Full opinion text
Opinion WERDEGAR, J. A jury found defendant Ralph Michael Yeoman guilty of the first degree murder of Doris Horrell and found true the special circumstance that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) The jury also found defendant guilty of robbery and false imprisonment (§§211, 236) and found true the allegation that, in each of these crimes, defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5). The jury found not true the additional special circumstance that the murder occurred during the commission of a kidnapping. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B).) The jury imposed the sentence of death. The trial court stayed the convictions for robbery and false imprisonment under section 654, struck the enhancements under section 1385 and entered judgment accordingly. This is the automatic appeal from that judgment. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm. I. FACTS A. Guilt Phase 1. The Murder of Doris Horrell Defendant robbed and murdered Doris Horrell, a 73-year-old resident of Citrus Heights, on February 13, 1988. Sheriff’s deputies found her body about 9:40 p.m. in an open field west of Interstate 5 in Sacramento County, while setting flares to direct trafile out of the Arco Arena. Horrell had left a Valentine’s Day party earlier that evening in her car to pick up an acquaintance at the airport. She was wearing a bright red dress, jewelry and designer eyeglasses. Police found no jewelry, eyeglasses, keys or purse. Nor did they find a coat, but they did find three lavender-colored buttons. Postmortem examination revealed the cause of death as six gunshot wounds to the head and left side of the body, any of which could have been fatal. The shots had been fired at close range from a .22-caliber gun. Horrell’s inoperable car was later towed from the side of the freeway, about four miles from the place where her body had been found. Investigators determined that a palm print on the hood of Horrell’s car was defendant’s and that the fatal bullets had the general characteristics of rounds fired from defendant’s .22-caliber revolver. On February 16, 1988, Debra Stafford called the Sacramento County Sheriff’s office and reported that defendant was Horrell’s killer. Stafford told the following story, which she repeated at trial. On the evening Horrell died, Stafford and defendant were visiting defendant’s friend Ron Kegg at his Sacramento apartment. Defendant left the apartment alone in his pickup truck about 7:30 p.m., saying he needed “[t]o go get some money.” He returned about an hour later, telling Stafford, “[w]e have got to hurry, go.” Stafford left with him. On the road, defendant explained the situation. “He told me,” Stafford testified, “that he needed me to help him, that he murdered a lady and he wanted me to drive his truck while he went to the car that was sitting on the side of the freeway and needed to drive it off. . . .” Defendant said “he had fingerprints on the car” and needed to “clean it up.” Defendant had stopped for Horrell “[b]ecause she was dressed nice and she looked like she might have some money.” She “was broke down on the freeway and he stopped to help her,” but “he couldn’t get her car started so she got in the truck. He was going to give her a ride, and he killed her.” Stafford perceived defendant as calm while he recounted these events. Arriving at Horrell’s car, defendant found it still would not start. He used Stafford’s shirt to wipe his fingerprints off the car, and cleaned the windows with a fire extinguisher and squeegee from the trunk. Driving away, defendant pointed a gun at Stafford and told her that he had shot Horrell “sitting where you are sitting.” He said he had used a .22-caliber pistol and had “emptied the clip in her.” Stafford noticed a very small amount of blood on the floor of the truck. Defendant then took her to see Horrell’s body. Stafford did not want to go, but defendant insisted, saying, “well, I want to go see it and see if they found it yet.” On the way, Stafford looked through Horrell’s purse and noted her name. Defendant stopped his truck near the Arco Arena, where flares had been set to guide traffic. Horrell’s body had not yet been discovered. Defendant shone a light, and Stafford saw the body of an older woman with gray hair wearing a red dress. After seeing the body, defendant said he wanted to visit Horrell’s apartment and try to withdraw money from her bank. Defendant showed Stafford rings and earrings he had taken from Horrell, along with $20 and a light purple coat. After stopping briefly at Kegg’s apartment, defendant drove to Horrell’s address in Citrus Heights using information from her purse. Defendant threatened to kill Stafford or have her killed if she turned him in. Arriving at Horrell’s apartment complex, defendant explained that he wanted to “go in, grab the jewelry box and TV and leave.” But the area was too brightly lit and too many people were about, so he abandoned this plan. Next, the two attempted to withdraw money from an ATM machine using Horrell’s bank card but failed for want of her PIN number. Finally, they drove to Stafford’s home in Marysville where, after searching the purse one last time for a PIN number or other useful information, they burned most of Horrell’s effects. They kept her jewelry, coat and a few other items. Defendant tried to give the coat to Stafford, but she would not take it. She noticed bullet holes and powder bums under the left armpit. Buttons were missing. A day or two later, defendant arrived at Stafford’s house with Kegg. The two men attempted to persuade her to go with them to Sacramento, but she refused. Afterwards, defendant called her repeatedly with the same request. Scared, Stafford spoke with her father. At his suggestion she called the United States Marshall, who put her in touch with Deputy Sheriff John Cabrera. Searching Stafford’s house, Deputy Cabrera and other officers found Horrell’s fire extinguisher, squeegee and lipstick holder, and a brochure for a recreational area in South Dakota where Horrell’s family owned property. In Stafford’s fire pit, officers found eyeglasses and documents that, while burned, could still be identified as Horrell’s. That same day, police arrested defendant and Kegg. Defendant had the parts of a .22-caliber revolver in his pocket. Kegg subsequently turned over Horrell’s jewelry to the police. Stafford, when called by the People as a witness at trial, was serving a 90-day sentence for a misdemeanor drug offense; she had previously been convicted of felony failure to appear. She testified that the People had offered no consideration, promises or help in exchange for her testimony. So far as she knew, she might still be prosecuted for her conduct with defendant. Kegg, also called as a witness by the People, had suffered a felony conviction for burglary and several felony convictions relating to drugs. The defense endeavored to show that defendant was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time he killed Horrell and did not form the intent to steal until after killing her. On direct examination by the People, both Stafford and Kegg denied seeing defendant use drugs on the day he killed Horrell. Stafford and Kegg also testified on direct that defendant appeared to be calm, behaving normally and apparently making sense. At the preliminary hearing, however, Kegg had testified that both he and defendant were using methamphetamine heavily during that general period of time. Kegg had also previously testified that defendant arrived at his house seeming “wired,” frantic and confused. After refreshing his memory with this prior testimony, Kegg explained that his own use of drugs had probably impaired his perception of defendant. Lorraine Andrews, R.N., called by the defense, described her routine medical examination of defendant as an inmate at the Sacramento County jail. Defendant reported to Andrews that he had been on a “drug run,” that he used cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD and marijuana, and that he had recently lost 50 pounds. Defendant had injection scars, or “tracks,” but Andrews could not say how old they were. Andrews drew a sample of defendant’s blood, but tested it only for communicable diseases and not for drugs. A defense expert witness, Dr. Fred Rosenthal, M.D., Ph.D., opined that defendant “very likely” was using methamphetamine at the time he killed Horrell. Dr. Rosenthal, a psychologist and psychiatrist, had not interviewed defendant and did not know his criminal history. Instead, Dr. Rosenthal based his opinion on factual materials supplied by defense counsel, including the preliminary hearing transcript, the statements of witnesses, and a videotaped interrogation of defendant by police on February 16, 1988, three days after the crime occurred. The trial court permitted the defense to play the videotape for the jury without sound to show defendant’s demeanor, which Dr. Rosenthal described as sleepy and thus indicating long-term methamphetamine use. The trial court also permitted Dr. Rosenthal to repeat, as part of the basis of his opinion, defendant’s statement on the tape that he was puzzled about what had happened. In Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion, a person whose thinking was disorganized by methamphetamine would not likely be able to form the plan to pose as a good Samaritan in order to rob and kill a stranded motorist. Dr. Rosenthal acknowledged, however, the “unlikely” possibility that a methamphetamine user could form the intent to kill and steal. 2. The Robbery and Attempted Kidnapping of Geraldine Ford During the guilt phase, the People proved that defendant had previously robbed and attempted to kidnap another female motorist, Geraldine Ford. The trial court admitted this evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show defendant’s intent with respect to Doris Horrell. The crime occurred on January 4, 1988, in the parking lot of a Target store in Sacramento. Ford, an auditor for the California Highway Patrol, had been shopping. While she was inside the store, the sun had gone down and the lights in the parking lot had come on. Backing her car out of a parking slot, she realized the car had a problem. Defendant approached, pointed out a flat tire and offered to change it. Ford noted defendant’s general description and a flower tattoo on the back of his hand. After finishing the job, defendant returned the tools to the trunk of Ford’s car. Ford saw a gun tucked into the waistband of defendant’s pants and asked whether he was in law enforcement. He replied that he worked for the county. Ford thanked him, and he followed her to the open driver’s side door of her car. He then held a gun and a knife to Ford’s stomach, told her to get into his truck and said, “don’t run or I will shoot you. And don’t scream or I will stab you.” Saying, “you’ve got to be kidding; I’m not getting into your truck,” Ford backed away, ran and then hid behind another vehicle. Defendant grabbed her purse from the driver’s seat of her car and fled in his pickup truck. Ford’s purse contained, among other things, two distinctive rings and a Sprint telephone card. Defendant gave the rings to Patricia Weers, who sold one to Debbie Yoast. Defendant later asked Weers to return the ring she had kept, explaining that it might incriminate him in an offense against a woman who worked for the California Highway Patrol. Police eventually recovered the other ring from Yoast. Defendant used Ford’s previously unused Sprint telephone card to charge calls to his friend Ron Kegg. After police arrested defendant for the murder of Doris Horrell, Detective Craig Trimble visited him in prison. When the detective told defendant he was investigating a robbery at a Target store and had a lead involving the victim’s Sprint card, defendant replied, “You are on the right track.” That same day, Ford identified defendant as her assailant in a photographic lineup. She later identified him in court as well. The People proved this incident through the testimony of Geraldine Ford, Patricia Weers and the investigating officers. The defense focused on challenging Ford’s identification of defendant. B. Penalty Phase 1. The Aggravating Evidence The People’s evidence in aggravation consisted of the circumstances of the capital offense (§ 190.3, factor (a)), three prior felony convictions (id., factor (c)) and five incidents of criminal activity involving violence or a threat of violence (id., factor (b)). One such incident was the robbery and attempted kidnapping of Geraldine Ford, which the People had proved at the guilt phase and as to which they offered no additional evidence at the penalty phase. a. The robbery of James Jacobs On March 2, 1976, defendant entered the home of his 91-year-old neighbor, James Jacobs, on the ruse of needing to borrow a plunger. Inside, defendant cut the telephone cord, slit Jacobs’s throat with a four-inch folding knife, ransacked the house and stole a variety of pain medications and anticonvulsives. Defendant reported these events to his brother Steve Yeoman, who informed the police over a year later. Defendant subsequently admitted the crime and, in 1977, pled guilty to robbery with great bodily harm. (§ 211.) The People proved the crime and its violent circumstances through official records and the testimony of witnesses. These included Steve Yeoman, the housekeeper who rendered first aid, the police officers who responded to the call and investigated the crime scene, and the detective who interviewed Steve Yeoman and heard defendant’s confession. The court admitted this evidence as showing both violent criminal activity (§ 190.3, factor (b)) and a prior felony conviction (§ 190.3, factor (c)). On direct examination, Steve Yeoman made conflicting statements about whether defendant had bragged of hurting Jacobs, ultimately acknowledging “[h]e may have, but it was the drugs that was making him brag.” Defense cross-examination focused on defendant’s heavy use of drugs and subsequent expressions of remorse for the crime. b. The molestation of Sharon C. and Duane C. At the same time defendant pled guilty to the robbery of James Jacobs, he also pled guilty to the crimes of lewd and lascivious conduct (§ 288) against his stepdaughter Sharon C., and oral copulation of Sharon’s brother, Duane C. (§ 288a). The People proved these prior felony convictions (§ 190.3, factor (c)) through official records. Because defendant’s crime against Sharon had involved a threat of violence, the court also admitted evidence of its factual circumstances as showing criminal activity. (§ 190.3, factor (b).) The People proved the circumstances through the testimony of Sharon, herself, and of the investigating officer. Sharon testified that defendant molested her from the time she was 10 until she was 13. She did not initially know defendant’s conduct was wrong. At the age of 13, however, she confronted him. Defendant said that if she told anyone, her mother would not believe her, the family would be broken up, and this would be her fault. Defendant also threatened to kill her. Sharon believed him because he had beaten both her mother and herself. On defense cross-examination, Sharon acknowledged that she had not reported defendant’s threats to the investigating officer. On redirect, she explained that she had not done so because the investigating officer had guaranteed her that defendant would be out of the home and in jail. The record does not reflect Duane C.’s precise age at the time defendant molested him. Sharon testified he was four to five years younger than she. c. The rape of Linda E. In 1968, while defendant was in the United States Army, he forcibly raped the wife of a friend and fellow soldier then serving in Vietnam. The court admitted this evidence as showing prior violent criminal activity (§ 190.3, factor (b)) but not a prior felony conviction (id., factor (c)), because the parties had agreed that convictions in courts-martial were not admissible for that purpose. The People proved the rape through the testimony of the victim Linda E., portions of the transcript of the court-martial, and the stipulation that defendant had in that proceeding admitted a forcible rape. The relevant evidence showed that defendant was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, in a special detachment for soldiers who had been absent without leave. Linda’s husband, who was defendant’s friend, had left for Vietnam a week earlier. On August 3, 1968, Linda, defendant and a soldier named Elliot drove Linda’s car to a park on the base. As planned, the two men spent the afternoon there replacing the car’s damaged door. The men drank wine as they worked, but Linda did not. After finishing the work, all three drove to a more remote location on the base where defendant and Elliot wanted to drink beer. Linda had planned to drop them off and leave, but defendant would not relinquish her ignition key. She got out of the car, started walking away and then ran, but defendant caught her. Defendant threatened her with a hunting knife, and both men raped her. Afterwards, defendant told Linda he would kill both her and her husband if she turned him in. Cross-examining Linda, the defense attempted to suggest that the rape was a ruse intended to support her effort to obtain a hardship discharge for her husband. The defense also sought to prove that Linda earlier in the day had implicitly offered defendant consensual sex by agreeing to his proposal that he would fix the car’s door if she would “supply the beer and the company.” Linda denied this. d. The killing of David Hill On January 14, 1988, a month before killing Doris Horrell, defendant killed David Hill. Although defendant was not charged with that crime in this proceeding, the court admitted the evidence as showing criminal activity involving force or violence. (§ 190.3, factor (b).) Hill operated an automobile repair business out of his home in Roseville. He also sold drugs. On January 15, Hill was found dead on his living room floor. The house had been ransacked in a manner suggesting a search for drugs. Postmortem examination of Hill’s body revealed two gunshot wounds, one to the head and one to the neck and shoulder. The fatal slugs had fragmented and could not be identified. A spent slug found in the wall, however, bore marks showing it could have been fired from any Smith & Wesson .38-caliber weapon. Hotel records and other evidence showed that defendant had stayed at the Best Western Roseville Inn from January 14 to January 15, 1988. On January 14, defendant called his friend Ron Kegg from the motel and asked for a ride. In defendant’s room, Kegg saw an attache case full of methamphetamine and a large amount of cash. Defendant also had a distinctive short-barreled .38-caliber revolver with custom fat grips and a shrouded hammer (i.e., no spur), similar to a Smith & Wesson that defendant’s brother-in-law Michael Ayers later reported stolen. Defendant and Kegg injected some of the methamphetamine and left in Kegg’s car. Kegg dropped defendant off at a medical building in Roseville, less than half a mile from Hill’s house. Hill was found dead the next day, January 15. Hotel records showed that defendant checked out on January 15 at 10:49 a.m. A blue Mercury Monarch that witnesses had seen at Hill’s house on the afternoon of January 14, loaded with household goods, was found abandoned at the motel and subsequently impounded by police. Four months later, police recovered several items that had belonged to Hill from the home of defendant’s stepmother, Roberta Yeoman. Roberta had removed these items from defendant’s rented storage locker at his request. The items were identified by Hill’s girlfriend, Monique Hubertos. Hubertos had lived in Hill’s house with her children since 1985 and had moved out only recently, after Hill developed problems with drugs and alcohol. The items Hubertos identified included, among many other things, a distinctive handmade knapsack, Hubertos’s own diaper bag, and a yellow ski vest she had bought for Hill and for which she still had the receipt. Hubertos also identified as Hill’s several items found on defendant’s person, including Hill’s San Francisco Forty-Niners wallet and his black Uniroyal jacket. Keys found at Roberta Yeoman’s house, and other keys found in defendant’s possession when he was arrested, fit automobiles that had been seen on Hill’s property on the day he died. One of these was the blue Mercury Monarch police had impounded at the Roseville Inn. At some point before February 16, 1988, when he was arrested for the murder of Doris Horrell, defendant admitted to his brother-in-law Michael Ayers that he had shot Hill. Ayers, however, did not believe this. After he was arrested, defendant twice again admitted the killing in telephone calls from jail to his sister Linda Ayers. In those conversations, defendant described Hill as “a no good drug dealer.” The People proved these events through the testimony of Ron Kegg, Michael Ayers, Linda Ayers, Roberta Yeoman, Monique Hubertos, other persons who could identify Hill’s possessions, the manager of the Roseville Inn, the man who discovered Hill’s body, the investigating officers, medical and firearms experts, and other witnesses. The defense focused on suggesting that various persons other than defendant might have killed Hill. Jason Montgomery visited Hill’s home a few days after Christmas 1987 and saw him arguing about money with two heavy-set “Spanish looking” men. The men had driven a white Trans Am. Montgomery saw the same Trans Am at Hill’s house again on January 13. He described the driver, whom he could not positively identify, as “ similar” to a photograph of Michael Ayers. On January 14, the day Hill died, Carol Grabowsky saw a stocky, well-dressed man leaving Hill’s house about 1:00 p.m. Sometime in the early afternoon, Robert Connors saw a young man with unkempt clothes kneeling down on the sidewalk across from Hill’s house looking extremely nervous and frightened. Dawn Worley saw a two-toned blue car driving away from Hill’s house between noon and 2:00 p.m. Arthur Braceo, a mailman, saw Hill alive at 3:00 p.m., speaking with another man who stepped into the shadows to avoid being seen. Finally, Carla Nebeker saw a man with shoulder-length hair staggering away from Hill’s house about 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. But other witnesses testified that Hill’s automobile repair business had caused his property to look like a used car lot, with much traffic during the day and someone working on cars at all times, day and night. The defense also called Lori Bakos, who testified that William Summers and James Baxter had bragged of shooting Hill in the head and using their knives to remove the bullets. The two men said this, Bakos claimed, on the evening of January 14 in Bob Bragg’s upholstery shop. But Baxter and Summers, called by the defense as witnesses, denied this. Bakos’s story also conflicted with the physical evidence, which showed that the single slug entering Hill’s skull had fragmented and remained in place until the autopsy. Bakos also claimed to be “an undercover police officer” but retracted the claim on cross-examination, describing herself instead as an “informant.” The officers for whom she claimed to have worked, Officers Frederick Rockholm and Tod Call, described her as unreliable and tending to fantasize. Bakos had once reported a homicide at a specific location, but no body could be found and her information could not be linked with any reported crime. Officer Rockholm had on a single occasion unsuccessfully attempted to use Bakos to make a controlled buy of narcotics. He had not, however, contrary to Bakos’s testimony, ever asked a judge to make her a “legal informant,” a term with which he was unfamiliar. On rebuttal, the People further challenged Bakos’s credibility. Lieutenant Joel Neves, who investigated Hill’s death, testified that Bakos had earlier told a different story. On February 16, 1988, one month after Hill died, Bakos told Lieutenant Neves, Detective Brian Wilder and Officer Darrell Stump that the killing had resulted from a drug war between rival organizations led by Bob Bragg and Robert Welch, and that the actual killer was Kevin Ray Pool. Bakos did not mention Summers or claim that he and Baxter had killed Hill. Later, Bakos said that she had allowed Pool to move in with her in order to learn more about Hill’s murder. After a week, she retracted her claim that Pool was responsible and said she did not know who the murderer was. 2. The Mitigating Evidence The defense mitigating evidence, in summary, showed that defendant had suffered serious physical and sexual abuse in childhood that affected his development and behavior and possibly caused brain damage. Correctional personnel and former employers testified that defendant was a good worker. Defendant’s stepdaughter testified that he had saved her daughter’s life. More specifically, defendant’s family lived in Tyler, California, near Nevada City. They were extremely poor. They had little to eat and took clothing and toys from the dump. Defendant’s father, Ralph Yeoman, called defendant a bastard and claimed his true father was Ralph’s brother, Cliff. Ralph beat his wife and children, including defendant, frequently and brutally. Defendant’s brother Terry Lumsdon once saw Ralph break a two-by-four over defendant’s back and head, and various witnesses saw him kick defendant repeatedly in the head. Ralph sexually molested both his daughters and defendant. When defendant was nine, Ralph attempted to penetrate him sexually. Defendant’s uncle Richard gave him alcohol and engaged him in oral copulation. When defendant was 14, his mother had sexual intercourse with him after finding her husband in bed with another woman. Dr. Mindy Rosenberg, Ph.D., a psychologist, testified extensively about defendant’s personal and family history and its effect on his personality and psychological development. Dr. Rosenberg explained that persons who have experienced very serious physical, sexual and psychological abuse as children are at greater risk for experiencing a wide range of later problems, possibly including violent behavior. While Dr. Rosenberg would not say that defendant’s abusive childhood had caused his criminal behavior, she did opine that the severity and brutality of the abuse he suffered had affected him significantly. Correctional officers and employees who had supervised defendant in various institutions consistently testified that he was a helpful, good worker who did not cause trouble. While in custody as a mentally disordered sex offender at Atascadero State Hospital, defendant held responsible jobs working in an office, helping to process new arrivals, and assisting with building maintenance. In the latter job, defendant was cleared for access to sharp tools. While imprisoned at Soledad State Prison, defendant worked in the kitchen and was considered sufficiently reliable to be released for work during lockdowns. Two private employers, both in the roofing business, also testified that defendant was a good worker. One of these employers, David Petrali, had discussed the Bible with defendant and believed he had a deep interest in religion. Dr. Arthur Kowell, M.D., a neurologist, interpreted the results of a BEAM (brain electrical activity mapping) test performed on defendant. Dr. Kowell opined that the test results showed a dysfunction in defendant’s temporal or left parietal lobe consistent with childhood physical abuse. Cynthia Witt, defendant’s stepdaughter, testified that defendant had helped to care for her young daughter Brandy during a severe illness and had saved her life with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Out of gratitude, Cynthia named her son Derek Michael after defendant. II. DISCUSSION A. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Challenges for Cause Defendant claims the trial court deprived him of due process and a fair trial by denying his challenges of four prospective jurors for cause. None of the four sat on defendant’s jury because he peremptorily challenged each. Defendant eventually exhausted his peremptory challenges and expressed dissatisfaction with the jury. While the claim is thus properly before us, we may reject it without examining the merits of defendant’s challenges for cause because defendant cannot show prejudice. To prevail on such a claim, defendant must demonstrate that the court’s rulings affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 121 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887].) None of the four prospective jurors could possibly have affected the jury’s fairness because none sat on the jury. (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1159 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950]; see Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81, 85-86 [101 L.Ed.2d 80, 108 S.Ct. 2273].) The harm to defendant, if any, was in being required to use four peremptory challenges to cure what he perceived as the trial court’s error. Yet peremptory challenges are given to defendants subject to the requirement that they be used for this purpose. (People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1248, fn. 4 [270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251].) While defendant’s compliance with this requirement undoubtedly contributed to the exhaustion of his peremptory challenges, from this alone it does not follow that reversible error occurred. An erroneous ruling that forces a defendant to use a peremptory challenge, and thus leaves him unable to exclude a juror who actually sits on his case, provides grounds for reversal only if the defendant “can actually show that his right to an impartial jury was affected . . . .” (People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1087-1088 [259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659], italics added.) In other words, the loss of a peremptory challenge in this manner “ ‘provides grounds for reversal only if the defendant exhausts all peremptory challenges and an incompetent juror is forced upon him.’ ” (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 487 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754], italics added, quoting Ross v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 89; cf. United States v. Martinez-Salazar (2000) 528 U.S. 304, 315-317 [145 L.Ed.2d 792, 120 S.Ct. 774].) Here, defendant cannot show his right to an impartial jury was affected because he did not challenge for cause any sitting juror. No incompetent juror was forced upon him. 2. Wheeler Motion Defendant claims the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial under People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748] (Wheeler). In the motion, defendant asserted the People had peremptorily challenged four African-American prospective jurors on account of their race. The motion would more properly have been brought as a motion to dismiss the venire, but this procedural irregularity has not prevented us from considering similar claims in other cases. (See People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 662, fn. 9 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752]; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 722, fn. 7 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485].) Defendant presented his motion orally, after the 12 trial jurors had been selected but not yet sworn. Defendant’s entire presentation on the motion consisted of naming the four prospective jurors in question, noting their juror numbers, occupations and race, and citing our decision in Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258. The court deferred its ruling in order to give the motion “more than cursory attention” and to review the record. The court thereafter entered a written order finding no prima facie case of group bias as to three of the four prospective jurors and directing the prosecutor to explain his reasons for challenging one. When the prosecutor offered his explanation, the court declared itself satisfied and denied the motion. The jury as sworn included 11 jurors who identified themselves as “White” or “Caucasian” and one who identified himself as “Black.” In finding that defendant had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of group bias as to the first three prospective jurors, the trial court did not err. Such a demonstration entails, at the least, making as complete a record as feasible of the relevant circumstances, establishing that the excluded persons belong to a cognizable group, and showing that the other party has more likely than not exercised its peremptory challenges because of group association rather than any specific bias. (People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1310, 1316, 1318 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 71 P.3d 270]; see Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 280.) Defense counsel’s cursory reference to prospective jurors by name, number, occupation and race was insufficient. It was no more helpful to the court than the similarly cursory presentation we held insufficient in People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1154 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315], where counsel relied exclusively on the fact that the prosecutor had challenged the only two African-American prospective jurors without making “any effort to set out the other relevant circumstances, such as the prospective jurors’ individual characteristics, the nature of the prosecutor’s voir dire, or the prospective jurors’ answers to questions.” When a trial court denies a motion under Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, after finding no prima facie case of group bias, we consider the entire record of voir dire for evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. If the record suggests grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the prospective jurors in question, we affirm. (People v. Johnson, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1325; People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1155.) Here, the record does indicate grounds on which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged each of the three prospective jurors as to which the trial court found no prima facie case of group bias. While each of the three prospective jurors gave appropriate answers to oral questions intended to confirm his or her willingness to follow the court’s instructions and to vote for the death penalty if appropriate, each prospective juror’s written responses to the jury questionnaire might reasonably have caused the prosecutor to prefer other jurors. For example, Prospective Juror Margaret B., a 42-year-old surgical nurse, indicated on her questionnaire that she “would not like to sit as a juror,” “cannot judge another,” and felt “frustrated” that “the Supreme Court is far to the right.” Theresa H., a 32-year-old computer system administrator, indicated on her questionnaire that she had not favored the 1978 initiative reinstating the death penalty, and that the causes of and solution to “crime problems,” respectively, were “haves and have nots” and the “possibility of socialism.” Vera Mae M., a 52-year-old seamstress, left blank several of the questions intended to explore her attitudes towards crime and capital punishment, including the questions “What is your attitude towards the death penalty?” and “Did you favor the 1978 Briggs Initiative which reinstated the death penalty in California?” Because the record suggests these race-neutral reasons why the prosecutor might reasonably have preferred other jurors, the trial court’s decision not to find a prima facie case as to these prospective jurors must be affirmed. (People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1155.) Defendant disputes this conclusion, asserting that jurors and prospective jurors the prosecutor did not challenge gave responses comparable to those he did challenge. Defendant did not, however, present a comparative juror analysis to the trial court. We recently reaffirmed in People v. Johnson, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1318-1325, our understanding that a reviewing court should not attempt its own comparative juror analysis for the first time on appeal. Turning to the single prospective juror as to whom the trial court did find a prima facie case, we find no flaw in the trial court’s subsequent determination that the People’s peremptory challenge was based on factors other than group bias. The prospective juror in question was Isaac J., a 43-year-old correctional officer at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville. Concerning Isaac J., the prosecutor explained that he had “opted towards jurors, all twelve in that box, who have stronger death penalty views.” Isaac J., the prosecutor explained, had not answered written questions intended to explore his attitude toward the death penalty and had testified on voir dire that he had not given the subject much thought. For the trial court to accept this explanation was reasonable because the record supported the prosecutor’s assertions about the prospective juror’s responses, and because the prospective juror’s apparent ambivalence towards the death penalty had been the exclusive subject of the prosecutor’s questions to him on voir dire. For the first time on appeal, defendant asserts a claim under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712] (Batson), in which the high court held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids prosecutors to exclude prospective jurors on account of their race. In the trial court, defendant cited only Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, which interprets the representative cross-section requirement of article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. (Wheeler, supra, at pp. 276-277.) The People contend defendant waived his federal claim by failing to raise it below. The decisions in People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 173 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664], and People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 987 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214], support the People’s position. In more recent cases, however, we have not held that defendants waived Batson claims by citing only Wheeler at trial. Instead, we have simply observed that Wheeler and Batson articulate the same standard and, after deciding the Wheeler claim on its merits, rejected the Batson claim as moot. (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 139, fn. 11 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988]; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 117, fn. 4 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357].) More recently, in People v. Johnson, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1302, we reached the merits of the defendant’s Batson claim without suggesting that he somehow forfeited that claim by failing to cite Batson at trial. Consistently with these recent cases, we believe that to consider defendant’s claim under Batson, supra, 476 U.S. 79, is more consistent with fairness and good appellate practice than to deny the claim as waived. As a general matter, no useful purpose is served by declining to consider on appeal a claim that merely restates, under alternative legal principles, a claim otherwise identical to one that was properly preserved by a timely motion that called upon the trial court to consider the same facts and to apply a legal standard similar to that which would also determine the claim raised on appeal. Defendant’s Batson claim is of that type. His motion under Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, required the trial court to conduct the same factual inquiry required by Batson into the possibly discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, and to apply a standard identical to Batson’s for determining whether defendant had stated a prima facie case. (See People v. Johnson, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1312-1318.) Under these circumstances, the Batson claim is properly cognizable on appeal by analogy to the well-established principle that a reviewing court may consider a claim raising a pure question of law on undisputed facts. (E.g., People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1061 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388]; Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [149 Cal.Rptr. 375, 584 P.2d 512]; Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742 [336 P.2d 534].) While defendant does dispute the trial court’s resolution of the factual issues underlying his Batson claim (i.e., whether he stated a prima facie case and whether the prosecutor’s explanation was adequate), the same factual issues are properly before us already because of defendant’s timely Wheeler motion. Under these circumstances, to consider the Batson claim entails no unfairness to the parties, who had an opportunity to litigate the relevant facts and to apply the relevant legal standard in the trial court. Nor does it impose any additional burden on us, as the reviewing court. Accordingly, we may properly consider defendant’s Batson claim on the merits. Doing so, we conclude it fails for the same reason his Wheeler claim fails. Defendant’s unelaborated citations to the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution add nothing to his argument. Holland v. Illinois (1990) 493 U.S. 474 [107 L.Ed.2d 905, 110 S.Ct. 803], which defendant also cites, provides no conceivable support for his objection to the People’s use of peremptory challenges. In Holland, which has been applied retroactively (Bell v. Baker (6th Cir. 1992) 954 F.2d 400, 401-402, cert. den. (1992) 506 U.S. 984 [121 L.Ed.2d 429, 113 S.Ct. 491]), the high court held that the Sixth Amendment does not preclude litigants from using their peremptory challenges to exclude members of cognizable racial groups from petit juries. 3. Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges Defendant moved at trial for additional peremptory challenges. (See ante, at p. 114 et seq.) The trial court denied the motion. We perceive no error. To be sure, we have observed that “an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause can be cured by giving the defendant an additional peremptory challenge.” (People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1088.) Yet, while a trial court that was convinced it had erred might well grant additional peremptory challenges, the mere claim of error cannot reasonably be thought sufficient to compel the court to do so. Otherwise, the number of peremptory challenges a trial court must allow would be limited only by the number of challenges for cause a party was willing to assert, regardless of merit. In another context, we have held that “to establish [a] constitutional entitlement to additional peremptory challenges . . . , a criminal defendant must show at the very least that in the absence of such additional challenges he is reasonably likely to receive an unfair trial before a partial jury.” (People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 679 [250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217] [rejecting a claim of error based on the trial court’s refusal to allow additional peremptory challenges to redress the effects of pretrial publicity].) We see no reason the same standard should not apply in this context. Applying that standard, we conclude defendant cannot show the trial court’s failure to allow additional peremptory challenges caused him to receive an unfair trial, because he did not challenge any sitting juror for cause. Defendant also claims the trial court should have granted him additional peremptory challenges to redress what he describes as the court’s error under Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, and Batson, supra, 476 U.S. 79. The claim lacks merit, because the court did not err. (See ante, at p. 115 et seq.) Defendant’s unelaborated citations to the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in support of this claim add nothing to his argument. 4. Motion for Separate Guilt and Penalty Phase Juries Before trial, defendant asked the court to empanel separate juries for the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The court exercised its discretion to deny the request. (See People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897].) Defendant contends the court thereby abused its discretion and prejudiced the defense by forcing it to disclose information about his prior offenses in voir dire, thus biasing the jury against him at the guilt phase. The claim lacks merit. Certainly a court has the power to empanel separate juries for the various phases of a capital case “for good cause shown.” (§ 190.4, subd. (c).) Yet the Legislature has expressed a preference for a single jury (ibid.), and we have repeatedly held that defense counsel’s desire to conduct voir dire one way for the guilt phase and another for the penalty phase does not constitute good cause for separate juries. (People v. Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th 238, 268; People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 573-574 [286 Cal.Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893].) Contrary to defendant’s assertion, California law does not force capital defendants to mention their criminal history during voir dire. The decision whether to use voir dire to probe the prospective jurors’ attitudes about other offenses that may be introduced at the penalty phase is just one of the difficult tactical decisions counsel routinely faces. (People v. Nicolaus, supra, at p. 573.) Defendant distinguishes our prior decisions. (People v. Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th 238, 268; People v. Nicolaus, supra, 54 Cal.3d 551, 573-574.) In those decisions, he contends, “defense counsel chose to forgo complete voir dire rather than risk polluting the guilt phase jury with other crimes evidence.” Here, defense counsel made the opposite decision. Thus, “for the first time,” defendant continues, “this Court is in a position to assess the prejudice which flows from defense counsel’s decision to conduct complete voir dire at the cost of polluting the guilt phase jury.” The argument is not persuasive. The teaching of People v. Nicolaus is simply that the decision whether to use voir dire to probe prospective jurors’ attitudes towards a defendant’s other offenses is a tactical one entrusted to counsel’s good judgment. Counsel’s decision to use voir dire in this way does not transform into an abuse of discretion the court’s proper order denying separate juries. Defendant also contends that the trial court, by refusing to empanel separate guilt and penalty phase juries, denied him due process and the right to a jury trial. (See U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th & 14th Amends.) Defendant relies on Leonard v. United States (1964) 378 U.S. 544 [12 L.Ed.2d 1028, 84 S.Ct. 1696] (per curiam) and Johnson v. Armontrout (8th Cir. 1992) 961 F.2d 748. But those cases involved jurors who had been exposed to information about the defendants’ criminality outside of the proceedings in which they were empanelled. In Leonard v. United States, the prospective jurors had been permitted to observe a trial in which the defendant was convicted of a related charge. The United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction in a brief opinion based on the Solicitor General’s concession of error. (Leonard v. United States, supra, at p. 545.) In Johnson v. Armontrout, 10 of the prospective jurors and four of the trial jurors had recently rendered a verdict of guilt against the defendant’s accomplice in another proceeding. The Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction because the petitioner on habeas corpus proved, among other things, that two jurors had harbored actual bias against him. (Johnson v. Armontrout, supra, at pp. 754, 756.) These decisions suggest no basis for reversing a verdict rendered by presumably impartial jurors whose knowledge of the facts of the case derived solely from information properly presented in the proceeding in which they have been sworn. 5. Admission of Evidence Concerning the Robbery of Geraldine Ford to Prove Identity and Intent Defendant contends the court erred in admitting evidence that he robbed and attempted to kidnap Geraldine Ford. We find no error. The evidence relevant to this claim has already been summarized. (See ante, at p. 107 et seq.) Very briefly, defendant approached Ford in the parking lot of a department store, offering to change her car’s flat tire. The repair completed, Ford thanked defendant and stood at the open door of her car. Defendant held a gun and a knife to her stomach and ordered her into his truck. Ford fled, and defendant took her purse from the driver’s seat of her car. The People offered this evidence to show the intent and identity of Doris Horrell’s killer. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The defense moved to exclude the evidence as inadmissible character evidence (see id., § 1101, subd. (a)) and also as posing a danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any probative value (see id., § 352). The court denied the motion. Defendant’s identity as Horrell’s killer “was never seriously questioned,” as defendant concedes. The defense did, however, earnestly challenge the People’s theory that defendant formed the intent to rob Horrell before killing her. The People were required to prove that defendant harbored such an intent in order to establish the robbery-murder special circumstance. (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1263 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, 954 P.2d 475]; § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) To rebut the People’s theory was the purpose of the defense evidence that defendant was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed Horrell, and of the defense cross-examination of Debra Stafford, who had testified on direct examination that defendant said he had stopped for Horrell “[b]ecause she was dressed nice and she looked like she might have some money.” Recognizing the importance of the issue to both sides, we nevertheless readily conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion to admit defendant’s conduct against Geraldine Ford in order to show his intent to rob Doris Horrell. Defendant contends the crimes against Ford bore insufficient common features to be probative of intent. To be admissible to show intent, however, the prior conduct and the charged offense need only be sufficiently similar to support the inference that defendant probably harbored the same intent in each instance. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757].) As the trial court here explained, defendant’s use of a “good Samaritan ploy” to rob and attempt to kidnap Ford, a stranded female motorist, was sufficiently similar to his later conduct against Horrell to support the inference that he probably harbored a similar intent to rob Horrell when he stopped for her on the freeway. The probative value of defendant’s prior conduct against Ford was, moreover, sufficient to outweigh any risk of unfair prejudice. (See Evid. Code, § 352.) Challenging these conclusions, defendant argues that his conduct against Ford shows only an intent to kidnap, not to rob. Although he took Ford’s purse, defendant argues, he must have taken it from the driver’s seat of her car after she fled and, thus, not from her immediate presence or while she still was under force or fear, as required for robbery. His conduct and words before Ford fled, defendant continues, show nothing more than an effort to force her into his truck, leaving the purse on the front seat of her car. Assuming for the sake of argument that defendant’s interpretation of the evidence is plausible, at least equally plausible is the alternative inference that an assailant holding a gun and a knife to his victim’s stomach may intend to control her while simultaneously reaching a few feet for valuable property. Ford testified that the purse was within reach as she stood at the car’s open door. Certainly the inference that one of defendant’s reasons for approaching Ford was to take her property by force or fear was strong enough to support the court’s discretionary decision to permit the jury to consider the evidence. The trial court also admitted the evidence of defendant’s attack on Ford to show the identity of Doris Horrefl’s killer. To be admissible to show identity, the prior conduct and the charged offense must share common features that are sufficiently distinctive to support the inference that the same person committed both acts. (People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380, 403.) The degree of similarity required to show identity is thus higher than that required to show intent. (Id., at pp. 402-403.) Here, the People argued that sufficient common features resided in the evidence already mentioned (i.e., defendant’s use of a good Samaritan ploy to attempt to kidnap female motorists with car trouble), together with the additional evidence that defendant, on both occasions, used the same truck and gave to female friends items of jewelry taken from the victims. We need not decide whether these common features sufficed to show identity. The court’s ruling admitting the evidence for that purpose, even if erroneous, could not have prejudiced defendant because the same evidence was properly admitted to show intent and because defendant concedes that his identity as Horrell’s killer “was never seriously questioned.” Turning to federal law, defendant contends that the trial court’s decision to admit his prior bad acts against Ford was arbitrary and fundamentally unfair, and thus violated due process. (See Terranova v. Kincheloe (9th Cir. 1988) 852 F.2d 424, 428-429.) Defendant advanced essentially the same claim at trial, where he argued that to admit the Ford incident would violate due process because it would permit the jury to find him guilty on insufficient evidence, and that any such error would affect the reliability of the penalty phase verdict. In support of his position defendant repeats his previous citations to the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and adds an unelaborated citation to the Fifth Amendment. We reject the argument because the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence was correct under state law (Evid. Code, §§ 352, 1101, subd. (b); see People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380, 402-403), was neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair, and did not render the death verdict unreliable. 6. Claims Based on Geraldine Ford’s Identification of Defendant a. Suggestive lineup Defendant asserts that a suggestive photographic lineup tainted Geraldine Ford’s identification of him as her assailant. On this basis, he claims the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude Ford’s out-of-court identification and in permitting her to identify him in court. We perceive no error. Due process requires the exclusion of identification testimony only if the identification procedures used were unnecessarily suggestive and, if so, the resulting identification was also unreliable. (Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) 432 U.S. 98, 106-114 [53 L.Ed.2d 140, 97 S.Ct. 2243]; Neil v. Biggers (1972) 409 U.S. 188, 196-199 [34 L.Ed.2d 401, 93 S.Ct. 375]; see People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 989 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519].) Defendant has not shown that the identification procedures used in this case were unnecessarily suggestive. The following summary of the facts is drawn from the evidence presented at the hearing on defendant’s motion in limine to exclude Ford’s identification testimony. On January 4, 1988, the day Ford was robbed, she observed defendant for 10 to 15 minutes while he changed her car’s flat tire and then confronted her with weapons. It was just starting to get dark, and the lights in the parking lot were on. Detective Craig Trimble met with Ford the next day, January 5, to review her prior statement to the responding officer. At that time, Ford helped to make a composite sketch of her assailant and mentioned that his left hand bore a flower tattoo. On January 8, Trimble showed Ford about 150 photographs in mug shot books. She did not, however, identify any possible suspects. On February 3, Ford called Trimble to say she had seen in the newspaper a photograph of a person who was wanted by the Sacramento Police and who, she thought, might be the person who had attacked her. The photograph was of Lowell Mugridge, also known as Dan Bennett. On February 17, Trimble showed Ford a lineup of five color photographs. The fourth photograph was of defendant and was at least a year, or a year and a half, old. Ford did not identify anyone as a suspect. In preparing the lineup, Trimble did not include a photograph of Mugridge because Ford had already seen his picture in a mug book on January 8 but had not identified him. On March 18, Trimble showed Ford a second lineup of five color photographs. This lineup included, again in the fourth position, a different, more recent photograph of defendant taken after his arrest for the murder of Doris Horrell on February 16. After viewing this lineup, Ford identified defendant as her assailant. In selecting the fourth image, Ford told Trimble, “[t]his person here looks just like him except for the way his hair is combed. His facial features are the same and color of the hair is the same.” Trimble did not tell Ford she had selected the right person. Trimble also showed Ford a photograph of the back of defendant’s hands, but Ford was unable positively to identify the flower tattoo in the photograph as the one she had seen. Trimble did not tell Ford that the hands in the photograph belonged to the same person she had selected in the lineup. Before each lineup, Trimble admonished Ford that the suspect’s photograph might or might not be included and that she should not feel obligated to choose one. Trimble never suggested or intimated by word or gesture that Ford should pick a particular photograph. We perceive nothing unduly suggestive in the identification procedures just described. To determine whether a procedure is unduly suggestive, we ask “whether anything caused defendant to ‘stand out’ from the others in a way that would suggest the witness should select him.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 367 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708], quoting People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1217 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1].) Defendant emphasizes that his image appeared in both lineups, each time in the fourth position. To use a suspect’s image in successive lineups might be suggestive if the same photograph were reused or if the lineups followed each other quickly enough for the witness to retain a distinct memory of the prior lineup. But here, different photographs of defendant appeared in each lineup, and the two lineups were separated in time by a month. Under these circumstances we see no reason to believe that the use or position of defendant’s image in both lineups was unnecessarily suggestive. Defendant seems to argue that any further attempt to elicit a positive identification of a particular suspect from an eyewitness who does not identify the suspect from the first photograph shown must be considered unduly suggestive. But no such rule exists. Defendant also argues that the lineups in this case were unnecessarily suggestive because Detective Trimble did not include in them a photograph of Mugridge, whom Ford had named as a possible suspect. But this omission has no apparent significance, since no evidence suggests, and defendant has never claimed, that Mugridge actually committed the crime against Ford. Our determination that the identification procedures used here were not unnecessarily suggestive disposes of defendant’s claim under due process. Only if the challenged identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive is it necessary to determine the reliability of the resulting identification. (People v. Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1216; People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1242.) Defendant also contends that Ford’s identification of him was tainted by her attendance, in September 1988, at a portion of his preliminary hearing for the murder of Doris Horrell. As the trial court below expressly found, however, Ford’s attendance at the September hearing has no conceivable bearing on the accuracy of her identification of defendant in the March lineup, six months earlier, or on the dispositive question of whether the lineups were unduly suggestive. Ford’s attendance at the September hearing might conceivably have affected her identification of defendant in court.