Full opinion text
Opinion PANELLI, J. Defendant Richard Dean Clark was convicted, following a jury trial, of the first degree murder and rape of Rosie Grover. (Pen. Code, §§ 189, 261.) The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that he committed the murder during the course of the rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii)), that he inflicted bodily injury with the intent to do so (§ 1203.075, subd. (a)(1)), and that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The jury fixed the penalty at death. After denying the motion for modification of the penalty verdict, the court entered judgment accordingly. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const, art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. I. Guilt Phase Facts A. Prosecution’s Case-in-chief 1. Introduction During the early morning of July 19, 1985, Rosie Grover was raped, stabbed with a sharpened screwdriver, and repeatedly bludgeoned about the face and neck with two pieces of concrete. Although the crime occurred in Mendocino County, a change of venue was granted on defendant’s motion and the trial was held in Santa Clara County. Defendant was convicted of the murder. 2. The Victim, Rosie Grover Rosie Grover was a 15-year-old high school student at the time of her death. On July 19, 1985, she took a Greyhound bus that left San Francisco around midnight and arrived in Ukiah around 4 a.m. After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a ride home from the bus depot, she began to walk home. Her body was found the next morning in the rocky, dry bed of Doolan Creek. 3. The Defendant, Richard Clark In early 1985, defendant met David Smith (Smith), a paraplegic, who hired defendant to care for him. About a month later, they moved to Ukiah. On July 18 and 19, 1985, defendant and Smith were staying with Smith’s stepsister, Michelle Stevens, at 778 South State Street. Defendant and Smith spent some part of the afternoon in a local bar, where each man drank three or four beers. Sometime that day, Smith traded a small amount of methamphetamine for cocaine. They returned to Michelle Stevens’s house, where both men ingested the cocaine. Although Smith had seen defendant use methamphetamine in the past, defendant did not use it in Smith’s presence on July 18, 1985. Defendant, Smith, and perhaps others, smoked between two and five marijuana cigarettes. During the evening, an argument arose between defendant and Matt Williams, Michelle Stevens’s boyfriend. According to Williams, defendant “looked like he was on something” and “got kind of violent, shadow boxing around the house and throwing punches.” Around 10 p.m., defendant left, announcing that he “was going to beat somebody up and rob them.” Dino Stevens (Stevens), Michelle’s stepbrother, left with defendant. Stevens and defendant went to Munchie’s, a pool hall located on State Street. After playing pool for 30 to 40 minutes, tire men left and walked to the home of Robyn Boyd, a friend of Stevens. Robyn lived at 304 Cooper Lane, near the Greyhound depot. Stevens and defendant arrived at Boyd’s house around midnight. Boyd was entertaining several friends; marijuana may have been available. The 2 men remained at Boyd’s for 10 to 30 minutes. Upon leaving Boyd’s, Stevens and appellant parted company. Little evidence, other than defendant’s statements to police (which will be discussed below), was presented to establish defendant’s location and movements between the time he left Boyd’s house and the time he entered the Ron-Dee-Voo Restaurant on July 19. 4. Discovery of the Body About 6:15 a.m. on July 19, defendant entered the Ron-Dee-Voo Restaurant, which is located on South State Street near Doolan Creek. He was wearing mirrored sunglasses and was holding a partially empty wine cooler bottle in his hand. Defendant told Karen Mertle, a waitress, that he had found a girl in a nearby ditch. The girl was hurt “real bad” and “maybe raped.” Mertle offered defendant coffee in order to “hold him there until the police arrived.” Defendant handed the wine cooler bottle that he had been carrying to Mertle. She later gave the bottle to the police. The witnesses present at the Ron-Dee-Voo that morning testified that defendant did not appear intoxicated. Several witnesses also testified that he did not appear suitably upset by his discovery. 5. The Investigation Officer Wayne McBride of the Ukiah Police Department arrived at the restaurant at 6:34 a.m. Officer McBride had an intermittent conversation with the defendant that lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes. During this conversation, defendant explained how he discovered the body while taking a “shortcut” to buy cigarettes at a convenience store on State Street. He volunteered that he checked the body for a pulse and may have touched the luggage. Although defendant was wearing sunglasses and spoke rapidly and excitedly when he first met Officer McBride, the officer testified that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated, did not appear to be under the influence of methamphetamines and did not smell of alcohol. At the scene of the crime, Detectives Fred Kelley and Edward Gall collected physical evidence. The body of Rosie Grover was partially clothed. Her jeans were buttoned, but a cloth belt was undone. Her jacket and blouse were open, exposing her bra. Her shoes and her pink tank top lay nearby. Her duffle bag and suitcase were 10 feet away from the body. Two bloody concrete blocks, the larger one weighing 18.5 pounds, lay near the body. The victim had suffered severe injuries to the head and face. Possible puncture or stab wounds were evident on the lower right portion of her abdomen. During the search of the crime scene, a bottle of wine cooler of the same brand and flavor as the one defendant had given to Mertle was found in the victim’s duffle bag. After searching the crime scene, Kelley and Gall went to 778 South State Street. There, they received permission from David Smith to search his car. Kelley discovered a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans and a sleeveless vest-type jacket on the rear seat. Blood appeared to be splattered on the legs of the jeans and wiped on the lower part of the vest. Stevens and Smith identified the clothing as that worn by defendant the previous evening. 6. Defendant’s Statements to Police Defendant gave three custodial statements to the police on the day of his arrest. The content of and circumstances surrounding these statements are more fully discussed later in the opinion. Prior to his arrest, defendant spoke with Detectives Kelley and Gall. He waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]) and basically repeated the story that he had told Officer McBride earlier in the morning. Following his arrest and booking, Detectives Kelley and Gall transported defendant to the hospital for a blood test. During the trip defendant confessed to killing Rosie Grover. He claimed, however, that the sexual intercourse with the victim was consensual. After the encounter, she said that she was going to report Mm for rape. When she repeated tMs intention, he quickly decided that he would receive a less severe penalty for killing her than raping her and proceeded to do so. Upon return to the police station, defendant agreed to provide a tape-recorded statement. Detectives Kelley and Gall and Deputy District Attorney Al Kubanis were present. After a colloquy during which defendant waived Ms constitutional rights, he gave a statement that differed somewhat from Ms prior statement. In the taped statement, defendant stated that during the previous evening he ingested eight or mne beers, several tablets of Valium, one-eighth gram of methamphetamine and several marijuana cigarettes. When describing the crime, defendant tMs time reported periods of time when he “blacked out.” 7. Physical Evidence The autopsy of the victim confirmed that she had been raped, stabbed and beaten. The autopsy was performed under the direction of Dr. Boyd Stephens, the CMef Medical Examiner and Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco. With respect to sexual assault, Dr. Stephens opined that the victim had suffered nonconsensual vaginal intercourse, but could not opine that sodomy had occurred. Examination of the victim’s vagina revealed a laceration across the posterior aspect of the outer opemng. TMs injury is associated with nonconsensual intercourse. No trauma to the anal opening was observed. Sperm was discovered on the outside and inside of the vagina. A “rare” sperm was found in the anus. Blood contamination in the mouth Mndered attempts to locate sperm there. Ten stab wounds were found on the body. Eight were superficial. Two deeper wounds were inflicted in the middle of the back, one of wMch penetrated a lung and the other the heart. The wounds could have been inflicted by a screwdriver found in Smith’s car. These wounds preceded the blunt trauma injuries to the victim’s head and neck. WMle either of the deep stab wounds could have independently caused the victim’s death, the actual cause of death was blunt trauma to the head and neck. Although Dr. Stephens was unable to determine how many blows had been struck, 19 separate areas of blunt trauma were visible. The vast majority of these trauma injuries would have independently caused death. The damage was so extensive that the victim’s entire facial structure was collapsed and flattened. The two pieces of concrete found near the victim’s body could have inflicted the trauma to the skull. There was no conclusive evidence of attempted strangulation, in large part because the blunt trauma injuries obscured any symptoms that would normally have been present. A criminalist testified about tests performed on the physical evidence. Analysis of the blood splatters on defendant’s Levi’s jeans revealed enzymes consistent with both the victim’s and defendant’s blood. Defendant’s shoes were splattered with human blood. A hair found on one of the shoes was consistent with the victim’s hair and inconsistent with defendant’s hair. Defendant “could not be ruled out” as the source of the semen found in the victim’s panties. Pubic hair found in the panties was consistent with the sample provided by defendant. The concrete blocks found near the victim bore traces of blood consistent with that of the victim, as well as human head and eyebrow hair. A sharpened screwdriver was found in David Smith’s car approximately a week after the murder. The screwdriver was hand-sharpened and bore traces of human blood. The quantity of blood was not sufficient to type. The screwdriver could have made the puncture marks found in the victim’s jacket and blouse. B. The Defense Case Defendant did not dispute that he killed Rosie Grover, but argued that he did not intend to kill her. He asserted that his emotional difficulties and chronic drug usage culminated in a “rage reaction” on the night of the murder. As argued by his counsel, “a person who goes into a rage [reaction] is not acting with intent.” Defendant called numerous witnesses to testify regarding his drug usage and depression. Both Kathryn Cote, a supervising case manager employed by Solano County Mental Health, and Robert Clark (Robert), defendant’s brother, testified that defendant began to use drugs at an early age. Cote found defendant to be severely depressed and attributed his drug usage to this fact. Friends testified that, in the months immediately prior to his move to Ukiah, defendant regularly ingested alcohol, marijuana and methamphetamine. Robert stated that defendant ingested drugs daily. Defendant’s friends respectively testified that they had each observed defendant inject methamphetamine, on as many as five occasions. Many of these witnesses also testified to defendant’s nonviolent character. In February 1985, defendant attempted suicide by ingesting over 30 tablets of Valium. Following the suicide attempt, Robert Buley, a substance abuse counselor with Shasta County Mental Health Agency, treated defendant. Buley testified that defendant was “heavily involved” with methamphetamine and that he was depressed and paranoid. A Mendocino County therapist, who performed a mental status evaluation on defendant shortly after the crime, concluded that defendant was a “definite” suicide risk and should be observed. Based upon defendant’s statements to him, the therapist also noted in his report that defendant was possibly in the process of detoxifying from various drugs. Dr. Randall Baselt, a forensic toxicologist, testified regarding his analysis of a blood sample that was taken from the defendant shortly after his arrest. The analysis, performed in October of 1986, revealed traces of the metabolites of marijuana and diazepam (Valium), but no evidence of alcohol, cocaine or phencyclidine (PCP). A previous test done by a separate laboratory revealed the presence of methamphetamine. Dr. Baselt opined that the absence of traces of alcohol and cocaine was not inconsistent with ingestion of these substances. Rather, because of the decomposition rate of these drugs, he would not expect them to appear in the sample. The amount of the marijuana metabolite was consistent with the smoking of one or two marijuana cigarettes during the twenty-four hours prior to the blood extraction. The amount of the diazepam metabolite was consistent with the ingestion of “a very small dose of Valium, no more than five or ten milligrams” during the same 24-hour period. The level of methamphetamine in the blood at the time of the sample was in the middle therapeutic range, or, in other words, an amount consistent with that found in a diet pill. At the time of the murder, the amount of methamphetamine in the blood would have been in the “high therapeutic” or “low abuse” range. Dr. Ronald Roberts, a clinical psychologist, performed a battery of tests on defendant. Dr. Roberts concluded that defendant has no neurological impairment, memory impairment, or organic disorder. Defendant has a low average intelligence quotient of 92. Defendant tested high on the psychopathic deviancy scale. Dr. Roberts also opined that defendant suffered from a deep-seated depression that he masked by using drugs. Dr. Roberts diagnosed defendant as suffering from “antisocial personality disorder.” Defendant also exhibited elements of a borderline personality disorder. Dr. David Smith, the medical director of the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic, testified extensively about the effects of methamphetamine abuse. Dr. Smith described how chronic methamphetamine usage can produce a biochemical impairment of the brain. When this occurs, the extent of debilitation cannot be determined by the level of methamphetamine found in the blood, since the effect of the dosages taken over time is cumulative. Dr. Smith described a “rage reaction” as essentially a lesser form of amphetamine psychosis in which the biochemically impaired user reacts irrationally or violently to a true sensory stimulus. A person experiencing a rage reaction acts without thought. Dr. Smith could not definitely opine that defendant was suffering a rage reaction when he committed the murder. The witness conceded during cross-examination that defendant’s behavior was not the product of a rage reaction if he killed the victim for the goal-oriented purpose of preventing her from identifying him as her rapist. Dr. Stephen Raffle, a psychiatrist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, provided several opinions regarding the psychiatric disorders suffered by defendant at the time of the murder. Most significantly, Dr. Raffle expanded upon Dr. Smith’s testimony by opining that defendant had suffered a rage reaction and disassociative state (i.e., a short break from reality) at the time of the crimes. Dr. Raffle also diagnosed defendant as suffering at the time of the murder from (1) a borderline personality disorder with features of an antisocial personality disorder, and (2) an organic personality syndrome and intoxication caused by amphetamine abuse. On cross-examination, Dr. Raffle conceded that his diagnosis of rage reaction and disassociative state could be invalid if defendant had lied to him about the extent of his memory lapses during the course of the murder. Dr. Raffle further conceded that inconsistencies in the versions of events that defendant related to the police and to mental health experts provided a basis for believing that defendant lied to them, and, therefore, that his memory of the killing was not impaired. C. Rebuttal The prosecutor’s rebuttal case primarily addressed the defense’s expert testimony. Dr. Frederick Meyers, a professor of pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that neither defendant’s drug history nor his observed behavior at the Ron-Dee-Voo supported the rage reaction defense and that defendant was probably not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time that he killed Rosie Grover. Dr. Lee Coleman, a psychiatrist, took issue with many of the propositions underlying the diagnoses of the defense experts and explained potential drawbacks of psychiatric expert testimony. Dr. Coleman disagreed with Dr. Raffle’s diagnoses that appellant experienced a rage reaction or disassociative state at the time of the murder. II. Guilt Phase Issues A. Motion to Suppress Clothing Defendant contends that the search and seizure of his clothing, found in Smith’s car, violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the California Constitution for two reasons: first, Smith, the owner of the car, did not have authority to consent to the search of defendant’s clothing; second, the failure of the police to request defendant’s permission to search his clothing vitiates Smith’s consent. We conclude the search of the clothing did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights and that suppression of the clothing and any evidence derived from it was not required. The Mendocino County Superior Court, prior to the change of venue in this case, held a hearing on defendant’s motion pursuant to section 1538.5. Ukiah Police Department Officers Fred Kelley, Ed Gall, Wayne McBride and Charles Durfee testified at the hearing. An audiotape cassette and a transcript of a tape-recorded statement by the defendant were also admitted into evidence. The facts relating to the search of Smith’s car as presented during this hearing are as follows: Based upon the coincidence of finding in the victim’s luggage a bottled wine cooler of the same brand and flavor as the one carried by the defendant, Detective Kelley asked another officer to request that defendant return to the police station for questioning. Defendant complied with the request. Prior to questioning defendant, Kelley and Gall went to 778 South State Street, where defendant was a guest. There, in defendant’s absence, they questioned Michelle Stevens and Smith. The officers learned that defendant had returned early in the morning of July 19, but had been locked out of the house. Defendant told Stevens arid Smith that he had slept in Smith’s car, which was parked in front of the house. Michelle Stevens told the policemen that she did not permit any alcoholic beverages on the premises and she showed them that there were no such beverages in her refrigerator. Kelley then requested permission from Smith to search his car for “anything that might help [him] out in [his] investigation” and Smith agreed. While searching the car, Kelley noticed a pair of jeans and a vest on the back seat. Kelley removed the clothes from the interior of the car into the sunlight and noticed what appeared to be blood spatters below the knees of the jeans and blood swipes on the vest. Detective Kelley showed the clothing to Stevens and Smith, who told him that defendant was wearing the clothes when he left the house on the night of the murder. Kelley seized the clothes and returned to the police department to interview defendant. Defendant concedes that the car belonged to Smith and that Smith had authority to permit Kelley to search the car. (See United States v. Matlock (1974) 415 U.S. 164, 170-171 [39 L.Ed.2d 242, 249-250, 94 S.Ct. 988] [Matlock]; People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 276-277 [256 Cal.Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610].) Defendant argues, however, that Kelley’s movement and examination of the clothes found in the car constituted a separate search for which Smith’s consent was not sufficient. We disagree. The United States Supreme Court has explained the basis for valid third party consent to a search as “rest[ing] ... on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.” (Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at p. 171, fn. 7 [39 L.Ed.2d at pp. 249-250].) Thus, objects left in an area of common use or control may be within the scope of the consent given by a third party for a search of the common area. (See 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed. 1987) § 8.5(c), pp. 299-304.) As the owner of the'searched car, Smith unquestionably had a possessory interest in it. Smith gave the police his consent to search the car for anything that might prove helpful in the investigation of the murder. By leaving his clothes readily displayed on the seat of Smith’s car, defendant assumed the risk that Smith would consent to a search of the car and its contents. Defendant simply retained no legitimate privacy interest in the clothes as against Smith or Smith’s invitees. The Fourth Amendment is not violated unless a legitimate expectation of privacy is infringed. (E.g., Illinois v. Andreas (1983) 463 U.S. 765, 771 [77 L.Ed.2d 1003, 1010, 103 S.Ct. 3319].) We have reviewed the authorities cited by defendant in support of his contrary position and conclude that none require that we reach a different result. We specifically hold that the general nature of Smith’s consent explains why defendant’s cause is not advanced by reliance upon Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 U.S. 321 [94 L.Ed.2d 347, 107 S.Ct. 1149], In that case, a bullet fired through the floor of the defendant’s apartment injured a man on the floor below. The police entered the defendant’s apartment without a warrant in order to search for the shooter, for other victims and for weapons. During the search, a police officer noticed two sets of expensive stereo equipment. Suspecting the equipment was stolen, the officer read and recorded the serial numbers, moving some of the equipment in order to do so. After checking the serial numbers by phone, the police officer seized certain components that indeed were stolen. The Supreme Court held that the moving of the stereo equipment was an unlawful search. The court reasoned: “But taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or its contents, did produce a new invasion of respondent’s privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the entry.” (Id. at p. 325 [94 L.Ed.2d at p. 354], italics added.) By contrast in the present case, the police were granted consent to search the car for “anything” helpful to the investigation of Rosie Grover’s murder. The search of the contents of the car was within the scope of the consent granted to the police. Therefore, unlike the search of the stereo equipment in Hicks, the search of the clothing found in Smith’s car was not a separate unlawful search. Anticipating our ruling, defendant argues in the alternative that the search was invalid because the police obtained Smith’s consent as a result of “misconduct,” consisting of removing defendant from the scene prior to the search and then failing to request defendant’s permission to search his clothing. Defendant’s argument is unpersuasive. The consent of one person with common or superior authority over the area to be searched is all that is required; the consent of other interested parties is unnecessary. (E.g., Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at pp. 171, 177 [39 L.Ed.2d at pp. 249-250, 253] [roommate’s consent, obtained after defendant arrested and removed from the scene, sufficient]; People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 855-857 [180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776] [wife’s consent, obtained after husband arrested and removed from the premises, sufficient].) B. Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Incriminating Statements Prior to trial and pursuant to Evidence Code section 402, defendant moved to suppress certain statements that he made to the police. The challenged statements, referred to by the parties as the “Patrol Car Statement” and the “Taped Statement,” amount to confessions to murder. Defendant contends that use of the statements violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 7 and 15, of the California Constitution as well as the prophylactic rules set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 (hereafter Miranda) and its progeny. 1. Background The Santa Clara County Superior Court conducted a lengthy hearing to determine the admissibility of defendant’s confessions. Both documentary and testimonial evidence was received. Witnesses included Ukiah Police Officers McBride, Durfee, Gall, and Kelley and defense psychiatrist Dr. Peter Mayland. The stipulated testimony of toxicologist Dr. Randall Baselt and the audiotape cassette and transcript of defendant’s Taped Statement were also received in evidence. The evidence relating to the investigation of the crime is generally consistent with evidence presented during the section 1538.5 hearing and at trial; it will not be set forth in detail again. Rather, we recount the story told by the hearing evidence beginning at the point of defendant’s first custodial interrogation. Detectives Kelley and Gall first encountered defendant when they returned to the station from their trip to 778 South State Street. Defendant was moved from the fingerprinting room, where he had been waiting for the detectives, to the sergeant’s office. At the beginning of the conversation in the sergeant’s room, Kelley advised defendant of his constitutional rights. Defendant waived his rights and stated that he would speak with the officers. Kelley and Gall were both in the room, but only Kelley asked questions. Defendant essentially repeated the story that he had told McBride at the crime scene. In response to Kelley’s questioning, defendant claimed that he had bought the wine cooler a few days earlier and had taken it from Michelle Stevens’s refrigerator that morning, before he left to buy cigarettes. Referring to his activities of the previous evening, defendant explained that he had played pool at Munchie’s, a local bar, with Stevens until 2 a.m. and then had slept in Smith’s car. He also stated that he had not changed clothes since the previous day. Kelley accused defendant of lying. Kelley told defendant that he knew that Michelle Stevens kept no alcohol in her house and that defendant had been wearing the bloody clothing that he had found in Smith’s car. Defendant replied that he no longer wished to speak with the officers and that he wanted to talk to a lawyer. Interrogation ceased. Kelley placed defendant under arrest for murder. Kelley asked defendant if he had an attorney. Defendant replied that he did not. Kelley asked defendant if he wanted to place a phone call. Defendant responded that he did not. The interrogation began at 10:51 a.m. and ended at 11:10 a.m. Following the interrogation, Kelley and Gall filled out booking forms, removed appellant’s clothing, and completed a rape sample kit. About noon Gall and Kelley transported appellant to the local hospital, located about one-eighth of a mile from the police station, to obtain a blood sample. Gall was driving the car; Kelley was seated in the rear with the defendant, who was handcuffed. There was no conversation until appellant asked, “What can someone get for something like this, thirty years?” Gall responded, “Probably not unless you were a mass murderer.” Gall explained during the hearing that “[i]n the years I’ve been a police officer and prior to that it’s been my experience watching court processes, whether it is on TV or, in actual process or in a courtroom itself, I’ve never seen anybody serve, you know, more than seven and a half years. I have never seen anybody serve thirty years or more.” Kelley testified that he knew that murder in California could be punished by death or life without possibility of parole, but did not correct Gall’s remark. He testified that “[t]here was no particular reason” why he did not do so. Fifteen to twenty-five seconds following this exchange with Gall, defendant sighed audibly and said, “I want this on the record. I’m guilty. I killed her. What do you want to know?” Kelley reminded defendant that he had requested an attorney and asked whether he still wanted to consult with a lawyer before talking to them. The complete Miranda warnings were not repeated at this time. Defendant replied negatively to Kelley’s advisement, adding: “I just want to tell you the truth.” As they drove into the hospital parking lot, Kelley asked defendant what had happened. Defendant gave a narrative, which Kelley occasionally interrupted with questions. Defendant stated that he had met Rosie Grover early in the morning on State Street. She “came on” to him and “flashed her titty.” They left for the creek bed, where they had consensual intercourse. Prior to the intercourse, she gave him a wine cooler which she took from her cloth bag. After they had intercourse, she threatened to accuse defendant of rape. He then choked her, stabbed her in the back with a screwdriver, which he found in the creek bed, and bashed her head with a piece of concrete. He fled back to 778 South State Street and changed his bloodstained clothing in Smith’s car. He then decided to return to the creek bed and report “finding” the body to deflect suspicion from himself. Defendant’s narrative was delivered in a calm, deliberate manner with no inappropriate emotional outbursts or signs of intoxication. The officers then took defendant into the hospital for the blood sample and fingernail scrapings. At that time, defendant began to express suicidal thoughts. He told the officers that he had “nothing to live for,” and if he were given the chance that he would kill himself. Detective Kelley told him that mental health care would be available for him in jail. No other mention of help or promise of help was made to the defendant at any time. Based upon defendant’s comments at the hospital, Gall noted possible suicidal tendencies on defendant’s booking sheet when they returned to the station. Upon return to the station, a tape-recorded statement was taken in the office of the chief of police. Kelley, Gall and Deputy District Attorney A1 Kubanis were present. The interrogation began with Kelley advising defendant for the second time of his complete Miranda rights. During the course of this colloquy, defendant repeatedly remarked: “What’s a lawyer going to do for me?” At points he expressed confusion and self-pity. At the end of the discussion, he stated: “Yeah, I’ll talk. I don’t care.” The story told during the Taped Statement is similar to the story told in the patrol car. This time, however, defendant told the police that he had ingested a couple of tablets of Valium, one-eighth gram of methamphetamine and several marijuana cigarettes, as well as more beer than he had previously revealed. He also claimed to have “blacked out” during the murder and denied remembering that he stabbed Rosie Grover with a screwdriver. In response to questioning, defendant stated that he was hungry, but otherwise was feeling all right. The Taped Statement began at 12:41 p.m. and ended at 1:16 p.m. There was no unrecorded conversation with defendant. In addition to these facts, the trial court considered evidence bearing upon defendant’s state of mind at the time of the statements. First, jail records prepared under the direction of the Mendocino County jail were admitted into evidence. These records showed that the defendant was under a suicide watch for a time after he was first incarcerated and that mental health officials had visited defendant and had also recommended observing him for possible symptoms of drug withdrawal. Second, the stipulated testimony of Dr. Baselt was received into evidence. This testimony was consistent with his trial testimony previously described. Dr. Baselt also opined during this hearing that, although the drugs in defendant’s system might have affected defendant’s judgment at the time of the statements, he could not give an opinion regarding the degree of any such impairment, because people vary in their reactions to drug combinations. Finally, Dr. Mayland testified at length that, based upon certain psychological factors arising from defendant’s childhood, life-style and poly-drug use, he possessed “significant doubts” regarding whether defendant could understand and intelligently waive his rights on July 19, 1985. Dr. Mayland also testified, however, that the observations of defendant by the police officers at the time of the statements constituted the most reliable evidence on the issue before the court. After examining certain self-serving inconsistencies between defendant’s three statements under cross-examination, Dr. Mayland further admitted that if all the statements that appeared to be self-serving fabrications were indeed fabrications, defendant would have possessed “moderate intellectual functioning with raggedy edges” at the time of the statements. 2. The Patrol Car Statement a. Miranda Rights Defendant offers several reasons why his Patrol Car Statement should be deemed inadmissible under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436. We find no merit in defendant’s claims. Defendant first contends that Gall’s response to his inquiry regarding possible penalties for “something like this” constituted interrogation in violation of Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 [68 L.Ed.2d 378, 385-387, 101 S.Ct. 1880] (hereafter Edwards). In that case, the Supreme Court announced the following prophylactic rule: Once a custodial suspect invokes his right to an attorney, he “is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” {Ibid.) The trial court specifically found that Gall’s statement did not constitute interrogation. We review the trial court’s finding regarding whether interrogation occurred for substantial evidence or clear error. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 678 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705]; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 649 [286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84].) We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding. Interrogation has a specific meaning as used in Miranda and Edwards. Interrogation “refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” (Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301 [64 L.Ed.2d 297, 308, 100 S.Ct. 1682], fns. omitted; accord, People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 679.) The Supreme Court has also recognized that “[i]n deciding whether particular police conduct is interrogation, we must remember the purpose behind our decisions in Miranda and Edwards: preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment.” (Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520, 529-530 [95 L.Ed.2d 458, 468-469, 107 S.Ct. 1931].) Where government actions do not implicate this purpose, interrogation is not present. (Ibid.) Clearly, not all conversation between an officer and a suspect constitutes interrogation. The police may speak to a suspect in custody as long as the speech would not reasonably be construed as calling for an incriminating response. (See People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 645, 651 [no interrogation found when police responded to defendant’s question regarding the burial of his victims and the defendant subsequently lost his composure and made incriminating statements]; cf. Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, 446 U.S. at pp. 300-303 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 319-321].) In this case, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that there was no reason for Gall to have known that his casual estimate of possible penalties would produce an incriminating response from this defendant. Defendant phrased his question in abstract terms and the officer responded in the same terms. The response contained no suggestion that if defendant confessed he would receive more favorable treatment, or that if he did not confess the penalties would be more harsh. Defendant was in effect told that the officer thought it was likely that the person who committed the crime, whoever that may be, would serve substantial prison time, albeit less than 30 years, whether or not the person confessed. The record does not establish that defendant was subject to “compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning.” (Arizona v. Mauro, supra, 481 U.S. at p. 529 [95 L.Ed.2d at p. 468].) Rather, the record demonstrates defendant’s desire to unburden himself by confessing the murder. Defendant’s expression of guilt was volunteered and was not the result of impermissible police interrogation. (Ibid.) Next, defendant contends that his waiver of his Miranda rights in the patrol car was neither knowing, intelligent nor voluntary. (See Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 706-707]; accord, Colorado v. Spring (1987) 479 U.S. 564, 566, 572 [93 L.Ed.2d 954, 960-961, 107 S.Ct. 851]; Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412, 421 [89 L.Ed.2d 410, 420-421, 106 S.Ct. 1135].) According to the Supreme Court, this inquiry has “two distinct dimensions.” (Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 421 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 420-421].) “First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the ‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. [Citations.]” (Ibid., quoting Fare v. Michael C. (1979) 442 U.S. 707, 725 [61 L.Ed.2d 197, 212-213, 99 S.Ct. 2560].) Defendant argues that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent, because he was deceived by Gall’s statement as to possible punishment and it was not voluntary because Gall’s statement induced him to waive his rights and confess. He also asserts that his background and mental state rendered him especially vulnerable to inducements or promises of leniency. The trial court found that defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. After independent review of the record (People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 649), we agree with the trial court’s findings. Although defendant contends that the waiver of his constitutional rights was not knowing and intelligent, he never contends that he did not understand the rights that were read to him and which he effectively invoked to terminate his Sergeant’s Room Statement. Rather, he contends that he was misled regarding the penalties that he faced and for that reason his assessment regarding whether he should waive his rights was not knowing and intelligent. Defendant misunderstands the nature of the waiver required by Miranda. All that is required is that the defendant comprehend “all of the information that the police are required to convey” by Miranda. (Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 427 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 424-425].) “Once it is determined that a suspect’s decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced, that he at all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is valid as a matter of law.” (Id. at pp. 422-423 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 421-422], fn. omitted.) The record demonstrates that defendant was aware of and understood these rights. We conclude that defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights in the patrol car was knowing and intelligent, whatever the applicable standard of proof. Defendant also contends that his Patrol Car Statement was not voluntary within the meaning of Miranda. He argues that his inexperience with the legal system and the level of his mental functioning at the time of the Patrol Car Statement rendered him “particularly susceptible to responding to false representations and influences.” An involuntary waiver of Miranda rights, however, is a product of government coercion. (Colorado v. Connelly, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 170 [93 L.Ed.2d at pp. 486-487].) Taking into account the totality of the circumstances in this case, such coercion is absent. We find that, under any standard, the content of Gall’s statement and the circumstances under which it was made were not such as to force or compel a confession from the defendant. Furthermore, this court has repeatedly rejected claims of incapacity or incompetence to waive Miranda rights premised upon voluntary intoxication or ingestion of drugs, where, as in this case, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did not understand his rights and the questions posed to him. (E.g., People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 301 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 821 P.2d 585].) b. Due Process Defendant also contends that his Patrol Car Statement was involuntary within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. A statement is involuntary and, thus, inadmissible if it is obtained by threats or promises of leniency, whether express or implied. (People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 778-782; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 166-170 [266 Cal.Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857]; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 838 [183 Cal.Rptr. 817, 647 P.2d 93]; cf. Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 421 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 420-421].) A finding of coercive police activity is a prerequisite for a finding that a confession was involuntary under the due process clauses of the federal or state Constitution. (People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 778; Colorado v. Connelly, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 167 [93 L.Ed.2d at pp. 484-485].) After reviewing the record, we do not find the requisite coercion. Even though Gall’s statement was not accurate, the circumstances surrounding it demonstrate none of the indicia of coercion. (See People v. Thompson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 167; see also, ante, at pp. 985-986, 988.) Gall’s statement, whether considered objectively or subjectively (see People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 780), was not a promise of leniency or an inducement. Viewed objectively, Gall’s statement merely offered his opinion that the person who committed a crime like the one for which defendant was under arrest would serve substantial time in prison, but probably less than 30 years. There was no mention of the effect of cooperation upon the time to be served. There was no threat, promise, psychological trickery or physical violence used to prompt a confession. Nothing in the exchange between the officer and the defendant gives rise to the inference that an implied message was being conveyed. Viewed subjectively, Gall’s statement was not shown to be a promise or an inducement. During the Taped Statement that followed, defendant stated that no promises or threats had been made to him by the police. Although Dr. Mayland testified that defendant was more susceptible than the average person to a suggestion that he would get a lighter punishment in return for a confession, it is clear that defendant did not view the exchange between himself and Gall as containing a promise of leniency. In light of all of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s Patrol Car Statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. The Taped Statement Defendant advances two reasons why the Taped Statement was inadmissible under Miranda. First, defendant argues that he requested counsel prior to giving his statement, but that his request was ignored and interrogation did not cease as required by Edwards, supra, 451 U.S. 477. Second, defendant argues that he did not understand his Miranda rights and, therefore, was unable to knowingly and intelligently waive them. We reject defendant’s contentions. Defendant first argues that he invoked his right to counsel while being advised of his rights. In support of his argument, defendant points to his repeated phrase “what can an attorney do for me” and his comment “I’m really confused, I mean, I don’t know what the fuck to do.” Whether defendant invoked his right to counsel is a factual question, which is reviewed by this court for substantial evidence or clear error. (E.g., People v. Hayes (1985) 38 Cal.3d 780, 784 [214 Cal.Rptr. 652, 699 P.2d 1259] [invocation of right to counsel is a factual question]; People v. Bestelmeyer (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 520, 526 [212 Cal.Rptr. 605] [invocation of right to counsel is a factual question]; but see Robinson v. Borg (9th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 1387, 1390 [whether defendant’s words constitute a request for counsel is a legal determination reviewed de novo].) The record supports the trial court’s implicit finding that the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel during this colloquy. It is true, as defendant urges, that a request for counsel “need not be unequivocal to invoke defendant’s right to call a halt to questioning.” (E.g., People v. Thompson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 165.) Defendant cites numerous cases which have found equivocal language sufficient to invoke the right to counsel. In context (People v. Thompson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 165), however, defendant’s statements in this case did not amount even to an equivocal assertion of his right to counsel. It is clear from the record that defendant evaluated whether he should waive his rights and give the Taped Statement. He spoke of the reasons that would prompt him to do so. He asked questions to help him evaluate his position. The interrogators, while avoiding giving the defendant detailed legal advice, provided information responsive to his questions. The interrogators were at all times courteous, polite, and restrained. Although the defendant was aware from his experience that morning in connection with the Sergeant’s Room Statement that if he invoked his rights the questioning would cease, he did not do so. In fact, notwithstanding his vocalized soul-searching, the record reflects that he waived his rights three times prior to the initiation of substantive questioning. With respect to the specific comments to the effect of “what can a lawyer do for me,” a review of the transcript and the cassette, including the tone and inflections of defendant’s voice, reveals that defendant’s “questions” were rhetorical in nature and linked to his repeated explanation of the reasoning behind the waiver of his rights. (See People v. Thompson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 165.) Defendant repeatedly explained that he did not feel that a lawyer could assist him since he was guilty and previously had revealed this fact to the police. For these reasons, he was willing to talk without assistance of counsel. Similarly, defendant’s statement regarding his confusion, both in context and on its face, cannot be reasonably construed as a request for counsel. The Taped Statement demonstrates that defendant understood that he had a right to counsel; it is irrelevant, in the absence of coercion, that he had difficulty in deciding whether to exercise his right. Even assuming that these comments, separately or in tandem, could be construed as an ambiguous request for counsel, the conduct of the interrogators was proper and defendant’s subsequent waiver was valid. When the person under interrogation makes an ambiguous statement that could be construed as a request for counsel, the interrogators may clarify the suspect’s comprehension of, and desire to invoke or waive, the Miranda rights. (E.g., People v. Carey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 99, 102, 103 [227 Cal.Rptr. 813], cert. denied (1987) 479 U.S. 1089 [94 L.Ed.2d 153, 107 S.Ct. 1297]; United States v. Fouche (9th Cir. 1989) 776 F.2d 1398, 1404-1405.) The colloquy regarding defendant’s rights consisted of such permissible clarification. The interrogators did not ask defendant substantive questions until defendant’s position was clarified and a valid waiver was obtained. Moreover, no coercive tactics were employed in order to obtain defendant’s Miranda waiver. We next turn to defendant’s contention that his waiver of his rights was not knowing and intelligent. Defendant provides two reasons why his waiver was deficient. First, he argues that he had an insufficient understanding of the function of an attorney. Second, he renews his argument that his mental state rendered him incapable of providing a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. The trial court explicitly found that defendant did knowingly and intelligently waive his rights prior to giving the Taped Statement. After an independent review of the record (People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 649), we agree. The Miranda warnings given to the defendant at the beginning of the Taped Statement were complete and accurate. Again, all that is required for a valid waiver of these rights is that the defendant understand that he could stand mute, request a lawyer and that anything he did choose to say could be used against him to secure a conviction. (Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at pp. 422-423 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 421-422].) The record reveals that defendant understood these rights. In fact, the record reveals that defendant was provided with more information than the Constitution requires in order to assist him in evaluating the wisdom of waiving his rights. Defendant contends, however, that his waiver was deficient because he did not adequately comprehend what a lawyer could do for him. There is no constitutional requirement that the defendant understand the types of assistance that an attorney can provide. (Cf. Patterson v. Illinois (1988) 487 U.S. 285, 293-294 [101 L.Ed.2d 261, 272-274, 108 S.Ct. 2389] [addressing Sixth Amendment right to counsel].) Unadorned Miranda warnings, which the defendant received, sufficed to give defendant all the information necessary for him to make a knowing and intelligent choice to waive or invoke his right to counsel. (Cf. ibid.; Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at pp. 422-424 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 421-423].) Defendant was not only provided with the information necessary for him to make an informed decision to waive his rights, but the record reveals beyond a reasonable doubt that he comprehended this information. As we have previously stated, we have reviewed all of the evidence relating to the defendant’s mental state at the time the Taped Statement was taken, reviewed the transcript of the statement and listened carefully to the audiocassette tape-recording of the statement. Defendant understood and effectively invoked his Miranda rights earlier that day. At the time of the Taped Statement, he was thinking rationally enough to provide the date when Detective Kelley could not remember it. The addition to his partially exculpatory story of his blackout during the crime, as well as other favorable embellishments, also lead us to conclude that defendant was not so mentally impaired as to be unable to make a valid waiver of his rights. We recognize that the defendant felt a degree of hopelessness regarding the situation in which he found himself as well as self-pity arising from his unfortunate family life. At points in the initial colloquy, he expressed some confusion regarding what he should do. Nevertheless, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was capable of understanding and did understand his Miranda rights. Therefore, we conclude that defendant’s waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. (People v. Breaux, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 301.) C. Motion to Suppress Analysis of Defendant’s Blood Defendant contends that the Mendocino County Superior Court violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the California Constitution by failing to suppress the results of tests performed on the sample of his blood that was drawn shortly after his arrest. We conclude that the results of the blood tests were properly admitted. We need not address the merits of defendant’s contentions relating to the existence or absence of probable cause to draw defendant’s blood at the time it was drawn, because we conclude that the doctrine of inevitable discovery would validate the lower court’s ruling in any event. As the Attorney General persuasively argues, approximately 30 minutes after defendant’s blood was drawn, defendant gave the Taped Statement in which he admitted that he had ingested several different drugs on the night of the murder, including Valium, methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol. The Taped Statement was legally obtained. As a result of defendant’s revelations concerning his drug usage on the night in question, the police inevitably would have drawn defendant’s blood. Furthermore, following these revelations there was probable cause to draw defendant’s blood and exigent circumstances creating an exception to the warrant requirement were also present since defendant’s body was metabolizing the evidence and delay could have resulted in destruction of the evidence sought. (See Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 770-771 [16 L.Ed.2d 908, 919-920, 86 S.Ct. 1826].) We recognize that metabolization of the substances in defendant’s bloodstream would have continued in the 30 minutes to an hour between the time that defendant’s blood was actually extracted and the time it inevitably would have been extracted following his Taped Statement. It is common, however, for experts to take into account the metabolization rate of a substance and extrapolate from the amount of a substance in a blood sample to arrive at an opinion regarding the amount of the substance in the blood at a critical point in time. Indeed, the expert testimony in this case was based upon this methodology. The expert testimony on the metabolization rates of the drugs detected in defendant’s blood sample supports the Attorney General’s argument that the blood sample that inevitably would have been drawn following the Taped Statement would have provided essentially the same information revealed by the blood sample that was actually drawn. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court’s ruling was correct under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. (See, e.g., Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431 [81 L.Ed.2d 377, 104 S.Ct. 2501]; Green v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 136-139; People v. Superior Court (Tunch) (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 665 [145 Cal.Rptr. 795]; cf. People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548, 568-569 [247 Cal.Rptr. 729, 754 P.2d 1306].) D. Conflicts of Interest Defendant argues that his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution were violated by various conflicts of interest. Specifically, defendant complains that: (1) a conflict was created when Susan Massini, his first public defender, ran for and won the office of county district attorney during the time she represented him; (2) after the recusal of the district attorney’s office following the election, a conflict was created when the court permitted a deputy district attorney to consult with the Attorney General’s office, which had substituted as prosecutor for this case; (3) conflicts existed due to previous representation of certain prosecution witnesses by the Mendocino County Public Defender; and (4) the court failed to obtain valid waivers from defendant of any of these conflicts. For reasons explained below, we find no conflict requiring reversal. 1. General Principles “Included in the right to the effective assistance of counsel is ‘a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 834 [254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460]; accord, People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 135 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781].) We have repeatedly recognized that such conflicts “embrace all situations in which an attorney’s loyalty to, or efforts on behalf of, a client are threatened by his [or her] responsibilities to another client or a third person or by his [or her] own interests. [Citation.]” (People v. Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 835; accord, People v. Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 135.) The standard for obtaining relief under the Sixth Amendment based upon a conflict of interest depends upon whether the defendant objected to the conflict at trial. Where a trial court requires the continuation of conflicted representation over a timely objection, reversal is automatic. (Holloway v. Arkansas (1978) 435 U.S. 475, 488 [55 L.Ed.2d 426, 436-437, 98 S.Ct. 1173].) On the other hand, ‘“a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.’ [Citations.] The Court in [Cuyler v.] Sullivan [(1980) 446 U.S. 335, 348 (64 L.Ed.2d 333, 346-347, 100 S.Ct. 1708)] made clear that such a defendant must ‘show[] that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests,’ and ‘the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Easley (1988) 46 Cal.3d 712, 724 [250 Cal.Rptr. 855, 759 P.2d 490], italics in original.) “Under our state Constitution, ‘[w]e have applied a somewhat more rigorous standard of review.’ (People v. Mroczko (1983) 35 Cal.3d 86, 104 [197 Cal.Rptr. 52, 672 P.2d 835].) Regardless of an objection, “even a potential conflict may require reversal if the record supports “an informed speculation” that appellant’s right to effective representation was prejudicially affected. Proof of an “actual conflict” is not required.’ (Id., at p. 105.)” (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 654 [280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351].) As we explained in People v. Easley, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 725, “[i]t is important to recognize that ‘adverse effect on counsel’s performance’ under [Cuyler v.] Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. at pages 348 and 350 [64 L.Ed.2d at pages 346, 348], is not the same as ‘prejudice’ in the sense in which we often use that term. When, for example, we review a ‘traditional’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (i.e., one involving asserted inadequate performance as opposed to ‘conflicted’ performance), we require the defendant to show a reasonable probability that the result (i.e., the disposition) would have been different. [Citations.] ... As we suggested in Mroczko, supra, Sullivan requires an inquiry into whether the record shows that counsel ‘pulled his punches,’ i.e., failed to represent defendant as vigorously as he might have had there been no conflict. [Citation.]” Under our “somewhat more rigorous” state standard, a show