Full opinion text
Opinion CHIN, J. On November 17, 1997, a jury convicted defendant Samuel Zamudio of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and two counts of first degree residential robbery (§ 211). As to each of the convictions, the jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a knife during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)). As to the murders, the jury also found true special circumstance allegations that defendant was convicted in this proceeding of more than one first degree murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that the murders were committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). On November 21, 1997, the jury fixed the penalty at death and, on October 5, 1998, the trial court imposed that sentence. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) For reasons that follow, we vacate one multiple-murder special-circumstance finding and otherwise affirm the guilt and penalty judgments in their entirety. I. Facts A. Guilt Phase . On Sunday, February 11, 1996, the dead bodies of 79-year-old Elmer Benson and 74-year-old Gladys Benson were found in their home. The evidence presented at trial established that defendant, who lived next door to, was friends with, occasionally did household chores for, and owed money to, the Bensons, stabbed them to death and stole their property. 1. Prosecution Evidence Around 9:00 a.m., on February 11, firefighter/paramedics for the Los Angeles County Fire Department received a call to respond to the Bensons’ home in South Gate. Inside, they found the dead bodies of Elmer and Gladys. They notified police and, around 11:37 a.m., homicide detectives responded to the scene to investigate. They found Gladys’s body on the kitchen floor with numerous stab wounds, clad in a nightgown and robe that were raised above her waist, exposing her pubic area. Gladys was still wearing a bracelet, ring, and chain. Elmer’s body, which also had numerous stab wounds, was on the living room floor near his wheelchair. There was blood in the kitchen and living room, and nowhere else in the house. Bloody shoe prints on the kitchen floor near Gladys’s body led out of the kitchen and into the living room to Elmer’s body. There was fresh coffee in a pot near the sink and two cups had been poured; one was on a table in the living room near Elmer’s wheelchair. A newspaper was on the front porch, and no lights were on inside (other than a hallway nightlight). Based on these circumstances, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Donald Garcia, who was assigned to the homicide bureau’s detective division and who participated in the investigation, opined that the murders occurred “at first light, approximately 6:00 to 6:30 in the morning.” The coroner placed the time of death at 7:00 a.m., plus or minus three or four hours. South Gate Police Officer Dave Scott arrived at the Bensons’ home earlier that morning—approximately 9:30 or 9:45 a.m.—and was told to maintain the outside perimeter of the crime scene. Shortly after arriving, he interviewed Jacqueline Zamudio, who is defendant’s daughter and who first discovered the Bensons’ bodies, and Ivan Zalapa, who is defendant’s nephew and who made the 911 call. During the interview with Jacqueline, defendant, who lived next door to the Bensons in his brother-in-law’s house, walked up and began interjecting comments. He repeatedly said he was good friends with, and close to, the Bensons. He also said he often did favors for them and repaired things around their house. While listening to defendant, Scott received a dispatch to call the station, and asked if he could use defendant’s telephone. Defendant invited Scott into his living room to make the call. While Scott was dialing, defendant again commented that he was close to the Bensons. He also stated he had recently borrowed $100 from them, was supposed to repay the loan within two weeks, gave the Bensons the “pink slip” to his car as collateral, and believed the title document was still in the Bensons’ house. After Scott finished his telephone call, defendant took Scott to the kitchen, showed him a calendar with a big “X” on February 21, and said the “X” was a reminder that the loan was due by February 22. Shortly before noon, Sergeant Martin van Lierop of the South Gate Police Department, who was assigned to the detective bureau, arrived at the Bensons’ house and began investigating the crime scene. Later, he and Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Miley, who was assigned to the homicide bureau’s detective division, canvassed the neighborhood for witnesses. They asked defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan to come to the South Gate police station for interviews as potential witnesses and to provide background information on the victims. Defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan agreed, and were transported to the station, which was only two blocks away. During his interview, defendant said he never left his house the previous night, left around 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. that Sunday morning to visit a friend, and returned around 10:00 a.m. He also stated he was last in the Bensons’ home the previous Thursday, February 8, when he fixed their washing machine, changed the oil in their truck, and ate breakfast with them. He also talked about the $100 loan, explaining that he (1) borrowed the money on February 8 because he was not working, had no money, and did not want to ask his wife for money, (2) gave the Bensons the “pink slip” to his car as collateral, (3) was supposed to repay the loan by February 22, and (4) did not want his wife to know about the loan. After the interview, Miley and van Lierop returned to the crime scene, searched for evidence, and spoke with other members of defendant’s family. As a result of their conversation with defendant’s wife, Maria Barron, they had more questions for defendant, so they returned to the station and reinterviewed him. During his second interview, defendant gave the following, different account of his whereabouts: He left his house around 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and drove to the El Paraíso bar in Los Angeles, where he stayed until closing at 2:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and spent all of his money buying alcohol for himself and others. After closing, he drove two women who worked at the bar—including one named Sarahi whom he had been seeing for awhile—to their homes. He returned home around 3:00 or 3:30 a.m., unsuccessfully tried to sleep, and again left his house between 5:00 and 5:30 a.m., to visit a friend, Juan Ledesma. Ledesma was not home, so defendant spoke with Ledesma’s mother. He then went to the garment district in downtown Los Angeles and just walked around (because the stores were not open). He returned home again around 10:00 a.m. At the end of the second interview, Miley asked if he could look at defendant’s shoes. Defendant removed his shoes and gave them to Miley. The officers found what they believed to be “unique . . . zigzag patterns” on the soles and heels. Miley photographed defendant holding the shoes and put them in a bag. The officers then asked defendant what he had been wearing the previous night. Defendant replied that he was still wearing the same pants, but that the shirt he had been wearing was at his house. Miley and van Lierop then took defendant and the bag with his shoes back to the crime scene. Defendant went inside his house with van Lierop, retrieved a shirt, that was hanging on his bedpost in his bedroom and gave it, along with the pants he was wearing, to van Lierop. Meanwhile, Miley took defendant’s shoes to the Bensons’ home and showed them to Stephan Schliebe, a criminalist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Schliebe observed that the general pattern on the soles of the shoes was similar to the pattern of the bloody shoe prints on the Bensons’ kitchen floor. The shoes tested positive for blood, and the officers were advised of this result. Schliebe later compared exemplar shoe prints from the shoes to life-size enlargements of photographs of the bloody shoe prints on the Bensons’ kitchen floor. He testified at trial that two of the bloody shoe prints were made by defendant’s left shoe “to the exclusion of all other shoes.” Van Lierop then took defendant to the police station and arrested him. He retained a watch and a ring defendant was wearing, all of the clothes defendant was wearing, including his socks, and approximately 40 coins found in defendant’s pocket. Many of the coins were from the 1960’s and the 1940’s, including a 1942 Mercury head dime, a 1947 dime, and a 1944 nickel. During a search of the Bensons’ house, police found three old coins—a 1944 Mercury head dime, a 1963 penny, and a 1968 penny—on Gladys’s partially made bed. Micki Downey, the Bensons’ daughter, testified that the Bensons collected old coins from the 1960’s and earlier. Downey also testified that after the murders, family members went through the Bensons’ belongings, but were unable to find a number of old coins they expected to find. Linda Bouffard, Gladys’s daughter and Elmer’s stepdaughter, testified that in the mid-1960’s, when she worked in a bank, Elmer started collecting coins—including old dimes, nickels, and pennies—and, “for about a week,” gave her $20 every morning and asked her to bring back a roll of quarters and two rolls of dimes. She also testified that after the murders, she and other family members searched the Bensons’ house for the money, but were unable to find all of the quarters. Gisele LaVigne, a senior criminalist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, tested the items taken from defendant for blood. She found blood on “a lot of areas of’ the shoes, including the shoelaces, tops and sides, and inside grooves on the sole of the left shoe. Through serological testing, she determined that a bloodstain on the instep of the left shoe contained genetic markers consistent with Gladys’s blood, and she calculated that only 13 out of 10,000 people have that particular combination of genetic markers. She also found blood on defendant’s ring, watch and sock. Subsequent testing at the Serological Research Institute in Northern California showed that the genetic profile of the blood on defendant’s watch matched that of Gladys, and that only one in 4 million people has that genetic profile. Police investigators found defendant’s palm print on the doorframe between the Bensons’ living room and kitchen, and found his fingerprint on a flashlight on a table in the Bensons’ service porch. They also talked with Ledesma’s mother, who confirmed that defendant had come by her house on February 11, but gave a time for the visit that was three hours different from the time defendant had stated. Autopsies showed that Elmer and Gladys died of multiple stab wounds. They both had stab wounds to the throat and multiple stab wounds in the chest near the heart. More specifically, Gladys had what was described as a “fatal” wound to her abdomen; two wounds to her left chest; a “fatal” wound to her left chest that broke a rib and punctured a lung twice, indicating the knife had been thrust two times through the same wound; two “slash” wounds to her neck, one of which was “potentially fatal”; five shallow “defense-type” wounds to her fingers and wrists; diagonal, “shallow,” “slash type” wounds across her neck; and a “fatal” wound to her upper left back that entered her chest and injured her aorta. There was a small tear on her lip, and bruises and abrasions on her left arm, her head above her eyebrow, and her pelvis. Elmer had two shallow wounds to his throat; a “fatal” wound to his left chest that broke a rib and wounded a lung; a “fatal” stab wound to his left chest that entered his heart and broke a rib; and two wounds to his chest. The fatal stab wound to his heart was three and one-half inches deep and five-eighths of an inch wide. Elmer also had defensive wounds on his right hand and wrists, and bruising on his right forearm. After the murders, the Bensons’ children and other family members went through the Bensons’ house and belongings, checking for missing items. As previously noted, they did not find all of the coins they expected to find. They also did not find Gladys’s wallet, checkbook, and credit cards, which Gladys kept in her purse, the “pink slips” for some of the Bensons’ vehicles, or the envelope in which the Bensons kept those pink slips, which was marked “DMV” or “pink slips” and kept in an organizer on a desk. They did, however, find the pink slip to Gladys’s Jeep Cherokee in a dresser in Gladys’s bedroom, and the pink slip to defendant’s car in an envelope at the back of the Bensons’ file organizer. Also found were antique and other coins, several thousand dollars in cash hidden throughout the Bensons’ house, jewelry in Gladys’s bedroom, Elmer’s wallet containing credit cards and a $100 bill in a tray near the kitchen door, and firearms throughout the house. Gladys’s missing credit cards were never used after the murders. Marta Contreras, a paralegal supervisor with the Los Angeles County Public Defender, interviewed Sarahi Aleman, who was one of the employees of the El Paraíso bar whom defendant drove home on the morning of February 11. Contreras testified that, during the interview, Aleman discussed conversations she had had with defendant’s wife, Maria, after defendant’s arrest. According to Contreras, Sarahi stated during the interview that Maria told her an extensive relationship between defendant and another woman had placed a great strain on their marriage, and that financial difficulties had caused other marital problems. 2. Defense Evidence Family members and former coworkers testified regarding the circumstances of defendant’s life, including his early years in Mexico, his parents’ separation, the four-to-five-year period he lived with his aunt after his mother moved to Los Angeles, his move to Los Angeles to be reunited with his mother, his mother’s remarriage, his own marriage and the birth of his two daughters, his work in Mexico as a police officer, his employment, and his various residences over the years. Friends, family members, and former coworkers also testified that defendant had never been violent or aggressive, is peaceful and honest, respects the property rights of others, and is a good husband and father. Defendant offered numerous documents from Mexico indicating he had no criminal record there. Several defense witnesses testified about defendant’s relationship with the Bensons. Defendant first moved next door to the Bensons in 1990. He lived there until early 1995, when he moved to New Mexico. He moved back to the house next to the Bensons in late 1995 or January 1996. Defendant and his family had a very friendly relationship with the Bensons. Defendant’s daughter Jacqueline was especially close to them; they treated her like a granddaughter, and she called them her grandparents. Defendant frequently helped them without pay—fixing appliances, doing yard work, servicing their vehicles—and had been welcome in their home “[s]ince 1990, up to the date when” the crimes occurred. Defendant went to the Bensons’ house “all the time,” and once visited Elmer in the hospital. Elmer often visited defendant’s house, and defendant’s family invited the Bensons to family gatherings. Defendant’s wife, Maria Barron, testified that on Saturday, February 10, defendant left the house between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. to meet a friend, Jose Garcia, and play pool. He returned home around 4:00 a.m.—she was not sure of the time—and lay down next to her fully dressed. He arose again around 6:30 or 7:00 a.m., and told her he was going to see his friend Juan. Around 8:00 a.m., Jacqueline went to the Bensons’ house to borrow a typewriter. She came back crying and screaming, and said Elmer had something red on his chest. Maria, Jacqueline, Ivan and others went to the Bensons’ house to investigate. Ivan called police, and paramedics arrived around 9:00 a.m. Around 9:30 or 10:00 a.m., while Maria was watching the events from her front porch, defendant returned, still wearing the same clothes he had been wearing the previous night. Defendant said he was cold, so Maria gave him a sweater, took the shirt he was wearing, and put it on a bunk bed inside their house. She never saw any blood on defendant’s clothing or shoes. She knew defendant had borrowed $100 from the Bensons, and said he was scheduled to receive a $2,403 income tax refund. She also said her family collected all kinds of coins and that defendant carried old coins because of her “belief that if you have an old coin, then you will never lack any money, so we would always have plenty of money.” She brought a 1941 Mercury head dime to court and said she had “a lot more at home.” Sarahi Aleman testified that when she arrived for work at the El Paraíso bar at 9:00 p.m. on February 10, defendant was already at the bar sitting by himself with a bucket of beers. When the bar closed, defendant drove her and two other bar employees to their respective homes. Defendant had a six-pack of beer in the car and asked Sarahi if he could drink some of the beers in her house. She invited him in and he drank three beers while inside. He left sometime after 3:30 a.m., offering to give her a ride home the following day. Aleman denied that Maria had told her about any extramarital affair or other marital or financial difficulties involving defendant, and did not remember saying anything about these subjects to Contreras, the public defender’s paralegal supervisor. Jose Garcia testified he went to the El Paraíso bar on February 10 between 11:30 p.m. and midnight and saw defendant, whom he had known for three or four years, sitting alone drinking a beer. They spent the evening talking, drinking beer, and playing pool. Defendant appeared to be in a pleasant mood and nothing seemed to be bothering him. He did not appear intoxicated. At closing time, defendant waited for Sarahi, and Jose waited for another female bar employee. After the women arrived, Jose and defendant went their separate ways. B. Penalty Phase 1. Prosecution Evidence The prosecution played a 14-minute videotaped montage of still photographs depicting the Bensons’ lives. While the videotape played, Linda Bouffard testified about what the photographs depicted. She also testified about how she learned of, and was affected by, her parents’ murders. Micki Downey testified about how she learned of her parents’ murders and how their deaths affected her and her two children. Two of the Bensons’ grandchildren testified about their memories of the Bensons, how they learned of the murders, and how the murders affected them and their families. 2. Defense Evidence Janett and Jacqueline Zamudio, defendant’s daughters, testified that during the two years defendant had been in jail, he stayed in touch with his family by telephone and letter. He sent them drawings and letters, gave them advice, and encouraged them to do well in school. Jacqueline read many of defendant’s letters to his family and described the accompanying drawings. She also testified she had done well in school and that teachers had called her an excellent, exceptional, and outstanding student. II. Discussion A. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Before trial, defendant moved under section 1538.5 to suppress the shoes, pants, shirt, socks, watch, ring, and coins the police collected from him, and all fruits of that evidence, i.e., all of his statements to the police. He argued that any consent he gave to police to examine his shoes was the product of unlawful police detention and that the other items were all discovered as a result of that unlawful detention. The trial court denied the motion, finding that although defendant “may have been a suspect” when he allowed the police to examine his shoes, “[t]here was not a custodial or a coercive environment,” “defendant was not in custody,” and he “freely and voluntarily” gave his shoes to police. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion. Where, as here, the prosecution relies on consent to justify a warrant-less search or seizure, it bears the “burden of proving that the defendant’s manifestation of consent was the product of his free will and not a mere submission to an express or implied assertion of authority. [Citation.]” (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 106 [137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135].) Consent that is the product of an illegal detention is not voluntary and is ineffective to justify a search or seizure. (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 507-508 [75 L.Ed.2d 229, 103 S.Ct. 1319] (plur. opn. of White, J.); Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 790-791 [195 Cal.Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325] (Wilson); People v. Shields (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073-1074 [252 Cal.Rptr. 849].) Where an illegal detention occurs, unless “subsequent events adequately dispel the coercive taint of the initial illegality, i.e., where there is no longer causality, the subsequent consent is” ineffective. (People v. $48,715 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1514 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 829]; see also Wilson, supra, at p. 791, fn. 12.) Under these principles, the threshold issue here is whether defendant was detained when he gave consent. As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “ ‘[N]ot all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves “seizures” of persons.’ ” (Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 U.S. 429, 434 [115 L.Ed.2d 389, 111 S.Ct. 2382].) In this context, a seizure occurs only “when the officer, ‘ “by means of physical force or show of authority,” ’ terminates or restrains [a person’s] freedom of movement [citation] ‘through means intentionally applied . . .’ [citation].” (Brendlin v. California (2007) 551 U.S. 249, 254 [168 L.Ed.2d 132, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2405].) The dispositive question is whether, “ ‘in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he [or she] was not free to leave . . .’ [citation].” (Id. at p. 255 [127 S.Ct. at p. 2405].) “[W]hen a person ‘has no desire to leave’ for reasons unrelated to the police presence, the ‘coercive effect of the encounter’ can be measured better by asking whether ‘a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter . . .’ [citations].” (Id. at p. 255 [127 S.Ct. at pp. 2405-2406].) The test is “objective,” not subjective; it looks to “the intent of the police as objectively manifested” to the person confronted. (Id. at p. 260 [127 S.Ct. at p. 2408].) Accordingly, an “officer’s uncommunicated state of mind and the individual citizen’s subjective belief are irrelevant. . . .” (In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 821 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 701, 941 P.2d 880].) Whether a seizure occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent review. (Cf. Thompson v. Keohane (1995) 516 U.S. 99, 102 [133 L.Ed.2d 383, 116 S.Ct. 457] [whether a suspect is “ ‘in custody’ ” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent review]; People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 120 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 212, 91 P.3d 164] [same].) Accordingly, “we review the trial court’s findings of historical fact under the deferential substantial evidence standard, but decide the ultimate constitutional question independently. [Citations.]” (Holloway, supra, at p. 120.) We must accept factual inferences in favor of the trial court’s ruling. (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 831 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394, 889 P.2d 588].) If there is conflicting testimony, we must accept the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and inferences, its evaluations of credibility, and the version of events most favorable to the People, to the extent the record supports them. (Ibid.; People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 263 [256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610].) Applying this standard of review and based on the testimony at the suppression hearing, at which defendant testified, we reject defendant’s claim that his consent to police examination of his shoes was the product of unlawful police detention. A little before 1:30 p.m. on February 11, after examining the crime scene, Detective van Lierop went to the house next door and approached defendant and other members of his family, who were standing outside on the front porch. According to van Lierop, after identifying himself and showing his badge, he “asked” if defendant, his daughter Jacqueline, and his nephew Ivan, would go to the South Gate police station to be interviewed as potential witnesses and to provide background information on the victims. Van Lierop said “something to the effect that [the officers] would like Ivan and . . . Jacqueline and also [defendant] to accompany [the officers] to the police station so [they] can ask them questions pertaining to the Bensons’ habits and any other information that they may have pertaining to the Bensons.” Defendant confirmed that van Lierop informed him the police wanted to talk to him “as a potential witness, not as a suspect.” Defendant also testified he “believed” van Lierop at the time. According to van Lierop, defendant “was very willing” to go to the station and did not object to the request “in any way or show any hesitation or any unwillingness.” Defendant confirmed that he did not indicate he did not want to go to the station, and stated he “said yes” when the police told him they wanted him to come with them “as a potential witness.” Approximately 1:30 p.m., one uniformed patrol officer, with gun and badge visible, drove defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan two blocks to the police station in a marked police car. They all sat in the backseat; no one was handcuffed or patted down for weapons. There was no cage between the car’s front and back seats, but the car’s back doors could not be opened from inside (as was the case with all of the department’s cars). Defendant testified he “didn’t feel [he was] in custody when [he was] taken in the police car” to the station. Van Lierop testified that at the station, defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan were put together in a “break” or “conference room directly adjacent to the main part of the detective bureau,” which contained a long table inside with about eight chairs, a refrigerator, and a coffeepot, and which was “attached or directly adjacent to” restrooms. Each was then separately interviewed by van Lierop and Miley in an “interview room” approximately “10-by-10” and containing “a small table and about 4 or 5 chairs.” The interview room was not in “the jail part of the police station,” but was “attached to the opposite end of the main part of the detective bureau” in “a nonsecure area” where “the detectives do their normal daily duties.” As each was questioned in the interview room, the other two waited together in the conference room. An officer was assigned to the conference room area. According to van Lierop and Miley, the officer was assigned to the area, not to ensure that defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan did not leave, but to assist them in the event they needed anything and to keep them from nosing around the police department. Van Lierop did not know whether the officer actually sat in the conference room; defendant testified the officer was “always . . . guarding the door.” At no point was defendant handcuffed, and he was allowed to use the bathroom when he asked. Jacqueline and Ivan were interviewed first, each for 20 minutes or less. Defendant was then interviewed for 20 or 25 minutes, beginning about 2:20 p.m. He was not advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602]), and was instead told by Miley “he was not under arrest” or “in custody” and “it was not an interrogation.” According to van Lierop, the questioning was not “hostile or menacing in any fashion.” Miley similarly testified that no accusations were made against defendant. During the interview, defendant did not in any way suggest he was involved in the crime, and he “generally” provided “background information . . . about how he knew the victims, what he knew about them, when he’ [d] seen them, that sort of thing.” He also gave an account of his activities during the relevant timeframe. At the detectives’ request, defendant also gave them permission to return to his residence to look for shoes matching the shoe prints on the floor of the Bensons’ house. After the interview, defendant returned to the conference room where Jacqueline and Ivan were waiting. They waited there while van Lierop and Miley returned to defendant’s residence. Defendant asked to make a telephone call and, about 20 minutes later, was allowed to make the call. The officers did not find any matching shoes at defendant’s residence. They did, however, interview defendant’s wife, and she gave them information about defendant’s activities during the previous day that did not match the information defendant had given. The officers returned to the station and, shortly after 4:00 p.m., again talked with defendant, this time in the large conference room. Defendant was not given his Miranda rights and the interview was not recorded because, according to Miley, defendant “was still considered a witness” and department policy was not to “tape-record witnesses.” According to van Lierop, Miley told defendant he was not in custody, and defendant said “he wanted to help any way he could.” Miley testified that no accusations were made against defendant during the second interview, but both officers testified they told defendant about the discrepancies between his statements and his wife’s. In response, defendant amended his prior statement regarding his activities but did not indicate in any way he had participated in the murders. According to Miley, he then asked defendant, “do you mind if I look at your shoes?” According to van Lierop, defendant “said sure,” and “something to the effect that we could certainly look at his shoes if it would help in the investigation.” According to Miley, defendant said something like, “No, help yourself.” Both officers testified that defendant then reached down, removed his shoes, and gave them to Miley. Miley testified that defendant did so “almost energetically.” Defendant testified that when the officers asked for his shoes, he “said yes” and gave them his shoes. He also testified he “had no reason” not to want to give them his shoes, he “didn’t mind” and “didn’t care,” and although the officers used a “tone of voice like it’s an order,” they did not threaten him or act “mean” towards him. In view of all of the circumstances, we conclude that before giving the officers his shoes, defendant was not detained within meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence in the record supports the conclusion that there was no threat or application of force, no intimidating movement, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, and no command associated with the officers’ request that defendant come to the police station. (See United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, 204 [153 L.Ed.2d 242, 122 S.Ct. 2105].) Defendant was not taken to the station alone; he was accompanied by his daughter and nephew. All three were told the police wanted to speak with them as potential witnesses, not as suspects, and none of them was ever patted down for weapons or handcuffed. As noted above, defendant himself testified he “didn’t feel [he was] in custody when [he was] taken in the police car” to the station. At the station, defendant was left waiting in a large conference room in a nonsecure area with various accessible amenities (bathroom, refrigerator, coffeepot) while his daughter and nephew were interviewed. Before his first interview, defendant was not given his Miranda rights, and was instead told that he was not under arrest, that he was not in custody, and that the interview was not an interrogation. The questioning, which lasted no more than 25 minutes, was not at all hostile, menacing, or accusatory. With defendant’s permission, the officers returned to defendant’s residence to look for evidence. While they were gone, defendant waited in an nonsecure conference room and was allowed, upon his request, to make a telephone call. When the officers returned to continue the interview about an hour and a half later, they again told defendant he was not in custody, and defendant said “he wanted to help any way he could.” Although the officers told defendant about the discrepancies between his statements and his wife’s, they did not make accusations against him. According to defendant’s own testimony, when the officers asked if they could look at his shoes, they did not threaten him or act “mean” towards him. Given these circumstances, a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would not have believed he or she was not free to leave, to decline the officers’ requests, or to otherwise terminate the encounter. In arguing otherwise, defendant relies heavily on his view that “from the very beginning” of the investigation, the officers saw him as “a prime suspect.” Defendant’s view is not consistent with the officers’ testimony regarding the point at which, or the extent to which, they considered him a suspect. Moreover, aside from issues of testimonial credibility, an officer’s “beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individuad being questioned” are relevant to determining whether a seizure occurred “only if’ those beliefs “were somehow manifested to the individual” being interviewed—“by word or deed”—and “would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave.” (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [128 L.Ed.2d 293, 114 S.Ct. 1526].) Indeed, “[e]ven a clear statement from an officer that the person under interrogation is a prime suspect is not, in itself, dispositive of the . . . issue, for some suspects are free to come and go until the police decide to make an arrest. The weight and pertinence of any communications regarding the officer’s degree of suspicion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” (Ibid) According to the record here, before being given defendant’s shoes, the officers made no statement indicating they viewed defendant as a suspect, let alone a prime suspect. And, although they told defendant of discrepancies between his statement and his wife’s, immediately before doing so they again informed him he was not in custody. On this record, defendant’s reliance on the officers’ supposed view of his role in the crime is unavailing. Other circumstances on which defendant relies are also unpersuasive. Defendant notes the officers had badges and weapons and were wearing uniforms. However, the high court has held that these factors “have little weight in the analysis” for determining whether a seizure occurred. (United States v. Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 204.) Defendant also notes that an officer was stationed in or around the conference room where he waited and was interviewed the second time. However, van Lierop and Miley testified that the officer was assigned to the area not to ensure that defendant, Jacqueline, and Ivan did not leave, but to assist them in the event they needed anything and to keep them from nosing around the police department. Nothing in defendant’s testimony suggests the officer did anything to make defendant, who was expressly told he was not in custody and was not under arrest, believe the officer would have prevented defendant from leaving. Notably, in several cases, the high court has rejected reliance on analogous circumstances in finding no seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (See Drayton, supra, at pp. 198-205 [no seizure where police officer displaying a badge and carrying a concealed weapon knelt on driver’s seat of bus and faced the passengers while two other officers questioned the passengers without informing them of their right to refuse to cooperate]; INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 212-219 [80 L.Ed.2d 247, 104 S.Ct. 1758] [no seizure where armed agents displaying badges were stationed at factory exits while other agents walked around inside questioning workers without informing them they were free to leave].) Finally, defendant also notes that the officers never told him he did not have to talk or go with them, or that he was free to leave. However, the high court has “rejected ... the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse” police requests. (United States v. Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 206.) No “presumption of invalidity attaches if a citizen consented without explicit notification that he or she was free to refuse to cooperate.” {Id. at p. 207.) Although the officers here did not expressly inform defendant of his right to refuse their requests, they did advise him he was not under arrest and was not in custody, they did request permission to examine his shoes, and the totality of the circumstances indicates his consent was voluntary. 2. Excusing Juror for Cause Defendant asserts the trial court committed reversible error and violated his constitutional rights in excusing Juror No. 8812 during trial over his objection. For reasons set forth below, we reject the claim. On the morning of November 3, 1997, the trial court called counsel into chambers and stated: “There has been an issue raised with the bailiff, Juror Number [8812]. And we’ll see what his problem is.” The following exchange then occurred between the court and the juror: “The Court: Okay. Yes, sir, good morning, sir. “Juror No. 8812: Good morning, Judge. “The Court: Sit down. How are you today? “Juror No. 8812: Good. “The Court: Good, good. “Juror No. 8812: I’ve got a problem. My dad had an operation about 3 weeks ago. And yesterday he decided to stop treatment. And I don’t know if that’s going to pose a problem. We were told that he—he had a kidney dialysis before. And the doctor said that he might have two days, a couple weeks. And, you know, I don’t know if that’s going to pose a problem as far as— “The Court: Well, I mean, the problem is we want to accommodate you, obviously. This is your father, you say, right? “Juror No. 8812: Yes. “The Court: And obviously it would be a distraction for you. I would assume, worrying about your father. Where is he, by the way? “Juror No. 8812: In San Diego. “The Court: San Diego? Okay. I gather you want to get down to see him and be with him? “Juror No. 8812: We were there yesterday. And basically they accepted what his wishes was [mc]. But— “The Court: It’s just a question of time, in other words, you’re saying? “Juror No. 8812: Yes. “The Court: Okay. “[Defense Counsel]: I have no questions. “[The Prosecution]: I have no questions. “The Court: Okay. We’re going to talk it over, and I’m going to let you go back in. And I’ll let you know. Thank you very much.” In an ensuing discussion, the court expressed “concern” about “whether or not [Juror No. 8812] would be able to concentrate on this trial, particularly if his father is” dying. The court explained: “I don’t think we’re going to have a very receptive juror. He did indicate—I think the bottom line is that he does want to get down there with him. Based upon what he told me, I’ll find good cause, all right.” The prosecution then interjected: “For the record, this gentleman had expressed some sort of hardship earlier. And I remember he was one that said he didn’t think he could stay the length of the trial. The record will reflect what the nature of the hardship was. But one other time he asked to be excused, at least my understanding is he had problems.” The court responded: “But I am finding good cause based upon the father— medical authorities indicating to him there’s nothing they can do, and the having at most two weeks. And I got the impression that this juror was obviously visibly concerned by the condition of his father. So I’m going to find good cause and excuse this juror.” Defense counsel then stated: “I object to that. I do not feel good cause was shown. The father is about 125 miles away. . . . And it’s really uncertain when the father will die. So based upon everything, I do not feel good cause was shown.” Back in open court, without the jury present, the court stated: “We were notified by the bailiff this morning that Juror Number [8812] had a personal family problem. We conducted a hearing in chambers regarding that problem .... And based upon what was heard in chambers, the court did make a finding of good cause over the objection of defense counsel . . . .” The court then identified the replacement juror. Under section 1089, a court may discharge a juror who, “upon . . . good cause shown to the court is found unable to perform his or her duty . . . .” We review a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror for good cause “for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The juror’s inability to perform the functions of a juror must appear in the record as a ‘demonstrable reality’ and will not be presumed. [Citation.] The trial court’s finding [that] ‘good cause’ exists will be upheld on appeal if substantial evidence supports it. [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1158 [40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321].) We reject defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it found good cause to discharge Juror No. 8812. “We have in the past rejected similar claims in similar circumstances. (See People v. Cunningham [(2001) 25 Cal.4th 926,] 1028-1030 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519] [juror’s father near death after suffering stroke]; People v. Ashmus [(1991) 54 Cal.3d 932,] 986-987 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214] [death of juror’s mother]; In re Mendes (1979) 23 Cal.3d 847, 852 [153 Cal.Rptr. 831, 592 P.2d 318] [death of juror’s brother].)” (People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1409-1410 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973] (Leonard) [death of juror’s father-in-law].) In arguing otherwise, defendant emphasizes that Juror No. 8812 never asked to be discharged. However, in cases involving the death or impending death of a juror’s relative, we have rejected the view that a specific request for discharge is necessary to establish good cause; “no such request is required. [Citation.]” (Leonard, supra, at p. 1410.) Defendant also asserts that, “[b]ecause the court cut Juror No. 8812 off when he tried to say what [his] ‘problem’ might be,” the “record is silent” as to whether Juror No. 8812 needed or wanted to be with his father and could continue serving, and improperly “engaged in speculation when it assumed that Juror No. 8812’s father’s condition” would be a distraction. However, a juror’s “behavior and demeanor [may] suppl[y] substantial evidence . . .” of good cause for discharge. (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 489 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373].) Here, as the People argue, that Juror No. 8812 brought this issue to the court’s attention by notifying the bailiff he had a personal family problem is evidence his father’s impending death would likely affect his ability to serve. Also.supporting this conclusion is the court’s observation on the record that Juror No. 8812 “was obviously visibly concerned by the condition of his father.” Although it may have aided our review had the court questioned Juror No. 8812 regarding his state of mind or had he affirmatively stated on the record his ability and willingness, or lack thereof, “such inquiry ... is not required.” (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 891 P.2d 153].) On this record, no abuse of discretion appears. 3. Admitting Linda Bouffard’s Testimony The prosecution’s theory of robbery, robbery felony murder, and the robbery special circumstance depended in part on the taking during the homicides of Gladys’s wallet containing money, checks and credit cards. Apparently to establish that the wallet was in the Bensons’ home at the time of the crimes, the prosecution asked Linda Bouffard whether her mother, Gladys, ever said anything “about her wallet being taken or stolen or lost or anything like that.” Defense counsel objected that the question “call[ed] for hearsay,” and the court responded: “I think if it is, it’s an exception, perhaps, under a spontaneous declaration. Overruled.” Defense counsel made similar hearsay objections, which the trial court also overruled, when the prosecution followed up by asking whether Gladys ever said her credit cards or checks had been stolen or taken or “anything like that.” Bouffard answered “no” to all of these questions. On appeal, defendant asserts this testimony was hearsay and its admission was both error under the Evidence Code and a violation of his constitutional rights. We reject defendant’s argument because, as the People assert, the evidence was not hearsay. “ ‘Hearsay evidence’ is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.” (Evid. Code, § 1200, subd. (a), italics added.) Defendant is arguing that Gladys’s failure to say anything about the items being missing or taken—i.e., her silence regarding these matters—constitutes “a statement that was made” for purposes of the hearsay rule. (Ibid.) However, “nonverbal conduct”—such as a person’s silence—constitutes a “statement” under the hearsay rule only if it was “intended by [the person] as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression.” (Id., § 225.) Indeed, as defendant explains in his brief, regarding this issue, Gladys made “no qualifying statement, spontaneous or otherwise.” Because nothing suggests Gladys intended her failure to say anything about the loss or theft of her wallet, checks, or credit cards, to be “a substitute for oral or written verbal expression” (ibid.), Bouffard’s testimony to that effect was not hearsay. (Cf. People v. Snow (1987) 44 Cal.3d 216, 227 [242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452] [“nonassertive responses or reactions,” such as defendant’s lack of reaction upon hearing news of victim’s death, are not hearsay].) We also reject defendant’s argument that, by “rul[ing] three times in the jury’s presence that what Mrs. Benson did not tell [Bouffard] about her wallet, credit cards and checks was admissible as spontaneous declarations,” the trial court “elevated Mrs. Benson’s alleged silence ... to assertive nonconduct . . . which constitutes hearsay.” Even were it legally possible to find that a trial court’s ruling on a hearsay objection transforms nonhearsay into hearsay—a question we need not decide—the record here would not warrant such a finding. That record does not support defendant’s characterization of the trial court’s ruling: that Gladys’s silence—i.e., her failure to say anything—constituted a spontaneous declaration. Rather, it reflects a ruling that if Gladys did say something to her daughter about the matters in question, those statements would constitute spontaneous declarations. Because the jury would not have understood the trial court’s ruling as defendant suggests, his argument that the trial court’s ruling elevated Gladys’s silence into assertive nonverbal conduct fails. 4. Testimony That Evidence Was Sent to Defense Laboratory During her testimony about the testing of the items taken from defendant upon his arrest, criminalist Gisele LaVigne stated that although the tests showed the presence of blood on defendant’s ring, she did not perform additional tests to determine whether the blood was from a human or an animal. In explaining why, she stated: “The stain [from the ring] was so small, that I would have consumed it had I attempted to do any additional analysis.” The prosecution then asked why LaVigne was “concem[ed] about consuming all of the blood,” and she replied: “Well, my initial concern is that I want to get the most information from that stain. But I also want to keep in mind that if this case is going to be analyzed by a defense lab, I need to leave a little bit of the sample for them to be able to reexamine.” The prosecution then asked whether “that was done in this case,” and LaVigne replied: “The evidence was released to a defense lab.” Defense counsel “objected] to [this] answer and ask[ed] that it be stricken,” explaining: “The appointment of the defense lab was done confidentially. I think it’s improper that the jury be informed that a defense lab was appointed. And I think that definitely prejudices the defense case. The preliminary indication being if I don’t put any defense evidence on, the jury will come to the conclusion that the defense lab’s analysis does not help the defense case. So, therefore, I would ask for a mistrial at this point.” The prosecution responded that (1) “defense lab work is not covered by the attomey/client privilege,” (2) “chain of custody” is “something I’m going to have to go into with” LaVigne because defendant “filed a written motion contesting” that issue, and (3) “it’s fair comment. . . that counsel did have a split [of the blood samples] done . . . and then didn’t put anybody on.” The court then stated: “I’m going to decline to grant the mistrial. I don’t see any prejudice to the question—or the question itself.” Defense counsel then stated his intent to “object every time any mention is made of defense lab or defense testing or lack of clothing because it’s in the hands of the defense lab, etc., unless the court will deem that to be a continuing objection.” With the prosecution’s consent, the court ruled that “any reference by this witness to material going to the defense or defense lab will be deemed objected to by defense counsel.” LaVigne later testified on direct examination that “[t]he clothing items were released to a defense lab, and according to the record, they have not been returned yet.” On redirect examination, the prosecution asked: “[Y]our results and the evidence in this case [were] sent to a defense laboratory, is that correct?” Defense counsel objected, “incorporat[ing]” his earlier argument “by reference.” After the court overruled the objection, the prosecution asked: “It was all sent to a defense lab?” LaVigne replied: “Yes, it was.” Defendant claims the trial court prejudicially erred in permitting LaVigne to testify she sent the tested evidence and her test results to a defense laboratory. In his opening brief, he asserts that admission of this evidence “deprived [him] of his right to effective assistance of counsel, and denied him his rights to a fair trial and to due process under the federal and state Constitutions.” He argues that “the defense’s access to the blood evidence . . . was a direct exercise of [his] Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance counsel,” and that “[b]y adducing evidence regarding the exercise of that right to bolster the prosecution case, the prosecutor unfairly made the assertion of that right costly.” In his reply brief, defendant takes a seemingly different tack, explaining that “the thrust of [his] argument is that the prosecutor’s improper questions and LaVigne’s answers thereto disclosed confidential information protected by the work product privilege, and left [the] jury with the obvious impression that the reason the defense did not offer any expert testimony . . . was that the defense expert’s analysis . . . was the same as the prosecution’s.” Initially, this record presents substantial questions regarding defendant’s ability to raise these arguments on appeal. As the discussion above demonstrates, at trial, defense counsel did not offer a constitutional basis for his objection. Under these circumstances, a constitutional claim is not cognizable on appeal unless (1) it “is of a kind (e.g., failure to instruct sua sponte; erroneous instruction affecting defendant’s substantial rights) that required no trial court action by the defendant to preserve it, or (2) the new arguments do not invoke facts or legal standards different from those the trial court itself was asked to apply, but merely assert that the trial court’s act or omission, insofar as wrong for the reasons actually presented to that court, had the additional legal consequence of violating the Constitution.” (Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 441, fn. 17.) Defendant’s constitutional claims do not fall under the former exception. Thus, they are cognizable only to the extent they do not involve facts or legal standards different from those defendant presented to the trial court. In other words, defendant “may not [now] argue on appeal that [constitutional provisions] required exclusion of the evidence for reasons other than those articulated in his . . . argument” at trial. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765] (Partida).) Defendant’s work product argument also faces procedural hurdles. For one, defendant first raised it in his reply brief. “Normally, a contention may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief. [Citation.]” (People v. Peevy (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1184, 1206 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 865, 953 P.2d 1212]; see also People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 349-350 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84] [“By waiting until his reply brief to argue that the prosecution’s use of strikes should be subjected to a comparative juror analysis, [defendant] has forfeited the issue.”].) Perhaps more importantly, it appears that defendant did not adequately invoke the work product privilege in objecting at trial. Under California law, error in admitting evidence may not be the basis for reversing a judgment or setting aside a verdict unless “an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence . . . was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a), italics added.) “In accordance with this statute, we have consistently held that the ‘defendant’s failure to make a timely and specific objection’ on the ground asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable. [Citations.]” (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742].) Although no “particular form of objection” is required, the objection must “fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 435.) Defendant’s objection did not fairly inform the trial court or the prosecution that defendant was objecting on work product grounds. As set forth above, in objecting to LaVigne’s testimony, defense counsel stated only that “[t]he appointment of the defense lab was done confidentially,” that it was “improper [for] the jury [to], be informed that a defense lab was appointed,” and that this information “prejudice[d] the defense case” by supporting “the conclusion that the defense lab’s analysis does not help the defense case.” At no point did defense counsel mention the work product privilege or in any way indicate—for example, by citing a relevant statute or decision—that the work product privilege was the basis for his claim of confidentiality. In short, defendant is now impermissibly seeking to “assertQ [on appeal] a different theory for exclusion than he asserted at trial.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 438.) In any event, defendant’s work product claim fails on its merits. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, work product generally enjoys one of two levels of protection in California. Subdivision (a) of that section establishes absolute protection for “[a] writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories”; such writings are “not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Subdivision (b) of that section establishes qualified protection for work product “other than a writing described in subdivision (a)”; such material is “not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).) In 1990, by passing Proposition 115, the electorate enacted Penal Code section 1054.6, which currently provides in relevant part: “Neither the defendant nor the prosecuting attorney is required to disclose any materials or information which are work product as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2018.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . .” (Italics added.) Through its reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subdivision (a), Penal Code section 1054.6 “ ‘expressly limits the definition of “work product” in criminal cases to “core” work product, that is, any writing reflecting “an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” ’ ” (Garcia v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 63, 68, fn. 2 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 948, 163 P.3d 939], italics added.) The evidence in question here—LaVigne’s testimony about the prosecution’s actions in sending the tested items and the test results to a defense laboratory—does not qualify as a “writing that reflects” defense counsel’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Nor does anything in the record suggest the testimony derived from any such writing. The admission of this evidence therefore did not contravene the work product privilege as it applies in criminal cases. (Cf. Pope v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 207 S.W.3d 352, 354—355 [work product privilege does not preclude prosecution’s DNA testing experts from testifying they forwarded their reports to another expert].) In arguing otherwise, defendant relies on People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081] (Coddington). There, during the sanity phase of the defendant’s trial, the prosecution asked the defendant’s testifying experts whether they were aware that three nontestifying defense experts also had evaluated the defendant, and emphasized in closing argument that the testifying defense experts had no knowledge of the nontestifying experts. {Id. at p. 604.) We found a violation of the work product privilege, reasoning that the prosecutor’s questioning and argument “contravened” the policies the privilege reflects. (Id. at p. 606.) Defendant’s reliance on Coddington is misplaced. Although we decided Coddington after section 1054.6’s enactment, our opinion did not mention that statute, and properly so. Because the trial in Coddington ended in 1989 (Coddington, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 547), before section 1054.6’s enactment, the statute was inapplicable in the case and irrelevant to our work product analysis. (See Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 [279 Cal.Rptr. 592, 807 P.2d 434].) Thus, as we explained in Coddington, the work product privilege there at issue extended beyond the writings now listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subdivision (a), to include “any other aspect of an attorney’s work product, unless denial of discovery would unfairly prejudice a party. [Citation.]” (Coddington, supra, at p. 605.) Here, by contrast, because defendant’s crimes and his trial occurred well after 1990, Penal Code section 1054.6 applies and strictly limits the scope of the work product privilege only to “writing[s] that reflect[] an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) As explained above, defendant’s work product claim fails under this restricted definition. 5. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Robbery “Robbery is the felonious taking of pe