Full opinion text
Opinion BAXTER, J. In 1979, a jury convicted defendant Richard Galvan Montiel of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189) and robbery (§ 211) of Gregorio Ante, the robbery of Eva Mankin, and the burglary (§ 459) of Ms. Man kin’s residence. Both the Mankin and Ante episodes occurred on January 13, 1979. With respect to the Ante crimes, the jury found true allegations that defendant personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and that the robbery was committed against an aged person (§ 1203.09, subds. (a), (b)(i), (iii)), with great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), and by personal use of a deadly weapon. Under the 1978 death penalty law, the jury also sustained special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) and intentionally for financial gain (id., subd. (a)(1)). When the jury was unable to reach a penalty verdict, a penalty mistrial was declared, a new jury was empanelled, and the issue of penalty was retried. The second jury sentenced defendant to death. We affirmed the guilt judgment, the various enhancements, and the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding. However, we set aside the financial-gain special circumstance and, for unrelated reasons, we reversed the penalty judgment. (People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910 [218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248] (Montiel I).) A third penalty trial took place in 1986, and defendant again received a death sentence. His automatic motion for modification of the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e) (hereafter § 190.4(e)) was denied. This appeal is automatic. Though errors occurred below, they were individually and cumulatively harmless by any applicable standard. (See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-449 [250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]; see also Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694-695 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-699, 104 S.Ct. 2052].) We will therefore affirm the death judgment. Facts 1. Crimes of January 13, 1979. a. Robbery of Eva Mankin. The prosecution presented the following undisputed evidence: On January 13, 1979, defendant was living at his parents’ home in Bakersfield. A neighbor, 74-year-old Eva Mankin, returned to her residence that morning with several bags of groceries. She placed her purse and keys on her front porch and began transferring the grocery bags from her car to the porch. As she did so, defendant approached with two small children and announced his intent to put away her groceries for her. Ms. Mankin declined help, but defendant insisted. She knew “something was wrong,” because his eyes were “stary and glary.” She unlocked the door and allowed defendant and the two children each to carry a bag into the house. The children emerged but defendant remained inside. Feigning calm, Ms. Mankin thanked him and gently told him he had to leave. She touched his shirt, led him out of the house, then closed and locked the door behind him. Defendant began banging on the door. Ms. Mankin telephoned the emergency operator and called to defendant that she was summoning the police. Nonetheless, he smashed the glass in the front door, reached in, unlocked the door from the inside, and entered the house. Ms. Mankin continued to protest that she had called the police, but defendant demanded her purse “two or three times,” then grabbed it and fled. She later recovered the purse from her front yard, but a checkbook, several bank books, her husband’s knife, and some cash were missing. She identified several of these items at trial. b. Murder of Gregorio Ante. The People introduced evidence that Gregorio Ante, a 78-year-old Bakersfield resident, was killed in his South King Street home around midday on January 13, 1979. The cause of death was a deep slash wound to the throat, which severed Gregorio’s carotid arteries and blocked his breathing passage. Moments before his death, Gregorio had received $200 in cash from his grandson Dennis Hall for the sale of a piano. Gregorio placed this money in the pocket of his T-shirt, over which he was wearing a Pendleton shirt. Gregorio then gave his son, Henry, $20 from that pocket to buy parts for a faucet repair. As Henry left to purchase the parts, he saw two men with a motorcycle in front of the house. Soon thereafter, David Ante, another of Gregorio’s grandsons, telephoned Gregorio and received no response. David immediately went to Gregorio’s residence and found his grandfather’s body. There was $180 in cash in Gregorio’s T-shirt pocket, but money was missing from his pants pockets, the living room and master bedroom had been ransacked, and a container of coins was missing from the house. Further evidence about this incident was presented by defense witness Victor Cordova. Victor, a seller and user of phencyclidene (PCP), testified as follows: Defendant arrived at the Cordova home during the morning of January 13. Also present were Victor’s wife Maury, and Maury’s mother and sister, Kathy and Lisa Davis. Defendant’s hands and arms were scratched and cut, and his shirt was bloody. His appearance, behavior, and incoherent speech indicated he was “loaded” on PCP. Victor cut a piece of dangling flesh from a deep wound on defendant’s left arm. Defendant registered no pain. Victor dressed the wound and gave defendant a fresh shirt. Defendant smoked part of a PCP cigarette furnished by Victor and continued his bizarre behavior and speech. He made advances to Kathy Davis, kept trying to wipe a mole from Lisa Davis’s face, and challenged Victor to “deck [him] . . . out.” Unwilling to cope with defendant in his intoxicated state, Victor decided to transport defendant to the home of defendant’s brother. The two men proceeded in that direction on Victor’s motorcycle. Near the intersection of Brundage and South King Streets, the motorcycle’s chain came off the sprocket. Victor pushed the disabled cycle to a nearby garage and telephoned his wife Maury for rescue. Meantime, defendant, who was carrying a can of beer in a sack, walked off briskly toward a nearby home on South King Street. Two or three minutes later, defendant returned and announced he had just “killed a guy.” Defendant seemed “concerned” about a beer can he had left in the victim’s house, and he demanded that Victor retrieve the can for him. When Victor refused, defendant reentered the house himself and soon returned holding the can. Using throat-slitting gestures to demonstrate his point, he then told Victor he had killed a man “like you would do a goat.” Maury soon arrived in the Cordovas’ pickup truck. With her were Tommy Stinnett and “Marlene,” defendant’s girlfriend. As the motorcycle was placed in the truck, defendant boasted to the others about the homicide; his tone was loud and “mean.” The boasting resumed after the group arrived back at the Cordova home. Victor and Maury took defendant into the bedroom and asked him what had happened. In response, defendant removed a sack from his pocket. The sack contained coins, some cash, and a bloody knife. Frightened, Victor took the knife and threw it into a nearby canal. Defendant continued to say and do things that made no sense. He squatted in a corner, staring blankly. When Maury used the phrase “Jesus Christ,” he told her sharply not to mention that name around him because he was the devil. Victor drove defendant and Marlene to a motel, registered in his own name, and left the couple in a room. Later that evening, Victor encountered defendant, still “loaded,” at the home of a mutual acquaintance. Victor asked defendant if he realized what he had done and advised defendant to flee to Mexico. Defendant gave Victor a penetrating look and nodded. On cross-examination, Victor admitted that several weeks before the 1986 retrial, he had encountered defendant in the Kern County jail. Defendant asked Victor to lie about the amount of PCP he had consumed on the day of the murder. 2. Mental state/intoxication evidence. Both parties introduced extensive evidence about defendant’s mental state and degree of intoxication during the Mantón and Ante crimes. As in 1979, the People presented Dr. Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacologist with particular expertise in the effects of PCP. In preparation for his 1979 testimony, Dr. Siegel had interviewed defendant and obtained defendant’s detailed accounts of his long-term drug history, his alcohol and drug consumption immediately before the crimes, and the crimes themselves. Dr. Siegel had also interviewed Victor and Maury Cordova, Lisa Davis, and Tommy Stinnett; further, he had reviewed certain 1979 trial testimony and examined police reports. Based on this previously obtained information, Dr. Siegel conceded in 1986 that defendant was “grossly intoxicated” by PCP and alcohol on January 13, 1979, and that defendant’s motor functions and judgment were somewhat impaired as a result. Dr. Siegel acknowledged that PCP had unpredictable effects, and that it can reduce impulse control, cause distorted perception, produce episodic partial amnesia, and exaggerate aggressive or violent tendencies. He further recognized that extended use of PCP can lead to a chronic mental disorder which includes momentary delusional episodes. Nonetheless, Dr. Siegel opined that on the day and at the time of the murder, defendant was not hallucinating, was “capable of some goal direction activity,” and “knew what he was doing.” Among other things, Dr. Siegel stressed defendant’s successful efforts to find and take money from Gregorio’s house, his immediate concerns about covering up his crime, and his relatively clear memory of the events. Defendant presented further evidence about his drug history, and about his alcohol and PCP consumption immediately preceding the January 1979 crimes. His parents recounted a pattern of substance abuse beginning with teenage glue sniffing and progressing to regular alcohol and PCP use during adulthood. His sister Irene testified that he had ingested large quantities of PCP on or about January 13, 1979. Other family members disclosed that he had been hallucinating and talking incoherently for several weeks before that date. Defendant also introduced the expert testimony of Dr. Louis Nuernberger, a psychiatrist formerly employed by the Department of Corrections. Between 1977 and 1981, Dr. Nuernberger had responsibility for inmate mental health concerns at San Quentin. He was assigned to evaluate defendant’s mental condition when defendant arrived on death row in 1979. In cooperation with a psychologist, Dr. Nuernberger interviewed defendant and reviewed his prison “central file” and psychological tests. Dr. Nuernberger had no specific background in psychopharmacology, but his prison duties made him familiar with the drug and criminal histories of defendant and numerous other inmates. Dr. Nuernberger opined that chronic drug abuse is both a cause and a result of deep lifelong alienation and depression. He conceded that defendant is legally “sane” and has no gross mental disorder apart from drug-induced “toxic dementia.” However, Dr. Nuernberger concluded that defendant’s “extended intoxication with PCP and alcohol” eroded his self-control and judgment, fragmented his personality and consciousness, and exaggerated his violent tendencies, so as to be “directly responsible for the homicide.” Dr. Nuernberger emphasized defendant’s cooperative and nonviolent behavior in the drug-free prison setting. 3. Other crimes. The prosecution presented evidence of five other violent episodes, one of which resulted in a felony conviction. Called as prosecution witnesses, defendant’s mother Hortencia, his father Richard, Sr., and his brother Antonio confirmed a 1968 scuffle between defendant and Antonio, in which Antonio received a three- to four-inch cut on his chest. However, Richard, Sr., and Hortencia claimed they had little recollection of the incident. They denied seeing defendant with a knife and denied telling responding deputies he had stabbed Antonio. Both denied any memory of violence by defendant toward Richard, Sr. Hortencia denied telling deputies the scuffle began when defendant tried to hit her with a telephone. Antonio denied knowing or believing that defendant had stabbed him. Deputy Sheriffs Leavell and Fowler then testified that they responded to the 1968 scuffle. At the scene, Hortencia and Richard, Sr., told the following story: During an argument at the home of defendant’s parents, defendant tried to hit Hortencia with a telephone. Antonio intervened, and the two brothers went outside to fight. Defendant carried a butcher knife with him. Shortly thereafter, Hortencia tried to separate the combatants and felt blood on Antonio’s shirt. Richard, Sr., stated defendant had cut Antonio and also said he himself had been beaten by defendant in the past. After the fight with Antonio ended, defendant’s parents reported, defendant had left the scene in a yellow or cream-colored 1957 Chevrolet. According to the deputies, they subsequently seized a butcher knife from a car matching that description which was parked near defendant’s residence. Rachel Montiel, defendant’s separated wife, confirmed a 1969 argument involving defendant, Rachel, and Rachel’s sister Yolanda Estrada. However, Rachel denied seeing defendant deliver a blow to the abdomen of Yolanda, who was then six months pregnant. Rachel insisted Yolanda attacked defendant and, though her testimony on the point is not entirely clear, appeared to state that defendant never struck back. Retired Deputy Sheriff Shell then testified that when he responded to the 1969 argument, Rachel told him defendant had struck both women and had hit Yolanda in the stomach. Deputy Leavell testified about a 1971 incident which occurred while he and Deputy Williams were on duty at the Kern County Fair. According to Leavell, he and Williams assumed custody of defendant after defendant’s arrest by other officers who had seen him wrestle a stuffed bear from an elderly woman. Defendant broke loose and ran; Leavell gave chase, tackled defendant, and handcuffed him after a “short fight.” Struggling all the way to the sheriff’s trailer, defendant threatened to kill the deputies’ wives and children and bum their homes. Two employees of a Foster Freeze restaurant testified that in 1972 defendant entered, brandished a small handgun, demanded money, and was given $30. One employee, Denise Brown, thought the gun “looked real,” but the other, Ronald Jones, said it looked like a starter pistol. When Jones chased defendant down an alley, defendant turned and fired twice. Jones ducked and was not hit. He heard no bullets. The abstract of judgment indicated that defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery for this incident, without enhancements for firearm or weapon use. Anthony Ramirez testified that he returned home one evening in 1973 to find defendant removing a television set from Ramirez’s apartment. Ramirez chased defendant, who turned and displayed a knife. The prosecution introduced evidence that defendant pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of burglary. 4. Other mitigating and rebuttal evidence. Various members of defendant’s family testified that the Montiels’ family life was happy, and that defendant was well behaved and a good student until he chose the wrong friends and became involved with drugs and alcohol in high school. These witnesses indicated that defendant was always respectful and nonviolent toward his parents, that family members visited and wrote him in jail and prison, and that they loved him. Richard, Sr., and Hortencia specifically denied that defendant had been violent toward them. Rachel admitted that defendant had a drinking problem during their marriage, and that defendant sometimes became violent when drunk. Defendant presented evidence of his rehabilitation on death row. Harry Howard, a prison chaplain, testified that defendant regularly attended voluntary religious services. Salvatore Russo, a prison teacher, said defendant tried to improve his reading, writing, and mathematics skills and made progress in these areas. Norman Davis, a guard supervisor, testified that defendant presented no behavioral problems in San Quentin. Emanuel Edward, a jail guard, gave similar evidence about defendant’s conduct in the Kern County jail. Defendant testified in his own behalf. He described the confined life of a condemned inmate but indicated his good behavior had qualified him for maximum death row privileges. He confirmed the religious, educational, and artistic interests he had developed in prison, and a painting he had done was admitted into evidence. Defendant indicated that, over time, he had developed empathy and remorse about Gregorio’s murder, saying he knew “what it is to lose a loved one.” Defendant indicated he would give his life to bring the victim back to life if that were possible. However, he admitted on cross-examination that his Christian principles did not include full literal agreement with the maxim “an eye for an eye.” Pretrial and Jury Selection Issues 1. Court’s ex parte meeting with cocounsel Fuller. On the morning of October 21, 1986, just before the second day of jury selection began, a chambers conference took place on the record, in defendant’s presence, among appointed lead defense counsel Robert Birchfield, appointed cocounsel Peggy Fuller, the prosecutor, and the court. Birchfield said he and Fuller had decided, with defendant’s concurrence, that for reasons of efficiency Birchfield should be “primarily involved in the courtroom presentation” while Fuller undertook research and coordination duties outside the courtroom. Fuller confirmed these points. The court commented that the proposed division of labor “made sense” and suggested that Birch-field ask prospective jurors whether they would be influenced by Fuller’s periodic absences from court. Earlier the same morning, Fuller had met ex parte with Judge Ferguson, who was presiding at defendant’s trial. In April 1990, an evidentiary hearing was held before Judge King to settle what occurred during this unreported meeting. The resulting settled statement declares in substance as follows: About 8:30 a.m. on October 21, 1986, Fuller asked to see Judge Ferguson on a “personal matter.” In a “very brief’ meeting, Fuller told him she was “concerned about the general manner in which [Birchfield] was handling the case and ... did not know what to do.” “As a solution,” she and Judge Ferguson “discussed the possibility that in the future, [she] could do legal research for the defense outside of the courtroom rather than participating personally in the courtroom proceedings.” She had previously discussed with Birchfield this change in her role. Defendant argues from these facts that he was denied his state and federal constitutional right to effective, conflict-free representation. He reasons as follows: By disclosing uncertainty how to handle her reservations about Birchfield’s performance, Fuller revealed a “conflict” between her representational duties, on the one hand, and her concerns for her own professional reputation and her desire not to embarrass Birchfield, on the other. The court violated its duty to pursue and resolve a potential conflict brought to its attention, and defendant was given no opportunity to waive the conflict with full knowledge. (See People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 836-837 [254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460].) Hence, reversal is required, because the record shows (see Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 272-274 [67 L.Ed.2d 220, 230-232, 101 S.Ct. 1097]; Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 837-838), or at least permits informed speculation (see Holloway v. Arkansas (1978) 435 U.S. 475, 484-491 [55 L.Ed.2d 426, 434-439, 98 S.Ct. 1173]; People v. Mroczko (1983) 35 Cal.3d 86, 105 [197 Cal.Rptr. 52, 672 P.2d 835]), that the conflict prevented Fuller from seeking Birchfield’s removal, withdrawing, or participating fully at trial, and thus adversely affected her performance. However, the record does not support defendant’s elaborate claims of a constitutional “conflict.” At most, the evidence indicates that at a particular moment, Fuller had unspecified disagreements with lead counsel’s conduct of the case, briefly sought Judge Ferguson’s advice about how to proceed, and ultimately confined herself to noncourtroom activities. There is no indication that Fuller was motivated by anything except her sense of professional obligation. (Compare Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d 808 [“book rights” fee arrangement; counsel’s prior relationship with accomplice]; People v. Singer (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 23 [275 Cal.Rptr. 911] [counsel secretly dated defendant’s wife]; People v. Jackson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 829 [213 Cal.Rptr. 521] [counsel secretly dated prosecutor].) Good faith tactical differences among cocounsel are not uncommon, and they do not create a “conflict of interest” in the constitutional sense. The state and federal Constitutions do not demand complete compatibility among appointed cocounsel (cf. Morris v. Slappy (1981) 461 U.S. 1, 14 [75 L.Ed.2d 610, 621-622, 103 S.Ct. 1610] [Sixth Amendment does not guarantee “meaningful relationship” between accused and appointed counsel]), require judicial inquiry into any and all signs of disagreement, or mandate particular working relationships within the defense team. The instant record discloses no “fundamental” breakdown among defendant, Birchfield, and Fuller (cf., e.g., People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1163-1164 [259 Cal.Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730] [dispute between defendant and counsel not so “fundamental” as to “substantially impair” right to effective counsel]), nor does it indicate that the logical division of attorney responsibility endorsed by the trial court had the slightest adverse effect on the defense. No basis appears for a finding of reversible conflict. For similar reasons, we also reject defendant’s suggestion that Judge Ferguson erred by failing to inquire sua sponte into the possibility that Birchfield should be replaced for incompetence. Of course, the court must allow the accused to give specific reasons why he wishes replacement of his appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44]), but no request for substitution and no specification of reasons was then forthcoming from either defendant or Fuller. Fuller’s brief, general, and very tardy complaint that she was “concerned” about the “general manner” in which Birchfield was “handling the case” but “did not know what to do” was not sufficient to trigger further judicial inquiry. 2. Wheeler motion. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by rejecting his claim that the prosecutor improperly used a peremptory challenge to excuse prospective juror Sonia Gomez for the sole reason that she was Hispanic. (E.g., People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748]; see Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712]; see also Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400 [113 L.Ed.2d 411, 111 S.Ct. 1364].) We disagree. Defense counsel made no objection when the prosecutor used his fourth peremptory challenge to excuse prospective juror Elizabeth Gutierrez. However, when the prosecutor used his ninth peremptory challenge to excuse Gomez, defense counsel raised an immediate protest, noting that both Gomez and Gutierrez “appear[ed] to be of Mexican-American descent.” The court responded that it could “see a reason for [challenging] Gutierrez” but that the basis for excusing Gomez was “much less clear.” The court then asked the prosecutor whether he “want[ed] to state some reason for your peremptory.” A rambling discussion ensued among court and counsel. The prosecutor indicated his excusal of Gomez stemmed from her statements that she had no “strong feelings” on the death penalty, had “never thought about it,” and “didn’t seem to know if there’s any social purpose to it.” Under these circumstances, the prosecutor explained, “I just wasn’t sure she would be able to impose the death penalty.” The court cautioned that it was required to determine whether the prosecutor was “making a systematic exclusion [of] . . . a certain class of people.” The prosecutor responded that he was “systematically excluding people not strong in the death penalty.” In support of his position, the prosecutor sought to compare Gomez’s views with those of Gutierrez and of prospective jurors Duane Nelson (who had not yet been challenged, but was later excused by the People) and Pamela Guimarra (who sat on the jury). The court indicated its recollection that Gomez’s death penalty opinions were “right in the middle” and that “about 11 [other prospective jurors]” had expressed similar views. Again invoking its “duty” to prevent a systematic class exclusion, the court remarked that the prosecutor was “treading on dangerous ground.” After further dialogue, the court stated its concern that mere neutrality on the death penalty was not a “specific bias” which would justify a peremptory excusal over a Wheeler challenge. On the other hand, though expressing its determination to avoid the “ridiculous” situation of “built-in . . . [pretrial] reversible error,” the court indicated a tentative view that there was no “systematic” exclusion of Hispanic jurors. To test this latter assumption, the court invited the prosecutor to state his reasons for excusing Gutierrez, but then briefly recessed to reread Wheeler. When proceedings resumed, the court announced it was “sure” that defense counsel “[had] ... not shown a systematic exclusion of [H]ispanics” but had merely “[raised] the issue,” and that “the burden [was] ... on him” to show the prosecutor’s systematic misuse of challenges. By “taking up this point,” the court cautioned, it had not intended to suggest otherwise. With the court’s permission, the prosecutor then returned to the issue of Gutierrez’s excusal. The prosecutor indicated that Gutierrez had been challenged because of defense counsel’s off-the-record disclosure that he had represented Gutierrez’s brother-in-law in a drug case. The prosecutor reminded the court that because the instant case involved a “Chicano victim” (Gregorio) and a “Chicano witness” (Gregorio’s grandson David), he would “just as soon” have jurors from “[that] community,” but “I have other factors to take into account.” Defense counsel confirmed that he was not “including [Gutierrez] within the motion that there’s some systematic exclusions.” The court then stated its continuing concern that death penalty neutrality was not a “specific bias” which justified peremptory excusal of members of a particular class, but also found that the prosecutor had “certainly shown” a valid reason for Gutierrez’s removal. Though “Gomez is a little fuzzier,” the court ruled, “at least [the prosecutor] had a reason . . . other than . . . race [for excusing Gomez].” The court again indicated to defense counsel that “I don’t think you’ve shown” systematic exclusion. On this basis, the court denied defendant’s Wheeler objection. The prosecutor ultimately exercised 13 peremptory challenges, as did the defense. No other Hispanic-sumamed juror was excused peremptorily by the prosecution, and defendant’s counsel did not challenge any later excusál. At least one Hispanic-surnamed person, Rubin Sanchez, sat on the jury. The California Constitution forbids the use of peremptory challenges to discriminate against members of a “cognizable” racial, religious, ethnic, or other identifiable group. (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258.) The federal Constitution similarly proscribes discriminatory challenges on the basis of race. (Powers, supra, 499 U.S. 400; Batson, supra, 476 U.S. 79.) A party who suspects improper use of peremptory challenges must raise a timely objection and make a prima facie showing of strong likelihood that the opponent has excluded one or more jurors on the basis of group or racial identity. The burden then shifts to the opponent to show that he or she had genuine nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenges at issue. (People v. Fuentes (1991) 54 Cal.3d 707, 714 [286 Cal.Rptr. 792, 818 P.2d 75]; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-281; see Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 96-98 [90 L.Ed.2d at pp. 87-89].) If the trial court makes a “sincere and reasoned effort” to evaluate the nondiscriminatory justifications offered, its conclusions are entitled to deference on appeal. In such circumstances, an appellate court will not reassess good faith by conducting its own comparative juror analysis. Such an approach would undermine the trial court’s credibility determinations and would discount “ ‘the variety of [subjective] factors and considerations,’ ” including “prospective jurors’ body language or manner of answering questions,” which legitimately inform a trial lawyer’s decision to exercise peremptory challenges. (Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 714-715; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1216-1221 [255 Cal.Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047], disapproving People v. Trevino (1985) 39 Cal.3d 667 [217 Cal.Rptr. 652, 704 P.2d 719]; see Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21 [90 L.Ed.2d at pp. 88-89].) As the People now appear to concede, the trial court was mistaken in its belief that only multiple, “systematic” discriminatory exclusions are forbidden. California law makes clear that a constitutional violation may arise even when only one of several members of a “cognizable” group was improperly excluded. (Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 714-715, fn. 4.) Federal authority also suggests that individual exclusions on racial grounds may be improper. (Id., at p. 715, and authorities cited.) However, even if the prosecutor was required to justify, and the trial court to evaluate, his excusal of Gomez alone, we may properly uphold the court’s ultimate denial of defendant’s motion. As we have seen, the court mistakenly believed that discriminatory excusal of a single juror was not forbidden (see discussion, ante)-, on the other hand, it had the equally mistaken impression that the reason given for excusing Gomez, even if genuine, did not demonstrate a “specific [juror] bias” necessary to rebut a group-bias challenge. Nonetheless, contrary to defendant’s contention, it appears that the court correctly resolved the true issue. The record could and should be clearer, but read as a whole, it indicates that the court credited the prosecutor’s nondiscriminatory explanation after making a “sincere and reasoned effort” to evaluate his good faith. Thus, the court did not simply accept the prosecutor’s reason at face value; at the outset, the court noted skeptically that other prospective jurors not yet excused had expressed death penalty views similar to those of Gomez. The prosecutor gave a vigorous defense of his good faith, compared Gomez’s responses to those of other specific prospective jurors, reiterated his view that Gomez’s opinions were particularly vague, and offered to reveal his evaluations of ¿11 persons thus far challenged. The court specifically asked the prosecutor to justify his prior excusal of another prospective Hispanic juror, Gutierrez. During this discussion, the court apparently came to accept that the reason given by the prosecutor for Gomez’s excusal was genuine, and the court’s concern then turned to the legal sufficiency of the reason. The court’s ultimate acceptance of the prosecutor’s sincerity is further shown by its comment, in denying defendant’s motion, that “at least [the prosecutor] has a reason other than . . . race” for excusing Gomez. (Italics added.) The trial court thus met its obligation to determine that the prosecutor’s excusal of Gomez did not stem solely from her racial or ethnic identity. The court’s negative finding on that issue is substantially supported and must therefore be accepted on appeal. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that his challenge to Gomez’s excusal was erroneously denied. 3. Failure to challenge and excuse Juror Binns. During voir dire, Patricia Binns, who sat on the jury, expressed the “adamant” view that “if you make the choice to use [drugs] .... then you’re totally responsible for that choice you made.” Because of this statement, defendant claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to exercise a peremptory challenge against Binns. The record does not support his contention. A claim of ineffective assistance will not be accepted on direct appeal unless the appellate record makes clear that the challenged act or omission was a mistake beyond the range of reasonable competence. (E.g., People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212]; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426-427 [152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R.4th 1].) Because the use of peremptory challenges is inherently subjective and intuitive, an appellate record will rarely disclose reversible incompetence in this process. The overall tenor of Binns’s voir dire established her ability and desire to be fair on the issue of penalty. She professed that she could “follow the law,” “go either way” based on tire guidelines given to her, “evaluate [the evidence] and make a choice,” judge expert psychiatric evidence, and use her common sense. While she stated that persons were “responsible” for the consequences of their choice to use drugs, she never indicated that a defendant’s voluntary drug ingestion would prevent her from choosing life without parole, rather than death, as the appropriate punishment for a capital crime. Under these circumstances, the record discloses no manifest incompetence in counsel’s decision to retain Binns, which was presumably based on his overall impression of her personality and values. Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance must be dismissed. 4. Voir dire comments that evidence and issues would be limited. During both the death qualification and general voir dires, the prosecutor often reminded panelists that defendant had already been found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, that the law limited the current trial to penalty issues only, and that jurors would thus not hear all the guilt evidence which had previously been presented. The prosecutor asked if these limitations would make it more difficult to impose the death penalty. Specific inquiries of this type were made to Jurors Hillis, Reinelt, and Guimarra. Defendant argues that this was misconduct which prejudiced his Eighth Amendment right to a penalty jury fully aware of its sentencing responsibilities. (Citing Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320 [86 L.Ed.2d 231, 105 S.Ct. 2633].) Defendant also asserts that the prosecutor’s improper comments prejudiced his mitigating case of mental impairment and intoxication (§ 190.3, factor (h)) and precluded the affected jurors from considering lingering doubt of his guilt in mitigation (see People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137, 145-147 [37 Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381]). At the outset, defense counsel’s failure to object and request appropriate admonitions waives the direct claim of misconduct. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) In any event, defendant has shown no basis for disturbing the penalty judgment. By reminding prospective jurors that guilt of capital murder had already been determined, and that the proper penalty was the only remaining issue, the prosecutor did nothing improper. In its opening comments to the entire panel, the court itself had made the same true and obvious point. We have consistently held that accurate reminders of a separate penalty jury’s limited role do not eliminate the defendant’s ability to litigate lingering doubt. (See People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1238-1239 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210]; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1234-1235 [275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 800 P.2d 1159].) Nor are we persuaded that a penalty jury’s sense of sentencing responsibility is necessarily diminished by the knowledge that another jury has already rendered a conclusive judgment of guilt. Under the circumstances of this case, we reach a similar conclusion about the prosecutor’s suggestions that “all” the guilt evidence would not be reintroduced. In general, of course, the prosecutor should not allude to additional evidence he cannot or will not present, thus leaving jurors to speculate that the People have, or a prior jury heard, a stronger case. Moreover, a “tension” may arise between a penalty defendant’s right to exploit lingering doubt and the preference not to reproduce all the guilt evidence at a second penalty trial. (DeSantis, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1239.) Here, however, the jury could not reasonably have understood the prosecutor’s remarks to undermine any lingering doubt or other penalty issue that defendant actually sought to exploit. Because defendant’s identity as Gregorio’s robber and killer was beyond dispute, defendant expressly conceded that point. The only remaining guilt issues on which the penalty jury might exercise lingering doubt were whether defendant formed the specific mental states, such as premeditation and intent to rob, which supported the charges of capital robbery-murder. But highly similar mental-state issues were the heart of both the prosecution and defense cases on penalty. The defense strategy was to focus on whether defendant’s intoxication at the time of the murder made the crime less heinous and suggested leniency. Both prosecution and defense presented full-dress cases on that issue. Each offered extensive evidence and argument on whether defendant was so intoxicated that he could not have understood, intended, premeditated, or controlled his acts. The jury was specifically instructed to consider “[wjhether ... the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, or the effects of intoxication.” (§ 190.3, factor (h).) The jurors were not likely to infer that because of their limited penalty role, the prosecutor was withholding significant evidence on this crucial question. Instead, a reasonable juror would assume that while defendant’s identity as Gregorio’s robber and killer need not be fully relitigated, all evidence about the offense and offender which bore on the appropriate penalty would be fully presented. We see no reasonable likelihood that any juror believed the prosecution was omitting mental-state evidence adverse to defendant. Hence, we cannot conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks impaired the jury’s ability to entertain lingering doubt, or to consider defendant’s claim that his intoxication extenuated his crime. 5. Voir dire comments about defendant’s neat courtroom appearance and victim’s absence. During general voir dire of a panel which included Jurors Barnett, Renz, Boado, Reinelt, and Sanchez, the prosecutor remarked that it would be proper to consider “sympathetic factors” in defendant’s favor, but that defendant would be appearing in court “dressed up and decent” and had “over six years to get ready for today.” The prosecutor continued in a similar vein that “[w]hat you’re not going to have is . . . the victim appearing] in court, and it’s easy to lose—.” At this point, defense counsel interrupted with an objection, which was sustained. Counsel did not request an admonition, however, and none was given. Defendant asserts that these comments were misconduct calculated to inflame the jurors, dispel sympathy generated by defendant’s respectful courtroom appearance, call attention to a nonstatutory aggravating factor (i.e., the homicide victim’s death), imply defendant’s connivance against the judicial system, and penalize his exercise of his constitutional jury trial rights. The contention is barred. As defendant concedes, trial counsel failed to preserve a direct claim of misconduct because, although he objected to the prosecutor’s remarks, he did not also request an admonition that would clearly have cured any harm. (People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 689 [250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217]; People v. Beivelman (1968) 70 Cal.2d 60, 75 [73 Cal.Rptr. 521, 447 P.2d 913]; see People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34.) Defendant asserts that the trial court should have intervened sua sponte to prevent or cure misconduct by the prosecutor. Our cases hold the contrary (People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 321 [261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121]; People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 335-336 [246 Cal.Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082]), and defendant offers no persuasive reason to reconsider them. Defendant also suggests the claim is cognizable in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the appellate record does not eliminate the possibility that counsel’s omission was tactical. (See People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 425-426.) For all that appears, counsel may have been willing to forgo an appellate claim in hopes that a successful objection alone would ameliorate the prosecutor’s remarks without highlighting them further. In any event, the prosecutor’s comments, brief in duration, did not call attention to anything jurors would not readily infer in any event. The jurors already well knew that the victim was dead and that the murder had taken place several years previously. They would certainly assume that defendant would groom neatly for court and that his appearance had changed since the crime was committed. By sustaining defense counsel’s objection, the court immediately signalled that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper. The incident occurred at the outset of trial proceedings, long before deliberations began. Just before the jury retired, it received instructions, among others, to disregard “evidence” that had been “stricken,” and to avoid speculation about gaps caused by successful objections. For these reasons, any omission by counsel does not undermine confidence in the penalty judgment. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698]; see People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].) Hence, there is no basis for reversal. Trial Issues 1. 1971 county fair arrest. Defendant claims his state and federal rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable penalty determination were violated by admission of evidence of his resistance to arrest at the Kern County Fair in 1971. In essence, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show “violent” criminal activity in aggravation (§ 190.3, factor (b) (hereafter factor (b))) because it failed to establish all the elements of a criminal assault. (§ 241, subds. (a), (b).) In defendant’s view, Deputy Leavell’s testimony about their scuffle was “ambiguous,” did not indicate that defendant was the “aggressor,” and suggested a mere struggle to escape without any “attempt... to commit. . . violent injury . . . .” (§ 240.) The jury was carefully instructed on the elements of assault stemming from violent resistance to arrest, and we find ample evidence from which it could infer violent criminal activity. If one knows or should know he is being arrested by a peace officer, he has a duty to refrain from forcible resistance. (§ 834a; see also § 148 [resisting peace officer in exercise of “duty” is misdemeanor].) The use of violence to overcome reasonable force employed in a lawful arrest is an assault. (See People v. Gonzalez, supra, 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1219.) Leavell testified that he assumed custody of defendant after other officers saw defendant commit an apparent theft and arrested him. According to Leavell, defendant then escaped, but, after a short chase, he caught up with defendant; Leavell’s momentum caused both men to fall to the ground; a short “fight” then occurred, of which Leavell was the “winner,” and defendant was handcuffed. This evidence readily supports the inference that defendant knew or should have known he was being arrested by a peace officer, responded forcibly to Leavell’s reasonable and lawful efforts to subdue him, and thus committed an assault. Since defendant had no privilege of self-defense against Leavell’s use of reasonable force, concerns about who was the “aggressor” (compare People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th 569, 587-588; People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 291 [247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052]) are irrelevant. Defendant also contends that evidence about his threats to arresting Officers Leavell and Williams were inadmissible nonstatutory aggravating evidence. (See People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 777-778 [215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782].) He makes the novel additional contention that the use, in aggravation, of these ineffectual, merely “obnoxious” utterances violated his state and federal free speech rights. Counsel’s failure to object bars these contentions as direct appellate issues. Furthermore, because the “threat” evidence was admissible, the record does not demonstrate counsel’s incompetence. Defendant argues that his menacing statements were not “actual crimes” involving the “threat [of] . . . violence” (factor (b); see People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 70-72 [222 Cal.Rptr. 127, 711 P.2d 423]) because there was no showing he spoke with intent to prevent his arrest and with the apparent ability to carry out his threats. (See § 71 [threatening public official].) However, it is well settled that an “actual” violent crime admissible under factor (b) may be shown in full context. (People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 757 [244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741].) Even if defendant’s threats were not themselves crimes, they occurred in the course of a violent, criminal resistance to arrest (see discussion, ante, p. 916), and they were thus admissible under factor (b) to demonstrate the aggravated nature of defendant’s unlawful conduct. (See People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 587-588.) Nor were defendant’s constitutional rights infringed by the evidentiary use of his “obnoxious” speech for this purpose. 2. Foster Freeze firearm. Defendant claims there was legally insufficient evidence he used a lethal handgun, rather than a harmless starter pistol, during the 1972 Foster Freeze robbery. Hence, he urges, the jury should not have been instructed on the crime of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245) in connection with that aggravating incident. He further insists the prosecution committed prejudicial bad faith, amounting to a due process violation, by attempting to show use of a true firearm. The evidence of firearm use was sufficient. Defendant brandished a handgun at Denise Brown, who said it “looked real.” When fleeing the scene, he actually fired the weapon at Ronald Jones, who heard two shots and ducked. Evidence that Jones suspected the gun was a starter pistol, and that he heard no bullets, hardly compels the inference that the gun was not real. Moreover, the 1986 trial record demonstrates no bad faith on the prosecution’s part. The 1972 abstract of judgment demonstrates at most that defendant pled guilty to a second degree robbery in connection with the Foster Freeze incident, and that weapon and firearm enhancements were not included. It is well-settled that the charges to which defendant pled guilty in a prior case do not limit the aggravating evidence the prosecution may present in a subsequent capital trial. (People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 755-756.) To support his claim of bad faith, defendant points to comments by the prosecutor during the first 1979 penalty trial that the 1972 offense “appeared” to involve a starter pistol, that no bullet holes were found, and that “the presumption was that [the robbery] was a second degree, [which] . . . is what he pleaded to.” But nothing in these remarks precluded the prosecution from reevaluating the strength of its aggravating evidence between 1979 and 1986. In any event, the potential for prejudice was minimal at most. The jury could evaluate the relative weakness of the handgun evidence. Moreover, as defendant concedes, even if he used only a starter pistol, he brandished and fired it to facilitate a robbery, thus committing a serious offense involving “violence or the express or implied threat [of] . . . violence.” (§ 190.3, factor (b).) Under these circumstances, any inference that the gun was not real would make the incident only marginally less aggravating. Given the brutal nature of the capital murder and the other evidence of defendant’s violence and recidivism, admission of “real gun” evidence thus cannot have affected the penalty outcome. 3. Siegel testimony. Defendant complains that his confrontation, due process, fair trial, and reliable-penalty rights were violated when Dr. Siegel, the prosecution drug expert, disclosed prejudicial hearsay information while explaining his conclusions on direct examination. Defendant accuses the prosecutor of using Dr. Siegel as an improper means of introducing hearsay for truth. Defendant blames the court and his trial counsel for failing to intervene. However, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to exclude evidence, remedy misconduct, or instruct the jury on specific evidentiary limitations. (See discussion, ante, pp. 914-915; see also People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 130-131 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561]; People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 64 [177 Cal.Rptr. 458, 634 P.2d 534, 23 A.L.R.4th 776].) Thus, counsel’s failure to act waived direct claims of error. On the other hand, we find no incompetence warranting reversal. An expert may generally base his opinion on any “matter” known to him, including hearsay not otherwise admissible, which may “reasonably ... be relied upon” for that purpose. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b); In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1070 [275 Cal.Rptr. 384, 800 P.2d 862].) On direct examination, the expert may explain the reasons for his opinions, including the matters he considered in forming them. However, prejudice may arise if, “ ‘under the guise of reasons,’ ” the expert’s detailed explanation “ ‘[brings] before the jury incompetent hearsay evidence.’ ” (People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 583 [286 Cal.Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893], quoting People v. Coleman (1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 92 [211 Cal.Rptr. 102, 695 P.2d 189].) Because an expert’s need to consider extrajudicial matters, and a jury’s need for information sufficient to evaluate an expert opinion, may conflict with an accused’s interest in avoiding substantive use of unreliable hearsay, disputes in this area must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment. (Nicolaus, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 582; see People v. Cole (1956) 47 Cal.2d 99, 105 [301 P.2d 854, 56 A.L.R.2d 1435].) Most often, hearsay problems will be cured by an instruction that matters admitted through an expert go only to the basis of his opinion and should not be considered for their truth. (Coleman, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 92.) Sometimes a limiting instruction may not be enough. In such cases, Evidence Code section 352 authorizes the court to exclude from an expert’s testimony any hearsay matter whose irrelevance, unreliability, or potential for prejudice outweighs its proper probative value. (Coleman, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 91-93.) Here, the jury received CALJIC No. 2.07, which instructed that some evidence had been admitted for a limited purpose and must be considered accordingly. However, this instruction was never tied to particular evidence, and the jury’s attention was never drawn to specific hearsay information disclosed by expert witnesses which should only be considered as a basis for evaluating their opinions. With this background in mind, we proceed to defendant’s individual claims. a. Use and sale of other drugs. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, Dr. Siegel recited the extensive drug history defendant, then age 31, had given him in 1979. Dr. Siegel stated that at various times since age 13, defendant had used or experimented with glue, alcohol, LSD, amphetamines, cocaine, barbiturates, marijuana, Quaaludes, heroin, and PCP. When the prosecutor asked, “What else did he tell you about this PCP?”, Dr. Siegel replied that at age 29, defendant was smoking several PCP-laced “joints” per day and using heroin when it was around; that “[defendant] also said ... he [would sell] slam and then he would use the dust.” Defendant has no valid hearsay complaint about this evidence. As his own extrajudicial statement, it fell within the hearsay exception for admissions by a party. (Evid. Code, § 1220.) Defendant also claims, however, that the references to drugs other than alcohol and PCP, and the assertion that he “sold slam,” were irrelevant to Dr. Siegel’s ultimate opinion about the effects of PCP and alcohol ingestion on defendant’s mental state when he killed Gregorio. These disclosures, he urges, constituted nonstatutory aggravating evidence (see People v. Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d 762, 777-778) that he was a seller and “hedonistic” abuser of drugs. However, Dr. Siegel was entitled to place his conclusions in the context of defendant’s overall pattern of drug use. When the prosecutor asked whether “someone who starts out in this kind of lifestyle” might ultimately require more PCP or alcohol to become intoxicated, Dr. Siegel confirmed that defendant’s “whole history” was relevant; a “chronic drug user” who was “trying to maintain a chronic state of intoxication” might need more or less of a particular drug to achieve certain toxic effects. Dr. Siegel’s reference to defendant’s use of other drugs was thus not improper. Moreover, there was little danger that, by considering this evidence for its truth, the jury would come to irrelevant but prejudicial conclusions about his “hedonistic” drug abuse. The central theory of both defense and prosecution cases was that defendant was a lifelong abuser of drugs. The only dispute was the impact of this chronic abuse on his state of mind at the time of the capital crime. Similar considerations rebut defendant’s claim that the disclosure about selling “slam” was prejudicial. Dr. Siegel’s revelation on this subject may have been both nonresponsive and irrelevant, but the remark was brief, and the information it disclosed could hardly have come as a surprise to jurors already aware of defendant’s drug-centered lifestyle. Hence, admission of evidence about defendant’s drug history, even without a limiting instruction, does not undermine confidence in the penalty judgment. b. References to 1979 informant testimony. Dr. Siegel testified at length about the descriptions defendant, Victor Cordova, and others had given him of events on the day of Gregorio’s murder. The prosecutor asked whether Dr. Siegel also considered how these versions might “contrast” with what defendant told Michael Palacio, his jail cellmate. Dr. Siegel confirmed he had considered Palacio’s 1979 trial testimony. As Dr. Siegel told it, Palacio gave the following account of defendant’s statements: Defendant entered Gregorio’s home to use the telephone and saw money sticking out of Gregorio’s pocket. Defendant then formed the intent to kill Gregorio for the cash and went to the kitchen to get a knife. After leaving the house, defendant asked Victor to go back and retrieve his beer, then did so himself after Victor declined. Defendant returned a second time with the beer and a “bulging” pocketful of coins he had not taken before. Dr. Siegel said this information “tells me that while . . . [defendant] . . . [was]. . . obviously grossly intoxicated, he also [was]. . . capable of some goal direction activity. . . .” In his closing argument, the prosecutor again noted Palacio’s claim that defendant admitted forming the intent to rob and kill. Even so, counsel’s failure to pursue a hearsay objection was not facially incompetent. As counsel must have known, a successful objection probably would not have prevented Palacio’s account from reaching the jury. In that event, the People could, and likely would, have chosen to present Palacio in person, or if he was unavailable, to introduce his 1979 testimony directly under the unavailable-witness exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1291, subd. (a)(2).) Either alternative would only have emphasized Palacio’s claim that defendant committed a premeditated killing. Given these tactical considerations, the record fails to demonstrate that counsel’s silence in the face of Dr. Siegel’s hearsay report constituted ineffective assistance. Moreover, even if counsel should have objected, reversal is not warranted. While Palacio’s assertions were the only direct evidence that defendant consciously formed a criminal intent before he killed Gregorio, the valid circumstantial evidence that defendant knew what he was doing was extremely strong. The manner of killing suggested calculation and awareness. It was also clear that defendant had ransacked Gregorio’s residence and taken money. Moreover, Victor testified that moments after the crime, defendant described it several times in graphic and coherent terms. Victor also indicated that defendant carried away the murder weapon and immediately returned to the house to retrieve other evidence which might link him to the homicide. Defendant continued to boast about the killing as he was driven away from the scene. He later asked Victor to lie about the extent of his intoxication. Under these circumstances, admission of the Palacio evidence without a limiting instruction does not undermine confidence in the judgment. c. Psychiatric reports. We reach similar conclusions about defendant’s complaint that the prosecutor wrongly elicited from Dr. Siegel the hearsay details of prior unfavorable psychological reports. When the prosecutor asked Dr. Siegel whether he considered “any prior psychological evaluations,” the witness replied that he was provided with several psychological assessments of defendant between 1972 and 1978. According to Dr. Siegel, these reports “talked words such as potential for violence” and suggested that defendant demonstrated “bravado, manipulation, and aggression.” “Apparently,” Dr. Siegel suggested, “[defendant] had a long history [during these years] with descriptors like that being used.” Even if counsel should have sought to prevent independent consideration of these hearsay matters (see, e.g., Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 Cal.3d 874, 894-895 [112 Cal.Rptr. 540, 519 P.2d 588]), his omission is not grounds for reversal. According to Dr. Siegel, defendant himself described “fights he had gotten into” and “wasn’t denying” that he was prone to violence, whether or not intoxicated. Dr. Siegel indicated that the only dispute was about interpretation; defendant’s view was “that he only did it when he was provoked or when he needed to put some dude in line.” The generalities contained in the psychological evaluations, as described by Dr. Siegel, were not inconsistent with defendant’s own admissions. Thus, revelation of these matters does not undermine confidence in the penalty judgment. 4. Nuemberger testimony. In a similar vein, defendant complains that through cross-examination of the defense psychiatric expert, Dr. Nuemberger, the prosecutor improperly introduced, for their truth, the unfavorable hearsay details of 1979 testimony by another defense expert, Dr. Cutting. Defendant claims a violation of his confrontation rights, and also asserts that the prosecutor made wrongful use of privileged information. All these contentions must be rejected. Prior to the 1979 trials, Dr. Cutting had been appointed at defense request to evaluate mental issues. Defendant called Dr. Cutting as a witness at his 1979 insanity trial, purporting to waive his psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid. Code, § 1014) only for that purpose. Dr. Cutting then testified that,