Full opinion text
Opinion BROWN, J. Defendant Martin Anthony Navarette appeals from a judgment of death. A jury convicted defendant of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) (count 2), burglary (§§459, 460) (count 3), and robbery (§§211, 212.5, subd. (a)) (count 4) of a neighbor and the first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) (count 5), burglary (§§ 459, 460) (count 6), and attempted robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 664) (count 7) of a second neighbor. The jury found true allegations that defendant committed both murders with burglary-murder, robbery-murder, and multiple-murder special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17)) and that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b). As to a third victim, the jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) but convicted him of the lesser included offense of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) (count 8) and also convicted him of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) (count 9), finding great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) in connection with both these offenses. The jury acquitted defendant of a separate count of burglary (§§ 459, 460) (count 1). At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial or modification of the verdict. The court sentenced defendant to death as to counts 2 and 5, and stayed the one-year personal-use enhancements (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The court struck the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7) as to count 9. As to the other counts and related allegations, the court imposed a total determinate sentence of eight years and four months. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment. I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Guilt Phase Evidence Defendant began drinking beer during the morning of December 5, 1989, after his girlfriend and housemate, Maria Valles, left for work. Valles is the mother of defendant’s two children. Defendant spent the day drinking beer with various companions. During the course of the day, defendant and a few others consumed two or more cases of beer, and defendant became intoxicated. Defendant also smoked cocaine. Defendant had no key to his ground floor apartment and regularly used a window to gain entry. His apartment was one of three, each with similar ground floor windows. Deborah Converse lived in apartment 3, Alexandra Hickman lived in apartment 4, and defendant lived with his family in apartment 5. About 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 1989, Deborah Converse discovered that her apartment had been burglarized. Her bedroom was ransacked, and a videocassette recorder was missing from the living room. Converse went to the house of a neighbor and called the police. The police found that the burglar had used a bedroom window to gain entry. Police also noted that certain valuables, including a 35-millimeter camera and three rifles, had not been stolen. About 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., defendant had a beer with David Nichols and Shane Wilson. Defendant asked them if they knew where to sell a videocassette recorder and a clock radio/telephone. The same night, at 11:30 p.m., witnesses observed defendant at the apartment complex, wearing blue jeans and a white shirt with a Nike logo. A few hours later, about 1:30 a.m., defendant called his girlfriend Brigette Morales, a different woman from the woman he lived with. He asked Morales to go out with him in a truck he was driving (defendant did not own a truck), but Morales refused. Defendant also asked Morales to call someone on the telephone, which she did, but the person was not there. The same night, about 3:30 or 4:00 a.m., neighbors awoke to the sound of breaking glass and a man’s angry voice. Alexandra Hickman’s upstairs neighbor heard what sounded like a struggle coming from the vicinity of Hickman’s apartment, and he called police. He surmised from the noises that someone was trying to get out of, rather than in, Hickman’s apartment. One neighbor observed defendant running away from the building, wearing blue jeans and a white shirt. The police arrived shortly after 4:00 a.m. A window had been broken out of Hickman’s apartment, with the screen and most of the glass lying outside, and the curtain also hanging outside. One officer peered into the apartment and saw a body lying in a pool of blood on the floor. Officers entered the locked apartment. Hickman’s body was warm but without signs of life. She had suffered stab wounds from her head all the way to her legs, too many to count. The autopsy later found 43 stab wounds and five slice wounds. Police called paramedics and secured the crime scene. Water was running from the bathtub faucet, and officers turned it off. The bedroom also showed signs of a struggle, with blood on all the walls and a plant and other items overturned. During the course of the morning, investigators discovered more evidence. A wooden-handled steak knife was on the floor under Hickman’s body, the handle broken off and the blade bent. Similar knives were in an open drawer in the kitchen. Police also found, near Hickman’s body, a metal rivet-type button similar to the buttons used to close jeans at the waist. A few tom threads were attached to the button. Police found no signs of ransacking or theft in Hickman’s apartment, and an autopsy later found no evidence of forced sexual assault. Police took statements from Hickman’s neighbors. No one responded at Deborah Converse’s apartment, and her pickup track was missing. Valles (defendant’s girlfriend and housemate) responded at defendant’s apartment, and police observed that she seemed nervous. Officers could not locate defendant. That afternoon, after several attempts to determine where Converse might be, police decided to enter her apartment. Officers slid open a window and saw a bloody body on the floor. After making friends with Converse’s dog, they entered the apartment. Converse’s hands and feet were bound with a dog leash, and she had suffered about 15 stab wounds to her chest and upper torso. She was naked from the waist down, with her pants and underwear around her ankles, though an autopsy found no other evidence of forced sexual assault. Officers observed signs of a struggle. In addition, a knife was missing from a wooden knife block next to the kitchen sink, and officers found the handset of a red portable telephone in the bathroom sink. The base of the same telephone was near the dining room table. Converse’s family determined that certain items were missing, including Converse’s pickup truck, her keys, two purses, and the 35-millimeter camera and rifles that had been in the apartment after the burglary the afternoon before. Officers also observed and photographed several shoe prints in the mud near Hickman’s and Converse’s apartments. In addition, they found a clean knife on the roof of the carport. The autopsies indicated that this knife could have been the knife used to kill both Hickman and Converse. A neighbor also found a clock radio/telephone in the carport and reported this discovery to the police. Meanwhile, about 6:50 a.m. on the morning after the murders, defendant got back in touch with his girlfriend Brigette Morales. He said the truck he was driving had broken down, and he convinced Morales to meet him at a nearby hamburger stand. When Morales arrived, she saw defendant come toward her car from across the street. He climbed into the backseat on the passenger side and wrapped himself in a blanket because he was cold. His shirt was on inside out and backwards, and Morales observed stains on his clothes. Defendant said the stains were paint. He pointed to a truck and identified it as his. Morales’s recollection of the truck generally matched Converse’s missing truck. Morales went to buy some gas, and in the gas station, she observed that the stains on defendant’s clothes were blood. Defendant said he had been in a fight and then signaled with his eyes that Morales should stop asking questions. He told her where to drive, and when they were in a residential neighborhood, he told her to stop. Then he said he wanted to tell her a secret. She put her seat back and turned to face him, and he struck her in the face hard enough to break her nose. Then he put the blanket over her face and held her down. She threw her keys outside the car, and when he asked for the keys, she managed to escape, fleeing to a nearby house. Defendant retrieved the keys and left with her car. A local resident helped Morales and also called the police. Morales’s face was covered with blood, her nose was pushed to one side, and her lip was swollen. Her nose later required surgery. About noon on the same day, while police were busy investigating Hickman’s murder and searching for Converse, Benny Garcia, Valles’s brother-in-law, saw defendant sitting on the stairs in front of Garcia’s home. Defendant was wearing stained jeans but no shirt. (A shirt with a Nike logo and bloodstains later turned up at defendant’s apartment.) Defendant told Garcia he had been in a fight. Garcia invited him inside, and defendant asked if he could wash his clothes. He put his jeans in the washroom and borrowed some clothes from Garcia. Garcia later took defendant to Matthew Lanterman’s house. Valles and defendant both worked for Lanterman, Valles as a babysitter, and defendant as a painter’s helper. When defendant arrived at Lanterman’s house on the evening after the murders, Lanterman made him wait outside and refused to give defendant a ride. Around 7:30 or 8:00 p.m., officers went to the house of defendant’s mother and stepfather. Valles had directed them to that address. Officers arrested defendant at that location, without incident. Defendant had fresh scratches and minor cuts on his hands, arms, and neck. His shoes had the same sole design as the shoe prints discovered at the crime scene. In defendant’s apartment, police found the two purses that were missing from Converse’s apartment. Police also retrieved the jeans defendant had left at Garcia’s home. The jeans were bloody, with the waist button missing. Laboratory testing confirmed that the threads of the jeans were the same material and color as the threads attached to the button that police had earlier found on the floor near Hickman’s body, and the button was the type typically found on jeans from the same manufacturer. Fingerprint experts found defendant’s palm print in Hickman’s apartment on the interior side of the broken glass that was on the floor. They found his palm or fingerprints in Converse’s apartment on the windowsill, bedroom door, and the base of the red telephone. A prosecution expert also tested several samples of blood from defendant’s clothing and Converse’s truck and then compared those samples to blood samples taken from defendant, Valles, Converse, Hickman, and Morales. The expert tested for certain forms of enzymes and proteins in the blood. This sort of testing can establish that a blood sample is of a type shared by a relatively small percentage of the general population. Blood on defendant’s clothing matched Hickman’s blood and not that of defendant, Valles, Converse, or Morales. One of the bloodstains on the jeans was of a type shared by Hickman and only 0.08 percent of the population. Other blood on defendant’s clothing matched Converse’s blood and not that of defendant or Hickman. One bloodstain was of a type shared by Converse and only 0.7 percent of the population. Other blood on defendant’s clothing matched defendant’s own blood. Bloodstains in Converse’s truck matched defendant’s blood and not that of Converse or Hickman. B. Penalty Phase Evidence The prosecution presented photographic evidence indicating the brutality of the murders and also evidence of a prior conviction of assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220). The defense offered the testimony of Frances C. and others to explain the circumstances of the prior conviction. Defendant was visiting friends at their apartment, drinking alcohol and using PCP (phencyclidine). A window broke, and Francis C., the 74-year-old landlady, came to the apartment and spoke to defendant. Defendant told Frances C. that he wanted to work at the apartment complex as a gardener. Later, he went to Frances C.’s apartment to give her his name and telephone number. While there, defendant made an alcoholic drink for himself. He then dragged Frances C. into the bedroom and climbed on top of her. He said he wanted to have sex with her, hit her, tried to touch her breasts and genitals, and took off his own pants. Frances C. struggled with defendant and finally rolled him onto the floor where he passed out from drinking. A neighbor called the police, who had difficulty reviving defendant. Defendant also presented evidence of his troubled upbringing in a broken home. During defendant’s childhood, his mother was a heavy drinker and had a series of short-term sexual relationships with different men. Some of these men abused her. Defendant’s mother testified that she conceived defendant during a short-term relationship with a man who later denied being defendant’s father and would have nothing to do with defendant. Accordingly, defendant never met his father. Defendant was bom with a large tumor on the back of his head and remained in the hospital for 45 days after his birth, separated by glass from his mother. Though doctors removed the tumor surgically, defendant’s mother believed the birth defect was a punishment from God, and she was not sure defendant would live. As defendant grew up, he became close to his grandmother, who called defendant’s mother a whore in front of defendant. Eventually defendant’s mother settled down with a man named Frank Gallegos, an alcoholic with a drug problem. Gallegos treated defendant badly, and defendant’s mother rejected defendant in order to give her attention to Gallegos. When defendant was growing up, his vocabulary was not as large as the other children his age, and he was a little “slower.” He seemed unhappy, and his mother was not strict with him. When he was a teenager he started taking illegal drugs. He attempted more than once to quit drugs, but without success. As a young man, he worked in odd jobs to support himself and his family. He helped take care of Valles and their children, and Valles said she loved him, though he would sometimes leave for days at a time. He also did things to help his sister’s children and stepchildren. II. Discussion A. Pretrial Issues 1. Trial Court Properly Denied Defendant’s Motion for a Change of Venue. Defendant argues the trial court should have granted his pretrial motion for a change of venue to a different county or for transfer to a different judicial district within the County of Los Angeles, citing news coverage of the case. A trial court should grant a motion for a change of venue when publicity has created a “reasonable likelihood” the defendant will not receive a fair trial in the county. (§ 1033, subd. (a).) The defendant, who has the burden of proof, need not prove that an unfair trial is more probable than a fair one, but he must prove more than a mere possibility of unfairness. (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 943 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044].) In assessing the motion, the trial court considers the gravity and nature of the crime, the extent and nature of the publicity, the size of the community, and the status of the victim and the accused. (Ibid.) The same standards apply to a motion for an intracounty transfer. (Id. at p. 945.) Here, defendant’s moving papers merely cited four newspaper articles about the case and an unspecified television news report. This limited evidence belies his characterization of the coverage as “extensive, multi-media . . . publicity” that “flooded the public.” Concerning the television report, defendant presented no evidence other than his counsel’s vague declaration that this report occurred. The four newspaper articles appeared in local newspapers 15 months prior to the court’s ruling on the motion for a change of venue. Defendant did not present evidence that news coverage continued more than a few weeks after the crimes occurred, and the coverage at the time of the crimes was not particularly inflammatory. The articles merely related, without editorial comment, much the same information the evidence later established. This sort of publicity is typical of many murder cases and certainly not so pervasive and continuing as to arouse the emotions of the community against defendant or otherwise deprive him of a fair trial. (See People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1275, fa. 16, 1277 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1] [no need to change venue despite 51 newspaper articles and 24 television reports].) In fact, of the factors relevant to a motion for a change of venue, only the gravity and nature of defendant’s crimes weigh in favor of granting the motion, but this factor alone does not necessitate a change of venue. (People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 943.) Defendant argues that the victims’ status as White women and his status as an Hispanic man tended to increase the community outrage against him, but the news coverage of the crimes did not mention race and only one article showed a picture of defendant. Defendant has not shown that racial issues undermined his ability to have a fair trial in Los Angeles County. Finally, in this context, defendant must do more than show trial court error; he must also show that he in fact did not receive a fair trial. (People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 943.) Only two of the jurors who deliberated in defendant’s case indicated they had heard or read a news report about the case. Neither juror could remember the substance of the report, and both stated they could decide the issues in the case without bias. Defendant also did not exercise peremptory challenges to remove these jurors. For these reasons, defendant has failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue, and he has failed to establish prejudice. 2. Trial Court Did Not Improperly Curtail Voir Dire by Striking Portions of Defendant’s Juror Questionnaire. Defendant argues the trial court excluded certain questions from his proposed jury questionnaire, preventing him from learning of possible juror bias. Defendant sought to include the following questions: “What has been your favorite job and what (do/did) you enjoy about it?” “What has been your least favorite job and what (do/did) you dislike most about it?” “If you were a supervisor or employer, what do you think is the best way to keep workers in line?” “A person should maintain his or her belief on a subject so long as he or she feels that belief is right. Strongly Agree_Agree Somewhat_Disagree Somewhat_Strongly Disagree_Please explain.” Defendant argues that the first two questions would have uncovered biases based on whether a prospective juror liked or disliked the defendant’s job or the jobs of the victims. The third question, according to defendant, would have uncovered whether any of the prospective jurors had a domineering personality that might cause him or her to commandeer the jury. Defendant asserts the fourth question would have uncovered whether a prospective juror’s personal beliefs would prevent him or her from following the law. The trial court has discretion to limit voir dire, and the court abuses that discretion, warranting reversal of a conviction on appeal, only when its decision falls outside the bounds of reason (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 713-714 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46]) resulting in a “miscarriage of justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 223.) Defendant’s assertion that his proposed questions would have ferreted out hidden juror bias is baseless. The trial court permitted defense counsel to question the panel orally, telling counsel: “[Y]ou can ask any questions you want[] that are not in your questionnaire.” Counsel therefore had express permission and ample opportunity to ask the very same questions that defendant now complains the court erroneously prevented him from asking. (Cf. People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1093 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].) Furthermore, the court allowed a 31-page juror questionnaire that sufficiently covered the areas of inquiry defendant now claims he was unable to pursue. For example, the questionnaire as submitted to the jury asked jurors to list their jobs, thus permitting defendant to identify any possible biases based on employment background. As for defendant’s proposed question about whether one should maintain a belief so long as one feels the belief is right, the question made no sense. If one feels a belief is right, then one necessarily maintains the belief—that is what maintaining a belief means. Obviously, such a confusing question served no legitimate purpose on voir dire. Defendant asserts the question would have disclosed whether prospective jurors could follow the law, but the trial court’s replacement question was much better suited to that purpose: “If the judge gives you any instruction in law and it differs from your beliefs or opinions, how will you deal with that conflict?” Defendant does not explain what he would have learned from his proposed question that he was unable to learn from the court’s replacement question. The proposed question regarding what was “the best way to keep workers in line” was also confusing, and the trial court excluded the question on that basis. If defendant wanted to determine if any prospective juror had a domineering personality, he could have suggested a modification of the question, clarifying what he meant by “keeping] workers in line,” or more to the point, he could have asked a question that focused on the prospective juror’s conduct among peers rather than in a supervisory role. We find no error. 3. The Trial Court’s Orders and Procedures During Voir Dire Did Not Result in a Jury Biased in Favor of the Death Penalty. Defendant complains that, during voir dire, the court asked three questions designed to elicit anti-death-penalty bias but only one question designed to elicit pro-death-penalty bias. He asserts that this questioning unfairly skewed the jury in favor of a death verdict because it more effectively “weed[ed] out” jurors who opposed the death penalty than jurors who favored the death penalty. Defendant’s argument is based solely on a numerical counting of questions, which is not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation in this context. Defendant does not explain why the content of the questioning somehow failed to identify jurors who were inappropriately biased in favor of the death penalty, nor does he state what additional questions the court should have asked. Moreover, defendant had opportunity during voir dire to ask additional questions, and in fact the juror questionnaire asked jurors their feelings about the death penalty and whether those feelings would affect their deliberations. We find no error. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s individual questioning of jurors about pro-death-penalty bias was “hasty, coercive and abbreviated” and that the court permitted only a few written questions per attorney. Specifically, defendant complains that he could not directly question Juror Jack C.; instead, the court required defendant to submit his questions in writing to the court. The record establishes that the court examined Juror Jack C. at length, and this juror made clear that his vote for or against the death penalty would depend on the facts of the case. The court specifically inquired about Juror Jack C.’s comment on his questionnaire that he believed the death penalty should be carried out if deserved. The court also asked additional questions of Juror Jack C. after receiving defense counsel’s written questions, and though the record is unclear, the court apparently asked the specific questions defense counsel had submitted. The court did not limit the number of written questions defense counsel could submit, and defendant does not state any specific question that the court failed to ask. We discern no error. Defendant further argues that certain jurors were biased. He asks us to reverse the guilt and penalty verdicts, asserting harmless error analysis is inappropriate. Specifically, defendant argues alternate Juror Patricia F. was biased against people who use drugs and erroneously believed that drug use was an aggravating factor. Juror Patricia F. did not participate in deliberations, and therefore any biased or erroneous views she may have held could not have affected the verdict. (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1177 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146].) Defendant next asserts that Juror Julanne B. was biased because she had seen a headline about defendant’s crimes and could not remember if she read the story. He also asserts that some of the answers she gave on her juror questionnaire reflect bias. Defendant does not explain why seeing a headline about a crime, and reading but then forgetting the story, would make one biased. (See People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 945.) As for her juror questionnaire, Juror Julanne B.’s equivocal answers simply reflect the ambiguity of the questions. For example, the questionnaire asked: “If the judge gives you any instruction in law and it differs from your beliefs or opinions, how will you deal with that conflict?” Juror Julanne B. answered: “[Depends on what it is.” Clearly, she was stating she could not answer the question in the abstract. Her answer does not establish bias or an inability to follow the law in a death penalty case. She also stated on the questionnaire her belief that drug addiction usually causes the addict to steal and lie, and she indicated her dislike of drug users. Again, her opinions do not establish bias or disqualify her from sitting as a juror. When asked whether she agreed that someone who intentionally kills another person or intentionally kills more than one person should always get the death penalty, she answered: “Agree Somewhat—would have to know all the circumstances.” That answer hardly indicates bias; rather, it indicates the sort of open-mindedness the law requires of jurors. Finally, defendant points out that Juror Julanne B.’s husband was a retired police officer, but he does not explain why this fact should disqualify her from jury service. In short, we find no bias. Moreover, defense counsel did not challenge Juror Julanne B. for cause, nor did he exercise his peremptory challenges to remove Juror Julanne B. from the jury, and therefore he forfeited any objection to her sitting as a juror. (People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 454 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213, 11 P.3d 968].) Defendant argues he was not able to examine the jurors concerning racial bias, as well as bias related to the nature of defendant’s crimes and bias favoring the testimony of police officers. Defendant, however, does not assert any instance when the court barred him from asking questions along these lines, and his juror questionnaire did in fact address these issues. Defendant argues that a statement we made in People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2] (Medina) is unfair to capital defendants in light of People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571], and he asks us to reexamine what we said in Medina. In Medina, we indicated that a trial court might be able to prohibit questioning of jurors as to whether they would automatically vote for death in a case involving multiple murders. We noted that death qualification of a jury should focus on the jurors’ attitudes about the death penalty in the abstract and should not ask jurors if they would or would not choose the death penalty based on the specific evidence to be introduced at trial. (Medina, at pp. 745-746.) In Pinholster, however, we held that the trial court did not err when it inquired of two jurors whether those jurors could impose the death penalty in a burglary-murder case. We noted that the Legislature had determined that burglary murder was a crime that qualified one for the death penalty, and that if a juror categorically could not vote for the death penalty in a burglary-murder case, then he or she could not follow the law. (Pinholster, at p. 917; see also People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 718-723 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545, 50 P.3d 332] [defendant should have been permitted to question jurors about whether they would automatically impose the death penalty in a murder case where the defendant had previously committed another murder].) Defendant argues that Medina prevented him from asking jurors if they would automatically impose the death penalty in a double-murder case, whereas under Pinholster, the People are free to inquire whether any jurors would automatically refuse to impose the death penalty in a burglary-murder case. This imbalance, he claims, led to a jury that was biased in favor of the death penalty, in violation of his rights under the federal Constitution. We need not decide the continuing validity of our comment in Medina, because here the trial court did not prevent defendant from asking jurors whether they would automatically impose the death penalty in a multiple-murder case, and defendant did ask such a question. Finally, defendant argues the trial court improperly restricted his ability to examine prospective jurors individually and in sequestration about their views on the death penalty. Defendant relies on Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1 [168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301], though the rule of Hovey was abrogated by Code of Civil Procedure section 223. (People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 713-714.) We defer to the trial court’s discretion regarding the conduct of voir dire. (People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 713-714.) Here, the trial court required defendant to question prospective jurors in the presence of the other jurors but agreed to sequestered questioning of certain jurors and also permitted defendant to request sequestered questioning of additional jurors on a case-by-case basis after preliminary questioning was complete. The court explained: “I’ve got a statute [(Code Civ. Proc., § 223)] that tells us what we’re supposed to be doing here, and I’m not about to . . . allow [sequestered questioning] of a number of jurors until I have a chance to kind of hear what they have to say.” The court’s procedure in this regard does not amount to an abuse of discretion. In addition, defendant nowhere states what questions he was unable to ask jurors as a result of the trial court’s rulings, nor does he describe any specific example of how questioning prospective jurors in the presence of other jurors prevented him from uncovering juror bias. Accordingly, he has not established prejudice. 4. Trial Court Did Not Err When It Excused Juror Norma K. for Cause. Defendant argues the trial court erred in removing prospective Juror Norma K. for cause. Juror Norma K.’s statements amply support the trial court’s determination to remove her for cause. For example, in response to the question, “Can you think of any case where you’d impose the death penalty based upon your statement that you don’t think you should take a life?,” Juror Norma K. said: “No, I don’t believe so.” She remained consistent in this view during repeated questioning, but eventually acknowledged “it could happen” that the circumstances of a case might be so “depraved and bad and terrible” that she “might” vote for the death penalty. When a prospective juror has made conflicting statements regarding his or her ability to remain impartial and apply the law despite strong personal beliefs, we accept as binding the trial court’s assessment. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 631 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392].) Here, Juror Norma K.’s remarks easily supported the trial court’s decision to remove her for cause. 5. Trial Court Did Not Err in Failing to Remove Juror Sam F. for Cause. During voir dire, Juror Sam F. sent a note to the court stating he had a hearing problem and was concerned he would not be able to follow the proceedings at trial. Defendant argues that the court erred in failing to remove Juror Sam F. for cause. Defendant forfeited this issue because he did not bring a motion in the trial court to remove Juror Sam F., and in fact accepted the panel immediately after learning of the problem. (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 444 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442].) In any case, the trial court felt that Juror Sam F.’s hearing problem might not be as bad as his note indicated, and the court responded to the note by allowing Juror Sam F. to sit closer to the witness box. The record includes no evidence that this solution was inadequate. 6. Trial Court Properly Denied Defendant’s Motion to Exclude. Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude certain items of evidence found in the carport behind the apartment complex where he and his victims lived. The evidence at issue was a shirt, a baby blanket, a black telephone, and a wristband from the county jail, bearing defendant’s name. The motion, which defendant made orally, questioned the relevancy of the evidence and asserted that the danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. (Evid. Code, § 352.) The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. Defendant now argues the trial court erred. It did not. Defendant did not provide the court with sufficient context by which to evaluate—pretrial—the merits of his motion. The court had no means to measure the relevancy of the various items of evidence, and therefore it denied the motion without prejudice. Defendant did not renew his motion when the items of evidence were offered at trial, at which time the relevance of the evidence could have been better evaluated, and therefore he has not preserved the issue. (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 189-190 [279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949].) Moreover, defendant’s motion lacked merit. Police found a knife on the carport roof, where the murderer may have thrown it in an effort to conceal it. The prosecution’s experts concluded the knife could have been the murder weapon. If the prosecution could somehow link the knife to defendant, it would be an important piece of evidence tending to establish defendant’s guilt. Therefore, it was very significant that police also found several items connected to defendant inside the same carport. The black telephone was particularly significant because it came from defendant’s apartment and, according to prosecution witnesses, defendant offered to sell a telephone just hours before the murders. In other words, the items of evidence in the carport tended to show that defendant was in the vicinity of the carport shortly before the murder, which in turn tended to connect him to the possible murder weapon. Accordingly, these items were relevant, and their admission was not unduly prejudicial. Defendant argued in the trial court that, at least in the case of the county jail wristband, the danger of undue prejudice outweighed the evidence’s probative value. The prosecutor, however, agreed not to mention the wristband in opening argument, and he never offered it into evidence at trial. Therefore, to the extent the trial court should have granted the motion as to the wristband, no prejudice arose. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to exclude certain evidence, and the court’s ruling did not violate defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution. (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 609 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635].) B. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Defendant Was Not Excluded from Any Proceeding That Bore a Reasonably Substantial Relation to His Opportunity to Defend Himself Defendant seeks reversal of the judgment because he was not present at certain in-chambers conferences. To prevail on a claim of this type, a criminal defendant must show that “his presence at the . . . conferences [from which he was excluded] bore a reasonably substantial relation to his opportunity to defend himself.” (People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 433 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78].) Defendant complains that he was not present at a conference on April 10, 1991, at which his attorney told the court he was having trouble tracking down a particular defense witness and asked the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the individual. The court agreed to do so, but then the witness appeared, making the matter moot. The record does not make clear why defense counsel wanted to handle this matter in chambers without defendant present, but the record includes the following colloquy: “The Court: [Defense Counsel], I understand that you have to kind of walk a fine line here between the representation of your client, not divulging things sometimes even in camera that you feel you shouldn’t divulge[,] and the [] prescriptions of [section] 190.9 [requiring all proceedings to be on the record]. [^[] But it was my understanding, without asking you for any real specifics, that you had a reason to want to conduct this hearing among just us this morning rather than having your client present; that you didn’t feel it was necessary, and, in fact, in terms of your overall representation and your view of and knowledge of this case, that that’s what you desired to do. [Ifl Is that a fair statement? “[Defense Counsel]: Yes, your honor. [fj I don’t want to encourage the absenteeism of any witness, and I had no reason to believe that I would be encouraging such. ffl] By the same token, I don’t want to plant a seed, and, therefore, I prefer to handle the matter in camera, [If] I would indicate that I have indicated to my client that I have the witness . . . .” Though this exchange is difficult to interpret, it appears defense counsel did not want defendant to know he was seeking a bench warrant for the arrest of the witness, perhaps because defendant felt some loyalty to the witness, who, as noted, was defendant’s drinking companion immediately prior to the murders. In any case, the entire matter became moot when the witness appeared voluntarily. Defendant argues that the record “smacks of the most’ pernicious form of deceit designed to shield defense counsel from airing . . . attorney-client conflicts,” but defendant does not explain how his absence from the conference, the substance of which became moot, “bore a reasonably substantial relation to his opportunity to defend himself.” (People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p: 433.) We find no error. Defendant argues that his exclusion from other unspecified conferences violated his rights, requiring reversal. Again, defendant does not explain how his absence adversely affected his defense other than to speculate that “[i]t is reasonable that had [he] been present to contribute and confer with his attorney, the outcome of the in-chambers conferences would have been altered, as well as the outcome of the trial.” That sort of vague speculation does not establish a breach of defendant’s statutory rights or a violation of his state or federal constitutional rights. (People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 433.) 2. The Trial Court Did Not Improperly Exclude Defense Evidence. Defendant relied in part on an intoxication defense at trial. In this regard, defendant argues the trial court should have permitted him to elicit testimony from defense witnesses Grace Ignacio and Elizabeth Gerencser to the effect that defendant looked like he was under the influence of cocaine during the day preceding the murders. The prosecution objected to this testimony for lack of foundation. Lay opinion regarding drug intoxication is admissible so long as the party eliciting the evidence establishes a foundation. (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 914 [245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395].) In the case of Grace Ignacio, defendant attempted to establish a foundation by asking, “Have you seen people on drugs before?” Ignacio responded that she had not. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it prevented her from testifying as to whether defendant had the “appearance ... of someone who might be on drugs.” In the case of witness Gerencser, defendant attempted to establish a foundation by asking, “Have you ever seen somebody on coke?” Gerencser responded, “Not really,” but she admitted she had “heard about it” or “read about it.” Again, defendant did not establish that the witness was sufficiently knowledgeable about cocaine use to give an opinion as to whether defendant was under the influence of that drug. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it prevented Gerencser from testifying as to whether she had “a suspicion he might have used some cocaine.” Defendant also argues the trial court erred when, in the course of defendant’s cross-examination of victim Bridgett Morales, the court sustained the prosecution’s relevancy objection to the following question: “[Have you] found it comfortable to be around other individuals who are using drugs when you use drugs?” Defendant does not explain how the answer to this question was relevant, instead asserting that the court’s ruling was an “absolute denial of further inquiry into matters critical to [the] defense (e.g., victim Morales’ credibility) . . . .” It was not. Finally, defendant argues the trial court should have permitted defense witness Elizabeth Gerencser to testify that she had a handicapped child. In making this argument, defendant wrongly asserts that this testimony came at the penalty phase of defendant’s trial and would have established that defendant was a kind person because he helped Gerencser care for her child. In actuality, however, this testimony came at the guilt phase, and defense counsel offered no reason for why the child’s disability, if any, was relevant. We find no error. 3. Trial Court Did Not Erroneously Admit Unduly Prejudicial Evidence. Defendant asserts the trial court permitted evidence for which the risk of undue prejudice outweighed the probative value. (Evid. Code, § 352.) a) Photographs First, defendant claims prejudice based on the admission of so many photographs depicting the bloody bodies of the victims, various items of bloody clothing, the blood-spattered crime scenes, and various knives. Defendant argues that this evidence was cumulative and likely to inflame the passions of the jurors. In a separate argument, defendant challenges the admission of three photographs in particular. The first depicts Converse while alive, holding a camera, with her face blacked out. The second depicts Converse’s naked chest, showing several stab wounds concentrated in the area between her breasts. The third depicts Converse’s body, facedown, pants and underwear around her ankles, and hands and feet tied together. The testimony established that this last picture depicted Converse’s body as found by police. “[T]he decision to admit victim photographs is a discretionary matter we will not disturb on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of the photographs clearly outweighs their probative value.” (People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1168 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 34 P.3d 937].) Here, the trial court reviewed the photographic evidence and admitted some photographs, judging them to be relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and excluded others, judging them to be cumulative. As to one photograph, the court admitted it tentatively, permitting defendant to renew his objection when the photograph was to be presented to the jury during the course of trial. As to other photographs, the court admitted them only for purposes of the penalty phase. We have reviewed the photographs in question and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling as it did. (Taylor, at pp. 1168-1169; People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 642.) In particular, the photograph depicting Converse holding a camera was relevant to show the camera that was missing from Converse’s apartment after the murder, thereby establishing a possible motive for the murder. At defendant’s request, Converse’s face was blacked out, and defendant did not then object to admission of the photograph. We do not see how this photograph could have caused any undue prejudice. The photograph depicting Converse’s naked chest was relevant to show the dense concentration of stab wounds to her heart area, thereby allowing the jury to infer that the killing was intentional. The testimony was clear that Converse’s shirt was on when police found her, and therefore the jury was not misled to believe defendant had removed her shirt. The photograph was certainly gruesome, but a defendant does not have a right to prevent the jury from seeing the victim’s injuries when such evidence is relevant to establish intent. Finally, the photograph depicting Converse with her pants and underwear around her ankles and her hands and feet tied together was relevant to show that the murderer immobilized Converse before killing her, again allowing the jury to infer that the killing was intentional. Defendant argues that the prosecution could have established (and in fact did establish) the same facts by less prejudicial means. We have repeatedly rejected this argument in similar contexts. (See, e.g., People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130].) Defendant also argues undue prejudice based on the “sexually suggestive nature” of the photographs, but it was the nature of the crime against Converse that made it necessary for the jury to see her without clothes. When the victim of a murder has been stabbed directly between the breasts and left with her pants and underwear around her ankles, the defendant cannot complain that the jury is exposed to images of her nudity. We find no error in the court’s decision. Defendant also asserts the photograph, incidentally depicting a tattoo on defendant’s arm, was unduly prejudicial because of negative societal attitudes about tattoos. The photograph in question was relevant to show that defendant had fresh scratches on his body when arrested shortly after the murders, and defendant points to nothing in the record suggesting that any member of the jury was biased against persons having tattoos. Accordingly, we reject the claim. (See, e.g., Rich v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1999) 187 F.3d 1064, 1070 [no prejudice from evidence of tattoo]; United States v. McCarthy (9th Cir. 1970) 430 F.2d 1289, 1291 [same].) b) Testimony of investigating officers Defendant further claims error based on the testimony of one of the police officers who investigated the scene of the Hickman murder. Sergeant Charles Rosales testified about the condition of Hickman’s apartment at the time he found her. The prosecutor then asked about Hickman’s body: “Just looking at her . . . without turning her over, could you tell how many wounds were on her?” Sergeant Rosales responded, “No, sir. There were so many stab wounds. [|] In 22 years of police work I’ve never seen anybody stabbed this many times.” (Italics added.) Defense counsel immediately objected, and the court struck Sergeant Rosales’s statement and told the jury to disregard it. Defendant then sought a mistrial, arguing that the officer had provided a “commentary on the proportionality of homicides” and was “putting th[e] case on the extreme spectrum.” The court rejected defense counsel’s request but again admonished the jury to disregard Sergeant Rosales’s statement “as if you had never heard it.” On appeal, defendant argues that the officer’s statement was highly prejudicial because, if a juror felt that the death penalty should apply only in the most serious of cases, the officer’s statement confirmed that this case fell into that category. We conclude the court handled the matter appropriately. The court twice admonished the jury to disregard the statement. Moreover, the autopsy evidence indicating Hickman had been stabbed almost 50 times was, by itself, sufficient to cause the jury to conclude that this murder was unusually brutal. Sergeant Rosales’s statement did not likely affect the jury’s conclusion in this regard. We do not think “defendant’s chance of having a fair trial” suffered “irreparable damage.” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 282 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3].) Defendant further objects to certain testimony of Sergeant Robert Perry of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Sergeant Perry retrieved defendant’s jeans from the home of Benny Garcia. He testified that the jeans lacked a button and that the button “appeared to be ripped from its position.” Defense counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was unduly prejudicial because it reinforced an idea the prosecution was trying subtly to advance that defendant had lost the button “in the heat of an unlawful sexual encounter.” Defendant notes that the prosecution had dropped sexual assault allegations. We find no error. A button that is pulled from a pair of jeans will likely stretch or tear the cloth in a distinct way as compared to a button that is cut off or falls off as a result of ordinary use. Sergeant Perry had examined the jeans and was qualified to give his lay opinion that the button had been removed by force, and the evidence shed light on the circumstances of the crime. c) Forensic evidence Defendant next argues that the testimony of Lynne Herold and Elizabeth Komblum, both criminalists with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, was unduly prejudicial with only slight probative value. Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. (Evid. Code, § 353.) In any case, we see no error. Herold testified that fibers she had taken from the rivet-type button found near Hickman’s body matched (in color and material) fibers in the jeans that Sergeant Perry had retrieved from Benny Garcia’s house, and the button was the type usually used on similar jeans from the same manufacturer. This testimony tended to place defendant in Hickman’s apartment and supported the conclusion that he was involved in a straggle in that apartment. Defendant asserts the evidence was unduly prejudicial, but he does not explain why. We find no prejudice. Elizabeth Komblum testified that blood on defendant’s jeans matched Hickman’s blood and the blood of only a very small percentage of the general population. In addition, the blood did not match defendant’s blood. This testimony certainly was prejudicial, but nothing about the testimony would have caused the jury to make its decision on improper grounds. We find no undue prejudice, no ineffective assistance of counsel, and no error. Defendant argues that the trial court should not have permitted Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Dale Falicon to testify that he compared palm prints and fingerprints found in the murder victims’ apartments with defendant’s prints as they appeared on a card dated December 3, 1989 (a few days before the murders), from the Covina Police Department. Defendant asserts that other fingerprint cards depicting defendant’s prints were available, and the card from the Covina Police Department indirectly informed the jury of defendant’s prior arrest experience. Defense counsel raised this same objection at trial, and the prosecution responded that reference to the Covina Police Department card was necessary because investigators used that same print card on the day immediately following the murders to identify defendant as the primary suspect. The prosecution wanted to make clear to the jury that police did not single out defendant unfairly. The court ruled that the evidence was relevant but ordered that no mention be made of when or why the Covina Police Department obtained defendant’s prints. We think it unlikely that the jury speculated as to how the Covina Police Department obtained defendant’s prints. Deputy Sheriff Falicon made only one brief mention of having an exemplar of defendant’s prints prior to his arrest in this case, and the jury’s attention was not drawn to the point. Moreover, as the prosecution argued, the evidence was relevant to show why the investigation focused on defendant. Defendant could have, but did not, offer to stipulate that his fingerprints were inside the murder victims’ homes. We find no error. 4. Judgment, Verdicts, and Findings Are Supported by Substantial Evidence. Defendant argues that his intoxication at the time of the crimes prevented him from forming the mental state requisite to each of the charges and allegations. Similarly, he argues the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence of his lack of intoxication. Of course, evidence of the inability to form a particular mental state due to intoxication is not admissible. (§ 22, subd. (a).) Nevertheless, we will assume defendant is arguing that the evidence of intoxication established his actual lack of the necessary mental state, rather than his inability to form that state. “To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, [we] review[] the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution . . . .” (People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 368 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769].) Here, the evidence showed that defendant had been drinking beer and had also smoked cocaine during the day and evening prior to the minders, but the record includes no direct evidence of defendant’s level of intoxication at the time of the murders or the subsequent assault on Ms. Morales. The evidence does suggest, however, that defendant’s mental functions were not significantly impaired. He gained entry to the locked apartments of his murder victims, bound the hands and feet of one of his victims, and stabbed them both repeatedly in targeted locations that would likely lead to death. He then concealed the murder weapon and fled the scene. He told his third victim where to drive, used the ruse of a secret to get close enough to her to assault her, and then took her car. This behavior does not characterize someone who is so intoxicated that he does not intend his actions. Defendant also asserts the evidence was insufficient to show that he entered the apartments of the victims with the intent to steal (burglary counts) or that he intended to take their property by means of force or fear (robbery counts), because he may have formed the intent to steal after the victims were dead. He argues that a dead person cannot feel fear and therefore cannot be the victim of a robbery or attempted robbery, and he points out that the record includes no evidence the victims were alive when he took their property. We think the evidence amply supports the burglary, robbery, and attempted robbery convictions, as well as the related special circumstance findings. The evidence showed that defendant was seeking money during the day prior to the murders, that he took Converse’s property after murdering her, and that he struggled with Hickman, creating an audible disturbance. The jury was entitled to infer from this evidence that he entered the victims’ apartments with an intent to steal, that he murdered his victims in order to take their property, and that he fled Hickman’s apartment without taking her property, because his struggle with her became noisy. While it may be true that one cannot rob a person who is already dead when one first arrives on the scene, one can certainly rob a living person by killing that person and then taking his or her property. (See, e.g., People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 955-956 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183].) Defendant’s arguments are without merit. 5. Trial Court’s Flandling of the Jurors’ Concerns About Their Safety Did Not Deny Defendant a Fair Trial. Defendant argues that Juror Todd R. developed a bias against defendant because the evidence at trial made him fear defendant, and therefore the court should have removed him for cause. During the presentation of the People’s case, Juror Todd R. gave the court a note that read: “Your Honor, I would like the response to my question not to be answered in court, but done privately, or in the jury room. [¶] Has [defendant] seen or have access to the questionnaires? [^] My concern is for property and family.” The court’s discussion of this juror question with counsel came immediately after a witness testified about the gruesome crime scene, and defendant asserts the note was in response to that testimony, though the record is unclear as to precisely when the juror sent the note. During discussion of the note, defense counsel raised the issue of Juror Todd R.’s ability to remain impartial, and the clerk also told the court that Juror Todd R. had indicated that other jurors shared his concerns. The court responded to the note in front of the entire jury, without privately discussing the note with Juror Todd R. and without permitting counsel to question him. The court assured the jury that no one other than the court, the clerk, and counsel had seen the questionnaires, that they would be placed under seal, and that the identities of specific jurors would not be public information. The court also encouraged the jurors that, if any of them felt unable to be “fair” and “unbiased,” to let the court know in writing. Defendant assumes that, because the juror had concerns about his family’s safety and the safety of his property, he was therefore biased against defendant, requiring his removal. The record belies this assumption. The court specifically asked the jurors to report if they could no longer be fair and unbiased, and Juror Todd R. did not pursue the matter farther, apparently satisfied by the court’s assurances. A decision whether to remove a juror for cause rests in the discretion of the trial court. {People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 417.) We find no abuse of discretion. Defendant also argues the court’s response to Juror Todd R.’s note validated the jurors’ fears about defendant, thereby causing the jury to conclude that defendant was guilty before it had even heard the defense case. Defendant argues the court should have reminded the jury not to decide issues in the case before hearing all the evidence and should have told the jury that the jurors’ questions and the court’s responses were not evidence. Defendant further asserts the court took inadequate steps to uncover “latent bias[es]” jurors might have had on account of fearing defendant. Defendant did not raise any of these arguments at trial. Moreover, we think the steps the court took were appropriate and sufficient. The court addressed the jurors’ concerns about confidentiality without unnecessarily implicating defendant or calling the attention of the entire jury to the specifics of Juror Todd R.’s fears and thereby possibly spreading those fears. The court encouraged jurors to come forward if any of them felt unable to remain impartial. In addition, on the same day, the court reminded the jury not to prejudge the case, saying: “Let me tell you what you shouldn’t do. . . . [f] . . . Don’t form any opinion or conclusion until this matter has been submitted to you.” Accordingly, we find no error. Finally, defendant objects that he was excluded from the conference at which the court discussed Juror Todd R.’s note with counsel. Juror Todd R. expressly requested that his note be answered in private, and the court presumably discussed the note without defendant present in deference to this request. Defendant complains he spent the remainder of the trial unaware the jurors found him frightening, but informing defendant of Juror Todd R.’s safety concerns might have only increased Juror Todd R.’s fear of defend