the alleged inquiry had been admitted into evidence. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 837.) V. Admission of extrajudicial statements by accomplice McCray without cross-examination McCray was called by the prosecution to testify. He refused to answer questions, invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecution declined to provide McCray with immunity, and both parties acknowledged that McCray’s invocation of his privilege rendered him legally unavailable as a witness. (Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (a)(1); In re Weber (1974) 11 Cal.3d 703, 721 [114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 523 P.2d 229].) They also agreed that many of his extrajudicial statements were declarations against his penal interest and were thus admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in light of his unavailability. (Evid. Code, § 1230.) Defendant, however, moved for permission to question McCray in the jury’s presence. The motion was denied. Defendant contends on appeal that the admission of McCray’s extrajudicial statements without the opportunity for cross-examination violated defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) He makes three arguments in support of this contention. As we shall explain, there was no reversible error. A. No right to require invocation of the privilege in the jury’s presence We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to require McCray to invoke in the presence of the jury his privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court conducted an in limine hearing at which McCray, who was represented by counsel, was sworn as a witness. He was briefly questioned by both the prosecution and defense, but except for admitting that he knew defendant and identifying him in the courtroom, McCray refused to answer any questions regarding the Brice killings. It was clear that McCray would continue to assert his privilege. Both the prosecution and defense declined to continue questioning him. No valid purpose would have been served by requiring McCray to reassert his privilege in the presence of the jury. “Where, as here, it is apparent that the witness would have offered no testimony in response to questions posed, it is not improper for the trial court to determine that fact in advance and excuse the witness.” (People v. Cornejo (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 637, 659 [155 Cal.Rptr. 238].) “In such instance, to require the renewal of the invocation of the privilege before the jury would merely amount to a meaningless ritual.” (People v. Johnson (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 749, 760 [114 Cal. Rptr 545].) The lack of any purpose to such a ritual is especially apparent in this case. The only conceivable reason for requiring McCray to invoke his privilege in the jury’s presence would have been to inform them of the reason why he did not testify. The trial court, however, informed the jury that, “The court is taking judicial notice of and hereby advising the jury that Michael McCray was called as a witness in this case outside the presence of the jury, and that Michael McCray with advice of his counsel refused to testify, basing his refusal upon his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” (Italics added.) The jury was clearly and adequately informed of the reason why McCray did not testify. The jury was not left to speculate as to why McCray’s statements were admitted into evidence without his having to testify. Requiring McCray to invoke his privilege in the jury’s presence would have served no proper purpose. Rather, the only apparent purpose to invoking the privilege before the jury would have been to call McCray’s credibility into question, that is, to allow the jury to infer that his extrajudicial statements were unreliable for the very reason that he was subsequently invoking his testimonial privilege. As we recently explained, however, any such inference is prohibited by Evidence Code section 913, subdivision (a). (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 441 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388]; People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 743 [280 Cal.Rptr. 440, 808 P.2d 1197].) Defendant asserts a conflict in California law, relying on People v. Chandler (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 798 [95 Cal.Rptr. 146]. His reliance is misplaced. The court in People v. Johnson, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 749 (Johnson), correctly explained Chandler as follows: “[T]he court held that no pretestimonial hearing is required in order to precipitate the invocation of the privilege (People v. Chandler, supra, at pp. 804-805). That holding, however, does not stand for the proposition that such a pretestimonial hearing may not be held in order to determine whether or not the witness is entitled to the privilege.” (Johnson, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 749, 758, original italics.) The Johnson court observed, however, that in Chandler, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d 798, the court had suggested in dictum that the privilege should be invoked in the jury’s presence. We agree with the Johnson court, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 749, that the suggestion in Chandler, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at pages 804-805, is unpersuasive, and we disapprove Chandler to that extent. Defendant relies even more extensively on a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (Commonwealth v. Sims (1987) 513 Pa. 366 [521 A.2d 391].) Like the trial court, we conclude that Sims does not support defendant’s view. As in the present case, the defendant in a murder trial claimed innocence and contended one of his accusers was the killer. (Id., at p. 371 [521 A.2d at p. 395].) The accuser, Hilton, was granted immunity from prosecution and testified at trial against the defendant. The defense attorney sought to cross-examine Hilton as to communications by Hilton to his attorney. These communications were protected from disclosure by that state’s statutory attorney-client privilege. The defendant contended, however, that the witness should have been compelled “to claim his ‘attorney-client privilege’ in front of the jury.” (Ibid.) The court agreed because “. . . the invocation of that privilege before the jury could have reasonably provided the basis for that tribunal to question the accusations made by that witness against the accused.” (Ibid.) The jury in the present case, however, was informed that McCray had invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. The potential unfairness that concerned the Sims court did not arise in the present case. More important, the Sims court, supra, 513 Pa. 366 [521 A.2d 391], explicitly limited its decision, noting that a jury may not draw any inference from a witness’s exercise of a constitutional right and that “. . . here we are not concerned with a constitutional privilege but rather one that is of statutory origin.” (Id., at p. 377, fn. 1 [521 A.2d at p. 396].) The privilege against self-incrimination is, of course, constitutionally mandated. On its face, Sims does not support defendant’s claim. Indeed, after Sims was decided, Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court rejected the precise claim made by defendant. A witness was called to testify against the defendant, but as in the present case, the witness invoked his privilege against self-incrimination when questioned outside the jury’s presence. Relying in part on Sims, the court held, “We find no merit in appellant’s contention that he was denied the right of confrontation because the trial court refused to allow DeLeo’s [the witness’s] invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination before the jury.” (Commonwealth v. Yabor (1988) 376 Pa.Super. 356, 361 [546 A.2d 67, 69].) We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to require McCray to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury. B. No right to cross-examine McCray at trial Defendant contends his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated because he was not allowed to cross-examine McCray regarding his extrajudicial statements that were admitted into evidence. He relies principally on Chambers v. Mississippi (1972) 410 U.S. 284 [35 L.Ed.2d 297, 93 S