THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVIE LAMAR FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant, 35 Cal. 3d 329

Opinion BROUSSARD, J. This case arises on an automatic appeal from a death sentence imposed under the 1977 death penalty statute. (Former Pen. Code, § 190 et seq.; Stats. 1977, ch. 316.) As is typical in automatic appeals, the case raises a variety of contentions, some presenting issues of general import while others involve matters relevant only to this particular appeal.

Among the more important issues are: (1) whether the exclusion of jurors who would automatically vote against the death penalty denies defendant a representative jury at the guilt phase of the trial; (2) whether a person who states that he could not vote for the death penalty in the case before him, but might conceivably in another case, can be excluded from the jury; (3) whether the execution-murder of a robbery victim after the killer has secured possession of the victim’s property can fall within the special circumstance of murder “during the commission” of a robbery; and (4) whether a psychopath is legally insane.

We have reviewed these and all other issues raised by defendant, and find no prejudicial error in the proceedings below. We therefore affirm the judgment finding defendant guilty of first degree murder, with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, and imposing the death penalty. I.

Summary of proceedings. On September 13, 1978, defendant was paroled from prison after serving a sentence for manslaughter. In the next three weeks, he became a one-man crime wave.

He was eventually convicted in this proceeding of the following offenses: The robbery murder of Rosemary C., with the special circumstance of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder during the commission of a robbery; the robbery of Clarence G.; the kidnaping for robbery and forced oral copulation of Cynthia S.; the kidnaping for robbery and robbery of Gwendolyn B., as well as rape, forcible oral copulation, and assault with a deadly weapon on Gwendolyn; the kidnaping, robbery, forcible oral copulation, and rape of Colleen C. The jury determined that defendant was sang, and fixed the punishment at death.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and for modification of the verdict. The case comes to us on automatic appeal. II.

Summary of the evidence. (

a) The murder and robbery of Rosemary C. Rosemary C. was a 26-year-old black woman who worked as a student librarian at the University of Southern California. On September 27, Gail Fields, defendant’s sister, saw Rosemary and defendant at the Fields residence. The next morning Gail entered defendant’s bedroom; defendant was standing by the door and Rosemary was naked in the bed. Defendant handed Gail a check signed by Rosemary C. for $185. Defendant then examined Rosemary’s checkbook and said that she probably had more money.

Defendant called Rosemary a “bitch” and told her to write another check for $222 and some cents. He then told Rosemary he would “bump her off” because “she run a game on him,” by writing a check for less than the balance of her account. Gail took the $222 check, cashed it at a bank, and gave the money to defendant, who returned $22 to her. About 1 p.m. on September 28, Debbie M., a 16-year-old girl who was the former girlfriend of defendant’s brother, went to the Fields residence. Debbie saw Rosemary and defendant go into defendant’s bedroom.

A short while later, defendant came out and asked Debbie if she wanted to see how he punished his girl friends. Debbie said “no,” but defendant pushed her to the bedroom door where she saw Rosemary naked and bound to the bed. A short while later Debbie saw defendant enter the bedroom with a gun, tell Rosemary that he would kill her if she did not give him money, and say that he was going to take her on a long trip “and she wasn’t never going to come back.” Later in the afternoon Gail borrowed a car from Clifton B., Debbie’s godfather.

Debbie saw defendant, Gail, and Rosemary leave the house; Rosemary was dressed and carrying her purse. Gail testified that defendant and Rosemary got in the back seat of B.’s car. Defendant told Gail to drive them toward the Santa Monica freeway. As the car entered the on-ramp, Gail heard a shot. Rosemary cried out, “Oh, God.” Defendant told Gail to keep on driving. Gail heard more shots. Defendant then said that Rosemary was not dead and he had to make sure she was dead. Gail then heard the noise of a blow. Rosemary died of five gunshot wounds and a blunt injury to the head.

Gail drove to an alley near the Fields residence. Defendant removed the body from the car and left it in the alley while Gail covered the car’s license plates. They drove to a car wash and cleaned the blood from the car. Debbie saw defendant and Gail return without Rosemary. When she heard police sirens, Debbie went to the alley and saw the body. She walked back to the house and asked defendant if the body was the girl who had been at the house.

He laughed and said, “She was going on a long trip and was never coming back.” The prosecution introduced additional evidence to corroborate the testimony of Gail and Debbie. Clifton B. attested to the loan of the car, and said when it was returned it had two bullet holes in it. A prosecution witness described seeing a car in the alley which matched the description of B.’s car. Other witnesses described the discovery of Rosemary’s body. A bank official verified the $222 check from Rosemary to Gail Fields.

Police officers who searched the Fields house discovered Rosemary’s purse, driver’s license, and a torn check from Rosemary C. to Gail Fields for $185. (

b) The robbery of Clarence G. Clarence G. testified that on the evening of October 2, 1978, he parked his Trans Am Pontiac outside a drug store. When he returned to the car, defendant and another man approached. Defendant was armed with a gun, and demanded the car keys. Clarence handed the keys to the other man and started to leave, but defendant called him back and asked for money. Clarence gave him what he had, about $4 or $5. The victims of defendant’s subsequent crimes all observed defendant driving the Trans Am. (

c) Crimes against Gwendolyn B. and Cynthia S. Gwendolyn B. and Cynthia S. were prostitutes. Early in the morning on October 5, 1978, they saw defendant and William (“Popeye”) Blackwell, a 17-year-old friend of defendant, drive by in a Trans Am. Defendant and Blackwell, who had a gun, walked up to Gwendolyn and Cynthia, and ordered the two women into the car. As they entered the car, defendant asked if they had any money. Defendant drove the car to an alley near the Fields residence. He took the gun from Blackwell and directed the women to enter the house and go to the upstairs bedrooms.

Defendant ordered Gwendolyn to remove her clothes and took $50 she had hidden in her stockings. He inspected her for venereal disease, told her to do whatever his friend Blackwell wanted, then left the room. Blackwell then raped Gwendolyn. Defendant took Cynthia into another room, compelled her to disrobe, and took about $100 from her. Later defendant, Blackwell, and the two women assembled in the same room and smoked marijuana. Defendant told Gwendolyn to have oral sex with Cynthia. After she complied, he then directed her to perform anal sex.

Gwendolyn refused, and defendant struck her with the gun, breaking Gwendolyn’s jaw and the handle of the gun. Defendant then raped Gwendolyn, while Blackwell raped Cynthia. Gwendolyn passed out on a mattress in the bedroom. When she awoke on the blood-stained mattress, she saw Blackwell with a knife. Defendant told Blackwell, “Man, go and cut the bitch up. You can’t just leave her laying there.” Blackwell did not comply, and defendant then ordered Cynthia to clean up the blood from Gwendolyn’s injury.

Defendant and Blackwell compelled the women to dress and accompany them in the Trans Am to pick up more prostitutes to rob. They found two more women and defendant compelled them at gunpoint to get into the car. After they returned to the Fields house, defendant permitted Gwendolyn and Cynthia to leave. Cynthia took Gwendolyn to a hospital for treatment of the injury to her jaw. At the hospital, Gwendolyn used the name of Cynthia S. so she could use Cynthia’s Medi-Cal card, while Cynthia used the alias of Nichole Williams.

The search of the Fields residence turned up Gwendolyn’s wig and blouse and Cynthia’s identification card. The police also observed extensive bloodstains on the mattress where Gwendolyn had lain. (

d) Crimes against Colleen C. A few hours after releasing Gwendolyn and Cynthia, defendant and Blackwell found another victim. Colleen C., an 18-year-old student at U.S.C., parked her car in a restaurant parking lot. Defendant and Blackwell, who was armed with a gun, approached and ordered her into a Trans Am parked in the alley near the restaurant. Blackwell drove to the Fields house. Defendant took the gun from Blackwell and ordered Colleen to go into the bedroom. Blackwell asked for the keys to Colleen’s car, and defendant demanded that she give them to Blackwell.

When Blackwell left with the keys, defendant looked through Colleen’s purse, took about $12, and asked if she had a checking account. Colleen said she did but it only contained $30. Defendant ordered Colleen to remove her clothes, and struck her for not removing them fast enough. He then required her to perform oral sex on him and to submit to intercourse. When the sexual acts' were finished, defendant demanded more money. Colleen said she could withdraw $2,000 from a Crocker Bank savings account through a computerized night teller.

She tore a page from the phone-book giving the address for local Crocker Bank branches, and she, defendant, and Blackwell drove to one of the branches. Defendant decided there were too many people around, and so returned to the Fields house without withdrawing the money. Defendant rolled marijuana cigarettes and insisted that Colleen smoke them. He then told Colleen to call a girlfriend and ask her to bring money. She called her roommate, Cathy K., told Cathy her car had broken down, and asked Cathy to come to pick her up.

Cathy and her brother drove to the address and honked, but because Cathy’s brother was present defendant decided not to respond. Defendant told Colleen that he would have to kill her because she had too many counts on him. Colleen begged him not to kill her. When Debbie M. knocked on the door, distracting defendant, Colleen tried to escape by throwing herself backwards through the closed window. She broke the window and cut her back, but defendant grabbed her and pulled her back into the house. Debbie M. calmed Colleen by putting the gun in another room, then left to get bandages for Colleen’s back.

Defendant then told Colleen that he would not kill her unless she tried to escape. He went to sleep; Colleen remained with him, awake, until morning. In the morning defendant asked Colleen to prostitute for him. When she agreed, he said he would let her go if she would do him a favor. At defendant’s request, she drove him to a location about four blocks away and purchased marijuana for him. Defendant gave Colleen back her car, watch, jewelry, and some of her clothes. She drove directly to her apartment and called her sister, who notified the police. When the police arrived at the Fields house, defendant had left.

He and Blackwell appeared later that day at Debbie’s house, and stayed with her for two days. On October 9, 1978, defendant was arrested at the Greyhound bus station. A police search of the stolen Trans Am revealed a torn page from the telephone book giving the Crocker Bank offices. The book itself, minus the missing page, was found in the Fields residence. Defendant’s mother appeared at the preliminary hearing wearing Colleen’s blouse. (

e) Defense testimony. Defendant himself did not testify. His counsel called a number of witnesses whose testimony cast some doubt on aspects of the prosecution testimony. Cathy K., Colleen’s roommate, testified that when Colleen phoned her from the Fields residence, Colleen said she was “loaded” and sounded intoxicated. Two officers who talked to Clarence G. said that victim told them that one of the persons who robbed him stuttered; so far as the record reveals, neither defendant nor Blackwell stutters.

The officers who interviewed Gwendolyn and Cynthia testified to accounts which differed in some minor particulars from those witnesses’ trial testimony. Gwendolyn also told both an officer and her boyfriend that she and Cynthia had smoked marijuana “dusted” with PCP. (

f) Sanity phase testimony. Dr. Ronald Markman, a psychiatrist, testified for the defense that defendant had an “antisocial personality,” a mental disorder previously referred to as psychopathology or sociopathology. Defendant was incapable of benefiting from experience, and lacked interest in conforming to social rules. Dr. Markman stated that in his opinion defendant, although capable of appreciating the criminality of his behavior, was unable to conform to legal requirements, and thus was insane under the test of insanity in effect at the time of the trial. (See People v.

Drew (1978) 22 Cal.3d 333, 339 [149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318].) On cross-examination, Dr. Markman was asked, “[I]f the law were such that a mental disease or mental defect would not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated or otherwise antisocial conduct, Doctor, your opinion would be the defendant would be sane?” He replied, “[B]y definition what you are saying with that question is that you are excluding the antisocial personality. If you exclude the antisocial personality from the definition, sir, it certainly would change my conclusion.” The prosecution called two psychiatric witnesses, Dr.

Donald Trockman and Dr. Saul Faerstein. Both agreed with Dr. Markman’s diagnosis of “antisocial personality,” but stated that in their opinion defendant was nevertheless capable of conforming to legal requirements. (

g) Penalty phase testimony. The parties stipulated that defendant was convicted on December 28, 1976, of the voluntary manslaughter of Albert A. The investigating officer in that case testified as to defendant’s confession, in which defendant admitted hitting Albert with a dumbell bar when Albert made a homosexual advance. The prosecution also introduced a photograph of Albert’s body. Defendant presented no evidence at the penalty phase. III. Issues relating to selection of the jury. Defendant raises three issues relating to the voir dire and selection of the jury.

He contends (1) that the exclusion of persons who said they would automatically vote against the death penalty in this case resulted in a guilt phase jury which was not a representative cross-section of the community; (2) that the court improperly limited his voir dire of jurors concerning capital punishment and improperly excluded at least one prospective juror because of his views on that subject; (3) that the prosecutor committed misconduct when he asked whether jurors believed that insanity “was the last refiige of the scoundrel” and that the court erred in not sustaining an objection to that question.

The first issue, the denial of a representative jury, affects both the guilt and sanity phases of this trial. The second issue bears primarily upon the penalty phase. The final jury selection issue relates principally to the sanity phase. Nevertheless, the jury selection issues are so closely related that we believe it would be most convenient to consider them as a group before turning to the issues arising at the trial itself. (

a) Denial of a representative jury. Defendant claims that the exclusion for cause of persons opposed to capital punishment from the guilt phase of the trial violates his right to jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

article I,

section 16, of the California Constitution. Recent cases have identified three related, yet analytically distinct, contentions which could be advanced in support of that claim. (People v. Pacheco (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 617, 628 [172 Cal.Rptr. 269]; see generally Hovey v.

Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1 [168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301].) First, a defendant could contend that the exclusion of jurors who would automatically vote against death but assert that they could be impartial on the question of guilt—a group we described in Hovey as the “guilt phase indudables” (28 Cal.3d 1, 17, fii. 36)—results in a jury biased in favor of the prosecution. Second, a defendant could contend that the exclusion of this group impairs the purpose and function of a criminal jury. (See Ballew v.

Georgia (1978) 435 U.S. 223 [55 L.Ed.2d 234, 98 S.Ct. 1029] (five-person jury unconstitutional.) Finally, he could contend that the exclusion abridges his right to a jury chosen from a representative cross-section of the community. The first and second of these contentions require empirical proof of the effect of excluding the “guilt phase indudables” upon the neutrality and performance of the jury. We considered the available evidence in Hovey v.

Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d 1, and held it insufficient to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the exclusion; defendant before us today does not challenge that holding. The petitioner in Hovey, however, did not raise the question of an unrepresentative jury, and neither Hovey nor any other ruling by this court since the 1977 restoration of the California death penalty has resolved this question. California courts applying earlier death penalty statutes did consider, but unanimously rejected, the contention that exclusion of the group in question violated constitutional guarantees.

Before 1957, when the jury' in a capital case in California decided both guilt and penalty in a single trial, a juror who could not be impartial on the penalty issue was necessarily excluded from the jury. (People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 575-576 [305 P.2d 1].) After the Legislature required a bifurcated trial, a number of cases considered whether this innovation should alter the holding of Riser. We concluded that even under the new procedure, exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment from the guilt trial did not deny the defendant a fair and impartial jury. (People v.

Gilbert (1965) 63 Cal.2d 690, 711-712 [47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P.2d 365]; People v. Smith (1966) 63 Cal.2d 779, 789 [48 Cal.Rptr. 382, 409 P.2d 222]; People v. Thomas (1967) 65 Cal.2d 698, 706 [56 Cal.Rptr. 305, 423 P.2d 233]; People v. Nicolaus (1967) 65 Cal.2d 866, 882 [56 Cal.Rptr. 635, 423 P.2d 787]; People v. Gonzales (1967) 66 Cal.2d 482, 498-499 [58 Cal.Rptr. 361, 426 P.2d 929].) The last of these decisions, People v.

Gonzales, collected and set out the reasons advanced to justify excluding these jurors: that jurors opposed to capital punishment might not be impartial at the guilt phase of the trial; that the state had a valid interest in having a single jury try both guilt and penalty; and that the exclusion did not prejudice the defendant because jurors who favored capital punishment were also excluded. In 1968 the United States Supreme Court decided Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770], and added a new constitutional dimension to jury selection in capital cases.

Witherspoon ruled that a state may exclude jurors for cause because of their views on capital punishment only if the jurors “made unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt. ” (Pp. 522-523, fn. 21 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) By excluding not only that limited group, but also “all who expressed conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment and all who opposed it in principle” (p. 520 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 784]), Illinois produced “a jury uncommonly willing to condemn a man to die. ... a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” (P. 521 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 784].) “No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected.” (Pp. 522-523 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) Witherspoon had been convicted, as well as sentenced, by a jury from whom all with doubts or scruples about capital punishment had been excluded.

Yet the Supreme Court reversed only the penalty. With respect to guilt, it stated only that “[t]he data adduced by the petitioner ... are too tentative and fragmentary to establish that jurors not opposed to the death penalty tend to favor the prosecution in the determination of guilt.

We simply cannot conclude . . . that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction.” (Pp. 517-518 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 782] ,) By linking the question of an unrepresentative jury to the availability of empirical proof of a non-neutral jury, the Witherspoon opinion appears to overlook the argument that an unrepresentative jury is itself a violation of a constitutional right.

Yet the court was not unaware of that issue, for Justice Douglas argued in a concurring opinion that the verdict of guilt should be reversed because Witherspoon was tried by an unrepresentative jury. (P. 531 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 790].) Consequently, Witherspoon’s affirmanee of the guilt verdict in that case can be viewed as an implied holding that exclusion of persons opposed to capital punishment does not deny a defendant a representative jury at the guilt trial. (Grigsby v. Mabry (E.D.

Ark. 1980) 483 F.Supp. 1372, 1385, modified (8th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 525.) Following the Witherspoon decision, we reconsidered our prior decisions but concluded that “[A]ssuming that the jurors otherwise met the standards for exclusion for cause under Witherspoon they were properly excused despite their ability to fairly and impartially determine defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1061, 1089-1090 [80 Cal.Rptr. 567, 458 P.2d 479].) Subsequent decisions adhered to this conclusion. In People v.

King (1970) 1 Cal.3d 791, 804 [83 Cal.Rptr. 401, 463 P.2d 753], we held that exclusion of a juror whose opposition to capital punishment was founded upon religious belief did not infringe constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion. And in People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 753-754 [114 Cal.Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267], we held that a defendant convicted under an unconstitutional death penalty statute was not entitled to a new guilt trial even though “guilt phase includable” jurors had been excluded from his jury.

Thornton was the last decision of this court to address the representative jury issue. The Courts of Appeal, however, have considered that issue on several occasions and consistently upheld the exclusion of the “guilt phase indudables.” (People v. Henderson (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 584, 594-598 [145 Cal.Rptr. 751]; People v. Sand (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 448, 452 [146 Cal.Rptr. 448]; People v. Pacheco, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d 617.) The decisions of other jurisdictions also conclude that exclusion of this group does not deny a defendant a representative jury. (See Smith v.

Balkcom (5th Cir. 1981) 660 F.2d 573, 582-583; Spinkellink v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1978) 578 F.2d 582, 595-597; State v. Ortiz (1975) 88 N.M. 370 [540 P.2d 850, 852-854]; State v. Bayless (1976) 48 Ohio St.2d 73 [2 Ohio Ops.3d 249, 357 N.E.2d 1035, 1046-1049].) Defendant points out, however, that the United States Supreme Court has developed a new method for determining whether the exclusion of a group of jurors denies a defendant his right to a representative jury.

The new format focuses, first, on whether the group in question constitutes a distinct and “cognizable” class and, if it so qualifies, on whether the state can show sufficient justification for excluding that class. No decision of this court, and no controlling precedent from the Supreme Court, has addressed the exclusion of “guilt phase includable” jurors under this analytic structure. Accordingly, despite the unanimous weight of precedent against defendant’s claim, we think it necessary to reappraise the validity of that exclusion in light of current constitutional doctrine. We begin our analysis with Taylor v.

Louisiana (1975) 419 U.S. 522 [42 L.Ed.2d 690, 95 S.Ct. 692], in which the court held unconstitutional a Louisiana statute which excluded women unless they volunteered for jury service.

Justice White explained that “[t]he purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge. [Citation.] This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the jury pool is made up of only special segments of the populace or if large, distinctive groups are excluded from the pool. . . .

Restricting jury service to only special groups or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial.” (P. 530 [42 L.Ed.2d at p. 698].) Louisiana had argued that women and men do not vote as distinctive groups, and thus, that the exclusion of women from the jury would not affect its deliberation and verdict. Quoting Ballard v.

United States (1946) 329 U.S. 187, 193-194 [91 L.Ed. 181, 186, 67 S.Ct. 261], the court replied that “ ‘the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both ... a flavor, a distinct quality is lost . . .

The exclusion of one may indeed make the jury less representative of the community than would be true if an economic or racial group were excluded.’” (Pp. 531-532 [42 L.Ed.2d at p. 699].) Louisiana finally argued that excluding women served a rational purpose because women were more likely to qualify for child care exemption than men, and excusing all women was more convenient than making a juror by juror determination. The court responded that “[t]he right to a proper jury cannot be overcome on merely rational grounds.

There must be weightier reasons if a distinctive class ... is ... to be excluded from jury service.” (P. 534 [42 L.Ed.2d at p. 700].) Four years later, in Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 99 S.Ct. 664], the court held invalid a statute under which women were called for jury service, but automatically excused if they so requested. In reaching this result, the court set out a specific three-part test: “In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross

section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” (P. 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at pp. 586-587].) Once defendant sets out a prima facie case within these standards, the burden shifts to the state to show that “a significant state interest be manifestly and primarily advanced by those aspects of the jury-selection process . . . that result in the disproportionate exclusion of a distinctive group.” (Pp. 367-368 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 589].) The principal difficulty in applying this test has been to determine whether the excluded persons constitute a “distinctive” group in the community. (Commentators and many lower court decisions, including those of this court, usually refer to such a distinctive group as a “cognizable class.”) It is clear that groups defined by race, gender, or religion qualify. (See Winick, Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenges in Capital Cases: An Empirical Study and a Constitutional Analysis (1982) 81 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 67-68 and cases there cited.) Decisions are divided, however, on the cognizability of groups defined by age, occupation, economic status, and social status. (Id. at p. 68.) The California Supreme Court considered the problem of defining a cognizable class in Adams v.

Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55 [115 Cal.Rptr. 247, 524 P.2d 375], decided one year before Taylor v. Louisiana. In Adams, a four-to-three decision upheld a statute limiting jury service to persons who have been residents of the state and county for at least one year.

We stated that “before exclusion may be held improper, there must be a common thread running through the excluded group—a basic similarity of attitudes, ideas or experience among its members so that the exclusion prevents juries from reflecting a cross-section of the community. ” (P. 60.) “Measured by this standard,” we said “the potential jurors here excluded do not constitute a cognizable class. The group’s membership-cutting across economic, social, religious and geographical lines—changes day by day, creating a lack of real commonality of interest among the newly migrated.” (Id.) People v.

Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748], presented a different issue—the use of peremptory challenges to exclude blacks, an admittedly cognizable group. In discussing that issue, however, we drew a distinction between challenges for group bias and challenges for specific bias, a distinction essentially parallel to that between cognizable and noncognizable groups.

In holding the use of peremptory challenges to exclude a cognizable group violated the California Constitution, we stated that “when a party presumes that certain jurors are biased merely because they are members of an identillable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or similar grounds— we may call this ‘group bias’—and peremptorily strikes all such persons for that reason alone, he not only upsets the demographic balance of the venire but frustrates the primary purpose of the representative cross-section requirement.

That purpose, as we have seen, is to achieve an overall impartiality by allowing the interaction of the diverse beliefs and values the jurors bring from their group experiences.

Manifestly if jurors are struck simply because they may hold those very beliefs, such interaction becomes impossible and the jury will be dominated by the conscious or unconscious prejudices of the majority.” (P. 276.) We contrasted the proper use of peremptory challenge for specific bias, a bias “relating to the particular case on trial or the parties or witnesses thereto” (p. 276) and “essentially neutral with respect to the various groups represented on the venire.” (Id.) The opinion offered several examples of challenges for specific bias: “both blacks and whites may have prior arrests, both rich and poor may have been crime victims, both young and old may have relatives on the police force, both men and women may believe strongly in law and order, and members of any group whatever may alienate a party by ‘bare looks and gestures.’ ” (P. 276.) Implicit in this list of examples is that persons previously arrested, crime victims, believers in law and order, etc. are not identifiable groups whose representation is essential to a constitutional venire.

We returned to the question of defining a cognizable class in Rubio v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 93 [154 Cal.Rptr. 734, 593 P.2d 595], which concerned disqualification of ex-felons and aliens. Justice Mosk wrote the dispositive opinion, joined by Justice Manuel; Justices Richardson and Clark concurred in the result. The opinion by Justice Mosk states that “[t]wo requirements must ... be met in order to qualify an asserted group as ‘cognizable’ for purposes of the representative cross-section rule.

First, its members must share a common perspective arising from their life experience in the group, i.e., a perspective gained precisely because they are members of that group.

It is not enough to find a characteristic possessed by some persons in the community but not by others; the characteristic must also impart to its possessors a common social or psychological outlook on human events.” (P. 98.) Second, it states “[t]he party seeking to prove a violation of the representative cross-section rule must also show that no other members of the community are capable of adequately representing the perspective of the group assertedly excluded.” (Id.) The opinion concluded that the excluded groups—ex-felons and aliens— failed the second part of this test and therefore were not cognizable groups.

The foregoing precedents do not resolve the issue before us, but they provide guidance in defining the concept of a cognizable class. It is clear that the groups recognized as cognizable classes are generally relatively large and well defined groups in the community whose members may, because of common background or experience, share a distinctive viewpoint on matters of current concern. Generally speaking, the courts have not recognized an otherwise heterogeneous group as cognizable merely because its members agree on one particular matter.

Wheeler, for example, suggested that persons who favor “law and order” are not a cognizable class (22 Cal.3d 258, 276); by the same token, opponents (or proponents) of capital punishment would not comprise a cognizable group. Persons who would not be willing to vote for the death penalty come from diverse backgrounds and experiences, and may have diverse views on all other matters.

Their unwillingness to vote for death may come from many sources: religious conviction, political alignment, moral philosophy, refusal to take such an awesome responsibility, or simply a feeling that “I just couldn’t live with it.” They do not comprise a distinctive, self-conscious group; one’s identity is defined in part by his or her gender, race, religion, and other matters, but not generally by one’s views on the single question of whether one would vote against death if chosen as a juror in a capital case.

We conclude that the class of persons united only by their determination to vote automatically against the death penalty—a class divided in all else, including even their reasons for refusing to consider the death penalty—is not a cognizable class under the past appellate decisions defining that concept. Two recent federal district court decisions, Grigsby v. Mabry (E.D.Ark. 1983) 569 F.Supp. 1273, and Keeten v. Garrison (W.D.N.C. 1984) — F.Supp. —, have reached a contrary conclusion.

Both decisions assume that a cognizable class does not require a common background and experience giving rise to a distinctive, self-conscious group, but requires only shared views and attitudes on related issues of social and legal policy—a position we reject. Both cases are subject to further appellate review, and we may look forward to a definitive ruling resolving this difficult controversy.

Our conclusion that the “guilt phase indudables” are not a distinct, identifiable, cognizable class as that concept is defined in Taylor, Duren, and Other controlling precedent does not dispose of defendant’s claim that exclusion of this class abridges constitutional rights. One of the reasons for requiring a representative jury “is to achieve an overall impartiality by allowing the interaction of . . . diverse beliefs and values . . . .” (People v.

Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 276.) The exclusion of members of a diverse, noncognizable group united only by their views on a particular issue will still exclude from the jury that particular viewpoint, and, to that extent, will necessarily diminish the representative character of the jury. Moreover, the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions bar the arbitrary exclusion of any person or groups of persons from jury service, whether or not they comprise a cognizable class. (See Rubio v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 93, 101-105; Adams v.

Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-63.) In fact, persons who would automatically vote against the death penalty routinely serve on California noncapital cases, and all parties and amicus alike assume that such persons could not constitutionally be excluded. The question before us, in terms of equal protection—and of the right to a representative jury, if that right can be asserted on behalf of a noncognizable group—is whether the state can justify excluding this group from the guilt phase of death penalty cases.

The state first asserts the long established legislative preference for a single jury qualified to try both phases of the trial (see People v. Gonzales, supra, 66 Cal.2d 482, 499), and notes the expense and inconvenience involved in any departure from this practice. If, for example, the penalty jury were not selected until after the first jury had found guilt and special circumstances, it would not have heard the guilt-phase evidence.

Since the penalty jury must take into account “[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted . . . and the existence of any special circumstance found to be true” (former Pen. Code, § 190.3, subd. (a)), the case would have to be retried in major part before the new jury. If, on the other hand, both juries were empaneled at the onset of the guilt trial, the state would incur the delay of double voir dire and the expense of maintaining two juries in all capital cases, even though many cases terminate before reaching the penalty phase.

Perhaps the most practical approach would be to select alternate jurors to replace the “guilt phase indudables” at the commencement of the penalty phase. (See Winick, op. cit. supra, 81 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 57, fn. 194.) We held in People v.

Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687 [131 Cal.Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742], that if necessary an alternate juror could join the jury after deliberations had begun, but that the jury must be instructed to disregard all past deliberations and begin anew. (P. 694.) The proposal before us, however, envisions an alternate joining the jury after it had deliberated on the issues of guilt and special circumstances and reached a verdict. He would be joining a group which has already discussed and evaluated the circumstances of the crime, the capacity of the defendant, and other issues which bear both on guilt and on penalty.

The resulting deliberations between old members who have already considered the evidence and may have arrived at tentative conclusions on some aspects of the case, and new members ignorant of those discussions and conclusions, would depart from the requirement that jurors “reach their consensus through deliberations which are the common experience of all of them.” (People v.

Collins, supra, 17 Cal.3d 687, 693 ,) In this context, moreover, the preference for a single jury goes well beyond considerations of administrative convenience or expense and reflects a legitimate attempt to assure—insofar as possible—that the decision-making process of a death penalty case is a coherent whole. The preference for a single jury is by no means a one-sided matter; such a procedure may provide distinct benefits for both the prosecution and the defense.

From the prosecution’s point of view, the use of a single jury to determine both guilt and penalty may make it less likely that a juror’s belief as to the inappropriateness of the death penalty will improperly skew the determination of guilt or innocence; as the drafters of the Model Penal Code’s death penalty provision observed, “a juror’s knowledge that he may not be in a position to control sentencing may induce him to hold out against conviction even when liability is plain.” (1 Model Pen.

Code, com. to § 210.6, pp. 146-147 (1980).) From defendant’s perspective, the use of a single jury may help insure that the ultimate decision-maker in capital cases acts with full recognition of the gravity of its responsibility throughout both phases of the trial and will also guarantee that the penalty phase jury is aware of lingering doubts that may have survived the guilt phase deliberations. (Cf. 1 Model Pen. Code, § 210.6(l)(

f) and com., pp. 107, 134 (1980) [death penalty should not be imposed when “although the evidence suffices to sustain the verdict, it does not foreclose all doubt respecting the defendant’s guilt”].) Thus, there are a number of weighty considerations to support the statutory preference for a single jury in capital cases. How should we describe these state interests? They certainly constitute a rational basis for the state’s policy, which is all that is required under the equal protection clause. (See Rubio v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 93, 101; Adams v.

Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d 55, 62.) Arguably they constitute the “weightier reasons” (Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, 419 U.S. 522, 534 [42 L.Ed.2d 690, 700]), the “significant state interest” (Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357), required in the representative jury cases. They would not, we are certain, justify a suspect classification excluding persons on grounds of race or gender.

But the crucial fact in our opinion is that the interests advanced by the state—interests, let us say, of moderate weight and significance—nevertheless outweigh those interests asserted in favor of permitting the “guilt phase indudables” to serve on the jury which tries guilt and special circumstance. Defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury is not at issue here. We rejected the contention that the exclusion of the automatic vote groups from the guilt phase jury results in a prosecution prone jury in Hovey v.

Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d 1, and defendant disclaims any intention to reassert that contention. He does not claim that he was in fact prejudiced by the jury selection procedure—that a more representative jury would likely have reached a different result. On the record before us, it is unlikely that any unbiased jury would fail to find defendant guilty of a premeditated murder committed during the commission of a robbery. All that defendant can claim is that the jury was deprived of an elusive but “distinct quality” or “flavor” (Taylor v.

Louisiana, supra, 419 U.S. 522, 531 [42 L.Ed.2d 690, 698-699]) by the exclusion of the “guilt phase indudables,” which in some uncertain and undefinable way might have affected the jury’s deliberations. His interest in this “quality” or “flavor” is constitutionally cognizable under Taylor, but it is not a very substantial interest. The interest of the excluded group is of no greater weight. Opponents of capital punishment are not traditional victims of discrimination. Their exclusion from capital juries is not a badge of servitude or an assertion of inferiority (compare Carter v.

Jury Commission (1970) 396 U.S. 320 [24 L.Ed.2d 549, 90 S.Ct. 518], [Blacks]), nor a perpetuation of obsolete stereotypes (compare Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357 [women]). Service on a capital jury is not a sought-after position, but an onerous obligation, and so long as exclusion denotes no stigma of inferiority, few persons would complain.

In sum, we conclude that the group of persons who would automatically vote against death at the penalty phase, yet profess impartiality at the guilt phase—the “guilt phase indudables”—are not a cognizable group, the exclusion of which makes a jury unrepresentative and unconstitutional. The interest of the state in maintaining a unitary jury for both phases of the trial is sufficient to justify the exclusion of this noncognizable group. (

b) Limitation of voir dire of prospective jurors, and exclusion of jurors. The Supreme Court decision in Witherspoon v.

Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 522 held that a court may not exclude jurors for cause “simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.” (P. 522 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) The only jurors who may be dismissed are those “who make it unmistakably clear . . . that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them.” (Id., at fn. 21 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) Relying on this holding, defendant maintains that the trial court improperly limited his voir dire of juror Harris and subsequent jurors, preventing him from showing that the jurors should not have been dismissed; and that the dismissal of juror Rumbo violated the Witherspoon test.

As we shall explain, both the court’s order limiting the voir dire of Harris and its exclusion of Rumbo present the same issue: whether the court may dismiss for cause a juror who will automatically vote against death in the case before him, but might consider the death penalty in other cases. The trial judge asked Mrs. Harris and most of the other jurors a series of standard questions concerning their views on capital punishment.

Question number three, the first question relating to the penalty phase, was: “Regardless of whatever evidence might be presented at the penalty phase of the trial, should we get that far along, will you automatically and absolutely refuse to vote for the death penalty or a verdict of death in the case involving these charges and special circumstances?” Mrs. Harris responded unequivocally, asserting that she would automatically vote against the death penalty in a case “involving these charges and special circumstances,” and adhered to that position on further questioning. Counsel, however, asked Mrs.

Harris: “Are you saying that it is this particular case that you would not follow the law?” She replied, “Yes.” Counsel then inquired: “So that it is not an all-encompassing refusal to follow the law as it relates to the death penalty, but only in this particular case?” She again replied, “Yes.” At this point, juror Harris had made clear that she was absolutely opposed to the death penalty in this case, but not necessarily in every case.

Counsel attempted to illustrate the point through an example: “If Adolf Hitler were on trial charged with murdering six million people . . . .” The court refused to permit the question, saying that “I don’t think it is fair to ask a juror to speculate what they might do with Adolf Hitler. We are concerned with a particular case before this court, and I think the inquiry should be restricted to following the law, [and] any conscientious objections in this case here today.” It then granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss juror Harris. Juror Rumbo’s initial answers were less definite than Mrs. Harris’.

To the court’s standard question—whether he would automatically refuse to vote for the death penalty—he replied, “I probably would, Your Honor. It would be very difficult for me to vote for the death penalty. Almost impossible, sorry.” The voir dire continued: “The Court: Do you feel that your mind is open to consider that possibility . . . and deliberate with your fellow jurors . . . ? “Juror Rumbo: I could deliberate it and so forth. But casting that ballot I don’t think I could do it. ... [¶] ... I can do as I am told up to that point, Your Honor. I would try.

But I know I would let you down.” The court explained that it was not a matter of letting anyone down, but of taking the responsibility for making the penalty decision. Rumbo answered, “I can’t take that responsibility to that extent. I don’t want to. That is putting me in an awful position.” The trial judge and the prosecutor then attempted to obtain unequivocal answers.

The judge asked Rumbo, “Can you set aside personal views and render your decision based on the evidence and the instructions of law?” Rumbo replied, “No.” The prosecutor asked, “Are you of such a mind, sir, that you would never vote to impose the death penalty under any circumstances in this easel” Rumbo replied, “Yes.” The court then excused the juror for cause. Rumbo’s initial answers—that he “probably” would automatically vote against the death penalty; that it would be “very difficult” for him to vote for death—are clearly insufficient to permit his disqualification under Witherspoon. (People v.

Risenhoover (1968) 70 Cal.2d 39, 55-56 [73 Cal.Rptr. 533, 447 P.2d 925]; People v. Vaughn (1969) 71 Cal.2d 406, 412-413 [78 Cal.Rptr. 186, 455 P.2d 122]; People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425, 440 [162 Cal.Rptr. 306, 606 P.2d 341].) Witherspoon permits disqualification only if the juror makes his position “unmistakably clear” (391 U.S. at p. 523, fn. 21 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785]); uncertain, hedged, or ambiguous responses do not meet that test. (See People v.

Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 841 [163 Cal.Rptr. 601, 608 P.2d 689] and cases there cited.) On subsequent questioning, however, Rumbo stated unequivocally that he would not follow the law at the penalty phase and that he would automatically vote against the death penalty in the case before him. The People rely upon those answers to justify his exclusion. We faced a similar issue in People v.

Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694 [83 Cal.Rptr. 608, 464 P.2d 64], Juror Rogers in Floyd at first stated that the death penalty was a question of “degree” on which she would “have to get all the facts,” but later replied “no” to the question whether she would have the courage to vote for death in a proper case. We upheld her exclusion on two grounds. First, we relied on the rule that “ ‘[w]here a prospective juror gives conflicting answers to questions relevant to his impartiality, the trial court’s determination as to his state of mind is binding upon an appellate court.’” (1 Cal.3d at p. 725, quoting People v.

Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 22 [338 P.2d 397].) Alternatively, we concluded that “Miss Rogers made it unmistakably clear that under no circumstances would she impose the death penalty.” (P. 725.) Applying the analysis in Floyd, we conclude that the trial court in the present case could properly determine that Rumbo’s later, unequivocal answers correctly stated the juror’s views. In answer to the prosecutor’s question, Rumbo had clearly and unmistakably affirmed that he would never vote to impose the death penalty in this case.

If that answer is sufficient to permit exclusion under Witherspoon, then the trial court did not err in dismissing Rumbo. The exclusion of Rumbo thus raises the question whether the dismissal of a juror who would automatically vote against the death penalty in the case at hand, but not necessarily in some other case, violates Wither-spoon. The court’s ruling limiting the voir dire of juror Harris and subsequent jurors raised the identical issue.

The United States Supreme Court has not decided whether a juror who affirms only that he would automatically vote against death in the case before him can be excluded for cause. Language in both Witherspoon and Adams v. Texas (1980) 448 U.S. 38 [65 L.Ed.2d 581, 100 S.Ct. 2521], however, suggests that exclusion of such a juror violates no constitutional constraints. In Witherspoon, the court noted that jurors “cannot be excluded for cause simply because they indicate that there are some kinds of cases in which they would refuse to recommend capital punishment.

And a prospective juror cannot be expected to say in advance of trial whether he would in fact vote for the extreme penalty in the case before him.

The most that can be demanded of a venireman in this regard is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law, and that he not be irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings.” (391 U.S. at p. 522, fn. 21 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785].) The implication of this language is that a juror who is not willing to consider the death penalty in the case before him, but is irrevocably committed before trial to vote against that penalty, can be excluded for cause.

In Adams v. Texas, supra, 448 U.S. 38, the Supreme Court reviewed the Witherspoon decision and later cases following that precedent.

The Witherspoon test, the court stated, “seems clearly designed to accommodate the State’s legitimate interest in obtaining jurors who could follow their instructions and obey their oaths.” (P. 44 [65 L.Ed.2d at p. 589].) Thus, under Witherspoon and subsequent cases, “a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.

The State may insist, however, that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court.” (P. 45 [65 L.Ed.2d at p. 589].) The jurors at issue here were called to decide a case arising under the 1977 death penalty statute. The Legislature had determined that death was a possible punishment for premeditated murder during the commission of robbery, and required the jury in deciding the question to “consider, take into account, and be guided by” listed aggravating and mitigating facts.

A juror who resolved in advance not to impose the death penalty in the case before him, whatever his views might be in other cases, could not “conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court” (Adams v. Texas, supra, 448 U.S. 38, 45 [65 L.Ed.2d 581, 589]) because he had already determined the penalty without considering the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. It follows that such a juror may be dismissed for cause without violating the constitutional doctrine expounded in Witherspoon and Adams.

We therefore conclude that a court may properly prohibit voir dire which seeks to ascertain a juror’s views on the death penalty in actual or hypothetical cases not before him. We also conclude that a court may properly excuse a prospective juror who would automatically vote against the death penalty in the case before him, regardless of his willingness to consider the death penalty in other cases. (

c) Voir dire of a juror concerning the insanity defense. In questioning juror Tuey, the prosecutor asked her if she believed a person charged with committing a crime such as defendant’s must be insane. She replied, “No.” He then asked, “On the other hand, do you feel that the defense of insanity is the last refuge of a scoundrel?” Defendant objected, and the court, commenting that “it is colorful language,” asked the prosecutor to reframe the question.

He did so, asking the juror whether “to use less colorful language, do you feel there could be such a thing as a person who is legally insane?” The juror responded that “There could be.” The scope of the question was proper, since the juror’s views on the insanity defense was a suitable subject for voir dire. In People v.

Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392 [174 Cal.Rptr. 317, 628 P.2d 869], however, we observed that although the court “cannot exclude questions proper in scope, it is free to require that they be phrased in neutral, nonargumentative form.” (P. 408.) Thus the court correctly required the prosecutor to rephrase the question to the juror. Defendant contends that the asking of the question by the prosecutor was misconduct, designed to prejudice the jurors against the insanity defense. But whether or not it was misconduct, we do not believe defendant was prejudiced by the question.

The issue relates to a single question asked of only one juror. The court directed the prosecutor to reframe the question, and he did so. The juror involved did not serve on the jury. To find prejudice, we would have to conjecture that other members of the panel who did serve paid attention to the voir dire of Ms. Tuey, that hearing this question led them to wonder whether the insanity defense was merely “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and that such reasoning led them to reject defendant’s insanity evidence.

This train of causation is entirely too speculative to support a finding of prejudice under the Watson test (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [299 P.2d 243]), which requires a showing that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” (P. 836.) IV. Guilt phase and special circumstances issues. (

a) The plea bargain and testimony of Gail Fields. Gail Fields, defendant’s sister, entered into a plea bargain under which she agreed to testify as a witness for the People in the present case. The district attorney in return agreed to permit her to plead guilty to being an accessory to murder and to recommend that she serve no additional time beyond the date of sentencing. Gail was informed that the judge reserved the right to nullify the bargain if, after hearing the entire evidence, he concluded that it was unfair. In the present trial, Gail Fields disclosed the plea bargain on direct examination.

On cross-examination the following dialogue occurred: “Q. Now, it was part of the deal that you would testify in here today according to the statement that you gave the court reporter last night in the lockup? “A. Yes. “Q. Is it your understanding that if you took the stand this morning and you told the story different this morning from what you told them yesterday that the deal would fall through? “A. If I told a different story, that it would— “Q. There’d be no more deal. “A. Yeah. “Q.

And you understand that what they expected you to testify to is what you told them back in the back yesterday in order to get a deal; isn’t that right? “A. Yes.” On redirect examination the prosecutor returned to the witness’ understanding of the plea bargain: “Q. The final statement you gave Investigator Mattingly, was that the truth? “A. Yes. “Q. I asked you today to testify to the truth, did I not? “A. Yes. “Q. I never said, ‘Testify to a certain story,’ did I? “A. No.” Defendant contends that the testimony of Gail Fields should have been excluded, citing People v.

Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438 [116 Cal.Rptr. 133].

In Medina, three witnesses testified under a grant of immunity “ ‘subject to the conditions that the witness not materially or substantially change her testimony from her tape-recorded statement already given to the law enforcement officers : . .’” (P. 450.) The court acknowledged that a grant of immunity could be conditioned on a requirement that the witness testify fully and fairly to the facts, but held that when the terms of the immunity place the witness “under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion” (p. 455), the testimony is tainted and inadmissible.

We do not believe the Medina rule is applicable to the present case. The record of the plea of Gail Fields discloses that the specific bargain, as put to her and accepted by her, was “to testify as a witness on the part of the People of the State of California as to the truth of those events that occurred on September-28, 1978.” Defense counsel claims Gail’s testimony recounting that bargain was inconsistent: in response to his questions she said she agreed to testify in accord with her last statement to the police, but in response to the district attorney’s questions she said she agreed only to tell the truth.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, Gail’s trial testimony is not necessarily inconsistent; if the last statement she gave the police was the truth, then by agreeing to testify truthfully she has in fact agreed to testify in accord with that statement. Moreover, even if we were to view her testimony as inconsistent, the inconsistency arises not from her own words, but from her failure to dispute leading questions as put by counsel for both sides.

The testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate either that the plea bargain required Gail Fields to testify in accord with her statement regardless of its truth, or that Gail so understood the agreement. We recognize that a witness in Gail Fields’ position is under some compulsion to testify in accord with statements given to the police or the prosecution.

The district attorney in the present case obviously believed that Gail’s last statement was a truthful account, and if she deviated materially from it he might take the position that she had breached the bargain, and could be prosecuted as a principal to murder. But despite this element of compulsion, it is clear, and the cases so hold (see, e.g., People v.

Dixon (1979) 24 Cal.3d 43, 53 [154 Cal.Rptr. 236, 592 P.2d 752]) that an agreement which requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain. We believe the requirements of due process, as explained in Medina, are met if the agreement thus permits the witness to testify freely at trial and to respond to any claim that he breached the agreement by showing that the testimony he gave was a full and truthful account. (

b) Improper closing argument. Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by appealing to the jury’s sympathy for the victim in his closing argument, and that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to that presentation. We quote the relevant passages from the reporter’s transcript: “[District Attorney]: Now, think of yourself as Rosemary [C.] A young librarian from the University of Southern California; a quiet girl, not outgoing. You haven’t been seen with a boyfriend. You take the bus to work.

You are either a virgin, or you have had very minimal sexual activity in your lifetime. . . . “It is now the late evening of September 27th, early morning hours of September 28th. You find yourself in the defendant’s residence at 2706 South La Salle in Los Angeles. “. . . [T]he defendant demands that you write him out a check payable to his sister, Gail Fields. The defendant threatens to kill you unless you give him the money. You are now naked and tied to the bed rails of the defendant’s bed. You are forced to write several checks.

The defendant looks at your checkbook and figures out certain amounts of money on paper. You finally write out a check to Gail Fields for $222.81.” The district attorney continued to describe the murder from the victim’s perspective: “The defendant directs Gail to drive onto the Santa Monica Freeway, and all of a sudden the defendant shoots you on the side and you yell, ‘Oh, God.’ You hear Gail beg the defendant not to shoot you again, and the defendant shoots you again.” Finally, defense counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection.

The district attorney continued his narrative: “Do you wonder about heaven, about God? You know there is no escape. The defendant shoots you more times. He states that you are not dead, and he has to make sure you are dead, and he hits you with an object on your head leaving triangular marks, probably the gun. And there are now four lacerations on your head. And it takes 10 or 15 minutes for you to die.

Blood meanwhile spatters on your face. “For this the defendant is charged with the murder and the robbery of Rosemary [C.]” In our opinion, the district attorney’s argument was improper, and defendant’s objection should have been sustained. The prosecutor invited the jury to depart from their duty to view the evidence objectively, and instead to view the case through the eyes of the victim. His argument was an appeal to the jurors to permit sympathy for the victim to influence their verdict.

It has long been settled that appeals to the sympathy or passions of the jury are inappropriate at the guilt phase of a criminal trial. (See People v. Carlin (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 30 [67 Cal.Rptr. 557]; People v. Leach (1934) 137 Cal.App. 753 [31 P.2d 449]; People v. Botkin (1908) 9 Cal.App. 244 [98 P. 861]; CALJIC No. 1.00.) We recognize that the prosecutor “may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to ‘Chesterfieldian politeness’ ” (People v. Bandhauer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 524, 529 [426 P.2d 900]; see People v.

Ross (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 801, 808 [3 Cal.Rptr. 170]), but the bounds of vigorous argument do not permit appeals to sympathy or passion such as that presented here. We conclude, however, that the misconduct of the prosecutor and the erroneous ruling of the trial judge did not prejudice defendant. The evidence of defendant’s guilt of first degree murder was overwhelming: the eyewitness testimony of Gail Fields; the statements of defendant to Debbie M.; an array of circumstantial evidence.

We find no reasonable probability that the prosecutor’s appeal to the jurors’ sympathy for the victim affected the verdict rendered. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].) (

c) Jury instructions and evidence on felony murder. Former Penal Code

section 190.2 provided that a defendant found guilty of first degree murder may be sentenced to death if he “was personally present during the commission of the act or acts causing death, and with intent to cause death physically aided or committed such act or acts causing death and any of the following additional circumstances exists: [¶]

(3) The murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated and was committed during the commission or attempted commission of any of the following crimes: [¶] (

i) Robbery, in violation of

Section 211 . . . .” (Italics added.) In People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468], 61, we explained the basis of the felony murder special circumstance under the 1977 law. “At the very least,” we said, “the Legislature must have intended that each special circumstance provide a rational basis for distinguishing between those murderers who deserve to be considered for the death penalty and those who do not.

The Legislature declared that such a distinction could be drawn, inter alia, when the defendant committed a ‘willful, deliberate and premeditated’ murder ‘during the commission’ of a robbery or other listed felony. [Citation.] The provision thus expressed a legislative belief that it was not unconstitutionally arbitrary to expose to the death penalty those defendants who killed in cold blood in order to advance an independent felonious purpose . . . .” In other words, while either premeditation or a killing during the commission of a felony will raise the crime to first degree murder, neither standing alone rendered a defendant liable to the death penalty.

Both elements were essential to a felony murder special circumstance. By this requirement, the 1977 death penalty law limited the number of those persons who would face special circumstance proceedings and avoided arbitrary infliction of the death penalty upon defendants of lesser culpability. The jury in the present case, instructed on both premeditated and felony murder, found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Rosemary C. It also found him guilty of robbery of Rosemary.

Finally, it found true the special circumstance allegation of premeditated murder “during the commission of a robbery.” Defendant contends that no substantial evidence supports this finding, and that the jury was improperly instructed on this subject. We briefly recapitulate the undisputed evidence bearing on the felony murder issue. Defendant robbed Rosemary C. by compelling her to write a check to Gail Fields, who cashed the check and turned over most of the money to defendant. Several hours later defendant, Gail, and the victim entered a car. While Gail drove, defendant shot and struck Rosemary, killing her.

He then dumped the body in an alley near his house. The testimony suggests two possible motives for the killing: (1) revenge because Rosemary tried to frustrate the robbery—in defendant’s words, to “run a game” on him—by writing a check for less than the maximum possible; or (2) to eliminate her as a witness against him.

After hearing this evidence, the court instructed the jury that: “A robbery is still in progress after the original taking of physical possession of the stolen property while the perpetrator is in hot flight, that is, while in possession of the stolen property he is fleeing in an attempt to escape. ... [¶] A robbery is complete when the perpetrator . . . has reached a place of temporary safety and is in unchallenged possession of the stolen property after having effected an escape with such property.” (CALJIC No. 9.15 as modified by the court.) As defendant observes, this instruction, even as modified by the court, was ill-adapted to assist the jury in determining whether defendant murdered Rosemary C. “during the commission” of a robbery.

In deciding that question, the jury could properly consider that defendant might not have reached a place of temporary safety or attained unchallenged possession of the stolen property when he was still encumbered with Rosemary, a victim who at first opportunity might call the police. But it is clear that defendant was not in “hot flight, fleeing with the stolen property.” The unnecessary and inappropriate reference to “hot flight” in the jury instruction, however, could not have prejudiced defendant.

Had this instruction misled the jurors to believe that “hot flight” was essential to a finding that the murder occurred in the commission of a robbery, defendant would have gained a benefit to which he was not entitled. The case in this respect is analogous to People v.

Salas (1972) 7 Cal.3d 812, 824 [103 Cal.Rptr. 431, 500 P.2d 7, 58 A.L.R.3d 832], in which we said that “[although the introduction in the instructions to the jury of concepts of immediate pursuit together with scrambling possession . . . may have been erroneous, no prejudice resulted to defendant as in any event the jurors were compelled to find that the homicide was committed before defendant had reached a place of safety.

The introduction of the pursuit and scrambling concepts did in fact confer benefits to which defendant was not entitled.” (Italics added.) We turn therefore to the question whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Rosemary C. was murdered “during the commission of the robbery.” A sizable body of California decisions has discussed the duration of the crime of robbery and the relationship of that crime to some other offense which occurs after the exact moment when the property changed hands.

Although some of these cases arise under statutes whose wording differs from the statute at issue here, they address a problem common to this case—whether the relationship between a robbery and another crime is sufficiently close to justify an enhanced punishment. We therefore look to these cases for guidance in our analysis of the felony murder issue in the present case. In People v. Carroll (1970) 1 Cal.3d 581 [83 Cal.Rptr. 176, 463 P.2d 400], defendant robbed Gulsvig in a restroom, pursued him into a bar and shot him.

He was convicted of inflicting great bodily injury on Gulsvig “in the course of the commission of the robbery.” (Former Pen. Code, § 213.) We said that “[t]he fact that defendant was not engaged in the asportation of any loot at the time he shot Gulsvig is immaterial. He became angry after discovering no money in the wallet and having the rest room door slammed in his face. His purpose in running into the bar appears to have been to exact his revenge from Gulsvig. Under the circumstances, the robbery and shooting of Gulsvig constituted one indivisible transaction . . . .” (Pp. 584-585.) In People v.

Laursen (1972) 8 Cal.3d 192 [104 Cal.Rptr. 425, 501 P.2d 1145], fleeing robbers kidnaped a motorist and compelled him to drive them from the scene of the robbery. We held defendant could be found guilty of kidnaping “to commit robbery” (Pen. Code, § 209); “[t]he assault of the victim, the seizure of his property and the robber’s escape to a location of temporary safety are all phases in the commission of the crime of robbery linked not only by a proximity of time and distance, but a single-mindedness of the culprit’s purpose as well.” (Pp. 199-200.) In People v.

Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, when we explained the basis for the felony murder special circumstance, we illustrated that special circumstance by describing a killing resembling the present case, e.g., a murder by a defendant “who carried out an execution-style slaying of the victim of or witness to a holdup, a kidnaping, or a rape.” (P. 61.) Finally, in the recent case of People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553 [180 Cal.Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908], defendant and his partner compelled two workers at a restaurant to go into the walk-in refrigerator.

When the robbers had finished taking money from the safe, defendant reentered the refrigerator and shot both workers, killing one of them. We upheld the jury’s finding that the murder occurred during the commission of the robbery under

section 190.2, stating that “[i]n the instant case, the killing occurred at the same location as the robbery and within a short time after the money was taken from the safe. Moreover, the jury could well have concluded that the purpose of the killing was to eliminate a witness to the robbery.” (P. 587.) Two decisions of the Court of Appeal present an even closer analogy to the present case. The first, People v. Powell (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 107 [115 Cal.Rptr. 109], was described in the book The Onion Field.

Defendants in Powell kidnaped two police officers in Los Angeles, took their guns and money, and drove them to Kern County where defendant Powell shot and killed one officer. The court held the felony-murder rule (based on the robbery of the guns and money) applicable because as long as the defendants were accompanied by and saddled with the officers they had not reached a place of temporary safety. (P. 164.) The second case is People v.

Sirignano (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 794 [117 Cal.Rptr. 131], Defendant lured the victim to a hotel room, struck him, and robbed him. “Long after it was apparent that no additional money would be forthcoming from the victim, the persons involved, including defendant, continued to assault him; when he was dead, the group took steps to avoid apprehension for the robbery and death.” (P. 801.) Defendant contended that the robbery was completed before the killing, and that she had reached a place of temporary safety.

The court, noting the inference that defendant planned to kill the victim so he would not be able to testify, held that “[t]here was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the events of the evening formed one ‘continuous transaction,’ and such a finding clearly results in felony-murder, in the first degree.” (P. 802.) Defendant, on the other hand, calls our attention to People v. Ford (1966) 65 Cal.2d 41 [52 Cal.Rptr. 228, 416 P.2d 132], but we find that decision distinguishable.

Explaining why we could not uphold a conviction of first degree murder under the felony-murder rule, we said that “[i]n the present case . . ., many hours elapsed between the time of the robbery and the shooting of Officer Stahl. [T]here was here no direct evidence that defendant was endeavoring to escape the robbery when he shot the deputy; on the contrary, there is strong evidence that he was not. . . .

Additionally, it should be pointed out that defendant had the opportunity to and did spend some of his loot prior to the shooting; that during the period of approximately four hours between the robbery and the killing he drove aimlessly over a great distance; and that, with respect at least to the robbery, he had won his way to places of temporary safety before he committed the homicide. Considering the facts as a whole, it must be held that the robbery and escape therefrom did not motivate defendant’s subsequent conduct, but were merely incidental to his primary objectives.

Thus, it cannot be held that the homicide can be promoted to murder of the first degree on the theory that the homicide was committed in the perpetration of a robbery.” (Pp. 56-57.) On the basis of the cases discussed, we conclude that the jury finding of special circumstances in the present case should be sustained. We recognize that when Gail Fields returned with the proceeds of Rosemary’s check and gave them to defendant, he had control of the robbery proceeds in his own residence. That residence, however, was not a place of safety so long as Rosemary was held prisoner. (See People v.

Powell, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 107.) In an unguarded moment, she might escape, notify the police, and render the Fields residence quite unsafe for defendant. In order to complete a successful escape with the robbery proceeds, defendant either had to dispose of her, which he did, or flee to some other place which she could not identify for the police. Thus, the trier of fact could reasonably find that defendant’s murder was a continuation of the robbery, done because until the robbery victim was killed, Fields’ home was not a place of even temporary safety.

Moreover, despite the span in space and time between the taking and the murder (see People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41), defendant’s purpose in killing his victim serves to link the two crimes. As we noted, the record suggests two motives: to prevent her from reporting the crime (compare People v. Ramos, supra, 30 Cal.3d 553, 587; People v. Sirignano, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d 794, 801-802); and to punish her for attempting to frustrate the robbery (compare People v. Carroll, supra, 1 Cal.3d 581, 584-585).

Such motives would not enable a court to find a killing occurred during the commission of a robbery if it took place days later and in a far distant locale. But here the murder occurred within a few hours of the robbery, and at a site only a few miles distant, and the events are linked not only by defendant’s motives but by his continued control over the victim, forcing her to remain at his house and then transporting her to the murder site. We conclude that the evidence supports the verdict finding the special circumstance of murder during the commission of robbery. V.

Insanity and penalty phase issues. (a) “Antisocial personality ” as a form of insanity. Defendant, after presenting no defense of significance at the guilt phase of the trial, offered a defense of insanity. He presented evidence that he had an “antisocial personality” which, he claimed, constituted a form of insanity under the American Law Institute (ALI) test we endorsed in People v. Drew (1978) 22 Cal.3d 333, 339 [149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318].

Under this test, a person is legally insane if “as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” We noted in Drew that “[subdivision 2 of the American Law Institute test provides that ‘the terms “mental disease or defect” do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. ’ This language, designed to deny an insanity defense to psychopaths and sociopaths, is not relevant to the present case.

The question whether to adopt subdivision 2 of the ALI test is one which we defer to a later occasion.” (22 Cal.3d at p. 345, fn. 8.) Forecasting that the California Supreme Court would adopt subdivision 2 of the ALI test, the trial judge in the present case instructed the jury in accord with that provision. The present case thus presents the issue we deferred deciding in Drew. Defense counsel called as his only expert witness Dr.

Ronald Markman, who testified that defendant suffered from an “antisocial personality” (the current psychiatric term for psychopaths and sociopaths), that this condition is a “mental disease,” and that because of this disease defendant was unable to conform his behavior to legal requirements. He described defendant as a person who lacks the interest, concern, or ability to conform to social rol

[…]