Full opinion text
Opinion CHIN, J. A jury convicted defendant Michael Stephen Combs of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) of Janine Lee. The jury found true special circumstance allegations of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) and robbery murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). It also found true an allegation that defendant committed the murder while released from custody on his own recognizance in an unrelated case (§ 12022.1). After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court imposed that sentence. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. I. Facts A. Guilt Phase 1. The Prosecution’s Case a. Introduction On October 24, 1990, defendant asked the victim, Janine Lee, to drive him and Cynthia Purcell to Calico Ghost Town in San Bernardino County. Before giving them a ride, Janine came home to change her clothes and then left in her car. Janine’s father, Richard Lee, never saw her again. The next morning, Richard Lee received a telephone call from a store in Lake Elsinore. Someone had tried to cash a check written on his and Janine’s joint checking account. That evening, the police found Janine’s body in a remote canyon area near Calico Ghost Town. A week after Janine’s death, the police arrested defendant and Purcell in Arizona after they were involved in an accident while driving Janine’s car. In the car and on defendant’s person, the officer found incriminating evidence, including Janine’s checkbook and a check payable to defendant with Janine’s name written on the signature line. That same day, defendant confessed to strangling and beating Janine to death for the purpose of stealing her money and car. Six days later, defendant and Purcell reenacted the killing for the San Bernardino police at the crime scene. The police audiotaped the confession and videotaped the reenactment, and the tapes were played to the jury. b. Check Forgery Case At the time of the murder, defendant faced check forgery charges in an unrelated case. The victim, Milt Jaffey, was the general manager of the Desert Rose Center for the Arts (Desert Rose), a fitness center in Barstow. Jaffey used Desert Rose as his mailing address for his checking account. In June 1990, he left his job at Desert Rose and moved to Long Beach. He instructed the bank to forward the checks that he had previously ordered to his new address, but the bank failed to do so. In the beginning of September 1990, Danny Smith became the manager of the Torches Motel in Barstow. About that time, defendant rented a room at the motel and began working at Desert Rose as a karate instructor. During the first part of October 1990, defendant asked Smith to cash some checks for him. Smith cashed several checks, including two written on Jaffey’s account. Jaffey then discovered that the bank had cashed two forged checks against his account, one payable to “Danny Smith” and the other to “Michael Combs.” Both checks bore numbers of a series higher than those in Jaffey’s possession. Defendant was charged with forging Jaffey’s checks. On October 16, 1990, the trial court released defendant from custody on his own recognizance. On October 23, 1990, defendant appeared in court regarding the scheduling of a preliminary hearing. On defendant’s request, the court continued the hearing for two weeks. c. Events Surrounding the Murder On October 24, 1990—a day after his court appearance—defendant asked Smith to give him and Purcell a ride to Calico Ghost Town. Because of a prior engagement, Smith declined. Defendant decided to ask Janine, whom he knew from Desert Rose, where she was also an employee. Janine also knew Smith, who took karate lessons. In Smith’s presence, defendant called Janine and asked her for a ride. At her request, Smith spoke to Janine, assuring her that defendant really needed a ride and confirming that defendant was with him at the motel where Smith worked. When Smith left the motel between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., defendant and Purcell were waiting outside for Janine. In the meantime, sometime after 6:00 p.m. that evening, Janine’s father received a telephone call from a man asking for Janine. He related that Janine was at her grandparents’ house and could be reached there. Shortly thereafter, Janine came home and changed her clothes. She drove off in her white car about 7:30 p.m. Also that same evening, Melvin Krizo was camping in a canyon near Calico Ghost Town. Between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m., Krizo saw a light-colored car enter the canyon. The car stopped about 50 yards from Krizo’s trailer. In the dark, Krizo used a 10-power spotting scope and saw a young man and young woman exit the car, open the trunk, and walk around the area. The couple got back into the car and drove further into the canyon until Krizo lost sight of them. Sometime later, the car returned and stopped in front of Krizo’s trailer for a couple of minutes before driving back into the canyon again. The next morning, Richard Lee contacted the sheriff’s office after receiving information about the attempt to cash one of Janine’s checks. That evening, a passerby flagged down a deputy sheriff after discovering Janine’s body in Odessa Canyon, near Calico Ghost Town and Krizo’s campsite. Janine’s wrists had been bound together with a green nylon cord. She suffered bruises, lacerations, and abrasions over the upper portion of her body, including her head and neck. A bone on the left side of her face was visible and there was a ligature imprint on the front of her neck. The police discovered an electrical extension cord on the side of the road leading to the canyon location where Janine’s body had been discovered. The forensic evidence showed that the primary cause of Janine’s death was strangulation and the secondary cause was blunt trauma to the head. The ligature mark on Janine’s neck was consistent with the type of mark that would have been left by an electrical extension cord similar to the one found by police. The scratch marks, bruising, and abrasions on Janine’s neck indicated that she had struggled and tried to relieve the pressure on her neck. The blunt trauma to Janine’s head was consistent with injuries that she would have received from having been struck with the flashlight recovered from her car. The blood spatter evidence indicated that Janine had been sitting in an upright position in the front seat of her car when she was hit on the left side of her head. On November 2, 1990, while driving Janine’s car, defendant and Purcell were involved in an automobile accident in Kingman, Arizona. While investigating the accident, an Arizona police officer received a dispatch regarding a homicide and car theft in California. Defendant matched the description of one of the homicide suspects. The car defendant was driving matched the description of the stolen car, including its license plate number. The officer arrested defendant and Purcell. In the car, the police found a checkbook belonging to Janine and her father and a military-type flashlight. In defendant’s pants pocket, the police discovered a wallet containing Janine’s business card and a check from the checkbook made payable to defendant, with the name Janine Lee written on the signature line. Defendant also possessed a green nylon cord having the same construction and material as the cord that was used to bind Janine’s wrists. d. Defendant’s November 2, 1990, Confession San Bernardino County Sheriff Detectives Mario Lupercio and Dan Finneran went to Kingman, Arizona, and interviewed defendant in the jail there. After he was advised of and waived his constitutional rights, defendant agreed to talk with them. Initially, defendant stated that he did not know who killed Janine and that he last saw her alive in the canyon area. He admitted that he called Janine from the motel and asked for a ride to Calico Ghost Town, and that Janine wanted to speak to Smith because she did not trust him. Defendant claimed that Janine gave him permission to borrow her car to drive to Mexico. He further claimed that he asked Janine to drive to the canyon so that someone named John Tanoya could drive her back to town, even though she did not know Tanoya. According to defendant, Janine picked defendant and Purcell up at the motel, dropped Purcell off at Calico Ghost Town, drove defendant to the canyon area where Tanoya was camping, and stayed with Tanoya so that he could drive her back to town. Defendant picked up Purcell, and they drove to Mexico in Janine’s car. Defendant admitted that, along the way, he tried to cash one of Janine’s checks that she had left in her car and that he had committed forgery. After the detectives informed defendant they had spoken to a number of people (including Purcell) and did not believe his story, defendant confessed. He described how he had planned to kill Janine, and how and why he had killed her. Defendant related that, several days before the killing, he and Purcell decided to rob someone they knew, because it would be easier than robbing a stranger. They planned to kill their victim. They wanted $500-$1,000 and a car. They chose Smith as their victim from a list of acquaintances, but later reconsidered because Smith did not always have money and there were too many people around the motel where he worked. The afternoon of the murder, defendant decided they should rob and kill Janine instead. He would call Janine, tell her he wanted to get away from his pending court case, and ask her if she could give him a ride to Calico, where he planned to camp with a friend. Defendant and Purcell planned to choke Janine and then tie her up with a green nylon cord that they had obtained that afternoon. Defendant told Purcell that he would sit behind Janine in the car and strangle her with a white extension cord he had found in the motel. Attempting to find “something better” than the extension cord, they tried unsuccessfully to retrieve a wire that was holding up a sign in the hotel. Eventually, they gave up looking. That evening, defendant called Janine from the Torches Motel and asked her to drive him and Purcell to Calico. He tricked her by inventing a fictitious friend, John, and asking for a ride to meet him. When Janine questioned defendant’s story, defendant asked Smith to speak with her on the telephone. At defendant’s request, Smith confirmed that defendant and Purcell were at the motel and needed a ride. After Smith left the motel, Janine picked up defendant and Purcell and drove them to the Calico campsite area to find John. When they reached Odessa Canyon, defendant saw a trailer with its lights off on the other side of the canyon. Janine parked the car, and the three started walking towards the trailer. When defendant saw a road leading to the trailer, he suggested they drive there instead. Janine drove and parked near the trailer. Defendant, who was sitting behind Janine with the extension cord wrapped around his hand, put the cord over Janine’s head and pulled it against her neck. He consciously pulled the cord hard against her neck without jerking her head back to ensure that her windpipe was closed. To tighten the pressure, he crossed his hands behind Janine and braced his knees against the back of her seat. Because he had been trained as a martial arts instructor, defendant knew exactly how to kill Janine. Janine tried to grab the extension cord. As defendant pulled harder on the cord, Purcell, who was seated in the front passenger seat, lifted Janine’s headrest. Defendant wrapped the cord around the headrest and tied it off. Because Janine too had been trained as a martial arts instructor, defendant knew that he would need to protect himself if she managed to free herself. To ensure that Janine could not grab the electrical cord around her neck, defendant retrieved the green nylon cord in his pocket, gave it to Purcell, and told her to tie Janine’s hands. Janine continued to struggle. Defendant told Purcell to tie Janine’s hands through the steering wheel to stop her from “flopping around.” When that failed to subdue her, defendant told Purcell to hit Janine’s head with a flashlight that was in the car. Purcell struck Janine’s right temple about five times, until the flashlight broke. On defendant’s instruction, Purcell went outside to get some rocks. Purcell then wrapped Janine’s jacket around the rocks, and hit Janine in the face 10 to 15 times. On defendant’s further request, Purcell determined that Janine’s bowels had moved, indicating that she was dead. Defendant and Purcell decided to dispose of Janine’s body elsewhere in the canyon. In order to remove the body, defendant had to bum the seatbelt off and move the backseat so he could untie the extension cord from the headrest. Defendant dragged Janine’s body to the back of the car; then he and Purcell placed the victim in the trunk. Defendant drove to an area of Odessa Canyon where he had been many times before. Purcell looked through Janine’s purse and found a checkbook, but no money or credit cards. Defendant took Janine’s body out of the trank and, on Purcell’s request, searched for a wallet. After finding none, they left the body on the ground. As they drove away, Purcell searched the car for money. Defendant and Purcell drove to Barstow. They tried to cash one of Janine’s checks, but the store clerk refused to cash it. They then drove to Mexico. Along the way, they tried to cash two of Janine’s checks in Lake Elsinore. They sold some of her property in other locations. After staying some time in Mexico, they returned to the United States because Purcell did not like living in Mexico. Defendant admitted that he was sober when he first planned the robbery and murder and when he chose Janine as the intended victim. On the day of the murder, he drank no alcohol, but claimed he snorted crystal methamphetamine with Purcell and Smith about four hours before he called Janine. When the detectives asked if he felt bad about what they had done to Janine, defendant reasoned that killing her was not “worth it” because she had no money. The murder would have been “worth it” only if she had had $5,000 to $10,000. When asked if he had trouble sleeping since the killing, defendant replied that he tried not to think about it. Defendant and Purcell laughed about killing Janine and exhibited no remorse. e. Defendant’s November 8, 1990 Videotaped Reenactment of the Crime On November 8, 1990, six days after defendant first confessed, defendant and Purcell participated jointly in a videotaped reenactment of the crime in which they confessed to killing Janine. On that date, Detective Lupercio and other officers transported defendant and Purcell from Arizona to California. During the drive, defendant and Purcell agreed to reenact the crime on videotape. Detective Lupercio drove to Odessa Canyon and arranged to have Janine’s car taken there. At the canyon, the detective advised defendant and Purcell of their constitutional rights. They agreed to talk about the crime. During the reenactment, defendant demonstrated how he had choked Janine and essentially repeated what he had said in his prior confession. Purcell confirmed many of defendant’s incriminating statements. 2. The Defense’s Case The defense conceded that defendant and Purcell killed Janine. The primary defense theory at trial was that defendant was unable to form the requisite mental states of specific intent, premeditation and deliberation, and malice aforethought based on his alleged mental defects, disorders, and impairments. In presenting that defense, defendant relied on the testimony of Dr. Crinella, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Crinella diagnosed defendant as suffering from childhood brain damage, schizophrenia, and a borderline personality disorder. Although Dr. Crinella had no opinion regarding defendant’s intent when committing the crimes, he opined that defendant’s mental disorders influenced the actions that led him to kill Janine. On cross-examination, Dr. Crinella testified that defendant was not mentally retarded, knew right from wrong, and committed crimes for excitement or an “adrenaline rush.” He acknowledged that other doctors had reached different diagnoses, finding instead that defendant had a sociopathic or antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Crinella admitted that defendant could have planned for nearly a week to commit the robbery and murder, and that he likely found the planning process exciting. Defendant told Dr. Crinella that he found that killing Janine gave him the “ultimate high” and an “adrenaline rush” that lasted three days, that he committed the crimes because he needed Janine’s car and money to get out of town, and that he chose her because she was available. B. The Penalty Phase 1. The Prosecution’s Case In addition to relying on the circumstances of the charged offenses, the prosecution introduced evidence that in 1984 defendant had two juvenile adjudications for armed robbery with the use of a knife. He also had four prior adult felony convictions: attempted second degree burglary and attempted vehicle theft in 1985, attempted escape in 1987, and forgery of a $3,500 check in 1989. He had also threatened to use force or violence with homemade weapons during three separate jail incidents in 1992. 2. The Defense’s Case The defense presented evidence—through the testimony of defendant’s relatives, teachers, and mental health professionals—about defendant’s family background, learning disabilities, medical and psychiatric history, and mental condition. Defendant grew up in Colorado. Defendant’s relatives testified that his parents adopted him when he was 18 months old. Although defendant was very close to his mother, she became occupied with the care of a severely disabled brother who was bom when defendant was five years old. When defendant was 16 years old, his mother died, and his father temporarily abandoned the family several months later; defendant then began to have problems in school and began stealing from relatives. Defendant’s father returned about a year later and remarried; defendant’s relationship with him deteriorated. Defendant’s relatives further testified that his parents did not physically or psychologically abuse him. Defendant’s teachers testified that, when he was a child, defendant was classified as a slow learner and placed in special education programs. However, they did not consider defendant to be mentally handicapped and believed that he had the abilities and the IQ to function normally in society, with proper training and help. In October 1983, defendant was admitted to a Colorado psychiatric hospital and treated for depression. Dr. John Graves, the treating psychiatrist, concluded that defendant suffered from depression, with some bipolar or manic features, and from “complicated bereavement.” Dr. Graves believed that if defendant received long-term inpatient care, his mental problems could be treated. However, defendant was discharged after his father refused to pay for further treatment. In support of his decision, defendant’s father noted that the doctors had not found defendant to be psychotic; he believed that no one could help defendant until defendant was willing to change. Dr. Graves acknowledged that when defendant was discharged from the hospital, he was functioning at a high enough level to be returned to the outside environment and high school. In February 1986, when defendant was 19 years old, he voluntarily admitted himself into a residential psychiatric crisis facility in San Diego for 12 days. Dr. Robert Poor, a psychologist, diagnosed defendant as suffering from major depression and showing significant signs of having an antisocial personality disorder. Because defendant had manipulated the staff by relating conflicting stories and displaying inconsistent behaviors to different staff members, they believed that defendant had been malingering. Defendant acknowledged that he knew what he was doing and called it a game. At one point, defendant threatened to kill his father, but the staff and defendant’s sister did not take the threat seriously; it was simply part of his continual attention-seeking behavior. At the end of the 12-day period, Dr. Poor and the staff concluded that defendant could function in society on his own with outpatient therapy and scheduled defendant for release. Although the defense mental health experts agreed that defendant suffered from mental illness, their diagnoses differed. Dr. Graves opined that defendant suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder, a mixed-type personality disorder, and complicated bereavement. He believed that defendant was sane, but suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from considering the consequences of his actions. Based on defendant’s account, Dr. Graves further concluded that defendant was intoxicated with amphetamines when he committed the crimes and that his intoxication aggravated his manic-depressive illness. Dr. Edward Fischer, a clinical psychologist, conducted neuropsychological tests on defendant. Dr. Fischer concluded that defendant suffered from schizophrenia and mania, even though he had never suffered from hallucinations or delusions. Dr. Fischer also believed that defendant had a brain dysfunction that he had been bom with or that he had developed at an early age. Dr. Fischer did not agree with Dr. Graves that defendant exhibited signs of depression. Dr. Crinella testified that electroencephalogram (EEC) tests and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed abnormalities and lesions in defendant’s brain. The doctor concluded that defendant suffered from an organic brain syndrome, having suffered brain damage early in life, perhaps prenatally. 3. Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence Dr. Oshrin, a forensic psychiatrist who specialized in working with criminals, interviewed defendant on November 23, 1990. The doctor did not find that defendant was depressed, but instead found him to be in control of himself, coherent, of average intelligence, and able to communicate and think clearly. Defendant told Dr. Oshrin that he only took amphetamines about twice a year and was not addicted. Regarding the murder, defendant admitted that he and Purcell killed Janine to steal her money and had planned how they would do it. He knew that killing was wrong and against the law. Dr. Oshrin concluded that defendant was not suffering from an organic brain disorder, psychosis, or any specific or identifiable mental illness. He believed that age caused defendant’s brain lesions. The doctor diagnosed defendant as having a probable antisocial personality disorder and exhibiting the characteristics of a good con artist. This disorder did not affect defendant to the extent that he did not know of or could not control his actions. Dr. Oshrin did not believe that the psychological tests the defense experts used had any place in forensic psychiatry. While in jail in December 1992, defendant told Robin Hunt, a nurse, that his goal was to obtain a mental illness diagnosis, which he hoped would reduce the charges against him. He planned to inflict wounds on himself to manipulate the staff into finding that he had a mental illness. II. Discussion A. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Leg Restraints Defendant contends that his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution were violated because he was placed in leg restraints during trial. We disagree. Part of the jury selection process was held in a building in the Orange Show Fairgrounds. Because of security concerns at that location, the trial court stated its intent to have defendant placed in leg restraints during jury selection. Defendant stipulated to the leg restraints “as long as they’re not visible.” To ensure that the potential jurors would not see defendant’s leg restraints, the court stated that “the counsel table and the physical layout of the courtroom in that building will be laid out such so that none of the prospective jurors that get anywhere close to the counsel table can see any leg restraints.” The court further guaranteed that defendant would be brought into and taken out of the courtroom outside the presence of the jury and that the glass doors to the room would be covered with paper. Defendant later made a motion to remove the leg restraints for the remainder of the trial. The prosecutor simultaneously moved to keep defendant in leg restraints throughout the trial. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion, ordering that leg restraints be placed on defendant during trial. “A criminal defendant cannot be physically restrained in the jury’s presence unless there is a showing of manifest need for such restraints. [Citation.] Such a showing, which must appear as a matter of record [citation], may be satisfied by evidence, for example, that the defendant plans to engage in violent or disruptive behavior in court, or that he plans to escape from the courtroom [citation]. A shackling decision must be based on facts, not mere rumor or innuendo.” (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 595 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347].) “ ‘The imposition of physical restraints in the absence of a record showing of violence or a threat of violence or other nonconforming conduct will be deemed to constitute an abuse of discretion.’ [Citation.] A reviewing court will uphold the decision of the trial court to shackle a defendant, however, absent an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 944 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574], italics added, overruled on other grounds in People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 110 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 999 P.2d 666].) Here, the record amply demonstrates that defendant had threatened violence and engaged in nonconforming conduct. In ruling as it did, the trial court relied on the report of a psychologist, Dr. Malancharuvil, who had evaluated defendant pursuant to section 1368. Dr. Malancharuvil’s report stated that defendant was a serious suicidal and homicidal risk; defendant had threatened to “nut up” in the courtroom and had detailed “how he would set himself up to be shot by one of the deputies by fighting with one of them or some court official.” In addition, the report stated the following: “Because [defendant] has decided it would be against his interest to go through the trial, he becomes resistant, suicidal and disruptive as the trial date approaches. He uses intimidation, manipulation and decompensation as methods of resisting trial. He’s likely to be at least initially disruptive during the trial process, particularly in the early stages of trial. He should be carefully watched immediately prior to and during the trial process, as he’s likely to incite officers to get into a scuffle with him.” The trial court further relied on the prosecutor’s representation that, on February 19, 1992, defendant had possessed two shanks in jail and had threatened jail deputies. Defendant did not dispute that factual assertion. Thus, we conclude that the record supports the court’s finding of defendant’s potential for violence and its concern for the safety of defendant, deputies, and others in the courtroom. (People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 232-233 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643] [series of threats against deputies]; People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 292, fn. 11 [127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322] [“[a]n accused may be restrained ... on a showing . . . that he plans to disrupt proceedings”]; see also People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 190-192 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365] [possession of explosive device and weapons in jail was grounds for restraint].) Nevertheless, defendant argues that Dr. Malancharuvil’s report should have been updated to contain more current information—the doctor’s report was dated April 24, 1992, but trial began in February 1993—and that other alternative security measures, such as the use of more guards, should have been considered. However, defendant never complained that Dr. Malancharuvil’s report contained outdated or inaccurate information, nor did he request that alternative security measures be tried first. He only argued that the restraints were unnecessary because he had not tried to escape from the courtroom and had not caused anyone harm there. When the trial court announced it would follow the same procedure during trial as it had during the voir dire proceedings in the Orange Show Fairgrounds to ensure that the jury would not see the leg restraints, defendant did not claim that those procedures were ineffective. He asked only that the court follow the normal procedure of having only two uniformed deputies in the courtroom, to which the court agreed. Moreover, defendant acknowledged that he had “discipline problems as late as December 1992, and a previous incident in August 1992,” but he attempted to minimize them as “relatively minor.” Finally, “we have consistently held that courtroom shackling, even if error, was harmless if there is no evidence that the jury saw the restraints, or that the shackles impaired or prejudiced the defendant’s right to testify or participate in his defense.” (People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 596; see People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 583-584 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142].) Here, defendant did not testify at the guilt or penalty phase of trial, and there is no evidence or claim his leg restraints influenced him not to do so, or that they distracted him or affected his demeanor before the jury. (See People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1219 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 161, 52 P.3d 95].) Because there is no evidence that the jury ever saw the restraints, we have no basis to find that defendant was prejudiced. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 651 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081], overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, 25 P.3d 618] [any error harmless where defendant failed to complain during trial that procedures were not followed to hide leg restraints or that jury saw them].) 2. Evidentiary Issues a. Statements Made During Videotaped Reenactment of Crime On November 8, 1990, defendant and Purcell participated jointly in a videotaped reenactment of the crime in which they confessed to killing Janine. Defendant contends that the admission of Purcell’s statements during the videotaped reenactment violated his United States Constitution Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. He further claims that the admission of his own statements violated his United States Constitution Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We conclude that the claims lack merit. 1) Underlying Facts On Detective Lupercio’s request, defendant and Purcell sat in Janine’s car in the same positions as they had on the night of the murder. Defendant then described in detail and demonstrated how he had choked Janine. He also related that he instructed Purcell to hit Janine on the head with the flashlight to ensure that she was dead, and to find rocks outside and wrap them in Purcell’s jacket, and to hit Janine on the head with the rocks, which Purcell proceeded to do. They then tied Janine’s hands together with nylon cord. In defendant’s presence, Purcell confirmed that on defendant’s request she struck Janine in the head with a flashlight that was in the car, struck Janine several times in the head with rocks wrapped in Janine’s jacket, and retrieved a cord from defendant’s jacket and used it to tie Janine’s hands together. Purcell added that defendant asked her to see if Janine was dead by checking her pulse and if she had soiled herself. Purcell felt that Janine’s leg was wet, but could not tell if Janine’s heart was still beating because her own heart was beating so heavily. Defendant recounted that their initial plan was to kill Smith for a car and money, but that they decided to kill Janine instead. When defendant stated that he and Purcell initially talked about killing Smith one or two days before they killed Janine, Purcell interrupted and said that, “It was that day.” Defendant agreed that they might have planned to kill someone either that same day or the day before. Although their initial plan was for Purcell to distract Smith so that defendant could hit him on the head, they decided against it because there were too many people at the motel. When asked if she agreed with defendant, Purcell responded that she did not have any “thought of murder,” that defendant mentioned hitting Smith on the head, and that she did not think it was a good idea because Smith had no money. When defendant suggested Janine, Purcell claimed that “half of me was serious about it and half of me never thought it would happen.” At one point, Detective Lupercio questioned defendant and Purcell separately; defendant stood outside, while Purcell remained in the car. Defendant stated that, when he took Janine’s body out of the trunk, he checked to see if she was still breathing. When Purcell yelled that she found no money or wallet in Janine’s purse, defendant searched her body. When Detective Lupercio questioned Purcell separately about what she was doing while defendant unloaded Janine’s body, Purcell confirmed that she had searched the car and Janine’s purse and yelled out to defendant that she found no wallet or money. She added that she was angry about “everything.” Purcell related that, after leaving the canyon, they disposed of Janine’s property in various places and tried unsuccessfully to cash some of her checks in Barstow. They were later able to cash a check that defendant “had written.” Purcell further confirmed that they had planned to lure Janine to Odessa Canyon to steal her money and car. Detective Lupercio spoke alone with defendant again. Defendant confirmed that they tried to cash some of Janine’s checks in Barstow and disposed of her property at various places between the killing and their arrest. 2) Purcell’s Statements During Videotaped Reenactment During trial, defendant moved to excise Purcell’s statements from the videotape on the ground that they were self-serving attempts to diminish her responsibility and to shift the blame to defendant, and thus, were inadmissible under People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265], and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620]. The prosecutor opposed the motion, arguing that Purcell’s statements were admissible hearsay qualifying as declarations against penal interest or adoptive admissions. The trial court denied the motion, finding that—unlike the situation in Aranda and Bruton—Purcell’s statements were not untrustworthy or self-serving. She incriminated herself and did not attempt to place more blame on defendant. To the extent she incriminated defendant, she simply confirmed what he had already confessed to. The court admitted the videotape and its transcription, which included Purcell’s statements. Defendant argues that admission of Purcell’s statements violated the Aranda/Bruton rule. We have rejected a similar argument. (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 537 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137].) “The Aranda/Bruton rule addresses the situation in which ‘an out-of-court confession of one defendant . . . incriminates not only that defendant but another defendant jointly charged.’ (People v. Fletcher (1996) 13 Cal.4th 451, 455 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 572, 917 P.2d 187], italics added, fn. omitted.) ‘The United States Supreme Court has held that, because jurors cannot be expected to ignore one defendant’s confession that is “powerfully incriminating” as to a second defendant when determining the latter’s guilt, admission of such a confession at a joint trial generally violates the confrontation rights of the nondeclarant.’ (Ibid., italics added.) In this case, [declarant] was not jointly charged or tried with defendant, but was separately tried and convicted of murder. Accordingly, the Aranda/Bruton rule does not preclude admission of [declarant’s] extrajudicial statements against defendant.” (Ibid.) Defendant further argues that, because the “majority” of Purcell’s statements shifted the principal blame for the homicide onto defendant while minimizing her own role, the statements were unreliable and thus violated his United States Constitution Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. In Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56 [65 L.Ed.2d 597, 100 S.Ct. 2531], the high court held that the confrontation clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement against a defendant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” (Id. at p. 66.) To meet the requirement of reliability under the Roberts test, the evidence must fall either within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or contain “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” such that adversarial testing would be expected to add little, if anything, to the statement’s reliability. (Ibid.) “[T]he ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ required for admission under the Confrontation Clause must... be drawn from the totality of circumstances that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.” (Idaho v. Wright (1990) 497 U.S. 805, 820 [111 L.Ed.2d 638, 110 S.Ct. 3139].) In finding Purcell’s statements to be reliable and trustworthy, the trial court noted that; (1) the statements were against her penal interests, and/or (2) Purcell confirmed defendant’s description of the crime throughout the videotape—including her own culpability—and never blamed defendant any more than he had already blamed himself. Thus, the court found her statements admissible as statements against her penal interest or as adoptive admissions. However, since then, the high court has overruled the test in Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 56. (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [158 L.Ed.2d 177, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1369-1374] (Crawford).) Instead, Crawford held that “[w]here testimonial [hearsay] evidence is at issue ... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (Id. at 541 U.S. at p. 68 [124 S.Ct. at p. 1374].) Although the high court did not comprehensively define the term “testimonial,” it noted, “[w]hatever else the term covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations.” (Id. at 541 U.S. at p. 68 [124 S.Ct. at p. 1374], italics added.) It further noted that “The [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” (Id. at p. 59, fn. 9 [124 S.Ct. at p. 1369].) Although we question whether Crawford can be applied retroactively to cases with final judgments (see Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at pp. 69, 75-76 [124 S.Ct. at pp. 1374, 1378] (conc. opn. of Rehnquist, C. J.) [describing majority decision as “a mantle of uncertainty over future criminal trials in both federal and state courts”; “the new rule”; and “a change of course”]), we need not decide that issue because defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not implicated. As in Crawford, here, Purcell’s statements made during the police interrogation are testimonial, and it does not appear from the record that defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at pp. 53, 61-62, fn. 4 [124 S.Ct. at pp. 1365 & 1370].) Defendant did not dispute Purcell’s unavailability at trial, nor does he do so on appeal. However, Purcell’s statements incriminating defendant were not admitted for purposes of establishing the truth of the matter asserted, but were admitted to supply meaning to defendant’s conduct or silence in the face of Purcell’s accusatory statements. (People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 624 [247 Cal.Rptr. 573, 754 P.2d 1070]; CALJIC No. 2.71.5.) “[B]y reason of the adoptive admissions rule, once the defendant has expressly or impliedly adopted the statements of another, the statements become his own admissions .... [Citation.] Being deemed the defendant’s own admissions, we are no longer concerned with the veracity or credibility of the original declarant.” (Silva, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 624.) “Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth.” (Evid. Code, § 1221.) The statute contemplates either explicit acceptance of another’s statement or acquiescence in its truth by silence or equivocal or evasive conduct. “There are only two requirements for the introduction of adoptive admissions: ‘(1) the party must have knowledge of the content of another’s hearsay statement, and (2) having such knowledge, the party must have used words or conduct indicating his adoption of, or his belief in, the truth of such hearsay statement.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Silva, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 623.) Admissibility of an adoptive admission is appropriate when “ ‘a person is accused of having committed a crime, under circumstances which fairly afford him an opportunity to hear, understand, and to reply, and which do not lend themselves to an inference that he was relying on the right of silence guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution . . . .’ ” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1189 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969].) In defendant’s presence, Purcell stated that: (1) defendant directed her to strike Janine with the flashlight and rocks, to determine if she was dead, and to tie her hands, and (2) defendant came up with the idea of robbing and killing Janine. Defendant’s own prior direct admissions confirmed the truth of Purcell’s statements. Purcell said nothing incriminating that defendant himself had not already admitted. After Purcell corroborated defendant’s prior admissions, he never retracted them; thus, he continued to acknowledge the truth of Purcell’s statements. Under these circumstances, her statements inculpating defendant during the joint interview qualify as adoptive admissions. Purcell further stated—out of defendant’s presence—that they disposed of Janine’s property and attempted to cash her checks after the killing and robbery. When the police later related Purcell’s statements to defendant, he confirmed their accuracy. Thus, he expressly adopted them. Having concluded that Purcell’s statements were admissible under the adoptive admissions rule, the trial court submitted to the jury the question whether defendant’s conduct actually constituted an adoptive admission. The jury was instructed how to consider the evidence, including that “[e]vidence of such an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the silence and conduct of the accused in the face of it. Unless you should find that the defendant’s silence and conduct at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you should entirely disregard the statement.” (CALJIC No. 2.71.5.) Thus, because Purcell’s statements were admitted for a nonhearsay purpose, defendant’s Sixth Amendment right was not implicated. (United States v. Kehoe (8th Cir. 2002) 310 F.3d 579, 590-591; Globe v. Florida (Fla. 2004) 877 So.2d 663, 672-673.) 3) Defendant’s Statements and Conduct During Videotaped Reenactment of Crime Defendant orally moved to suppress his videotaped statements without stating a basis for the motion. The prosecution filed a written opposition, arguing that defendant made his statements voluntarily because the police did not engage in physical or psychological pressure when they interviewed him. At the suppression hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that the “general nature” of the motion to suppress was “on the issue of voluntariness.” Counsel claimed that defendant’s Miranda waiver (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602]) was invalid because he did not specifically waive his rights to remain silent and obtain counsel. The trial court rejected the claim, finding that defendant was adequately advised of and validly waived his Miranda rights. The court then asked defense counsel about the previous “general objection” on the voluntariness issue, inquiring whether he wanted to make an objection for the record. Defense counsel declined and merely submitted the issue. The court ruled as follows: “With respect to the video crime scene reenactment, the advisal of rights were given again by Detective Lupercio. I believe right after the advisal of rights there was a question by Detective Lupercio—or a statement to the effect, ‘Well, we didn’t force you do to this, did we?’ And the answer from both Miss Purcell and [defendant] was ‘no.’ “The Court paid particular attention to the demeanor of—this is with respect to Court’s Exhibit 2, the video, the Court paid particular attention to the demeanor of Detective Lupercio, the demeanor of Miss Purcell and [defendant]. As far as the Court could tell, Detective Lupercio was not overbearing or intimidating. Miss Purcell and [defendant] were handcuffed in front, but other than that, there was no further restraints on them other than the ones that would go along with someone being in custody. “The tone of [defendant’s] voice on Exhibit 2 was very controlled, it was very unemotional. “As [defense counsel] pointed out, there were a couple of times, particularly around the discussion of the flashlight, when Miss Purcell appeared to sob for a very brief few moments, but other than that, Miss Purcell didn’t have too much show of emotion. “And based on all of those considerations, the Court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence, and in fact beyond a reasonable doubt, that the waiver of the constitutional rights, both [defendant] and Miss Purcell, were free and voluntary and they were intelligently made, and the Court will deny the motion, defense motion, to exclude [the videotape] on that basis also.” On appeal, defendant appears to have abandoned the claim that his waiver was invalid because he did not specifically waive his privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel. Rather, he contends that his United States Constitution Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his privilege against self-incrimination, waive his right to counsel, and consent to the videotaped interview. He argues that: (1) the circumstances surrounding the videotaped reenactment were “not conducive to a knowing and intelligent waiver,” and (2) he did not receive a “precise indication that he was entitled to counsel and that one would be appointed for him.” We disagree. “Miranda holds that ‘[t]he defendant may waive effectuation’ of the rights conveyed in the warnings ‘provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.’ [Citation.] The inquiry has two distinct dimensions. [Citations.] First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the ‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. [Citations.]” (Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412, 421 [89 L.Ed.2d 410, 106 S.Ct. 1135].) Defendant contends that he did not voluntarily waive his rights because law enforcement held him isolated in custody for a long time without arraigning him or giving him the ability and opportunity to contact counsel. Because defendant failed to raise these claims in the trial court, he has forfeited them on appeal. (People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 988, fn. 13 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099] [claim that car trip was a coercive psychological ploy designed to compel confession forfeited; the defendant failed to rely on the purportedly coercive nature of car trip in trial court].) As the Attorney General states, no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing addressing whether the duration and nature of defendant’s confinement, including the car trip and the location of the interrogation, rendered defendant’s confession involuntary. Nor was any showing made that defendant ever requested counsel, that his arraignment was illegally delayed, or that his admissions were the product of such a delay. (People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 270 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 73 P.3d 433] [the defendant failed to make necessary showing that confessions were product of illegal delay in arraignment].) Moreover, defendant does not now dispute the trial court’s factual findings regarding the “general” voluntariness of his videotaped statements, nor could he effectively dispute those findings. Indeed, defendant simply repeated the same admissions he had made to the police six days earlier on the day of his arrest. Under these circumstances, we will not address defendant’s current claim of involuntariness for the first time on appeal. (People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 339 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846] [parties had no incentive to litigate involuntariness theory fully below, and trial court had no opportunity to resolve material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings].) Defendant’s second claim that he was inadequately advised of his right to counsel is clearly without merit. At the Evidence Code section 402 hearing, Detective Lupercio testified that he read defendant the Miranda warnings from a department-issued card. He began the videotaped interview with the following advisements: “Lupercio: Ok, before we go on I’m going to read you your rights. Ok? You have the absolute right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with an attorney, to be represented by an attorney, and to have an attorney present before and during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed by the court, free of charge to represent you before and during questioning if you desire. Just answer yes or no. Do you understand the rights I have just explained to you? “[Defendant]: Yes. “Purcell: Yes. “Lupercio: With these rights in mind are you willing to talk to me about the charges against you? “[Defendant]: Yes. “[Purcell]: Yes. “Lupercio: For the purpose of this tape also in no way were you forced to come up here to do this video reenactment, is that correct? “[Defendant]: That’s correct. “[Purcell]: That’s correct.” Defendant was told in no uncertain terms that he had the right to consult with, to be represented by, and to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and the further right to have counsel appointed if he was indigent. He never requested an attorney or indicated that he wished to end the interview. (People v. Whitson (1998) 17 Cal.4th 229, 249-250 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 949 P.2d 18].) Finally, defendant fails even to suggest what advisements should have been given. Because he was given the standard Miranda advisements, and because he stated that he understood his rights and was willing to talk with the police, defendant’s claim that he was not fully advised of his right to counsel fails. (Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) 492 U.S. 195, 201-205 [106 L.Ed.2d 166, 109 S.Ct. 2875]; People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1233 [283 Cal.Rptr. 144, 812 P.2d 163].) b. Family Members’ Testimony Defendant argues that the trial court violated his United States Constitution Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by admitting the irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony of Janine’s family members. The trial court admitted the testimony of Janine’s father and sister, which was brief. Her father, Richard Lee, testified that, on October 24, 1990, someone called their house and asked to speak with Janine. Richard Lee related that Janine was not home and could be contacted at her grandparents’ house. Janine returned home about 7:00 p.m. and drove off in her white 1988 Ford Tempo about 7:30 p.m. That was the last time Richard Lee saw his daughter. The next morning, someone from a store in Lake Elsinore called and informed him that a man had tried to cash one of Janine’s checks. After receiving that information, he notified the police. Richard Lee identified the checkbook found in Janine’s car—last driven by defendant—as belonging to Janine and stated that she always carried it. Janine’s sister, Linda Lee, testified that she had two brothers and a sister, Janine, and that Richard Lee was their father. Linda identified Janine from an autopsy photograph. Defendant did not object to the admission of the above testimony. Consequently, his claim is forfeited on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 896 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712].) In any event, the claim lacks merit. Richard Lee’s identification of Janine’s checkbook and car and his testimony that he learned someone had tried to cash her check the morning after her disappearance corroborated defendant’s confession and were relevant to establish that defendant killed Janine to steal her money and car. His testimony relating to the call Janine received and her later departure corroborated defendant’s confession that he tricked Janine into giving them a ride that night and was relevant to establish premeditation and deliberation. In addition, Richard Lee’s testimony served to fill in the chronology of events from the evening of October 24, when Janine disappeared, to the following morning. (See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 322 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374] [testimony of victim’s relatives properly admitted to fill in chronology of events].) Linda’s identification was relevant to prove that Janine was a human being who had been alive before the alleged criminal act had occurred and was dead afterwards. (See People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 849 [254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460]; see also People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 15 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748] [photograph showing bloodied, lifeless body relevant to establish murder had occurred].) Finally, the testimony was not unduly prejudicial. As the Attorney General points out, the testimony was brief and factual, and the record does not reflect that either witness made any emotional outbursts. (People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 374 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169].) Thus, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of the victim’s family members. c. Blood Spatter Evidence Criminalist Craig Ogino testified that blood spatter evidence showed that Janine had been sitting in an upright position in her car when she was hit on the left side of her head. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting that evidence because: (1) it was presented as if it had an “aura of scientific infallibility,” and (2) Ogino was not qualified to testify as an expert on blood spatter evidence. Because defendant did not object to the blood spatter testimony or to Ogino’s qualification as an expert on blood spatter evidence in the trial court, defendant has forfeited both issues. (People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 321.) In any event, the claim fails on the merits. Regarding the first issue, defendant fails to explain how the testimony was presented with an “aura of scientific infallibility,” nor do we discern any such “aura.” (See People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1018 [blood spatter analysis testimony does not produce an aura of scientific infallibility].) Regarding the second claim, the record amply supports Ogino’s qualification as an expert in blood spatter evidence. (See Evid. Code § 720, subds. (a), (b).) The record reveals that Ogino had a bachelor of science degree in chemistry and was working towards a master’s degree in criminalistics from California State University at Los Angeles. He had taken classes in forensic microscopy and bloodstain pattern interpretation taught by particular individuals or at other institutions. He was employed as a criminalist with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department crime laboratory and had previously worked at the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office in the serology section. In addition, he taught classes in his field of expertise. Defendant complains that Ogino’s expertise was not established because he failed to state that the specified classes he attended had been taught at a university or by qualified individuals, or to specify how many tests he had conducted in the past. These complaints regarding the degree of his knowledge go more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility. (People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 322.) Moreover, defense counsel could have questioned Ogino on these subjects during cross-examination, but did not do so. Ogino’s educational background and work experience fully qualified him to testify as an expert on blood spatter evidence. (Ibid.; People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 1018-1019.) 3. Sufficiency of the Evidence Defendant contends the evidence, in several respects, was insufficient to support the judgment. In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, “ ‘the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 496 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754].) The same standard of review applies to special circumstance allegations. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1].) An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the evidence even if the court would have concluded otherwise. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413, 971 P.2d 618].) a. First Degree Murder Conviction; Robbery-murder Special-circumstance Finding. The prosecution tried the case under a theory that Janine’s murder either was deliberate and premeditated or was perpetrated during the commission of a robbery. Defendant claims that the jury’s verdict of first degree murder is not supported by sufficient evidence on either theory. 1) Deliberate, Premeditated Murder Defendant contends that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation because none of the categories of evidence set forth in People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942] were met in this case. In Anderson, we “identified three categories of evidence relevant to resolving the issue of premeditation and deliberation: planning activity, motive, and manner of killing.” (People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331.) However, these factors are not exclusive, nor are they invariably determinative. (People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 368 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769].) “ ‘Anderson was simply intended to guide an appellate court’s assessment whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citation.]’ ” (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 331-332.) As to planning and motive, defendant asserts that the evidence showed he only planned to camp with Pu