Full opinion text
Opinion CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. A jury found defendant Daniel Lee Whalen guilty of the 1994 first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and first degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (a)) of Sherman Robbins, and found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A)), and the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.5). Defendant admitted he had suffered three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (d)), and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death for the murder. The trial court denied defendant’s automatic application to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and imposed the death sentence for the murder and a prison term for the robbery and enhancements. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety. I. Facts In March 1994, Sherman Robbins was house sitting for his brother, who was away on vacation. Late one evening, defendant and his accomplices, Michelle Lee Joe and Melissa Fader, gained entry into the home by pretending the car they had been driving had broken down. The three took numerous items from the house, and defendant shot Robbins as he lay on a couch with his hands tied behind his back. Joe and Fader were initially charged, along with defendant, with Robbins’s first degree murder and robbery, but each agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for her testimony against defendant. At trial, defendant attempted to place the blame for the murder on Joe and argued the evidence was legally insufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony. At the penalty phase, defendant’s attorney and an expert relayed to jurors defendant’s expressed desire for the jury to impose the death penalty, but each made a case for sparing defendant’s life. A. Guilt Phase 1. The prosecution’s case a. Background and investigation Sherman Robbins was an elderly diabetic man who normally lived alone in an apartment in Modesto. Sherman was kind to “street people” and they were welcome at his apartment for food or a bath. In mid-March 1994, Sherman was house sitting at his brother Bill’s house at 519 Nebraska Avenue in Modesto while Bill and his wife, Alvina, vacationed in Ireland. Bill’s daughter-in-law, Shirley Robbins, occasionally visited Sherman at the Nebraska Avenue house and took him for blood tests. On Saturday, March 19, Shirley was at the Nebraska Avenue house most of the day with other family members, helping Sherman clean the yard. A few days earlier, the family had rented a dumpster to facilitate the cleanup. Around noon, a man and a woman whom Shirley did not know, but who later were identified as Johnny Long and Michelle Joe, drove up in an olive green, late 1960s Ford Mustang, and stayed for a couple of hours. Sherman introduced Long as his cousin, and Long helped Sherman move a pole. Joe mostly stayed in the car with her three children, but went into the house at least once to get water or to take her children to the bathroom. The next day, Sunday, Shirley spoke with Sherman on the phone about his doctor’s appointment on Monday. On Monday, March 21, Shirley’s daughter, Krista, arrived at the Nebraska Avenue house around 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. to take Sherman to the doctor. When Krista arrived, Joe was there going through the dumpster, while Joe’s children played in the yard. Sherman told Krista that Joe was his cousin’s girlfriend. After Krista dropped Sherman off for his appointment, she informed Shirley that Joe had been at the house. Shirley directed Krista to go back to the house and make sure the doors were locked. When Krista returned, Joe was no longer there. Krista checked the doors, but not the windows. As she was leaving, she noticed Joe and Long driving up again in the green Mustang. They stopped and gave Krista a “dirty look,” but Krista did not stop or speak with them because Sherman had said they could take some boxes from the house, and Krista assumed they were going to the house to retrieve the boxes. Shirley spoke with Sherman by phone between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. that evening. The following day, Tuesday, March 22, she tried to call him several times but he did not answer. Shirley went to the Nebraska Avenue house early Wednesday morning. When she pulled up, she noticed two newspapers were in the driveway. Both the screen door and wooden front door were open. Sensing something “wasn’t right,” she entered the house and discovered Sherman’s dead body on the couch. She immediately called 911. When the police arrived, she told them about Long and a woman with long hair (Joe). Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Patrol Officer Brian Markum arrived at the scene about 8:00 a.m. Upon entering the house, he found Sherman’s body on the couch, surrounded by blood. There was a large hole in Sherman’s right temple. Markum determined Sherman was deceased and secured the crime scene. Giles New, an investigator with the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, arrived at the scene around 9:00 a.m. and later that day became the principal investigator. Inside the house, he noticed a hole in the end of the couch near Sherman’s head. Cotton material from inside the couch, as well as shotgun pellets, were on the floor. Sherman’s senior citizen’s identification card was in a wallet on a bed in the second bedroom. Examining the exterior of the house, New found that a screen had been removed and placed on the ground below the windows of each of the two bedrooms on the south side of the house. One window was open in each bedroom. There was a fresh trail in the high, wet grass leading from the south side of the house to an area 30 to 40 feet from the brush pile at the end of the dirt road that extended south from Nebraska Avenue. Tire tracks extended along the dirt road and ended near the brush pile, and there were shoe tracks in that area. None of the tracks were ever matched to any tires or shoes. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department identification officer Dan Cron photographed the crime scene and processed it for fingerprints. He determined that a latent palm print taken from the back bedroom window on the south side of the house matched the rolled palm print of Melissa Fader. Department of Justice Criminalist John Miller helped recover shotgun pellets and a “tom and chewed up” 20-gauge shotgun shell from the crime scene. The pellets were scattered all over the room in which Sherman’s body lay on the couch, and a group of pellets had gouged a hole in the floor near the couch. Based on measurements of the height of the gunshot hole in the arm of the couch near Sherman’s head, and the location of the hole gouged in the floor in relation to the couch, Miller determined the shot had been fired at an angle of approximately 30 degrees relative to the floor. Miller further concluded Sherman had been shot while lying in the position in which his body was found. Department of Justice firearms expert Duane Lovaas later examined the pellets and partial shotgun shell recovered from the crime scene. He discovered there were two sizes of pellets, and that the shell had striations indicating it had travelled through the barrel of a shotgun. Additionally, the powder in the shell had not ignited. Based on this evidence, Lovaas concluded someone had loaded a 12-gauge shell behind a 20-gauge shell in a 12-gauge shotgun and then fired, propelling the 20-gauge shell through the barrel like a bullet, followed by the 12-gauge pellets. No firearm was given to Lovaas for comparison. On Thursday, the day after Shirley found Sherman’s body, forensic pathologist Thomas Beaver conducted an autopsy. He determined the cause of death was a shotgun wound to the right temporal area of Sherman’s head. The presence of black, sooty material around the wound indicated the shot was fired at close range, probably from within inches. Sherman’s hands were tied tightly behind his back with a twill-patterned necktie. Ligature furrows on the skin under the tie had the same pattern. The absence of bruising under the skin indicated there had been minimal struggle against the soft cloth. Beaver estimated Sherman had died 24 to 48 hours earlier. When Bill and Alvina returned home from Ireland, they determined that a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun and a .22-caliber rifle were missing from the gun cabinet. Also missing were a typewriter, a microwave oven, a small television set, a Magnavox CD player, a small tape player, a large peanut butter jar full of pennies, and a Makita grinder that had been stored in the bam behind the house. Bill identified People’s exhibit No. 56, an item recovered in the murder investigation (see p. 18, post), as his Makita grinder. Investigator New arrested defendant in April 1994. Upon his arrest, defendant spontaneously said, “I was expecting to get picked up sooner or later. Sometimes the best place to hide is right under your noses.” b. Events surrounding the murder Defendant’s accomplices, Joe and Fader, provided the principal testimony regarding the killing. John Richie and Rick Saso testified about events both before and after the killing. The testimony of these witnesses was consistent in many respects, but varied in its details and from what each witness had said in prior statements. We set out the testimony of these witnesses in some detail. i. John Richie John Richie testified pursuant to a grant of immunity from prosecution for any crimes associated with his testimony. Richie testified Sherman Robbins was his aunt’s brother and had taken Richie to get candy when he was a child. Richie also was acquainted with Michelle Joe; he had protected her on occasion from her former boyfriend, who beat her. Richie testified he first met defendant several years before the events at issue in this case, at a place called “Butler’s Camp.” About a month or two before defendant was arrested, defendant began living with Richie, Richie’s girlfriend Kathy Sisk, and their children in Richie’s apartment. On the morning of March 21, 1994, Joe drove to Richie’s apartment in a green Mustang and asked for defendant. Richie followed defendant outside, where he overheard Joe ask defendant to help her commit a burglary. Richie went back inside, and defendant came in about a half-hour to an hour later. Richie “pleaded” with defendant not to participate in the burglary, and defendant assured Richie he would not do it. According to Richie, Joe came to the apartment again shortly before dark and asked Richie to babysit her child. Richie agreed. Joe left as it was getting darker, and defendant left as well, but Richie was not sure if they left together. Richie did not see either defendant or Joe until the following morning. Richie had gone to visit his friend, Rick Saso. When he returned, defendant and Joe were at the apartment with various items including a small television set, a microwave oven, a computer or typewriter, a stereo, a rifle, and a shotgun. The shotgun smelled like gunpowder. Sisk and Melissa Fader, whom Richie had not met before, were counting pennies from a jar. Fader claimed the pennies were hers. Joe had “urinated herself’ and asked to use the shower, and Sisk gave Joe some fresh clothes to wear. Richie testified that he rode his bicycle to Saso’s home and told him there was some property for sale at his apartment. Saso followed Richie back to the apartment in his car. While the others bartered over the property, Richie went outside. At some point, Saso emerged and asked Richie to help him put the property in his car. Saso said he had traded an “eight-ball”—about 3.75 grams of methamphetamine—for all of the property. Richie helped Saso load the items into the car, and Saso left. Back in the apartment, defendant gave Richie part of his share of the methamphetamine, and they, along with Joe and Fader, “indulged” in use of the drug. Fader and Joe then left as it was getting light outside. According to Richie, over the next few days defendant seemed nervous and watched the newspapers. At some point, defendant volunteered to Richie that he had killed a man. Defendant said he had tied the man up, “told him to ‘get right with God and he would be back in a minute,’ ” and then shot him. Defendant also said that he and Joe had argued about the way in which the victim was to die. Joe wanted the victim smothered because it would be quieter, but defendant said that “ ‘wrestling with [the victim] until he died would have been more of a torture than shooting him.’ ” Defendant did not say why he had killed the man. When Richie asked defendant how he could do such a thing, defendant said “it was nothing, that you couldn’t get emotionally involved.” Either during this conversation, or a subsequent one, Richie asked defendant to leave the apartment. Richie further testified that at some point after his arrest defendant wrote Richie a letter from jail. According to Richie, the second sentence of the third paragraph of the letter began, “ ‘[W]ith both Michelle and Melissa telling on me ....’” In the letter, defendant did not deny that what Joe and Fader were saying about him was true. ii. Melissa Fader In March 1994, Melissa Fader was living in a trailer in Modesto behind her landlady Nellie Thompson. On March 21, Fader’s inend, Michelle Joe, stopped by in a green Mustang with her new boyfriend, Johnny Long, around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and chatted with Fader for a while, then left. A couple of hours later, Joe drove up again in the Mustang with her daughter Crystal, but without Long. Joe told Fader she had told Long she needed to borrow the car to take Fader to the1 hospital. Joe and Fader then cruised around in the Mustang for an hour or two trying to “score some dope”—meaning “crank” or methamphetamine—but they were unsuccessful. Joe dropped Fader off at her trailer and left. According to Fader, she next saw Joe around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. that night. Fader had been up for several days on crank and was fighting with her boyfriend, who had locked her in the trailer with a padlock. Fader told Joe she wanted to get away, and Joe invited Fader to come with her. Fader climbed out the window, taking some clothes so she could change later if necessary. Fader testified that when she got in the backseat of the Mustang, defendant was in the front passenger seat. Fader had met defendant once before. Both defendant and Joe had gloves on, but Fader had none. Joe, who was driving, told Fader they were going to rob a house where no one was home. The plan was to enter the house, take things, and leave. Joe drove to the house at 519 Nebraska Avenue and pulled into the driveway. Joe walked up to the house and determined an old man was sleeping inside. They then drove around trying to find a back way into the house, but were unsuccessful. They returned to the house and parked near a brush pile. According to Fader, Joe announced a plan to wake the old man, tell him her car had broken down, and ask if she and Fader could spend the night. While Joe walked up to the house, defendant retrieved a tool from a shed behind the house and put it in the car’s trunk. After about five minutes, Joe returned to the car and said, “ ‘let’s go.’ ” Joe instructed defendant to wait 15 minutes; she and Fader then walked to the house. Sherman let them in, and Joe pretended to use the phone while Sherman offered Fader a beer. Joe claimed to be unable to reach anyone by phone. Sherman said the women could stay the night and told them to make themselves at home. He showed them to a bedroom and left them alone. Joe then instructed Fader to go back out and talk to Sherman. Fader did so, then took a bath and made a sandwich. Eventually, she fell asleep on the small sofa, and Sherman fell asleep on the large sofa. At 3:30 a.m., Fader explained, she awoke to find defendant standing over Sherman, pointing a large gun at him and loudly demanding to know where he kept his wallet. Sherman answered the wallet was in a box in the bedroom. Defendant ordered Fader to tie up Sherman. When Fader refused, defendant pointed the gun at her and said “ ‘you’re gonna do it.’ ” Defendant handed Fader a necktie and told Sherman to put his hands behind his back. Fader tied Sherman’s hands, loosely at first, but defendant ordered her to tie them tighter. Defendant seemed angry, whereas earlier in the evening his mood had been “civil.” Fader testified that she told defendant she wanted to leave, but defendant said “ ‘you ain’t going nowhere,’ ” and ordered her to grab the microwave oven and typewriter. Fader took those items to the car and returned through the sliding glass door. Sherman was lying on his stomach on the sofa with defendant standing over him. Fader found Joe in the second bedroom, going through Sherman’s wallet. Fader said she wanted to leave, and Joe told her to go out the window, which she did. Joe handed Fader some items—including a “radio” or “stereo” and a large jar of pennies—through the window, and Fader took them to the car. Joe emerged from the house and put more items in the car. Together Fader and Joe then loaded a few more things that had been piled outside the window into the car. Joe then got in the driver’s seat, and Fader got in the backseat. According to Fader, after about five minutes, the women heard a gunshot. Defendant emerged from the house carrying a shotgun, which he put in the trunk. He got in the car and said, “ ‘let’s get out of here.’ ” Joe informed him there was another gun in the house. Defendant returned to the house and retrieved a second gun, which Fader described as a “long gun” that could have been a rifle. Defendant put that gun in the trunk and got back in the car. Joe then drove away. At defendant’s suggestion, Fader testified, they drove to Prescott Estates, where defendant unsuccessfully tried to sell the stolen property. Eventually they arrived at Richie’s apartment. Fader was not acquainted with Richie or the apartment at that time. Joe, who had urinated in her pants, took a shower and changed into some fresh clothes provided by Richie’s girlfriend, Sisk. Fader and defendant went into the bathroom and ingested some crank. Fader then went into the bedroom and started counting pennies from the jar taken from the Nebraska Avenue house. According to Fader, two men showed up at the apartment to purchase the stolen property while Fader stayed in the bedroom counting pennies. After a while, Joe entered the bedroom and said they had gotten an “eight-ball” of crank for all of the items. When Fader emerged from the bedroom, the crank was being divided up. Fader received a gram or half a gram. Fader testified that she and defendant went into the bathroom and ingested more crank. Fader then returned to the bedroom and continued counting and rolling pennies. Defendant followed her into the bedroom and wanted to “mess around.” Fader did not want to but complied “under force” because she was afraid of defendant. Afterwards, when it was getting light outside, Joe took Fader home and instructed her not to tell anyone what had happened at the Nebraska Avenue house. Fader testified that when she arrived home, she had her share of the crank, about $4 in pennies, and a grinder. Fader tried to sell the grinder to Nellie Thompson for $5. Thompson did not want the grinder, but gave Fader $5 anyway. Fader put the grinder on Thompson’s porch. About a week later, Fader told Thompson defendant had raped her the day she got the grinder. Fader identified People’s exhibit No. 56 as the grinder she had obtained from the robbery and left on Thompson’s porch. iii. Michelle Joe Joe testified she had known Fader for about six years before the crime, and first met defendant in March 1994 at Richie’s apartment. During the week preceding the murder, she had been to the Nebraska Avenue house three or four times and had entered the house once or twice. At that time, she was using about 1.5 grams of methamphetamine per day and had been using for the past three years. According to Joe, on the morning of March 21, 1994, she first went with Long to the Nebraska Avenue house to go through the dumpster, then stopped by Fader’s trailer on the way back to Long’s apartment. She concocted a story about needing to take Fader to the hospital in order to get Long to lend her his car. After ingesting some methamphetamine, she picked up Fader in the afternoon and they drove around for a few hours unsuccessfully trying to obtain more. After dropping Fader off at her trailer, Joe obtained some methamphetamine from Rick Saso, ingested it, and rode around until after dark. Eventually, Joe explained, she ended up at Richie’s apartment. She encountered Richie outside the apartment and asked if defendant was there. Defendant came out and sat in the car with Joe. Joe asked defendant to help her commit a burglary. Defendant asked if anyone would be home; Joe responded she did not think so. Defendant agreed to help. Joe left, and returned a short while later. Someone gave Joe a pair of gloves, and defendant obtained gloves too. According to Joe, she drove with defendant to Fader’s trailer, which was padlocked. At the window, Joe invited Fader to help with the burglary. Fader handed Joe a key to the padlock, and Joe opened the door, allowing Fader to leave. Fader, who was upset because she had been arguing with her boyfriend, brought along a tote bag and got in the backseat of the Mustang. Joe explained that she drove to the Nebraska Avenue house and parked on the dirt road near a pile of branches. She went up to the house to see if anyone was there. After looking in the living room window and seeing Sherman asleep on the couch, she returned to the car and informed the others. They then drove around looking for a back way in, drove into someone’s driveway, heard a dog barking, turned around, and came back to the Nebraska Avenue house. At some point during this period, defendant went to an area behind the house, retrieved a chain saw, and put it in the Mustang. Joe testified that she came up with a plan to pretend the car had broken down. Joe and Fader walked up to the house together and knocked on the sliding glass door while defendant waited in back. When Sherman answered, Joe explained they were having car trouble and asked to use the phone; Sherman agreed. Once inside, Joe faked a phone call to Long, telling Sherman she was unable to reach him. Sherman agreed to allow the women to stay the night. The three talked for a while and had some drinks. Sherman then showed Joe to a bedroom. While Fader and Sherman continued talking in the living room, Joe emerged from the bedroom a couple of times to check on them and get a cigarette or a glass of water. Fader was on the loveseat and Sherman was on the couch. Fader got up to fix herself something to eat, took a bath, and went back to the living room. After a time, Fader and Sherman fell asleep. Joe then turned on the bedroom light as a signal, and defendant climbed in the bedroom window. Joe and defendant went through the drawers in the bedroom and unplugged a CD player and a television set. Joe explained that she went back to the family room, determined Fader and Sherman were still asleep, and returned to the bedroom. Defendant left the bedroom. She then heard a “ruckus”—something opened and slammed, and someone was shouting. When she emerged, she saw defendant, who was holding a large gun like a shotgun, standing in front of Sherman as he lay on the couch. Joe went into a bedroom and unplugged a “boom box” to steal. Fader came in and told her defendant wanted her to find something to tie up Sherman with. Fader said defendant had pointed the gun at her. Fader found a necktie and left. Joe went into the dining room and saw defendant standing over Sherman, demanding to know where he kept his wallet. Sherman said the wallet was in the bedroom. Joe retrieved the wallet from a green box in the bedroom and, without opening it, handed it to Fader. Joe testified that defendant instructed her to get the car. She moved the car into the driveway near the house. When she returned, defendant was still standing over Sherman, who was lying tied up on the couch. Defendant angrily commanded Joe and Fader to load the items they had gathered into the car. Joe told defendant she was afraid and did not want to go through with the burglary, but defendant raised his voice and told her to just get stuff into the car. Joe and Fader complied, putting several items, including a “boom box,” a typewriter and a microwave oven, into the car. When Joe returned to the house, she asked defendant if he was going to kill Sherman. Defendant said “no” but seemed very upset. Joe explained that when she went back outside, Fader was already at the car. As Joe was opening the rear car door for Fader, she heard a gunshot. She and Fader got in the car. Defendant emerged from the house carrying a gun, put the gun in the car, then returned to the house and retrieved a second gun, which he also placed at his side in the car. At defendant’s suggestion, Joe testified, she drove to Prescott Estates. On the way, Joe asked defendant if he had killed Sherman; defendant responded he had not. At Prescott Estates, defendant unsuccessfully tried to sell the stolen property. Eventually, the three returned to Richie’s apartment. Joe took a shower and changed clothes because she had urinated in her pants, while Fader counted pennies in the bedroom. Richie and defendant unloaded the stolen items from the car and brought them inside. When Joe emerged after her shower, defendant and Richie were in the kitchen talking to Rick Saso. The stolen property was on the kitchen table. Some methamphetamine was on a mirror on the counter; the men were dividing it up with a razor blade. Joe testified that Saso gave some methamphetamine to defendant, and she received about a gram of the drug. She took her share into the bedroom and ingested some of it. When she emerged from the bedroom, only Saso was there. Joe told Saso she thought defendant might have killed someone. Saso got up, kissed Joe and left without saying anything. Joe then saw Fader and defendant come in from outside and go into the bedroom. When Fader came out of the bedroom, she asked Joe to take her home, which Joe did. iv. Rick Saso Rick Anthony Saso testified pursuant to a grant of immunity from prosecution for any crimes associated with his testimony. Saso testified that in 1994 he used, and made his living selling, drugs. He first met defendant at Richie’s apartment. Saso also was acquainted with Joe; she occasionally had sex with him in exchange for drugs. Saso explained that one night, Richie came to Saso’s apartment and said he had some guns to sell. Saso drove to Richie’s apartment as it was getting light outside, bringing along some drugs to exchange for the guns if the guns were “nice.” When he arrived at Richie’s apartment, Sisk, Richie’s children, defendant, Joe and another woman whom Saso had not met before were there; Richie arrived a few minutes later. Joe was pacing around the house and seemed scared; the other woman sat in the kitchen. Defendant remained in the bedroom while Saso negotiated with the others regarding the price of the guns. After about an hour, defendant emerged. Saso offered defendant 1/16 of an ounce of methamphetamine for the guns, but defendant demanded an “eight-ball.” Saso eventually “cheated” defendant “a little bit” and gave him 1.5 grams, which is less than 1/16 of an ounce. The value of the drugs was about $70. Richie wrapped up the guns and put them in Saso’s car. About a week later, Saso sold the guns after Richie told him defendant had used them to shoot someone. 2. The defense case Nellie Thompson testified she had assisted Fader with obtaining SSI (Supplemental Security Income) disability benefits, based on Fader’s drug addiction and her mental status. In Thompson’s opinion, Fader had the mental ability of a 12 year old. According to Thompson, after an article appeared in a newspaper about the killing of a man in Patterson, Fader told Thompson that in October 1993 she, Joe, and Joe’s ex-boyfriend had gone to a house in the country and taken some things. Fader told Thompson that when a dog barked, she had jumped into the car through the window and cut her leg. According to Thompson, when Fader heard about the Patterson murder, she exclaimed, “ ‘Oh my god, I thought they shot the dog. They said they shot the dog.’ ” Thompson said Fader told her about this incident three to four months before she mentioned being raped by defendant. Defense investigator Alan Peacock testified he first interviewed Nellie Thompson in August 1994. He recounted that Thompson never told him or any member of his office that Fader had reported being raped by defendant. Instead, he said, the first time Thompson mentioned the alleged rape was in the hallway just before she testified for the prosecution. The parties entered into several stipulations regarding prior statements by prosecution witnesses, including the following: Joe never told law enforcement that she had urinated on herself on the night of the murder. Fader told Detective New that Joe did all of the bargaining in the exchange of the stolen property for drugs. Fader said she and defendant went to the store; when they came back to Richie’s apartment the stolen property was gone and Joe had an “eight-ball,” which they split three ways. Fader further said that Joe instructed her to “take the [rap]” for the crime. Fader thought defendant should “take the [rap]” because he had the guns and was the one “doing this shit.” Richie told Detective Viohl that a few days after defendant and Joe obtained the stolen guns, defendant told Richie he had to leave because he (defendant) was endangering Richie’s family. Defendant also said there was a “drunkard” at the house where they had obtained the guns. This was the last time defendant spoke to Richie about the events at the Nebraska Avenue house. Saso told Detective Valdez that he gave Richie the dope in exchange for the guns, and that he sold the guns for more dope the next day. 3. Rebuttal Detective New testified that he had checked for reports of an elderly man being killed in a rural area where there was a dog in October 1993. He found no such occurrence. B. Penalty Phase 1. The prosecution’s case in aggravation Sharon Kennedy was working as a teller at Bank of America’s Ceres branch on May 26, 1988. She testified that on that day, defendant came into the bank, went to the window of another teller, Frances Passalaqua, and handed her a note that said, “This is a robbery.” Kennedy immediately pushed a “panic” button. Defendant turned and ran out the door, bumping into a customer on the way out. Kennedy did not see a gun and nobody was shot. Frances Passalaqua testified consistently with Kennedy, but she could not identify the robber. She did not give the robber any money. The parties stipulated that defendant had sustained several convictions. On April 15, 1971, defendant was convicted of armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer. He was sentenced to prison and released on June 5, 1975. On March 17, 1976, defendant was convicted of robbery. He was sentenced to prison and released on May 16, 1979. On January 16, 1980, defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to prison and released on November 8, 1985. On March 29, 1989, defendant was convicted of the May 26, 1988, attempted robbery of Frances Passalaqua. He was sentenced to prison and released on November 23, 1993. 2. The defense case Defense investigator Alan Peacock testified he had conducted an investigation into defendant’s background but had found no one who could serve as a “social historian” for defendant. Defendant’s family was “nonexistent.” Defendant’s father and sister had died, and he never knew his natural mother. Defendant had one close friend and a daughter whom he was “adamant” about not involving in his case. Peacock did not know defendant’s stepmother’s name. According to Peacock, what was known about defendant’s social history came from his California Department of Corrections records. Defendant had been involved in the criminal justice system since the age of 14, when he had assaulted his father. The records documented an “extended history of abuse of controlled substances,” including alcohol, methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and other street drugs. Defendant, who was 48 years old at the time of trial, had spent most of his adult life in a locked facility. His longest period out of confinement was 18 months, during which he absconded from parole. Officer James Park had retired from the California Department of Corrections after serving as its chief of classification for many years. He testified that if defendant were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, he would automatically be classified as a “Level 4” prisoner, meaning he would be subject to the highest level of security in the general prison population. In a Level 4 prison, prisoners were double-celled in eight-by-10foot cells surrounding a guard station. There were gun ports visible from each cell, and “a rifle [could] be brought to bear anywhere ... in front of the cells or in the exercise area.” Prisoners could earn privileges for good behavior and could purchase items such as television sets if they had the funds. Prisoners generally worked to produce products that saved the state money. Park had reviewed defendant’s prison disciplinary and work records and had spoken with him. Defendant told Park that he wanted to be sentenced to death; however, Park believed that if sentenced to life without possibility of parole, defendant would “settle down” and become a useful prisoner. According to Park, in the past defendant had gotten along well with staff and had done good work in prison, but occasionally had refused to work. Defendant also received commendations several times. For example, defendant had helped two officers who were being confronted by an inmate with a razor blade, helped other prisoners adjust to new jobs, volunteered to work during a lockdown, and turned in a knife that a supervisor had forgotten to collect from him. Defendant had gotten into trouble a few times for having homemade wine, called “pruno.” He had once attempted suicide, had failed to report to work four times, and once had refused to remove a towel from a window. On the latter occasion, he cursed, but there was no violence. Defendant also had been written up for possessing a wrench that could be used to unscrew the cover on an electrical outlet, where contraband could be hidden. Park noted that life prisoners—particularly those in their 40’s and 50’s— were considered a stabilizing force because of their interest in the prison remaining quiet. II. Discussion A. Jury Selection Issues 1. Challenges for cause Defendant makes several claims of error related to jury selection and the trial court’s application of the standard for exclusion set forth in Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 105 S.Ct. 844] (Witt) and Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770] (Witherspoon). Defendant claims the trial court exhibited a pro-death-penalty bias in questioning prospective jurors, erroneously refused to excuse for cause 15 prospective jurors based on their views regarding the death penalty, and erred by excusing for cause two prospective jurors based primarily on their written answers to a questionnaire. Defendant claims these errors resulted in a jury composed of pro-death and otherwise biased jurors and violated his rights to a fair and impartial jury, to a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, to freedom from self-incrimination, to the effective assistance of counsel, to due process of law, and to a reliable guilt and penalty determination guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the California Constitution. For the reasons discussed post, we conclude defendant’s claims are without merit. a. Legal principles We recently summarized the governing principles; “A prospective juror’s personal views concerning the death penalty do not necessarily afford a basis for excusing the juror for bias in a capital case. (Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 6 [167 L.Ed.2d 1014, 127 S.Ct. 2218] (Uttecht) [‘ “[a] man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary judgment entrusted to him by the State,” [citation] . . .’].) Rather, ‘[t]o achieve the constitutional imperative of impartiality, the law permits a prospective juror to be challenged for cause only if his or her views in favor of or against capital punishment “would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his . . . duties as a juror’ ” in accordance with the court’s instructions and the juror’s oath.’ (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 741 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145], quoting Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at p. 424.) Under this standard, a prospective juror is properly excluded in a capital case if he or she is unable to follow the trial court’s instructions and ‘conscientiously consider all of the sentencing alternatives, including the death penalty where appropriate. [Citations.]’ (People v. McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 340 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 412, 212 P.3d 692]; see People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 987 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044] (Jenkins).) The analysis is the same whether the claim is the failure to exclude prospective jurors who exhibited a prodeath bias, or wrongful exclusion of prospective jurors who exhibited an antideath bias. (See People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 906 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 162 P.3d 528].)” (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 40-41 [140 Cal.Rptr.3d 383, 275 P.3d 496].) “During voir dire, jurors commonly supply conflicting or equivocal responses to questions directed at their potential bias or incapacity to serve. When such conflicting or equivocal answers are given, the trial court, through its observation of the juror’s demeanor as well as through its evaluation of the juror’s verbal responses, is best suited to reach a conclusion regarding the juror’s actual state of mind. (People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 890 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 200 P.3d 898] (Hamilton).) ‘ “ ‘There is no requirement that a prospective juror’s bias against the death penalty be proven with unmistakable clarity. [Citations.] Rather, it is sufficient that the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law in the case before the juror.’ ” ’ (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 497-498 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58].) ‘[T]he [trial court’s] finding may be upheld even in the absence of clear statements from the juror that he or she is impaired because “many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made ‘unmistakably clear’; these veniremen may not know how they will react when faced with imposing the death sentence, or may be unable to articulate, or may wish to hide their true feelings.” [Citation.] Thus, when there is ambiguity in the prospective juror’s statements, “the trial court, aided as it undoubtedly [is] by its assessment of [the venireman’s] demeanor, [is] entitled to resolve it in favor of the State.” ’ (Uttecht, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 7.)” (People v. Jones, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 41.) “A trial court’s determination concerning juror bias is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Abilez, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 497-498.) ‘[Appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and hears that person’s responses (noting, among other things, the person’s tone of voice, apparent level of confidence, and demeanor), gleans valuable information that simply does not appear on the record.’ (People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 451 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 656, 93 P.3d 271] (Stewart).) As such, ‘the reviewing court generally must defer to the judge who sees and hears the prospective juror, and who has the “definite impression” that he is biased, despite a failure to express clear views.’ (People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1007 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775] (Lewis and Oliver); see Uttecht, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 9 [‘Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it is in a position to assess the demeanor of the venire, and of the individuals who compose it, a factor of critical importance in assessing the attitude and qualifications of potential jurors.’].)” (People v. Jones, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 41-42.) “[U]nder existing United States Supreme Court precedent, the erroneous excusal of a prospective juror for cause based on that person’s views concerning the death penalty automatically compels the reversal of the penalty phase without any inquiry as to whether the error actually prejudiced defendant’s penalty determination.” (People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 783 [144 Cal.Rptr.3d 84, 281 P.3d 1], citing Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648 [95 L.Ed.2d 622, 107 S.Ct. 2045]; see People v. Riccardi, at p. 840 (conc. opn. of Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.).) “To prevail on a claim that the court erroneously denied a challenge for cause, however, the defendant must show ‘ “that the court’s rulings affected his right to a fair and impartial jury.” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 895 [131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 261 P.3d 243].) b. Factual background Jury selection proceeded in the following manner. At the outset, the court gave the entire panel of prospective jurors a brief oral explanation of the charges against defendant, the stages of a death penalty trial, the duties of a juror, and the process of jury selection. All prospective jurors who were not excused for hardship then filled out a 30-page questionnaire comprised of 122 questions. Questions Nos. 9 through 32 and 87 to 88 were prefaced by an explanation of the phases of a death penalty trial and focused on the prospective jurors’ beliefs about and attitudes toward the death penalty and their ability to set aside those beliefs and follow the law. Other questions involved such matters as the prospective jurors’ exposure to media coverage about the case, attitudes toward plea bargaining, familiarity with and attitudes toward drug and alcohol addiction and psychological testimony, and educational, employment and family background. After filling out the questionnaires, the prospective jurors underwent oral voir dire. Before this process began, the court announced it intended to conduct most of the questioning itself, but would allow counsel to ask appropriate followup questions. The prospective jurors were brought into the courtroom in groups of between 14 and 17 individuals. The court first questioned each group as a whole regarding some preliminary matters. Prospective jurors not excused during group questioning were then questioned individually, outside the presence of the other prospective jurors. Of the 158 prospective jurors questioned in this manner, 73 were excused for cause or on the basis of hardship. The court then generated a random list of the remaining prospective jurors, which was supplied to counsel. Twelve prospective jurors were called in the order appearing on the random list and seated in the jury box, and the parties, commenced exercising peremptory challenges, alternating between the prosecution and the defense. When a prospective juror was excused, the next individual appearing on the random list was seated in his or her place until both sides were satisfied with the 12 jurors selected. This process was repeated for the four alternate jurors. Defendant exercised 16 of his 20 allotted peremptory challenges to the regular jurors and none of his four allotted peremptory challenges to the alternate jurors. The prosecutor exercised 15 peremptory challenges to the regular jurors and four as to the alternates. Defendant did not request additional peremptory challenges or object to the jurors and alternates ultimately sworn. c. Asserted trial court bias in voir dire Defendant first asserts the trial court repeatedly intervened in voir dire questioning to rehabilitate death-leaning prospective jurors who, on the basis of their questionnaire responses, would have been subject to defense challenges for cause. He argues the court’s leading and suggestive questions to these prospective jurors were not designed to ferret out bias, but rather to have the prospective jurors change their questionnaire responses and hide their biases. In contrast, he urges, life-leaning prospective jurors were excused after cursory questioning without any extensive efforts at rehabilitation. He argues the court’s manner of questioning allowed death-leaning prospective jurors to conceal disqualifying biases, thus preventing the reasonable exercise of defense challenges for cause; forced defendant to use peremptory challenges against prospective jurors who should have been removed for cause; “stacked” the jury pool with pro-death-penalty jurors and “skewed” it lopsidedly in favor of the state and a death penalty verdict, thus rendering the exercise of defense peremptory challenges “irrelevant” and “futile”; and deprived him of a fair and impartial jury. (See Morgan v. Illinois (1992) 504 U.S. 719, 729-734 [119 L.Ed.2d 492, 112 S.Ct. 2222]; Mu’Min v. Virginia (1991) 500 U.S. 415, 425-426 [114 L.Ed.2d 493, 111 S.Ct. 1899].) He contends the error is “structural” (Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309 [113 L.Ed.2d 302, 111 S.Ct. 1246]) and requires reversal regardless of whether any particular ruling on a challenge for cause was in error. Referring to the rule regarding forfeiture of claims of error in the denial of defense challenges for cause (see post, at pp. 41-42), the Attorney General initially contends defendant forfeited his claim for purposes of appeal by agreeing to the jury without exhausting his peremptory challenges. Here, however, defendant raises a different argument. He asserts the court’s manner of questioning was itself so biased as to be inadequate to root out juror partiality. He claims the court’s questioning was not designed to uncover juror bias, but instead was designed to, and did, conceal bias, rendering it impossible for defendant to obtain a fair jury. Defendant thus raises a threshold challenge to the adequacy of the trial court’s voir dire that we must address first, because it affects the validity of all of the court’s rulings on challenges for cause. (See Morgan v. Illinois, supra, 504 U.S. at p. 729 [“part of the guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors”]; Mu’Min v. Virginia, supra, 500 U.S. 415.) In the past, we have reached the merits of similar claims notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to object to the assertedly disparate questioning in the trial court. (People v. Martinez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 399, 439, fn. 8 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 213 P.3d 77]; People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 419-425 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 161 P.3d 3]; People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 485 & fn. 2, 487-488 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182]; see People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 189 [106 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 226 P.3d 276] [construing claim as one of judicial misconduct and assuming, without deciding, it is preserved despite defendant’s failure to object in the trial court].) In any event, here defendant did object to the trial court’s manner of questioning. Toward the end of the first day of individual voir dire, following the questioning of Prospective Juror Y.C. and the court’s denial of defendant’s challenge for cause, the following exchange between the court and counsel took place: Defense counsel: “My second objection is that the court’s using leading questions in [an] attempt to lead the juror down the path towards rehabilitation. I mean, if it’s this particular juror and in particular is a clear cut case where you can take someone who initially answering the questionnaire with no pressure on them will set out some very strong preconceived notions concerning the death penalty and the course of trial and through skillful leading questions have them in effect do a 180 degrees turn while standing before the court. I think that basically causes the juror to hide their true biases and [prevents] a reasonable exercise of challenges for cause.” The Court: “Thanks for the ‘skillful phraseology.’ ” Defense counsel: “Nothing but skillful. There is nothing about that. You were skillful as a lawyer. You are skillful as a judge.” The prosecutor: “Your Honor, except as to different areas of questioning, I think I need to join [defense counsel’s] objection.” The Court: “You think I’m skillful in those areas too, Mr. [Prosecutor]?” The prosecutor: “Yes, your Honor. I think you are very skillful. That’s the problem.” The Court: “Thank you. Well, thank you for your praise. But I don’t think I have done anything improper.” Accordingly, defendant apprised the court that he believed it was improperly rehabilitating death-leaning prospective jurors with “skillful leading” questions. Although defendant did not, at that time or any time thereafter, object to the court’s assertedly less thorough questioning of life-leaning prospective jurors, we think the implications of defendant’s objection were sufficiently clear that we may review the merits of his claim. On the merits, however, defendant’s claim fails. Trial courts possess broad discretion over both “[decisions concerning the qualifications of prospective jurors to serve” (People v. Martinez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 445) and the manner of conducting voir dire (People v. Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 420 [trial court “ ‘possessed] discretion to conduct oral voir dire as necessary and to allow attorney participation and questioning as appropriate.’ [Citations.]”). Indeed, decisions of the United States Supreme Court in this area “have made clear that ‘the conduct of voir dire is an art, not a science,’ so ‘ “[t]here is no single way to voir dire a juror.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 737 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302].) “ ‘The Constitution . . . does not dictate a catechism for voir dire, but only that the defendant be afforded an impartial jury.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Morgan v. Illinois, supra, 504 U.S. at p. 729.) In evaluating claims of judicial bias during the conduct of death-qualification voir dire, we have stressed that “[tjrial courts must of course ‘be evenhanded in their questions to prospective jurors . . . and should inquire into the jurors’ attitudes both for and against the death penalty to determine whether these views will impair their ability to serve as jurors.’ ” (People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 189; accord, People v. Martinez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 446.) Evenhandedness is encouraged because “[i]t is entirely possible . . . that even a juror who believes that capital punishment should never be inflicted and who is irrevocably committed to its abolition could nonetheless subordinate his personal views to what he perceived to be his duty to abide by his oath as a juror and to obey the law of the State.” (Witherspoon, supra, 391 U.S. at p. 515, fn. 7; see Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 176 [90 L.Ed.2d 137, 106 S.Ct. 1758] [“It is important to remember that not all who oppose the death penalty are subject to removal for cause in capital cases; those who firmly believe that the death penalty is unjust may nevertheless serve as jurors in capital cases so long as they state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law.”].) Nonetheless, the trial court has “ ‘broad discretion over the number and nature of questions about the death penalty. . . .’ ” (People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 189.) “[W]e cannot predicate a finding of error merely on the number of questions the court asks” death-leaning and life-leaning jurors. (Id. at p. 190, citing People v. Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 425.) Indeed, on appeal, “[a] reviewing court should not require a trial court’s questioning of each prospective juror in the Witherspoon-Witt context [citations] to be similar in each case in which the court has questions, lest the court feel compelled to conduct a needlessly broad voir dire, receiving answers to questions it does not need to ask.” (People v. Thornton, at p. 425; see People v. Martinez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 446-447.) Finally, “ ‘ “[d]espite its importance, the adequacy of voir dire is not easily subject to appellate review. The trial judge’s function at this point in the trial is not unlike that of the jurors later on in the trial. Both must reach conclusions as to impartiality and credibility by relying on their own evaluations of demeanor evidence and of responses to questions.” ’ ” (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213], quoting Mu’Min v. Virginia, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 424.) For these reasons, the court’s manner of conducting voir dire will not be disturbed on appeal unless it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1250 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 838, 117 P.3d 544]; see Mu’Min v. Virginia, supra, 500 U.S. at pp. 425-426.) Here, defendant points to 23 death-leaning prospective jurors whom he asserts the court improperly rehabilitated, and 11 life-leaning prospective jurors whom he contends the court peremptorily excused without similar efforts at rehabilitation. We have carefully reviewed the questionnaire responses and voir dire transcripts of these prospective jurors and of the jurors ultimately chosen, as well as the transcript of the voir dire of all other prospective jurors who were individually questioned. Our review leads us to conclude the court did not abuse its discretion or display bias in its questioning of either death-leaning or life-leaning prospective jurors, and its voir dire was adequate to enable it to determine whether the prospective jurors’ views on the death penalty qualified them to sit on a capital jury. We begin with an analysis of the voir dire of Y.C., the prospective juror whose voir dire led to the defense objection set forth above. On her questionnaire, Y.C. stated that she “strongly supported]” the death penalty. Asked to explain her views on the death penalty, she wrote “If ‘you’ think another’s life is inconsequential—prepare to pay the ultimate penalty!—if ‘you’ decide to take that person’s life—.” In response to a question about her views regarding a case involving the murder of an elderly man with a shotgun during a robbery, she wrote that everyone convicted of such a murder should receive the death penalty because, “The murder was probably not necessary.” However, when asked whether she would base her penalty decision on the evidence and instructions presented at the penalty phase, she responded in the affirmative. Asked her views regarding the frequency with which the death penalty is imposed, she wrote that she believed the penalty was used “Too seldom” because “death row is overcrowded with convicted & sentenced criminals way overdoing the appeal time—too much money spent supporting these folks!” She believed the death penalty should be mandatory for murder and murder with special circumstances, should be possible and was appropriate for “Any murder,” and was inappropriate for anything but murder and murder with special circumstances. She answered in the affirmative to a question asking whether she would automatically vote for the death penalty if defendant was convicted of murder with a special circumstance; but she also wrote in response to a different question that before deciding on the penalty, she would want to know “why he had such little disregard [sic] for another human life.” In response to questions regarding her views on the “eye for an eye” principle, she wrote that she believed in that adage based on religious conviction, that to her it meant, “If you sin against another & take their life prepare to lay down your own,” and that she could not set aside that concept and apply the principles the court would give her. She further wrote in response to pertinent questions that she had religious or moral training regarding the death penalty from “family & church,” and she did “not know” if she could set aside such training and decide the case according to the law given by the court. She answered “no” to a question asking whether she could set aside her personal feelings regarding what the law should be and follow the law as instructed by the court. In response to a question asking whether she could agree to accept the court’s representation that life without possibility of parole means the defendant would be sentenced to life without possibility of parole, she wrote “Do not know.” Asked whether the costs of either incarceration or the appellate process would be a consideration for her in deciding on the penalty, she answered “yes” to both. Finally, she answered “yes” to a question asking whether her feelings were such that in every case that reached a penalty phase she would automatically vote for the death penalty rather than life without possibility of parole. Defendant argues these questionnaire responses alone would have subjected Y.C. to a challenge for cause, but the court went to “extraordinary lengths to rehabilitate [her], leading her to contradict everything she had answered in the questionnaire.” We conclude the court did not abuse its broad discretion in conducting the voir dire of Y.C. As defense counsel acknowledged during the voir dire of a different prospective juror, the questionnaire was “designed to get [the venireperson’s] first impressions” regarding the matters discussed; the purpose of voir dire was to determine whether or not those first impressions represented “solid, firm convictions.” As is readily apparent from a review of the relevant portion of the voir dire, the court’s questioning was designed to do precisely that. The court began by noting what appeared to it to be a conflict between Y.C.’s questionnaire response indicating she thought everyone convicted of the murder of an elderly man with a shotgun "during a robbery should be put to death, regardless of the evidence regarding penalty introduced by the parties, and her response indicating that if selected as a juror, she would listen openmindedly to the penalty phase evidence and base her decision solely on the evidence and the court’s instructions. This led Y.C. to volunteer that she was confused about “the first part and the penalty part,” prompting the trial court to launch into a detailed explanation of the two phases of a death penalty trial and the purpose of each, the decision to be made at the penalty phase, and the meaning of “aggravation” and “mitigation.” Having ascertained that Y.C. understood these concepts, the court asked whether, if the case reached the penalty phase, Y.C. would be able to vote for the death penalty if she believed the evidence in aggravation outweighed that in mitigation, and conversely, whether she would be able to vote for life in prison without possibility of parole if she felt the evidence in mitigation outweighed that in aggravation. When Y.C. hesitated in response to the latter portion of the question, and seemed at a loss for words, the court queried whether she meant she would need to hear all of the evidence before making a decision to impose life without possibility of parole, and Y.C. agreed. The court then ascertained t