Full opinion text
Opinion CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. A jury found Lumord Johnson, defendant, guilty of the first degree murder of Martin Campos with personal use of a firearm (count 1). (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), former §§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a).) The jury also found defendant guilty of the second degree murder of Camerina Lopez with personal use of a firearm (count 2). (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022.5, subd. (a).) The jury further found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and that defendant committed Campos’s murder while engaged in the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), and a kidnapping and kidnapping for robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B)). The jury additionally found true that defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony, manslaughter. (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)); see § 667, subd. (a).) After the penalty phase, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on penalty. The trial court impaneled a new jury, which fixed the penalty at death after a second penalty trial. The court sentenced defendant to death on both murder counts and stayed execution of the prior conviction and firearms enhancements by stipulation of the parties. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We reverse the judgment of death as to the Lopez murder because death is not an authorized sentence for second degree murder. We also set aside the kidnap-murder special-circumstance finding due to instructional error, but we affirm the judgment in all other aspects. I. Facts and Proceedings A. Guilt Phase 1. The killing of Camerina Lopez a. Prosecution’s case At the time of her death, Camerina “Candy” Lopez had been dating Jose Alvarez. Lopez knew defendant, whose nickname was “Lamar,” from the Casa Blanca neighborhood in Riverside. She lived a few houses away from the residence of Valerie Williams, an elderly woman whose live-in caretaker, Deborah Galloway, was defendant’s aunt. Defendant visited his aunt often. On June 25, 1994, Alvarez drove past Williams’s house and saw defendant standing outside it. According to Alvarez, defendant expressed displeasure at him driving in the area and told him to “keep on going straight.” Alvarez angrily exchanged profanities with defendant through the open driver’s side window. Defendant told Alvarez to get out of the car, but Alvarez drove home. About half an hour later, Alvarez called Lopez, told her what happened, and described defendant. Subsequently, Alvarez picked up Lopez from her home, and they went to the store and the park. A few hours after that, as Alvarez drove Lopez home, he saw defendant on the porch of Williams’s house again and pointed him out to Lopez. Lopez asked Alvarez to stop. Lopez opened her passenger door and tried to talk to defendant. Alvarez got out and walked around the car. With his hands open, Alvarez said, “What’s up?” In response, defendant grabbed a shotgun from the porch and ran toward Alvarez. Defendant then struck him on the side of the head with the butt of the shotgun, which caused a bleeding laceration. As the men struggled over the gun, Lopez exited the car. Alvarez told her to get back in the car, but she approached and stood next to Alvarez, who was now facing defendant. Defendant had one hand on the handle of the shotgun and the other hand on its barrel, which was slightly raised and positioned across his chest. Defendant then moved the gun very quickly in front of him. Alvarez looked at Lopez and tried to push her away as she stepped toward defendant. Alvarez heard a gunshot and saw Lopez drop onto the street. Defendant fled towards Williams’s house. As she lay in the street bleeding, Lopez cried for help and said, “He shot me.” Defendant’s aunt, Galloway, and his friend, Todd Brightmon, witnessed the shooting and gave a similar account. It appeared to both of them that Lopez had positioned herself between defendant and Alvarez and was trying to separate them when she was shot. Galloway heard defendant yell out, “Todd” shortly after the shooting and did not see defendant again. A bystander flagged down a California Highway Patrol officer, who responded to the shooting scene. As Lopez lay on the ground, bleeding and apparently in great pain, Lopez said “Lamar” or “Lamar Johnson” shot her, described defendant, and indicated that defendant lived in or frequented Williams’s house. Lopez was transported to Riverside Community Hospital. At the hospital, she told another officer that she and Alvarez were standing next to the car when Lamar approached them with a shotgun and started an argument with Alvarez. According to Lopez, when Lamar pointed the shotgun at Alvarez, she stepped in between them to prevent Lamar from shooting him, and Lamar shot once. Lopez died in surgery that night. Officers searched the Williams house but did not find defendant. Defendant’s aunt told an officer that defendant had run out the back door of the house. In the backyard, officers found a 12-gauge Winchester shotgun lying on the ground. The shotgun had one expended shell inside, and the magazine contained three additional live rounds. Dr. Joseph Choi, the forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy on Lopez, determined that she had died from a single shotgun wound to her chest. Shotgun wad and hundreds of shotgun pellets were found inside Lopez’s chest and abdomen. The pellets penetrated Lopez’s diaphragm, damaging the liver and perforating the vena cava and right kidney. Because of the presence of unbumed gunpowder, the appearance of the wound, the presence of wadding inside the wound, the absence of individual pellet holes, and the absence of soot, Dr. Choi concluded the gun was fired at relatively close range, between six inches and two feet away. The prosecution’s firearms expert determined that the shot pellets and wadding removed from Lopez’s body were consistent with those inside the unexpended shells found in the shotgun recovered from Williams’s backyard. He also determined that the force required to pull the trigger on that shotgun was normal and not excessively heavy or light for a typical shotgun. b. Defense case Defendant’s friend, codefendant Todd Brightmon, described the events leading to the shooting of Lopez, giving testimony mostly consistent with the accounts given by Alvarez. He believed that the shooting was an accident. Brightmon admitted, however, that he had initially told the police that he was not at the scene of the Lopez killing because he did not want to become involved. 2. The killing of Martin Campos a. Prosecution’s case Oscar Ross is the uncle of defendant’s wife and a cousin of Brightmon’s. Ross owned a large parcel of property cluttered with junk and several trailers in Riverside County. Because of a prior shooting incident, Ross used a wheelchair. His caretaker, Margie Escalera, lived in a nearby trailer. Ross had been friends with Martin Campos and frequently purchased cocaine and marijuana from him. Ross would then resell the cocaine to other sellers. At one point, Ross suspected that Campos had arranged a robbery in which four or five Spanish-speaking men accosted Ross and Escalera at gunpoint, taking approximately $4,500 in cash, a few pounds of marijuana, and some household items. Ross did not confront Campos with his suspicions, but instead formulated a plan with defendant, who remained at large after the Lopez shooting, and Brightmon to steal cocaine from Campos. Ross planned to offer Campos $22,500 for a kilo of cocaine; upon delivery, he would confront Campos about the prior robbery and, using defendant and Brightmon to intimidate him, take the cocaine without paying for it. Ross claimed he did not intend to harm or kill Campos. Ross contacted Campos and arranged for the delivery. The night before, defendant and Brightmon joined Ross and Escalera for dinner. That evening, defendant said that killing someone “comes easy.” The following morning, on November 11, 1995, defendant and Brightmon waited at Ross’s property. Campos had purchased the kilo of cocaine from Jose Garcia, and Garcia drove him to Ross’s property with the cocaine concealed inside the trunk of his white Nissan. When Campos and Garcia arrived, Ross was in the yard. To ease any suspicion, defendant and Brightmon pretended to rake the yard. Garcia parked his car, and Campos got out to speak with Ross near a U-Haul truck. Garcia got out of his car and approached the others. Ross asked to see the cocaine, and Campos told Garcia to get it. As Garcia walked toward his car, Ross was about to tell Campos “what was getting ready to go down” when defendant pulled out a handgun and pointed it at Campos, who was seated on the bumper of the U-Haul. Garcia saw what was happening and ran toward the gate. But Brightmon chased after and tackled him, dragging him back to the U-Haul truck. Ross, defendant, and Brightmon told Campos and Garcia to get inside the U-Haul. Campos refused, but was forced inside. Brightmon struck Garcia in the face, causing him to fall inside as well. Campos jumped out of the U-Haul truck and ran, with defendant and Brightmon giving chase. Defendant caught up with Campos and began struggling with him while Brightmon stood nearby. Ross saw Campos either break loose from defendant or be thrown to the ground, at which point defendant shot Campos with the handgun. Ross’s caretaker, Escalera, also saw the shooting from her trailer window. Garcia heard the shot and jumped out of the U-Haul truck into a nearby trash container. He briefly saw Campos slouched over with defendant standing about 10 feet in front of him. Campos said, “No, man. No, man,” and fell to the ground. Garcia jumped the fence and fled Ross’s property. Campos tried to crawl on his stomach toward Garcia’s car while defendant continued to stand over him with the handgun. Ross, defendant, and Brightmon searched Garcia’s car for the cocaine, but could not find it. Meanwhile, Campos lay on the ground, still breathing, and looking at Ross. Ross believed that defendant and Brightmon placed Campos, while still alive, in the trunk of Garcia’s car and closed the lid. Escalera, however, said that some unknown African-American men later arrived and lifted Campos into the trunk of a white car, and that the same men pushed that white car off Ross’s property with another vehicle. After Campos was placed in the trunk, defendant ran toward the front gate, leaving Brightmon and Ross behind. Defendant encountered a resident of Ross’s property, Ronnie Raynold Moore, who had heard the gunshot and was trying to drive off the property with his son. Defendant approached Moore’s car with the gun pointed downward and said, “Don’t go nowhere.” Defendant got in the passenger seat with his gun on his lap pointed toward Moore and told Moore to drive him off the property. Defendant directed Moore to drive around for 30 to 60 minutes. When defendant attempted to share his thoughts, Moore told him he did not want to hear anything. When defendant eventually told Moore to stop, he apologized, gave him $30, and left Moore’s car. Ross drove Escalera and Brightmon out of the yard. He dropped Brightmon off and spent the night with Escalera at a cousin’s home. After fleeing Ross’s property, Garcia went to Campos’s home and met his brother, Raul Campos. They searched for Campos and eventually found Garcia’s car about a mile away from Ross’s property. They drove it to Garcia’s home and returned to Campos’s home where Raul called the police. Raul did not tell the police anything about the cocaine. Deputy Sheriff Michael Angeli, Garcia, and Raul investigated Ross’s property. Deputy Angeli found fresh tire tracks left by a small car leading away from a locked gate. He also found drag marks with coagulated blood, blood spatter in the dirt near Ross’s Cadillac, and blood at other adjacent locations. But Deputy Angeli found no dead or injured person on the property. The next morning, Garcia opened the trunk of his car and discovered Campos’s dead body. He did not want to be blamed for Campos’s death so he drove away from his home and dumped the body off the side of the road onto an embankment. A passerby eventually discovered the body and contacted the sheriff’s department. The forensic pathologist who performed an autopsy on Campos determined that he had died from a single gunshot wound that entered the right upper chest near the armpit. The bullet had struck and broken the fifth rib, then fragmented, perforated the right lung and heart, and passed between the back of the fifth and sixth left ribs. The pathologist believed Campos could have survived a minute or two before blood loss and aspiration of blood caused his death. b. Defense case Defendant presented an alibi defense, claiming that he was in Oklahoma at the time of the Campos murder. Defendant’s cousin, Francisco Trotter, and Trotter’s girlfriend, Roberta McConnell, lived in Oklahoma. Between January and November of 1995, Trotter often socialized with defendant in Tulsa. Trotter and McConnell testified that defendant was at Trotter’s apartment on the morning of November 11, 1995, the day Campos was killed. The day was memorable for Trotter and McConnell because it was Veterans Day, and they went to a cemetery to place a flag on Trotter’s father’s grave. Brightmon testified and described the events leading to Campos’s killing. In his version of events, defendant was not involved. Instead, Brightmon testified that Ross had asked Brightmon to stay and monitor the drug transaction with Campos as protection and gave him a revolver. After Garcia and Campos arrived, Ross and Campos spoke to each other in front of the car for a few minutes, and Brightmon noticed a truck driving into the area. Suddenly, Ross said something about a “jack” and, because Brightmon saw a group of Hispanic men running toward him, he took out the gun. Campos and Brightmon briefly struggled, and they both fell, causing the gun to fire, hitting Campos. Ross told Brightmon to help him “clean up this shit,” or he would be shot too. According to Brightmon, Ross told him to blame the shooting on defendant because Ross did not like him. Brightmon claimed he was scared of Ross because Ross had money to have people killed. During his testimony, Brightmon claimed he lied in his prior police statements, in which he blamed the shooting on defendant, in order to protect himself. When he and defendant were in custody for the present offenses, Brightmon sent a letter to defendant’s attorney in which he offered to testify that he was the person who shot Campos. B. Penalty Phase 1. Prosecution’s case in aggravation a. Victim impact evidence Camerina Lopez was 34 years old when she was killed. Lopez’s mother, Socorro Roman, described the loss, pain, and grief the family suffered as a result of her daughter’s untimely death. Martin Campos was 33 years old when he was killed. Gladys Felipe, the mother of Campos’s children, testified about Campos’s relationship with her and the children, family activities, and their future plans. Campos had always been the center of family gatherings, and his death left a huge void at family events. b. Prior aggravating conduct (1) The killing of Norberto Estrada In March 1983, 25-year-old Norberto Estrada went to a market in Riverside. Defendant approached Estrada and offered to sell him marijuana. Defendant and Estrada began to argue. When Estrada took a combative stance, suggesting he was prepared to fight, defendant left. Defendant later returned. As Estrada stood up, defendant pulled a pistol from his waistband and fired three to five shots at Estrada, killing him. Estrada had been unarmed. Defendant then fled. Defendant turned himself in to the police a few days after the shooting. He admitted that he had been involved in the incident, but asserted it was an accident and self-defense. Police did not notice any injuries on defendant. Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. (2)The shooting of Nigel Hider In February 1989, Nigel Hider, an active gang member in the Gardena Payback Crips, was standing in front of a house in Riverside when a truck pulled up and someone inside the vehicle started firing at him. Hider was initially uncooperative with police and reluctant to identify the shooter, but eventually told the detective that defendant shot him. Angela McCurdy was with Hider when he was shot, and, in 2000, she told an investigator that she had seen a muzzle flash from a car fired by a Black male with a bald head, but she could not say for certain whether the shooter was defendant. At the penalty phase retrial, however, Hider testified that he never said defendant shot him and that he had identified the shooter as a White person. In her testimony, McCurdy denied seeing the shooting or telling an investigator the contrary. The prosecution also presented evidence that, approximately one month before Hider was shot, defendant bragged to an officer that he had singlehandedly expelled the Gardena Payback Crips gang from the Casa Blanca neighborhood. (3)Motel shooting and assault Anita Smith testified that in January 1992 she was staying at a Riverside hotel with her husband, Earl Smith, and his friend, Eric Dawson. During the stay, Earl Smith argued with defendant’s friend, Reginald Robinson, and they threatened to shoot each other. Defendant was not involved in the argument, but when Anita Smith was in the bathroom, someone shot Dawson in the elbow with a shotgun. She did not see who shot Dawson. Afterward, Anita Smith went down to the parking lot where she saw defendant’s vehicle starting to leave and yelled out that she had the vehicle’s license plate number. According to her testimony, Robinson got out of the vehicle and pointed a shotgun at her. Defendant also got out of the vehicle and told Robinson not to shoot her, but defendant slapped Smith hard across the face after Robinson put the gun down. Robinson and defendant then drove away. (4)Telephoned threats Defendant’s wife, Tina Johnson, testified that she had an affair with Jarah Smith while defendant was in jail awaiting trial on the present charges. Defendant found out about the affair and called his wife saying that he would blow up the school where she worked if she did not stop seeing Smith. Defendant obtained the assistance of third parties to set up several calls, including five to seven calls to Smith. Smith testified that defendant in these calls said that he knew where Smith lived, and, on one occasion, said he could “have something done” to him. (5) Conduct while incarcerated In March 1986, while defendant was serving his sentence for the manslaughter of Estrada, a correctional officer found two shanks in the single-man cell occupied by defendant. In August 1986, another correctional officer saw a shank fall out of defendant’s pocket when he was playing basketball. The shank was a round piece of plastic tapered to a point and capable of inflicting a stab wound. As additional aggravating evidence, the prosecutor presented testimony concerning defendant’s assaults against six other inmates while housed in San Quentin State Prison; California State Prison, Corcoran; and Riverside County jail. 2. Defense case in mitigation a. Family background Forensic Psychologist Gretchen White described three aspects of defendant’s childhood that she believed had a very significant effect on him: family instability, the lack of a real father, and physical and emotional violence in the home. According to Dr. White, by the time he was six years old, defendant had lived with three different men and had never met his real father. Dr. White explained that the family lived in at least 17 different places throughout his childhood and that defendant attended four different elementary schools and four different middle schools. Dr. White specifically believed defendant’s abusive childhood caused him to overperceive threats and overreact. Defendant’s mother, Joe Ann Johnson, testified that defendant’s father was Leroy Brown. She and Brown never married, and Brown never became a part of defendant’s life. When defendant was six or seven years old, Joe Ann moved in with James Johnson. Joe Ann eventually married James and gave defendant his last name. James was a father figure for whom defendant appeared to have affection. But James was an alcoholic and abusive when he drank. James was physically and mentally abusive to Joe Ann and the children, especially defendant’s three sisters. Defendant sometimes tried to intervene, but on some of those occasions, James would hit defendant. When defendant was 15 or 16 years old, Joe Ann ended her marriage. After Joe Ann hurt her back and could no longer work, defendant dropped out of high school and took a job to support the family. Defendant did not get into trouble until he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1983. After defendant left prison, he began dating Tina and married her five or six years later, in 1992. b. Defendant’s good character Various relatives and friends testified that defendant and Tina had a strong, wonderful, and happy marriage, that he was a loving husband and father who always provided for his family, and that he had good relationships with other relatives and other children. They claimed defendant was a good father and never violent or abusive toward his wife or children. Tina and the children visited defendant two or three times a week while he was in custody. Defendant continued to take an interest in and advise his children and help them with schooling. Several of defendant’s cellmates at Riverside County jail between 1997 and the 2001 penalty phase retrial testified that defendant was a good cellmate, friendly and polite, and had good rapport with jail staff. c. Institutional history In order to mitigate evidence of defendant’s violent conduct during his prior incarcerations, defendant presented testimony concerning his placement in an adult prison and the conditions in that facility. The original prosecutor in the Estrada manslaughter case testified, that, because defendant was 18 years old at the time of his sentencing, defendant was eligible for placement in the former California Youth Authority (CYA), which focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But the trial court refused, instead housing him as an adult in the former Department of Corrections (CDC), which was at the time an unusual sentence for defendants under the age of 21. According to William Riggs, who worked for the CDC for approximately 17 years, the facility where defendant was placed, California State Prison, Corcoran, was one of the worst prisons in the state and “extremely violent”: between 1989 and 1999 more inmates were shot and killed in Corcoran than all other prisons in the United States combined. Riggs explained that a prisoner who had four fights in 13 months would be regarded as a relatively well-behaved inmate. It was impossible for prisoners to avoid fights and survive. Younger looking prisoners such as defendant were particularly vulnerable and subject to predators. II. Pretrial Issues A. Motion to sever Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the Lopez and Campos murder charges. He argues that severance was warranted because evidence in the cases was not cross-admissible arid both cases were weak, creating a substantial risk that the jury would convict based upon the spillover effect of the aggregate evidence. He claims the error violated his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process, and reliable jury verdicts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to sever. Section 954 governs the joinder of charges: “An accusatory pleading may charge . . . two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts . . . provided, that the court in which a case is triable, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, may in its discretion order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately . . . .” Accordingly, when the charged offenses are of the same class, such as the murders charged here, they meet the Statutory requirements for joinder. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1030 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68].) “Because consolidation ordinarily promotes efficiency, the law prefers it.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 409 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442]; accord, People v. Soper (2009) 45 Cal.4th 759, 772 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 188, 200 P.3d 816] (Soper).) In reviewing whether the trial court improperly denied a defendant’s motion to sever, “ ‘we apply the familiar standard of review providing that the trial court’s ruling may be reversed only if the court has abused its discretion. [Citations.] An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court’s ruling “ ‘falls outside the bounds of reason.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1153 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476], quoting People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 666 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640].) Defendant has the burden of showing error in denial of a motion to sever and does so only on a clear showing of prejudice to establish the trial court abused its discretion. (Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1220 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 185 P.3d 708].) Refusal to sever can be an abuse of discretion where “ ‘ “(1) evidence on the crimes to be jointly tried would not be cross-admissible in separate trials; (2) certain of the charges are unusually likely to inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) a ‘weak’ case has been joined with a ‘strong’ case, or with another ‘weak’ case, so that the ‘spillover’ effect of aggregate evidence on several charges might well alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) any one of the charges carries the death penalty or joinder of them turns the matter into a capital case.” ’ ” (People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1030, quoting People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1315 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259].) Concerning the issue of cross-admissibility, a “lack of cross-admissibility is not, by itself, sufficient to show prejudice and bar joinder.” (People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 532 [26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182]; see § 954.1 [“evidence concerning . . . offenses need not be admissible as to the other offense or offenses before the jointly charged offenses may be tried together before the same trier of fact”].) We examine whether defendant was prejudiced because of joinder by determining if evidence of each of the joined charges would have been admissible in separate trials on the others. “If so, any inference of prejudice is dispelled.” (People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1030.) Defendant argues that the evidence would not have been admissible in separate trials. Specifically, he claims that evidence concerning a statement defendant made to Oscar Ross was not admissible in both trials. The statement at issue was defendant’s admission to Oscar Ross before the Campos killing that he thought it was “easier to kill someone the second time” — an apparent reference to the killing of Lopez. We assume, without deciding, that defendant’s statement was not admissible as to the Lopez case. But, in any event, the absence of cross-admissibility cannot alone establish the substantial prejudice necessary to make severance mandatory. (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 473 [129 Cal.Rptr.3d 91, 257 P.3d 703]; Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 779-783; People v. Smallwood (1986) 42 Cal.3d 415, 426 [228 Cal.Rptr. 913, 722 P.2d 197].) More importantly, we further observe that none of the three remaining factors concerning severance supports defendant’s arguments. First, neither killing was likely to inflame the jury against defendant. Both homicides involved a victim killed by a gunshot and defendant fled the scene on both occasions. (Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 780.) Based on the jury’s verdict, the Lopez shooting may have been accidental, thereby lessening its potential for inflammatory influence. Second, neither charge amounted to a weak case that was bolstered by joining it with a stronger one. Several witnesses placed defendant at both homicides, and there were eyewitnesses who saw and heard the fatal shots. Defendant’s intent and willingness to kill was evidenced by his possession of a loaded firearm in both crimes and his statement to Ross before the Campos shooting. Although defendant presented an alibi defense to the Campos killing, a mere imbalance in the evidence between the joined crimes does not signal a risk that one charge will be prejudicially bolstered. (Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 781.) Third, joinder of the two killings did not convert the matter into a capital offense because the Campos case included two kidnapping and robbery special circumstance allegations and thus made defendant eligible for the death penalty. The addition of the multiple-murder special circumstance did not convert the Campos homicide into a capital offense. If tried separately, the prosecution could have tried the Lopez matter first and then alleged the multiple-murder special circumstance in the subsequent proceedings concerning the Campos killing. (People v. Mason (1991) 52 Cal.3d 909, 934 [277 Cal.Rptr. 166, 802 P.2d 950].) Defendant further asserts that severance was required because he wished to testify as to the Lopez shooting and that, in a joined case, his testimony in one matter and silence about the Campos matter would have prejudiced him in front of the jury. But we have recognized that severance is not required on such grounds unless the defendant shows that he has important testimony to give concerning one charge and a strong need against testifying concerning the other charge. (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 800 [137 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 269 P.3d 1109].) “The showing must be specific enough to permit the court to ‘weigh the considerations of economy and expedient judicial administration against the defendant’s interest in having a free choice with respect to testifying.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 174 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862].) In the present case, defendant did not provide the trial court with a specific offer of proof concerning his testimony or why he wanted to testify in one matter and not the other. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sever the cases on this asserted ground. Finally, defendant argues that, even if the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever at the time it was made, we should nonetheless reverse the judgment because joinder did actually result in gross unfairness in violation of his right to due process. (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 851 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135].) He contends that, because the jury deliberations in the guilt phase lasted seven days, the verdict must have been close, which defendant attributes to the prejudicial spillover effect of joinder. This argument is speculative. The length of jury deliberations in this two-homicide case, by itself, supports no conclusion as to the closeness of the case or as to any prejudicial effect of joinder. (In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 548, fn. 10 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527] [the fact that the jury deliberations were long and that the jury made several requests “does not entail a conclusion that ... the case was close as to first degree murder”].) Defendant has failed to show that the court’s ruling denying severance was an abuse of discretion, depriving him of his constitutional right to due process of law. B. Asserted errors during jury selection Defendant claims the trial court committed error under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69, 106 S.Ct. 1712] (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748] (Wheeler) by finding no purposeful discrimination based on the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to remove three African-American prospective jurors. He alleges the trial court did not properly engage in the third step of analysis required by Batson/Wheeler, that its finding of no discriminatory intent violated his state constitutional right to a trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community; and that this allegedly biased use of peremptories violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the federal Constitution. We conclude the trial court properly denied defendant’s objection to these peremptory challenges. 1. Background During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised eight peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Prospective Juror Keith B., an African-American, was the fourth of those challenges. During the selection of alternate jurors, the prosecutor exercised an additional three peremptory challenges. Prospective Alternate Jurors Vanessa H. and Myra P., both African-American, were the second and third of those challenges, respectively. Defendant made his first Batson/Wheeler objection after the prosecutor exercised his challenge to Prospective Alternate Juror Myra P. during the selection of alternate jurors. Defense counsel argued that there was a prima facie case of discrimination because the prosecutor had used peremptory challenges to remove three of the four African-Americans called to the jury box. The trial court found the defense showing sufficient to require the prosecutor to offer valid neutral reasons for excusing the three contested prospective jurors. The prosecutor explained that he had doubts about whether the three challenged prospective jurors could render a verdict of death. Concerning Prospective Juror Keith B., the prosecutor stated he was worried about Keith B.’s prior experience in ministering to prison inmates, which might make him lean in favor of mercy. He also emphasized that Keith B. explained during voir dire that he leaned in favor of mercy as to the death penalty. Concerning Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H., the prosecutor stated he was worried that she could not vote for a death verdict because of a comment she made about “[t]hou shalt not kill,” her belief that her feelings did not matter, and her expressed hesitation regarding whether she could ultimately return a death verdict after months of trial. In addition, the prosecutor expressed concern over Vanessa H.’s previous service on a jury that had deadlocked and her expressed belief that the other jurors in that matter had made up their minds going into deliberations. Concerning Prospective Alternate Juror Myra P, the prosecutor noted her strong views against the death penalty and believed she would be unable to render a death verdict. In response, defense counsel briefly stated that he believed that there were seated Caucasian jurors, Jurors Nos. 4, 5, and 6, who had expressed similar hesitation concerning the death penalty but had not been challenged by the prosecutor. After considering the prosecutor’s offered reasons, the trial court concluded that the excusáis of the prospective jurors in question had not been based on race, but were based on legitimate reasons. The court made clear that the prosecutor had “a legitimate peremptory challenge for each of these [prospective jurors], for good reasons, and reasons that he stated for the record.” 2. Applicable law The law governing motions alleging the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is settled. “First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case ‘by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ [Citation.] Second, once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the ‘burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion’ by offering permissible race-neutral justifications for the strikes. [Citations.] Third, ‘[i]f a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.’ [Citation.]” (.Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 [162 L.Ed.2d 129, 125 S.Ct. 2410], fn. omitted.) Here, the trial court explicitly found that a prima facie showing of a discriminatory purpose had been made, and the prosecutor explicitly volunteered his actual reasons for the contested peremptory challenges. We, therefore, are concerned with the third stage of the Batson/Wheeler analysis. Regarding such a third stage inquiry, our review of a trial court’s denial of a Batson/Wheeler motion is deferential; we examine “only whether substantial evidence supports its conclusions.” (Lenix, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 613.) The identical standard applies to a comparative juror analysis. (Id. at p. 627.) “We presume that a prosecutor uses peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner and give great deference to the trial court’s ability to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.” (People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 864 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1].) As long “as the trial court makes a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the nondiscriminatory justifications offered, its conclusions are entitled to deference on appeal.” (Ibid.) “[T]he critical question in determining whether a prisoner has proved purposeful discrimination” in connection with a third stage inquiry “is the persuasiveness of the prosecutor’s justification for his peremptory strike. At this stage, ‘implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination.’ [Citation.] In that instance the issue comes down to whether the trial court finds the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible. Credibility can be measured by, among other factors, the prosecutor’s demeanor; by how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations are; and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy.” (Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003) 537 U.S. 322, 338-339 [154 L.Ed.2d 931, 123 S.Ct. 1029], quoting Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 768 [131 L.Ed.2d 834, 115 S.Ct. 1769].) We also will consider defendant’s claims concerning the selection of alternate jurors because an alternate juror ultimately served on his jury. (Cf. People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 703 [27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360, 110 P.3d 289].) With the foregoing principles in mind, we now discuss each of the three peremptory challenges at issue. 3. The prosecutor had valid neutral reasons for removing Prospective Jurors Keith B., Vanessa H., and Myra P. a. Prospective Juror Keith B. The prosecutor explained that he challenged Prospective Juror Keith B. because of his stated bias against the death penalty and his tendency toward mercy. The record supports that assertion. Keith B. had written in his questionnaire that he was mildly in favor of the death penalty by rating himself a “seven” on a 10-point scale concerning the strength of his support for the death penalty, and indicated that it was “legitimate” as “prescribed by law.” But he further clarified that he “lean[ed] on the side of mercy” and that his “orientation is Christian, hence one of grace.” When asked how his views have changed over time concerning the death penalty, Keith B. wrote, “more toward mercy.” Moreover, in answering the question of whether he thought death or life in prison was the more severe punishment, Keith B. wrote, “death is so final” and that “errors and malpractice” can occur. He further wrote, “a defendant can be redeemed” and “victims can reconcile.” Similarly, on voir dire, Keith B. explained that he could realistically see himself returning a verdict of death, but that he leaned in favor of mercy and, depending on the circumstances, he “would tend to consider a lesser penalty.” He also played an active role in rehabilitating inmates by serving as a minister in correctional facilities. Keith B.’s expressed preference for leniency constituted a neutral basis for the prosecutor to doubt his ability to return a verdict of death. b. Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. The prosecutor claimed he excused Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. because of her statements during voir dire concerning the death penalty and because she had served on a jury that was unable to reach a verdict. These assertions are also supported by the record. In her written questionnaire, Vanessa H. rated herself a “five” on a 10-point scale concerning the strength of her support for the death penalty, and she further wrote, “I feel if you think the death penalty is a good thing to have in this state, I’m not against it, and I think my feelings don’t count.” During voir dire, the prosecutor asked Vanessa H. to clarify what she meant about her feelings not counting. She explained that “because the way the world is now and the way people make decisions on a lot of things, they [are] not basing ... the decision on what’s in the world today” but instead “on how they feel.” She further stated that she thought that “Especially African-American opinions, it really don’t count on how I feel about the death penalty.” When asked more directly about whether she could return a verdict of death, Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. gave conflicting responses. First, she stated that she did not “really have an opinion on the death [penalty]” because she “never came to that situation.” Then, Vanessa H. stated, “Based on my religion — I believe in Jesus Christ. According to him, you shouldn’t kill . . . ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ ” She further said, “But if it was to be based on the evidence and special circumstances, I can look at it both ways.” Later, however, the prosecutor presented Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. with a hypothetical scenario in which someone was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with aggravating circumstances substantially outweighing mitigating circumstances “and you think the just and necessary verdict is death,” and asked whether she could return such a verdict. Vanessa H. responded, “I can’t answer that question two months down the road” because she thinks “about everyday life” and goes “day by day.” She clarified that she would have to look at all the evidence and circumstances first. In response, the prosecutor asked Vanessa H. more directly if she could imagine coming into the courtroom two months later and saying, “I voted to have you executed.” Vanessa H. continued to refuse to directly answer the question, saying, “I probably can, and I probably can’t” and that she could not answer the question “until it comes to that time.” Vanessa H. further elaborated that if she weighed the evidence and it showed that defendant should be put to death, she thought she could make such a decision, but that she was “not going to give you an answer like ‘Yeah’ right now” because she did not know yet, “[b]ut I think I can.” When posed with the scenario in which Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. agreed that the hypothetical evidence and circumstances would support a verdict of death, she expressed considerable confusion and hesitation as to whether she could actually deliver such a verdict. This afforded the prosecutor with a valid, neutral reason to excuse her. (People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 902 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 162 P.3d 528] [“That a juror is equivocal about his or her ability to impose the death penalty is relevant to a challenge for cause, but does not undercut the race-neutral basis for a prosecutor’s decision to excuse a prospective juror peremptorily.”].) In addition, Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. described in negative terms her past experience on a civil jury that failed to reach a verdict. She complained that the other jurors in that case “already had the answer” before deliberations began. Vanessa H. claimed that the jurors were not listening to each other and were basing their decision on emotions rather than on the evidence. Prior service on a deadlocked jury is an accepted neutral reason for excusing a prospective juror. (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 644 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 87, 229 P.3d 12].) c. Prospective Alternate Juror Myra P. The prosecutor also explained that he excused Prospective Alternate Juror Myra P. because of her opposition to the death penalty. Again, the record supports his contention. In her written questionnaire, Myra P. clearly and repeatedly wrote that she did not believe in the death penalty. She rated herself a “one” on a 10-point scale concerning the strength of her support for the death penalty. She further explained that she was concerned that the death penalty might result in the death of innocent persons and that a person sentenced to life, in contrast, “might have the opportunity to prove [innocence].” On voir dire, Myra P. gave some conflicting answers, but most of them showed strong reluctance toward imposing the death penalty. She first stated that she “would always go for life” and that she could not see herself voting for a death sentence because she did not believe in it. She then stated that if it was proved that death was the appropriate penalty, she “could do it.” The prosecutor later presented to Myra P. the same hypothetical he had posed to Vanessa H. — in which someone was found guilty with aggravating circumstances substantially outweighing mitigating circumstances “and ... the just and necessary verdict is death,” and asked whether Myra P. could return such a verdict. Myra P. responded, “That would be very difficult for me” but “[n]ot impossible” and that the circumstances would have to be “really, really aggravating.” She then explained that it was not realistic that she could return a death verdict. However, at the end of her voir dire, the prosecutor asked Myra P. whether her feelings were so strong that she would be substantially impaired in her ability to return a death verdict, and Myra P. replied that she would be “[n]ot impaired.” Even more clearly than Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H., Prospective Alternate Juror Myra P. expressed considerable doubt regarding whether she could return a verdict of death when the circumstances would otherwise warrant its application. Again, this was a valid, neutral reason for the prosecutor to excuse her. (People v. Smith (2005) 35 Cal.4th 334, 347-348 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 107 P.3d 229] [a prospective juror’s doubts about the death penalty can be a legitimate, race-neutral reason to exercise a peremptory challenge].) 4. A comparative analysis of prospective jurors and their views on the death penalty reflects no disparate treatment based on race Defendant argues that a comparative juror analysis indicates that Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H.’s views concerning the death penalty constituted a pretextual reason for her removal because the prosecutor allegedly failed to show equal concern about several other prospective jurors who had expressed similar views and yet sat on the jury unchallenged by the prosecutor. We disagree. Defendant identifies six impanelled jurors, Jurors Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Alternate Juror No. 1, as persons relevant to a comparative analysis because they all acknowledged that returning a verdict of death would be difficult but that they thought they could make that decision. But none of defendant’s comparisons support his claims because, unlike Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H., none of these jurors questioned his or her ability to vote for a sentence of death even when the circumstances and the law would warrant its application. At best, the comparisons show that some of the seated jurors believed that deciding whether a death verdict was appropriate would be difficult and weighty. When asked whether he could return a verdict of death in a public courtroom, Juror No. 1 recognized that it would be a “really big decision” and “difficult,” but stated, “I think I could [return such a verdict].” Juror No. 3 stated that “The church teaches that all life is sacred,” but there was nothing about his religious affiliation that would prevent him from returning a death verdict. Juror No. 4 also recognized that returning a verdict of death would be difficult, but she stated, “I think I could do that.” When asked whether she could vote for a death verdict when it appeared to her that it was “just and necessary,” Juror No. 5 said it was a hard question that was difficult to answer, but she thought she could do that. When asked a similar question, Juror No. 6 stated that it would be “probably the hardest decision I’ve ever made,” but “I think that I could.” Finally, Alternate Juror No. 1 also said she could vote for death if such a verdict was “just and necessary.” Accordingly, none of the instances identified by defendant supports his claim that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against Prospective Alternate Juror Vanessa H. because of her race. Specifically, none of these compared jurors, unlike Vanessa H., expressed a reluctance to answer the question followed by an uncertainty about being able to return a verdict of death when the circumstances would otherwise warrant its application. Moreover, none of the compared jurors, unlike Vanessa H., had served on a deadlocked jury. Last, the prosecutor accepted an African-American, Juror No. 8, on the sworn jury. Although not conclusive, the fact that the jury included a member of the group allegedly discriminated against “is an indication of good faith in exercising peremptories.” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 168 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762, 878 P.2d 521].) III. Guilt Phase Issues A. Admission of Lopez’s dying declarations Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting Lopez’s statements under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule on the ground their admission violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the evidence against him, his due process right to reliability and fundamental fairness, and his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable verdict. More specifically, he claims that Lopez’s statements went beyond identifying defendant as the shooter, concerned her perception of his actions and motives, and that he had no opportunity to confront them and show their unreliability. We conclude that the court properly admitted Lopez’s statements. After Lopez was shot and taken to the hospital but before she went into surgery, she gave a statement to Officer Patrick Olson in which she described the argument between defendant and Jose Alvarez. Lopez told the officer that defendant was holding a shotgun and pointed it at Alvarez during the argument. Lopez said she thought defendant was going to shoot Alvarez, so she immediately stepped between them to stop defendant from shooting. She then said that she was shot once. In addition to the statement given to Officer Olson at the hospital, Lopez spoke to two officers at the crime scene, identifying defendant as the person who shot her. All three officers testified as to Lopez’s statements. Two other witnesses at the crime scene, a neighbor and Lopez’s brother, also testified that Lopez had identified defendant as the person who shot her. Just before the prosecution commenced its case-in-chief, defense counsel objected to the admission of Lopez’s statements on hearsay grounds, as well as on constitutional grounds under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court made a “preliminary finding” that it “would probably” allow admission of the statements. Defense counsel also requested that the objection be deemed a continuing objection because he “hate[s] to object in front of the jury.” The trial court granted the defense’s request that there be a continuing objection. During the penalty phase, defense counsel reminded the trial court that he previously had objected, on various statutory and constitutional grounds, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to any statements that Lopez made that went beyond naming defendant as the shooter. Counsel stated, “I just want to reiterate all those same objections I made, and I suspect the court’s ruling would be the same.” The trial court agreed, “I think it would. The dying declarations will definitely come in. I’ll overrule you on that.” The Attorney General argues that defendant has forfeited this claim on appeal because he failed to renew his objection during the testimony of the witnesses who recounted Lopez’s statements. But defendant’s objection to Lopez’s statements was properly preserved for appeal. In order to avoid disruption at trial, the trial court granted defense counsel’s motion for a continuing objection to all such testimony introduced at trial, which indicates that the court understood that the defense opposed the introduction of this evidence. (People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1165 [176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185, 331 P.3d 1206] [it was not incumbent upon defense counsel to disrupt the trial by continuing to object to each subsequent question in order to preserve the objection].) Defense counsel again raised the issue at the penalty phase, and the court affirmed its prior decision. Consequently, defendant did not forfeit this claim. On its merits, however, defendant’s claim fails. We have previously rejected confrontation clause challenges to the admission of dying declarations in two cases, People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d 956] (Monterroso) and People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257 [106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 226 P.3d 949] (D’Arcy). In Monterroso, we reviewed the legal principles established in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 56, footnote 6 [158 L.Ed.2d 177, 124 S.Ct. 1354] (Crawford), in which the Supreme Court held that “[testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 59.) In Crawford, the high court recognized that, historically, the “one deviation” from this rule involves dying declarations, but the court specifically refused to decide “whether the Sixth Amendment incorporates an exception for testimonial dying declarations.” (Id. at p. 56, fn. 6.) While the court had no occasion to specifically consider dying declarations in Crawford, it did note that the “existence of that exception as a general rule of criminal hearsay law cannot be disputed.” (Ibid.) It further noted, “Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there is authority for admitting even those that clearly are.” (Ibid.) In Monterroso, we found that historical common law had permitted the admission of dying declarations, in spite of the right of confrontation. We concluded, therefore, “that the common law pedigree of the exception for dying declarations poses no conflict with the Sixth Amendment.” (Monterroso, supra, at p. 765.) Defendant urges this court to reconsider our decision in Monterroso. He contends that recent scholarly criticism analyzing the common law basis of the dying declaration exception establishes that it was not a historically unique hearsay exception, and, therefore, the lack of its uniqueness subjects such statements to the demands of the confrontation clause. But our decision in Monterroso did not purport to rely on any asserted historical uniqueness concerning the dying declaration exception to the right of confrontation; rather, we simply recognized that the admissibility of dying declarations was one of “ ‘those exceptions established at the time of the founding.’ ” (Monterroso, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 765, quoting Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 54.) Accordingly, even assuming that the dying declaration exception was not a unique hearsay exception at the time the founders drafted the Sixth Amendment, that circumstance does not affect our holding in Monterroso. Defendant further contends that the historical notion of the inherent reliability of dying declarations no longer holds true today because a modern declarant may harbor and articulate self-serving motives under pain of death. We rejected similar arguments in D’Arcy, where this court affirmed its holding in Monterroso and again applied the exception regarding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay as a dying declaration. (D’Arcy, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 292.) In the alternative, defendant argues that even assuming the admission of Lopez’s statements are not rendered inadmissible by the confrontation clause, this court should find they are inherently unreliable and inadmissible under state and federal guarantees of due process and his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable verdict. Defendant’s argument is without merit. Defendant contends that the belief that a declarant, at the point of death, has no self-serving motives is an unwarranted generalization that is not universally applicable. Defendant cites a federal district court case, contending that it rejected the dying declaration exception as unreliable. It did not. Instead, that court merely expressed its doubt concerning “the inherent reliability of such statements,” but concluded that the challenged statements were admissible under an alternative ground and did not make any ruling concerning the application of the dying declaration exception. (U.S. v. Mayhew (S.D. Ohio 2005) 380 F.Supp.2d 961, 965, fn. 5.) In any event, although of course we are not bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 431 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000]), defendant fails to cite a single case concluding that dying declarations are inherently unreliable so as to violate guarantees of due process and a reliable verdict. Furthermore, specific indicia of reliability are built into Evidence Code section 1242, which codified the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The statute requires that a dying declaration is admissible only if the statement was made upon “personal knowledge and under a sense of immediately impending death.” (Evid. Code, § 1242, italics added.) Each of these elements is satisfied in defendant’s case. It was uncontroverted that Lopez’s statements about the shooting were from her personal knowledge and concerned the circumstances that would lead to her death. The evidence also established that Lopez made her statements under a sense of immediately impending death. Lopez’s statements were properly admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1242. We have explained that when evidence is properly admitted under the Evidence Code, there is no violation of due process. (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 67 [177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 332 P.3d 1187].) Defendant’s argument that the general admission of dying declarations violates constitutional and state guarantees of due process and a reliable verdict is without merit. B. Motion for mistrial based on witness’s comment and the admissibility of a statement made by an investigating officer Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial after a witness unexpectedly referred to codefendant Todd Brightmon (see fn. 2, ante) as defendant’s “henchman.” He claims the ruling violated his right to due process and a reliable verdict. In a related claim, defendant also contends the court erred by refusing to redact a portion of codefendant Brightmon’s police interview in which the investigating officer stated that he has to get defendant “off the streets.” Defendant argues that the officer’s statement was irrelevant and inflammatory under Evidence Code section 352 and that its admission in both the guilt and penalty phases violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court did not err in either ruling. 1. The motion for mistrial The prosecution called Alan Ford, who lived in the neighborhood of the Lopez shooting, had seen def