THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON SANDOVAL, JR., Defendant and Appellant, 62 Cal. 4th 394

Opinion LIU, J. Defendant Ramon Sandoval, Jr., was convicted following a jury trial of the premeditated murder of Long Beach Police Detective Daryle Black and the attempted murder of his partner, Detective Rick Delfín. The jury found that the murder was committed with the special circumstances that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties and that it was committed for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest, by means of lying in wait, and to further the activities of a criminal street gang. The jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.

Code, § 1239, subd. (b); all undesignated statutory references are to this code.) We reverse the special circumstance finding that Sandoval committed the murder by means of lying in wait, but otherwise affirm the judgment. I. Facts On February 9, 2001, a Los Angeles County Grand Jury returned an indictment against defendant Ramon Sandoval and codefendants Adolfo Bojorquez and Miguel Camacho. Bojorquez and Camacho are not parties to this appeal.

The indictment charged Sandoval with the April 2000 murder of Long Beach Police Detective Daryle Black. (§ 187, subd. (a).) It also charged the special circumstances that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7)), that the murder was committed for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5)) and by means of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and that defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang and committed the murder to further the activities of the gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)).

The indictment further charged Sandoval with the willful and premeditated attempted murder of Long Beach Police Detective Rick Delfín while Detective Delfín was in the lawful performance of his duties (§§ 664, subds. (e), (1), 187, subd. (a)) and assault with an assault weapon on a peace officer in the lawful performance of his duties (§ 245, subd. (d)(3)). The indictment also charged Sandoval with assaulting Maria Cervantes with an assault weapon (§ 245, subd. (d)(3)).

The indictment alleged that Sandoval committed several of these offenses for the benefit of a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that he personally discharged an assault weapon (former § 12022.53, subds. (c), (d), (e)(1)). A. Guilt Phase Trial began on September 23, 2002. In his opening statement, defense counsel acknowledged that Sandoval was a gang member and that he had confessed he shot and killed Detective Black and injured Detective Delfín, adding: “The thing we are contesting was that Ramon Sandoval did not lie in wait on Lime Avenue to kill Detective Black.

We think the evidence will show that was strictly a spontaneous, bizarre event that just occurred. Had those officers come by one minute earlier or one minute later, they wouldn’t have been shot.” According to Sandoval’s confession, which was tape-recorded and played for the jury, he was a member of the Barrio Pobre gang and goes by the moniker “Menace.” On April 29, 2000, Sandoval and about 15 other members of the Barrio Pobre gang were drinking outside an abandoned house in Compton when a car pulled up. Someone in the car yelled “Fuck BP” and “East Side,” and began shooting at them.

No one was hit, and the car drove away. Sandoval and his fellow gang members believed the shooting was committed by a rival gang named East Side Paramount. Sandoval and several members of his gang decided to retaliate. Sandoval retrieved an assault weapon, an AR-15, from a fellow gang member, and they went to the home of Vincent Ramirez, known as “Toro,” who was a “shot caller” or leader of the East Side Paramount gang. They knew that Toro was having a birthday party at his house on Lime Avenue between 19th and 20th Streets in Long Beach. They intended to knock on the door and kill Toro.

Sandoval, carrying the assault weapon, rode in a red Chevrolet Beretta driven by Juan Camacho (‘“Pipas”), the brother of codefendant Miguel Camacho (Camacho or ‘“Rascal”). They followed Camacho, Adolfo Bojorquez (‘“Grumpy”), and Julio Del Rio (‘“Sparky”), who were riding in a Honda. They pulled to the curb near Toro’s house on the west side of Lime Avenue, facing south. Sandoval got out of the car, still carrying the assault weapon, and saw Camacho walking on the sidewalk on the east side of the street towards Toro’s house.

Sandoval was about to join him when he saw a police car driving down Lime Avenue, so Sandoval ducked behind the Beretta. The car was unmarked, but Sandoval recognized it as a police car, in part because of the spotlights mounted on the sides. Sandoval saw that there were two police officers in the car, and they were looking at Camacho. Sandoval knew Camacho was on parole and was violating the terms of his parole because he was armed with a .45-caliber handgun. To ‘“save” Camacho from ‘“going to jail,” Sandoval stood up and opened fire on the police car.

Sandoval said the officers ‘“didn’t know what to do” because ‘“[tjhey didn’t know where ... the bullets were coming from” ‘“[’cjause they didn’t see me.” Detective Delfín confirmed that he did not see Sandoval until Sandoval began shooting. Detective Delfín testified that he was driving an unmarked police car southbound on Lime Avenue accompanied by Detective Black. They were part of the gang unit.

He noticed a car that was double parked ‘“about midblock” and saw Camacho standing ‘“by the back bumper.” Detective Delfín ‘“slowed up and stopped about two car lengths behind that car” as Camacho began walking east across the street. Detective Delfín continued to look to his left, watching Camacho. He was about to get out of the car and talk to Camacho when ‘“someone up to my right . . . started unloading on our police car with [what sounded like] an assault weapon.” He said, ‘“I did not know anybody was on that side of the car, sir, until they started shooting.” ‘“Lirst shot, I don’t think it did anything.

But the ones following the first shot shattered the windows; window exploded, broke. The car was getting torn apart inside the interior. Debris is flying. Then I caught a round on the side of the head.” Jimmy Lalconer was driving on Lime Avenue and witnessed the shooting. He said there was nothing the police officers could do: ‘“It was sort of like a kind of ambush. I’m not saying set-up ambush, but if it was gonna be an ambush, this would be the way to do it. They didn’t have time. They were preoccupied with [Camacho].

They were getting ready to jack him across the street, but then the gunfire opened up from across the—from this other side of the street . . . .” ‘“[T]hey didn’t see it coming.” Officers responding to Detective Delfín’s radio call for assistance took Detective Black to the hospital, where he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Detective Delfín had been shot in the head and right knee. Police found 28 expended shell casings at the crime scene. Maria Cervantes also was shot. She had been lying in her bed in her home on Lime Avenue when she was shot in her leg and abdomen.

She was about eight months pregnant, but her unborn child was not injured. About 20 minutes after the shooting, police found Camacho hiding in the backyard of a nearby house. Camacho assisted police ‘“in trying to locate the shooter” in this case. On May 2, 2000, police executed a search warrant for Sandoval’s residence and arrested Sandoval. A red Chevrolet Beretta was parked behind the residence, and an AR-15 assault weapon, covered by a towel, was found behind the stove. Ballistics tests revealed that this was the rifle that had been used to shoot Detectives Black and Delfín. B.

Penalty Phase The first penalty phase commenced on October 23, 2002, but the court declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The penalty phase retrial began on March 17, 2003. i. Prosecution Case Many of the witnesses who had testified during the guilt phase testified at the second penalty phase and described the circumstances of the crime. This testimony included information about the Barrio Pobre gang, Sandoval’s and Camacho’s participation in the gang, and the gang meeting just before the shooting on Lime Avenue. Detective Delfín gave a detailed description of the shooting.

The prosecution also introduced evidence of an uncharged crime in which Sandoval and Camacho killed Jesus Cervantez and attempted to kill Steve Romero at a McDonald’s restaurant in Lynwood six months before Detective Black’s murder. The victims in that incident were members of a tagging crew called Just Kicking It, who earlier had committed a drive-by shooting aimed at Sandoval and his gang. Sandoval admitted he used an AK-47 against the crew members to retaliate for the drive-by shooting.

As part of the prosecution’s victim impact evidence, several of Detective Black’s friends and siblings testified to his gentle demeanor and noted his compassion toward and desire to have children. Detective Delfín also testified to the emotional strain caused by the knee injury he sustained during the shooting, which rendered him unable to work. His wife testified to the emotional and physical impact of the incident on both her husband and their three young children. ii. Defense Case Sandoval was born on August 8, 1981, to parents who had immigrated to the United States from Mexico.

He was 18 years old at the time of the Lime Avenue shooting. Sandoval’s family moved around frequently and struggled to pay the bills during his childhood. Members of Sandoval’s extended family testified to his behavior as a child, describing him as a “normal boy,” “a good child,” and “very easy going.” Multiple witnesses described his soccer abilities as a young teenager. Sandoval’s soccer coach also described a family situation that “maybe affected [defendant]”: during the last season in which Sandoval played soccer, his father began an affair with the coach’s niece.

Sandoval’s mother testified to her love for her son. She explained that gangs had been present in their neighborhood while he was growing up. In addition to moving homes, she and her husband twice sent Sandoval to live with relatives during his teenage years in an effort to remove him from gang influence. The defense presented evidence of the increasing pressure Sandoval felt to join a gang, his efforts to protect his younger brother from gangs, and the overall influence of gangs on poor urban youth. II. Pretrial Issues A.

Motion to Suppress Evidence Sandoval argues that the trial court erred by relying upon extrajudicial findings in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Defendant seeks “a remand for a full and fair hearing.” Before trial, Sandoval filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to police following his arrest, to quash the warrant used to search his residence and automobile, and to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of these searches. He asked for a de novo hearing pursuant to Franks v.

Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2d 667, 98 S.Ct. 2674] (Franks). The warrant was based upon the 12-page declaration of Long Beach Police Officer Steven F. Smith, which was executed on April 30, 2000, and described in detail the murder of Detective Black and the shooting of Detective Delfín and Maria Cervantes the night before, including the fact that there were 17 bullet holes in the right side of the officers’ police car and 28 shell cases recovered at the crime scene from a .223-caliber firearm.

These types of shells would have been “fired from an AR-15 assault rifle or a Ruger Mini-14.” Another officer had interviewed Detective Delfín at the hospital, and Detective Delfín said he had stopped his police car behind a parked car. A young “male Hispanic” was standing by the open driver’s side door, and another “male Hispanic” left from the passenger side of the parked car and ran across the street. Detective Delfín then heard gunfire from a semiautomatic weapon, such as an AK-47, and was struck by bullets in his knee and head.

Officer Smith declared that shortly after the shooting, Camacho was found “hiding in the courtyard” of a nearby residence. Camacho first claimed he had been chased by a group of black males and told the officers they could “ ‘[c]heck with Detective Delfín,’ ” who could vouch for his credibility. When told that Detective Delfín was one of the officers who had been shot, Camacho “broke down in tears” and told the officers that “a fellow member of the Compton Barrio Pobre gang, named Ramon Sandoval,” was responsible for the shooting. Camacho admitted he was on parole from the California Youth Authority.

His record showed he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and there was a warrant for his arrest for a parole violation. Camacho told the officer that Sandoval was armed with an AR-15 assault weapon. Camacho crossed the street and began walking as the police car arrived. When the police car stopped, Camacho heard several loud gunshots and saw Sandoval “firing the AR-15 into the passenger side door area of the car.” Camacho ran and hid in the courtyard, where police found him. Camacho identified Sandoval from a photo lineup and led officers to Sandoval’s house.

Officers confirmed that Sandoval lived at that residence. The affidavit recounted that a vehicle driven by Jimmy Falconer was making a U-turn nearby when the shooting started. Falconer had seen the officers’ car pass him and knew it was a police car because it had spotlights mounted on each side.

Falconer saw a Hispanic male cross to the east side of the street, and the police car moved toward him “as if the officers were going to make contact with that subject.” Falconer noticed another Hispanic male on the west side of the street, leaning over the roof of a car and pointing a gun at the passenger side of the police car. The Hispanic male, whom Falconer described as about 25 years old with a shaved head and a mustache, fired multiple rounds at the police car. Falconer turned his car around and left the area.

The affidavit noted that Camacho’s statement that he crossed to the east side of the street was corroborated by the fact that both Detective Delfín and Falconer had seen a Hispanic male cross to the east side of the street. The search warrant was issued and was executed the following morning, resulting in Sandoval’s arrest and the discovery of an AR-15 assault weapon that ballistics tests later determined to be the murder weapon. Following his arrest, Sandoval confessed to the crimes. Citing People v.

Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870 [206 Cal.Rptr. 114, 686 P.2d 634], Sandoval argued that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because “the magistrate had no reason to conclude that Camacho gave reliable information” linking him to the crime: “Camacho, a convicted criminal on parole, found in extremely suspicious circumstances during the investigation of a notorious crime, had every reason to try to throw the suspicion off himself, and on to another person.” Sandoval also argued that the affidavit in support of the warrant had two “glaring” omissions.

First, the affidavit did not reveal that Camacho was a notorious gang member who was suspected of committing two other homicides.

Second, the affidavit did not reveal that the day before, another Long Beach police officer had obtained a warrant on a different theory, “that black Crip members in Long Beach had killed Detective Black in retaliation for the April 28, 2000 killing of Crip gang member Billy James Johnson.” The prosecution responded that, unlike in Campa, police thought Camacho was “a witness to the crime who knew the shooter, saw the crime, and was distraught when informed that one of the victims was detective Delfín.” Also unlike in Campa, the affidavit described the circumstances in which Camacho made his statements, and those statements were corroborated by the statements of Detective Delfín and Falconer.

The prosecution argued in the alternative, citing United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 [82 L.Ed.2d 677, 104 S.Ct. 3405], that even if the warrant was defective, the evidence should not be suppressed because the officers acted in good faith.

The prosecution argued that Sandoval’s claim of material omissions in the affidavit was insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing because the motion to suppress evidence failed to show how the affiant “could have known that another police agency was investigating Camacho’s possible involvement in other crimes.” Nor was an evidentiary hearing required by Sandoval’s claim that the affidavit should have disclosed that an earlier search warrant had been obtained on the theory that Crips gang members might have committed the murder as retaliation.

The fact that law enforcement had investigated other leads had no bearing on whether probable cause existed to issue the warrant to search Sandoval’s home and car. Sandoval did not show that these facts were deliberately omitted or omitted with reckless disregard of the truth. Regarding the claim that the affidavit contained material omissions, the trial court noted that defense counsel was “making a lot of assumptions”—for example, that Officer Smith knew that Camacho was being investigated for other homicides and deliberately withheld that information.

Defense counsel replied, “That’s correct,” but asked for “a hearing, very brief hearing, and if Detective Smith wants to come in and say I had no idea Camacho was just out of Youth Authority; I had no idea there was a warrant out for him . . . ; I had no idea he was wanted for a Carson murder, that’s fine. [¶] If that’s reasonable, and the court believes it, then it should deny the motion, but seems to me that the assumptions we’re making in this motion are the more reasonable ones The trial court denied the motion.

The court found that “the magistrate had overwhelming evidence to issue the warrant and not just probable cause.” Camacho’s statements were corroborated in part by the statements of Detective Delfín and Falconer: “Those three statements about what they each saw dove-tailed with one another.” The trial court added that “Camacho was not a suspect, ... the police were treating him as a witness at that time.” The affidavit did not contain material omissions. “[T]he magistrate was faced with information that Mr.

Camacho was not an innocent citizen informant by any stretch. [¶] . . . [Tjhere was a statement about the fact he was on CYA parole; that he had been arrested for a parole violation, and there was a warrant out; that he had a conviction for assault with [a deadly weapon under section] 245A1; that he was a gang-banger .... So the magistrate already knew that he had a criminal history.

Whether or not any other information of other violations would have added to the magistrate’s decision is highly questionable.” In denying Sandoval’s request for an evidentiary hearing, the trial court quoted at length from Franks, supra, 438 U.S. 154, and said: “It’s clear to this court that counsel had not made that Franks showing that is mandated under the law. In fact, as you have stated consistently, these are assumptions you’re making based on your

interpretation of what you knew about the case and not based on anything that the police knew. So it’s denied.” A week later, on September 26, 2002, Sandoval filed a “Supplemental 1538.5 Motion” that asked the trial court to “reopen” the motion to suppress evidence “in order to take into account evidence of which the defendant was unaware at the time of the initial motion.” The supplemental motion asserted that defense counsel had just received a reporter’s transcript of a hearing in a motion to suppress evidence brought by Camacho.

Based upon this transcript, defense counsel argued that Camacho’s statements to the police were involuntary because, among other reasons, Camacho had been denied counsel and had been deprived of sleep. The trial court ruled: “I have reviewed the motion, and ... I don’t see where any of this changes the circumstances .... Most of the statements . . . Mr. Camacho made during ... his own motion to try and suppress his statement. My recollection is the court found him to be far less than a credible witness. In fact, most of what he said was absurd. . . .

I don’t see how the additional statements that the defense offered would warrant a Franks hearing and would be grounds for altering the ruling the court has already given.” Defendant argues that he was erroneously denied an evidentiary hearing under Franks’s holding that “where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” (Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 155-156.) The high court added that “the rule announced today has a limited scope, both in regard to when exclusion of the seized evidence is mandated, and when a hearing on allegations of misstatements must be accorded.” (Id. at p. 167.) Reiterating the “presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant,” Franks explained that “[t]o mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.

There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. . . .

Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. . . . [A]nd if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required.” (Id. at pp. 171-172, fn. omitted.) This court has applied the rule in Franks to deliberate omissions of material facts from an affidavit for a search warrant: “A defendant can challenge a search warrant by showing that the affiant deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts that negate probable cause when added to the affidavit.” (People v.

Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 136 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795, 266 P.3d 301].) We have recognized that a claim that material facts were omitted from an affidavit differs from a claim that the affidavit contains falsehoods: “Though similar for many purposes, omissions and misstatements analytically are distinct in important ways. Every falsehood makes an affidavit inaccurate, but not all omissions do so. An affidavit need not disclose every imaginable fact however irrelevant.

It need only furnish the magistrate with information, favorable and adverse, sufficient to permit a reasonable, common sense determination whether circumstances which justify a search are probably present. [Citations.]” (People v. Kurland (1980) 28 Cal.3d 376, 384 [168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213].) “[A]n affiant’s duty of disclosure extends only to ‘material’ or ‘relevant’ adverse facts.” {Ibid.) “[F]acts are ‘material’ and hence must be disclosed if their omission would make the affidavit substantially misleading. On review under

section 1538.5, facts must be deemed material for this purpose if, because of their inherent probative force, there is a substantial possibility they would have altered a reasonable magistrate’s probable cause determination.” (Id. at p. 385.) “We review [the] denial of a Franks hearing de novo. [Citation.]” (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 457 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790].) Sandoval was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he made only conclusory allegations that admittedly were based upon assumptions.

This is not sufficient. (See Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 171 [“Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.”].) Sandoval demonstrated no “more than a mere desire to cross-examine.” (Ibid.; see People v.

Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 456.) No evidentiary hearing would have been required even if Sandoval had supported his claims with affidavits or sworn statements because the material that he asserts was deliberately omitted from the affidavit was not material; its absence did not “make the affidavit substantially misleading.” (People v. Kurland, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 385.) We address each of Sandoval’s claims in turn.

Sandoval argues that the affidavit should have disclosed that police had earlier obtained a warrant from a different judge to search the home of a member of the Crips gang who lived on Lime Avenue, on the theory that Detective Black was murdered in retaliation for an officer-involved shooting of a Crips gang member. The affidavit in support of this earlier warrant stated that on April 28, 2000, the day before Detectives Black and Delfín were shot, a Long Beach police officer shot and killed Crips gang member Billy James Johnson during an armed confrontation. Johnson had lived with his mother at 1992 Lime Avenue.

The next day, a Long Beach police officer was told, “you killed one of my homies last night, there’s gonna be payback.” Later that day, Detectives Black and Delfín were shot on the 1900 block of Lime Avenue. Police obtained a search warrant for the residence of Johnson’s mother at 1992 Lime Avenue. The fact that police initially suspected that the Crips had shot Detectives Black and Delfín in retaliation for an officer-involved shooting of a Crips gang member the day before had no bearing on the existence of probable cause to search Sandoval’s home.

During the investigation of a crime, police often will pursue theories that do not turn out to be true. The police would have been remiss if they had not investigated whether Detective Black’s murder was linked to the death the day before of a gang member who had lived on the same block where the officers were shot. The issuance of this earlier warrant was irrelevant to the question of whether there was probable cause to search Sandoval’s residence and automobile, and the omission of this evidence from the affidavit did not render it substantially misleading.

Sandoval also argues that the affidavit failed to disclose that the police deemed Camacho “a suspect, and not a mere witness,” that Camacho was a suspect in two other pending homicide investigations, and that he was a member of the Barrio Pobre gang. The record before us does not support these allegations. The affidavit disclosed that Camacho was a member of the Barrio Pobre gang, that he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and was on parole from the California Youth Authority, and that there was a warrant for his arrest for violating parole.

Sandoval produced no evidence that the police considered Camacho a suspect rather than a witness. It was not until Sandoval was arrested and implicated Camacho that the police considered Camacho a suspect. Finally, Sandoval produced no evidence that the affiant knew Camacho was a suspect in two unrelated homicides. Sandoval has shown no more than that it was possible that the affiant could have discovered that fact; Sandoval made no showing that the affiant actually knew that fact. As the trial court observed, ‘“the magistrate already knew that [Camacho] had a criminal history.

Whether or not any other information of other violations would have added to the magistrate’s decision is highly questionable.” Sandoval’s supplemental motion to suppress evidence, like the original motion, was not supported by affidavits or sworn statements. It alleged that Camacho had filed a motion to suppress evidence in his separate prosecution on the ground that his statements to police were involuntary.

Sandoval argued that his statements to police were the fruit of Camacho’s involuntary statements, that the affidavit failed to disclose that Camacho’s statements were involuntary, and that it failed to disclose that a sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had earlier spoken to a sergeant in the Long Beach Police Department gang unit, which allegedly showed that the Long Beach Police Department had access to information about homicides investigated by other law enforcement agencies.

The supplemental motion did not show that any of the allegations in Camacho’s motion to suppress evidence were true. It did not show that Camacho’s statements were involuntary or that the affiant knew that fact but failed to disclose it. And the allegation that a sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department earlier had spoken to a sergeant in the Long Beach Police Department gang unit had little if any relevance.

Even if there had been some communication between these two agencies, it did not establish that the affiant knew but failed to disclose that Camacho was a suspect in two homicide investigations pending in other jurisdictions. Sandoval further argues that “the trial court improperly relied on the factual findings it made during the evidentiary hearing on [Camacho’s] motion to suppress.” The trial court observed that several of the factual allegations made in the supplemental motion to suppress evidence were “statements which Mr.

Camacho made during ... his own motion to try and suppress his statement.” The court stated: “My recollection is the court found him to be far less than a credible witness.

In fact, most of what he said was absurd.” The court ruled: “I don’t see how the additional statements that the defense offered would warrant a Franks hearing and would be grounds for altering the ruling the court has already given.” Sandoval argues that he “should not have been bound by critical credibility determinations made by the court in a hearing to which he had not been a party.” Sandoval forfeited this claim by failing to object on this ground in the trial court. (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 416 [154 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, 297 P.3d 793].) The claim also lacks merit.

Sandoval relies on cases discussing judicial notice (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1050-1051 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 822]; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1568 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 552]; U.S. v. Jones (11th Cir. 1994) 29 F.3d 1549, 1553) and informing a jury of facts found in a judicial opinion (U.S. v. Sine (9th Cir. 2007) 493 F.3d 1021, 1034; Harmer v.

State (1937) 133 Neb. 652 [276 N.W. 378, 380] [“a judgment in another case finding a fact now in issue is ordinarily not admissible”].) In the present case, Sandoval relied upon Camacho’s testimony at a hearing over which the trial court judge recently had presided. He cites no authority stating it was improper for the trial court to rely upon the fact that this testimony had not been credible. B.

Death Qualification of Prospective Jurors Sandoval argues that excusing for cause prospective jurors who indicated they could not consider imposing the death penalty “resulted in impanelment of a jury biased in favor of conviction and imposition of the death penalty,” thereby violating “his jury trial right, his right to due process, his right to equal protection, and it inhibited the exercise of his right to be free from cruel and/or unusual punishment.” (Fns. omitted.) Defendant acknowledges that this court and the United States Supreme Court have considered and rejected this argument (Lockhart v.

McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 176-177 [90 L.Ed.2d 137, 106 S.Ct. 1758]; People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1286 [171 Cal.Rptr.3d 347, 324 P.3d 183]) but raises the issue nonetheless “because the death penalty jurisprudence of the courts in this nation is not static but evolving.” He presents no persuasive reason for us to revisit our previous holdings on this point. C. Failure to Read the Indictment to the Jury Sandoval claims that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court failed to read the indictment to the jury and inform the jury that he had pled not guilty, as required by

section

Section 1093 states in pertinent part: “The jury having been impaneled and sworn, unless waived, the trial shall proceed in the following order, unless otherwise directed by the court: [¶] (

a) If the accusatory pleading be for a felony, the clerk shall read it, and state the plea of the defendant to the jury, and in cases where it charges a previous conviction, and the defendant has confessed the same, the clerk in reading it shall omit therefrom all that relates to such previous conviction.

In all other cases this formality may be dispensed with.” Before the first panel of prospective jurors was brought into the courtroom, the trial court described how jury selection would be conducted and noted that after his introductory comments he would “have to read the indictment to the panel as well.” The court read the indictment to the first panel of prospective jurors. It does not appear that the trial court informed the jury that Sandoval had pled not guilty. The court did not read the indictment to the second panel of prospective jurors but did so for the third panel.

The court did not read the indictment to the fourth, fifth, or sixth panels. The jury and four alternate jurors were selected and sworn. The following then took place outside the presence of the jury: “The Court: I know I stopped reading the indictment. . . . Therefore, I have to read it on Monday, unless you don’t think it’s necessary. “[Defense Counsel]: I don’t think it’s necessary. “[Prosecutor]: I don’t either. “The Court: Fine. Then I won’t.

That’s fine with me.” At the beginning of the proceedings the following day, the court instructed the jury, “You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime and brought to trial.

None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all of them he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.” We agree with the Attorney General that defense counsel expressly waived any right Sandoval had to have the court read the indictment. ‘“Section 1093 of the Penal Code expressly authorizes the waiving of the reading of the information and clearly this is a function which lies within the general authority of counsel to perform for the defendant absent any specific requirement in the law that the waiver must be by the defendant personally.” (People v.

Herrera (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 748, 752 [26 Cal.Rptr. 409].) In his reply brief, Sandoval contends that ‘“[ajssuming an enforceable waiver with respect to the reading of the indictment, any such waiver did not relieve the court of its duty to inform the jury that Mr. Sandoval had pled not guilty to the charges against him.” But because the court’s obligation to state a defendant’s plea in

section 1093 follows on the court’s obligation to read the indictment, we find that Sandoval, by agreeing to waive the court’s reading of the indictment, likewise waived the court’s statement of his plea to the indictment. III. Guilt Phase Issues A. Testimony of Gang Expert Sandoval contends that the trial court invaded the province of the jury by admitting testimony by a gang expert that one reason Sandoval brought the assault weapon was to use it against the police if they arrived during the planned attack on Toro.

Over Sandoval’s objection, Sergeant Richard Valdemar testified that gangs ‘“often use military type tactics.” When Sandoval and his fellow gang members reached Toro’s house, ‘“they would deploy in a group, like a military unit .... [T]he long arm or rifle would take a position of advantage that would allow him to cover the people with hand guns who would approach the house, possibly also acting as lookouts on either end of the street. . . .” Gang members ‘“expect there to be a law enforcement presence.” Using an assault weapon usually ‘“would out-gun the police.” If the police arrived, ‘“it would be the backup man’s duty to take them on and pin them down or kill them if possible.” “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid.

Code, § 720, subd. (a).) ‘“If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: [¶] (

a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact . . . (Evid. Code, § 801.) Sandoval is incorrect in claiming that “the sergeant was no more qualified than the jury to determine whether Mr. Sandoval took

part in a premeditated plan to ‘take on’ any police who interrupted B.P.’s attack on Toro.” Sergeant Valdemar qualified as an expert on gang tactics because he had extensive experience with criminal street gangs as a police officer and in the military as a military police officer. And we have held that the subject of gang tactics is sufficiently beyond common experience to be a proper subject of expert testimony. (People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 617 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 927 P.2d 713].) Nor did “the sergeant’s testimony constitute[] an impermissible opinion as to Mr.

Sandoval’s guilt on the first degree murder charge,” as Sandoval’s briefing contends. Sergeant Valdemar did not testify that Sandoval was guilty of murder. He properly testified that one reason for bringing an assault weapon to an action to retaliate against a rival gang leader was to attack the police if they arrived during the planned attack. B. The Lying-in-wait Special Circumstance Must Be Reversed Sandoval contends that the lying-in-wait special circumstance must be reversed. There are two bases for his challenge. First, he contends there was insufficient evidence of lying in wait.

Second, he argues that the jury was not properly instructed with CALJIC Nos. 8.83 and 8.83.1 that between two reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence, the jury must choose the inference pointing to innocence. We need not decide the first issue because we agree with Sandoval on the second.

The trial court instructed the jury that to find true the lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegation, it must find that the “murder was committed while the defendant was lying in wait.” (Italics added.) This formulation is “slightly different from, and more stringent than,” the requirement for lying-in-wait first degree murder “that the murder be perpetrated ‘by means of lying in wait . . . .” (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 511 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947], italics added.) A 2000 ballot measure (Prop. 18) changed the definition of the lying-in-wait special circumstance in

section 190.2, subdivision (a)(15) to delete the requirement that the murder be committed “while” the defendant was lying in wait and to instead require only the lesser standard that the defendant must have “intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait.” (Stats. 1998, ch. 629, § 2, pp. 4163, 4165, approved by voters as Prop. 18, Primary Elec. (Mar. 7, 2000), italics added.) This change took effect on March 8, 2000, the month before Detective Black was killed, but the trial court used the former, more stringent language to instruct the jury in this case.

The new language does not make a material difference in this case. Lying-in-wait murder serves two functions in our criminal law. First, it is a means of proving first degree murder. “Lying in wait is the functional equivalent of proof of premeditation, deliberation, and intent to kill.” (People v.

Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 794-795 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481].) Proof of lying in wait “ ‘distinguishes] those cases in which a defendant acts insidiously from those in which he acts out of rash impulse. [Citation.] This period need not continue for any particular length “ ‘of time provided that its duration is such as to show a state of mind equivalent to premeditation or deliberation.’ ” ’ ” (People v.

Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1073 [132 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 263 P.3d 1].) Once a sufficient period of watching and waiting is established, together with the other elements of lying-in-wait murder, no further evidence of premeditation and deliberation is required in order to convict the defendant of first degree murder. (People v.

Thomas (1953) 41 Cal.2d 470, 474 [261 P.2d 1].) Second, lying in wait is also a special circumstance that fulfills the constitutional mandate that “ ‘a capital sentencing scheme must “genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.” ’ ” (Romano v.

Oklahoma (1994) 512 U.S. 1, 7 [129 L.Ed.2d 1, 114 S.Ct. 2004].) We have held that the lying-in-wait special circumstance performs this function because it “has been ‘anciently regarded ... as a particularly heinous and repugnant crime.’ ” (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1023 [254 Cal.Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1].) A substantial period of watching and waiting is one characteristic that helps distinguish lying-in-wait murder from ordinary murder. Concealment of purpose is not by itself “sufficient to establish lying in wait” because “many ‘routine’ murders are accomplished by such means.” (People v.

Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 557 [257 Cal.Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244].) But “an intentional murder, committed under circumstances which include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage, presents a factual matrix sufficiently distinct from ‘ordinary’ premeditated murder to justify treating it as a special circumstance.” (Ibid.; see People v.

Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1183 [171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234, 324 P.3d 88] (Hajek and Vo).) Sandoval contends that the jury should have been instructed with CALJIC Nos. 8.83 or 8.83.1.

CALJIC No. 8.83 (6th ed. 1996) states: “You are not permitted to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstance is not only (1) consistent with the theory that a special circumstance is true, but (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. [¶] Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the truth of a special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶] In other words, before an inference essential to establish a special circumstance may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which that inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶] Also, if the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two reasonable

interpretations, one of which points to the truth of a special circumstance and the other to its untruth, you must adopt the

interpretation which points to its untruth, and reject the

interpretation which points to its truth. [¶] If, on the other hand, one

interpretation of that evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other

interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable

interpretation and reject the unreasonable.” CALJIC No. 8.83.1 (6th ed. 1996) is essentially the same except it specifically references mental states: ‘“you may not find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true unless the proved surrounding circumstances are not only, (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant had the required [specific intent] [mental state], but (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.” While acknowledging he did not ask the trial court to instruct with CALJIC Nos. 8.83 and 8.83.1, Sandoval contends that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to give at least one of these instructions.

The obligation to instruct the jury sua sponte ‘“on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the facts of the case before it. . . includes the duty to instruct on the effect to be given circumstantial evidence but only when circumstantial evidence is ‘substantially relied on for proof of guilt.’ [Citation.] The instruction should not be given ‘when the problem of inferring guilt from a pattern of incriminating circumstances is not present.’ ” (People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 162, 174 [133 Cal.Rptr. 135, 554 P.2d 881] (Wiley), citation omitted.) As the court said in People v.

Bender (1945) 27 Cal.2d 164, 175 [163 P.2d 8] (Bender), in explaining why the equivalent instruction should be given sua sponte: “ ‘[T]o justify a conviction, the facts or circumstances must not only be entirely consistent with the theory of guilt but must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.’ It cannot be too strongly emphasized that such quoted statement enunciates a most important rule governing the use of circumstantial evidence.” On the other hand, when the circumstantial evidence is not substantially relied on, giving this kind of instruction may confuse or mislead the jury. (People v.

Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 582 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347].) Thus, the instruction should not be given, for example, when circumstantial evidence is merely used to corroborate direct evidence. (Ibid.; People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 406 [276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221].) Whether the instruction should be given therefore depends on whether the prosecution in this case substantially relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the lying-in-wait special circumstance.

The resolution of this question requires us to understand the nature of the prosecution and defense cases with regard to that circumstance. Although Sandoval’s attack on Detectives Black and Delfín had many of the hallmarks of murder by means of lying in wait and appeared to the surviving victim and an observer like a classic ambush, Sandoval argued at trial, and now contends, that there was insufficient evidence of a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to murder the officers.

The prosecutor argued that the period in question was substantial enough because it began the moment Sandoval ducked down behind the car. At that point, according to the prosecution, Sandoval was not merely hiding from the police but contemplating murdering them. As the prosecutor said during closing argument: “He sees the police officer, ducks down, and waits to see whether it’s necessary, whether it’s appropriate, for him to begin shooting, whether it’s going to be necessary to kill the police officers. Depending on their conduct.” Sandoval’s counsel contested the prosecution’s characterization of the facts.

He said, “It’s not a lying in wait murder of Daryle Black. The hiding behind the car. He was not lying in wait to shoot Daryle Black. He was hiding from him. There was no period of watching and waiting. It was a total surprise.” Sandoval’s confession supports, or at least does not contradict, the defense argument that he initially ducked down behind the car to hide from the police and formulated an intention to kill them only when they approached Camacho (Rascal).

Sandoval had the following exchange with his chief interrogator, Steve Lasiter: “SL: And you’re just getting out of the car when you see [the police car.] “RS: Yes. “SL: What did you do next? “RS: I ducked. “SL: Okay. You ducked where? “RS: Behind. “SL: Where did you duck? Or what did you hide behind? “RS: Behind the car. “SL: All right. As you’re hiding behind the car, what do you see? “RS: I see the cop car looking at Rascal. “SL: Okay. How many officers are in the car ? “RS: Two. “SL: Okay. And can you see them? “RS: Yes. “SL: Okay. Both of [the police officers] are looking at Rascal? “RS: Yes. “SL: Okay.

And you can see that? “RS: Yes. “SL: All right. What happens next? “RS: Well, I try to save Rascal. So I jumped off. “SL: Okay. You try to save Rascal from what? “RS: From not going to jail. “SL: Why would he go to jail? “RS: Because he was on parole. “SL: Okay. “RS: So I jumped off and started shooting at the officers.” Elsewhere in his confession, Sandoval said that when he first spotted the police car, it was about two houses north of where he was. When he saw the police officers looking at Camacho, the police car was one car length north of him, and that was when he decided to shoot them.

Sandoval further said that the car was 10 feet away when he began shooting, though it is not clear whether Sandoval meant 10 feet north or 10 feet east of him. The one eyewitness to testify, Jimmy Falconer, said that he was backing out of his driveway and then stopped backing out as the police car passed. He continued to back up and saw the police car slow down, and “just as they passed me up, gun fire opened up.” From the record, it is difficult to determine the length of time between Sandoval’s decision to kill the officers after they approached Camacho and his execution of that decision.

The evidence suggests it was extremely short, perhaps a second or two. But Sandoval’s confession was not the only evidence relevant to fixing the period of watching and waiting.

As recounted above, Sergeant Valdemar, the gang expert witness, opined in response to a hypothetical posed by the prosecutor that in an operation to kill a rival gang leader, those gang members involved in the operation “would deploy in a group, like a military unit .... [T]he long arm or rifle would take a position of advantage that would allow him to cover the people with hand guns who would approach the house, possibly also acting as lookouts on either end of the street . . . .” Gang members “expect there to be a law enforcement presence.” Using an assault weapon usually “would out-gun the police.” If the police arrived, “it would be the backup man’s duty to take them on and pin them down or kill them if possible.” Thus, the prosecutor’s statement that Sandoval “sees the police officer, ducks down, and waits to see whether it’s necessary, whether it’s appropriate, for him to begin shooting, whether it’s going to be necessary to kill the police officers,” is unmistakably a reference to Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony because that was the principal evidence supporting that supposition.

That reference became explicit in the prosecutor’s surrebuttal, responding to defense counsel’s intertwined arguments that there was no premeditation or lying in wait: The prosecutor told the jury to “[ljisten to what Rich Valdemar said.” In summarizing Valdemar’s testimony, he told the jury: “This is the way [criminal street gangs] deploy their troops. This is the way they commit these types of crimes. They do consider law enforcement’s presence.

They do bring long arms in order to fend off police in the apprehension of their fellow gangsters.” From this testimony, the jury could infer that when Sandoval ducked behind the car, he was contemplating killing the police. Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony, which was indisputably circumstantial evidence, was thus critical to the prosecutor’s case for lying in wait.

Although there was evidence that Sandoval was hiding and waiting and watching as soon as the police appeared on Lime Avenue, Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony was the principal evidence in support of the prosecution’s theory that Sandoval was watching and waiting for an opportune time to commit the murder from the moment he spotted the police. Yet Sandoval’s confession, though highly incriminating, makes no mention of any thought about killing the police until they approached Camacho. Thus, this case is unlike People v.

McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 676, fn. 40 [130 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 259 P.3d 1186], where we held that circumstantial evidence that corroborates or bolsters direct evidence does not warrant the circumstantial evidence instruction at issue here, even when a defendant claims the circumstantial evidence was stronger than the direct evidence. In this case, contrary to Justice Chin’s view (see cone. & dis. opn., post, at p. 454), Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony did not bolster any direct evidence of the prosecution’s theory; it was the crucial evidence used to prove that theory.

We therefore conclude that the prosecution’s case for the lying-in-wait special circumstance substantially relied on that circumstantial evidence, and that CALJIC No. 8.83 or No. 8.83.1, or its equivalent, should have been given sua sponte. The trial court’s mistake may have been understandable in these circumstances. The lying-in-wait issue was a relatively small part of the prosecutor’s case: most of his case focused on establishing first degree premeditated murder and attempted murder, and the prosecution also argued for three other special circumstances and various enhancements.

Furthermore, as discussed, the prosecutor’s reference to Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony was sometimes oblique. Nonetheless, the prosecutor did substantially rely on that circumstantial evidence to prove his theory of the lying-in-wait special circumstance, and CALJIC No. 8.83 or No. 8.83.1 should have been given. When a trial court erroneously fails to give this instruction or its equivalent, it may be reversible error. (Wiley, supra, 18 Cal.3d 162, 174-175; People v.

Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49-50 [286 P.2d 1]; Bender, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 175.) We have not had occasion to specify the standard of prejudice to be applied to such an error.

The requirement to give CALJIC No. 8.83 is a rule emerging out of our case law to ensure that the reasonable doubt standard and the burden of proof are properly applied in the context of circumstantial evidence. (See Bender, supra, at p. 175.) The failure to give the instruction, while a significant omission, does not affirmatively mislead the jury about the proper standard or burden of proof, and therefore is not structural error requiring automatic reversal. (Cf. Sullivan v.

Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 280-282 [124 L.Ed.2d 182, 113 S.Ct. 2078].) Nor does the failure to give the instruction omit an element of a criminal offense, an error that can only be excused if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cf. People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 662-663 [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 893, 278 P.3d 1242].) The error in this case is more closely analogous to the trial court’s failure to give a pinpoint instruction, which is judged as state law error that is prejudicial only where there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable result. (People v.

Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1111-1112 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [299 P.2d 243].) “ ‘ “ ‘We have made clear that a “probability” in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility: ” ’ ” (People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 351 [153 Cal.Rptr.3d 519, 295 P.3d 903].) Here we conclude that it is reasonably probable that had the jury been properly instructed, it would not have found the special circumstance true. “We presume that jurors understand and follow the court’s instructions.” (People v.

Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 414.) One inference from Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony is that Sandoval, acting the way gang members typically operate, began to contemplate the murder of the police officers as soon as he saw them and hid behind the car. But this inculpatory inference is not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from such testimony. A reasonable juror, while believing the gang expert, might have inferred that his testimony about how street gangs usually think and act did not prove that Sandoval thought or acted that way in this instance.

Such a juror could reasonably refuse to credit the prosecution’s theory about what Sandoval was thinking when he first saw the police unless Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony was supported by direct evidence of Sandoval’s mental state at the time. This view does not posit that the jury “rejected the circumstantial evidence” (dis. opn., post, at p. 466); it posits only that the jury reasonably rejected the inference that the prosecution wanted it to draw from that evidence.

We further conclude that with Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony discounted, there is a reasonable chance the jury would have found the lying-in-wait special circumstance not true.

The jury was instructed that lying in wait was defined in part as “a waiting and watching for an opportune time to act” that “need not continue for any particular period of time provided that its duration is such as to show a state of mind equivalent to premeditation and deliberation.” As discussed, the prosecutor argued that the period of waiting and watching for an opportune time to act began at the time the officers arrived on Lime Avenue. Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony was the principal evidence in support of that theory.

Notwithstanding Justice Chin’s view of the evidence (see cone. & dis. opn., post, at pp. 454-455), it is unlikely that the jury on its own would have arrived at an alternate theory and would have concluded that the very brief, indeterminate time between when Sandoval noticed the police looking at Camacho and when Sandoval opened fire was a sufficiently substantial period of watching and waiting.

Whether or not this would have constituted sufficient evidence of lying in wait, there is more than an abstract possibility that, without the benefit of the prosecutor’s theory and confronted with an extremely short period of waiting that seems difficult to call waiting at all, the jury would not have found true the lying-in-wait special circumstance. We therefore reverse the judgment on the lying-in-wait special circumstance. Sandoval does not argue that reversal of that special circumstance requires a reversal of the penalty phase judgment, nor could he plausibly do so.

As discussed below, the failure to properly instruct on the role that circumstantial evidence played in proving the lying-in-wait special circumstance does not call into question Sandoval’s first degree murder verdict. Moreover, three special circumstance findings against Sandoval remained, which underscores the particularly heinous nature of the murder: murder of a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties, murder committed for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest, and murder to further the activities of a criminal street gang.

Each of these was proved primarily by the direct evidence of Sandoval’s confession.

Furthermore, the jury would still have been statutorily permitted at the penalty phase to consider almost all of the same evidence concerning the facts and circumstances of Black’s murder. (§ 190.3, factor (a); see Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 1186-1187.) Even if the jury had concluded there was insufficient evidence of watching and waiting to find the lying-in-wait special circumstance true, that conclusion would have done little to alter the highly aggravated nature of Sandoval’s murder of Detective Black and attempted murder of Detective Delfín.

Nor would it have changed the jury’s assessment of the other aggravating evidence introduced. We conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the penalty phase verdict. C. Sufficiency of Evidence of First Degree Murder Sandoval argues that there was insufficient evidence of first degree murder because his shooting of Detective Black was “intentional but unplanned” and “not premeditated and deliberate.” He argues, as defense counsel did at trial, that there was only sufficient evidence of second degree murder.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the verdict—i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.]” (People v.

Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 181 P.3d 105].) We first note that the jury in this case was instructed on two theories of first degree murder: premeditation and deliberation, and lying in wait. When a jury is instructed on two theories of first degree murder, a first degree murder verdict will be upheld if there is insufficient evidence as to one of the theories. (People v.

Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 507 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947].) We need not decide whether there was sufficient evidence of murder by means of lying in wait because we conclude there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Contrary to Justice Chin’s view (see cone. & dis. opn., post, at p. 456), a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of lying-in-wait murder does not mean there was no premeditation and deliberation, but only that these mental states must be established by another route.

The trial court instructed the jury that “murder which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought is murder of the first degree.” “First degree murder, like second degree murder, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but has the additional elements of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, which trigger a heightened penalty.” (People v.

Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 166 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972].) “ ‘Deliberation’ refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action; ‘premeditation’ means thought over in advance. [Citations.] ‘The process of premeditation and deliberation does not require any extended period of time. “The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.” ’ ” (People v.

Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 46 P.3d 335] (Koontz).) “In People v.

Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27 [73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942], this court reviewed earlier decisions and developed guidelines to aid reviewing courts in assessing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain findings of premeditation and deliberation. [Citation.] We described three categories of evidence recurring in those cases: planning, motive, and manner of killing. [Citations.] The Anderson decision stated: ‘Analysis of the cases will show that this court sustains verdicts of first degree murder typically when there is evidence of all three types and otherwise requires at least extremely strong evidence of [planning] or evidence of [motive] in conjunction with [evidence of] either [planning] or [manner of killing].’ (Anderson, at p. 27; [citation].) Since Anderson, we have emphasized that its guidelines are descriptive and neither normative nor exhaustive, and that reviewing courts need not accord them any particular weight.” (People v.

Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419-420 [64 Cal.Rptr.3d 721, 165 P.3d 512].) In particular, the Anderson factors “are not well adapted to a case ... in which the defendant’s postoffense statements provide substantial insight into the defendant’s thought processes in the crucial moments before the act of killing.” (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 768 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485] (Mayfield).) In his briefing, Sandoval says he arrived at Lime Avenue intending to kill Toro and had insufficient time to premeditate the murder of Detective Black.

But there is ample, uncontradicted direct evidence from Sandoval’s own confession and conduct of premeditation and deliberation. First, Sandoval’s confession reveals his motive.

His decision to kill the police rather than have his fellow gang member returned to prison epitomizes a “ ‘ ‘“cold, calculated judgment . . . arrived at quickly.” ’ ” (Koontz, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1080; see Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 767 [quick but ‘“cold and calculated decision” to kill police officer rather than be arrested supports a finding of premeditation].) Moreover, the manner of killing may be ‘“sufficiently ‘ ‘“particular and exacting” ’ to warrant an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design.” (People v.

Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 518 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 199, 828 P.2d 101].) The fact that the manner of killing is prolonged also supports an inference of deliberation. (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 510 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119].) Here, the firing of 28 shots from a high-powered weapon into a police car, a period that lasted for about two minutes, according to eyewitness Jimmy Falconer’s testimony, provided evidence of a military-style execution of Sandoval’s hastily made plan from which the jury could reasonably infer premeditation and deliberation.

On the other hand, there is scant evidence to support Sandoval’s theory of second degree murder. There is little indication that the murder was rash and impulsive, as when a defendant acts out of a fear or passion in response to a provocation that is insufficient to show an absence of malice. (See People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 866-867 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135]; People v.

Dewberry (1959) 51 Cal.2d 548, 553 [334 P.2d 852].) We conclude there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandoval’s murder of Detective Black was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and therefore constituted murder of the first degree.

Sandoval argues that ‘“the prosecutor urged the jury to find premeditation and deliberation pursuant to a transferred premeditation theory.” (See Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1184, fn. 12 [a transferred intent theory of the lying-in-wait special circumstance has ‘“no support in case law”].) Although the prosecutor argued that ‘“[t]he premeditation and deliberation . . . started a long time before they ever got to Lime [Avenue],” he did not argue that Sandoval’s prior intent to kill Toro could be transferred to constitute intent to kill Detective Black.

Rather, the prosecutor argued that when the police car arrived at the scene, Sandoval “'chang[cd| his focus from willful, deliberate premeditated killing Toro to now, I’m going to kill these police officers. This defendant considered what the options were and what the appropriate course of action was, and he chose to kill Daryle Black and try and kill his partner.” The record does not support Sandoval’s claim that the prosecutor urged a transferred premeditation theory. D.

Refusal to Instruct the Jury with CALJIC No. 2.02 Sandoval argues that the trial court erroneously refused his request to give the jury the standard instruction regarding the use of circumstantial evidence, CALJIC Nos. 2.01 and 2.02, the guilt phase equivalents of the special circumstance instructions CALJIC Nos. 8.83 and 8.83.1, discussed above. Sandoval points out that ‘“[ejvidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial. . . .” (People v.

Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208 [259 Cal.Rptr. 669, 11A P.2d 698].) But we have held that this fact alone does not require a trial court to instruct the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.02: ‘“The fact that the elements of a charged offense include mental elements that must necessarily be proved by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence does not alone require an instruction on the effect to be given such evidence however.

The contrary is usually the rule.” (Wiley, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 175.) An instruction on the effect to be given circumstantial evidence is not required simply because the defendant’s mental state ‘“had to be inferred from the circumstances” of the crime. (Ihid.) Moreover, although we hold above that the equivalent circumstantial evidence instruction should have been given with respect to the lying-in-wait special circumstance, we do not similarly conclude CALJIC No. 2.01 or No. 2.02 should have been given simply because the jury was instructed on murder by lying in wait.

As discussed, this instruction should be given ‘“only when circumstantial evidence is ‘substantially relied on for proof of guilt.’ ” (Wiley, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 174.) Here the prosecutor, when arguing first degree murder to the jury, relied primarily on a theory of premeditation and deliberation, emphasizing Sandoval’s confession and the manner of killing.

We held in Wiley that ‘“[ejxtrajudicial admissions, although hearsay, are not the type of indirect evidence as to which the instructions on circumstantial evidence are applicable.” (Ibid.) Even if it were error to refuse the instruction, there is no reasonable probability the instruction would have resulted in a more favorable verdict.

The strong direct evidence of premeditation and deliberation recounted above, which the prosecutor focused on, means that even if the jury discounted Sergeant Valdemar’s testimony about Sandoval’s likely mental state when he initially spotted the police officers on Lime Avenue, there is no reasonable chance it would have returned a second degree rather than first degree murder verdict. E. Admission of Camacho’s Notes Sandoval asserts that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence notes written by codefendant Miguel Camacho as he prepared for a gang meeting.

On the afternoon of the day Sandoval shot Detectives Black and Delfín, Camacho and about 30 other members of the Barrio Pobre gang met in a house on Dairy Street. As Camacho was organizing the meeting, he wrote notes on two sheets of white, lined paper. One page has what appears to be 13 gang names followed by telephone numbers. The other sheet lists 33 gang names.

In the middle of the page, Camacho wrote what appear to be talking points for the meeting: “Tagers in the neighborhood, no straps, too much hanging out and not enough dead muthaphuckers, homies click tripping, homies doing stupid shit and cause of that other homies pay for it, braging about another homie’s dirt or even talking about it.” A gang expert testified that “tagers [taggers]” refers to graffiti and “strap” refers to carrying a gun, so “no straps” means some gang members did not have guns.

Sandoval objected to admission of the notes on the grounds that Camacho’s notes were “not connected up with [Sandoval] because there’s no showing that [Sandoval] endorsed or watched [Camacho] write it; was there when he talked about it,” and the notes are “basically hearsay,” and their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court held that “the foundation was laid as to the authenticity of the writing,” it was relevant because it listed the people who attended the meeting, it was connected to Sandoval because he attended the meeting, it was very probative and was more probative than prejudicial. The court did not rule on the hearsay objection. On appeal, Sandoval focuses on the statement in the notes that there was “too much hanging out and not enough dead muthaphuckers.” A gang expert testified that this meant “we’re acting like a club, not like a gang.

We’re not killing enough people or our rivals.” Sandoval argues that this statement was hearsay because it was offered to prove the truth of the matter stated: “Specifically, the prosecutor offered the written remark to prove Mr. Sandoval’s mental state at the time of the shooting of Detective Black.” “ ‘Hearsay evidence’ is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.” (Evid. Code, § 1200, subd. (a).) In People v.

Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 697 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 274, 171 P.3d 2], we held that the murder victim’s out-of-court accusation that the defendant had sexually molested her was not hearsay because it was not offered “to prove defendant actually molested her, but rather to prove defendant was aware of the accusations and to explain defendant’s motive for killing” the victim.

We held that the victim’s ‘“accusations were properly admitted to explain defendant’s state of mind, motive, and conduct.” (Ibid.) Similarly, Camacho’s note was not offered to prove that there actually were not enough dead people or that the gang actually had not killed enough people, but to prove that shortly before defendant shot Detectives Black and Delfín, a leader of his gang had told him that gang members should kill more people. The note was properly admitted to explain Sandoval’s state of mind when he shot the officers.

Sandoval also appears to argue that the notes were irrelevant because ‘“[n]o evidence was presented that [Camacho] or any other B.P. member read or otherwise communicated the contents of [Camacho’s] notes to other B.P. members at the B.P. meeting . . . .” Evidence was introduced that Camacho prepared these notes as he was organizing a meeting of gang members. The jury reasonably could conclude that these notes reflected what Camacho later said at the meeting. F.

Evidence of Threats Against Angela Estrada Sandoval contends the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that prosecution witness Angela Estrada was threatened. Estrada was living at her sister’s house on Dairy Street when Sandoval, Camacho, and other members of Barrio Pobre met there just before the April 29, 2000 shooting. During direct examination, the prosecutor asked Estrada whether she had been threatened: ‘“Q: Have you been threatened with regard to coming in here and telling this jury the truth about what you know? ‘“The Court: I’m going to admonish the jury right now.

Any questions dealing with threats does not infer or assume that those threats are connected with the defendant in any way, but threats in general may have occurred by people on their own who have no ties or relationship with the defendant, and you’re not to assume otherwise. Please go ahead. [¶] . . . [¶] ‘“Q: Do you remember the question? ‘“A: Yes. Have I been threatened? ‘“Q: Yes. ‘“A: Not in particular. But in general, yes. ‘“Q: What do you mean?

What does that mean? “A: I’ve just been told, you know, just to watch what I say. “Q: Well, what does that mean? “A: I don’t know. “Q: Was the person with a message that you got a message from someone in Barrio Pobre? “A: No. “Q: Did you tell Detective Prell and I when we spoke it was someone in Barrio Pobre? “A: Look, I don’t know what you’re trying to get at but— “The Court: Ma’am, just answer the question. “A: No, it wasn’t. “Q: Did you tell Detective Prell and I, and then Detective Robbins and I, that you were threatened by someone in Barrio Pobre? “A: Someone told me, you know. They didn’t tell me directly.

Someone had said, you know, we—we—we—we saw the paperwork, and you said this and you said that.

That’s all that was said.” Estrada later added: “Q: If there were paperwork indicating that you had testified being a past member of Barrio Pobre, and you had testified against another member of B.P, would that be looked on favorably or unfavorably by people in the neighborhood? “A: Unfavorably.” A “jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶]

(1) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive. [¶] . . . [¶] (

j) His attitude toward the action in which he testifies or toward the giving of testimony.” (Evid. Code, § 780.) “Evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness and is therefore admissible. [Citations.] An explanation of the basis for the witness’s fear is likewise relevant to her credibility and is well within the discretion of the trial court.” (People v.

Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1].) ‘“Moreover, evidence of a ‘third party’ threat may bear on the credibility of the witness, whether or not the threat is directly linked to the defendant. [Citations.]” (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1084.) ‘“It is not necessarily the source of the threat—but its existence—that is relevant to the witness’s credibility.” (Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 870.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Estrada had been threatened.

The court immediately admonished the jury not to ‘“infer or assume that those threats are connected with the defendant in any way,” explaining that ‘“threats in general may have occurred by people on their own who have no ties or relationship with the defendant.” Sandoval argues that this admonition was inadequate because ‘“the court did not instruct the jury to limit its consideration of the evidence to the witness’s state of mind.” Because the court instructed the jury not to infer that the threats were connected to Sandoval in any way, there was no reason to believe that the jury would have considered the evidence of threats for any reason other than evaluating the state of mind of the witness.

The trial court’s admonition was sufficient. G. Absence of Defendant from the Proceedings Sandoval argues that the trial court committed reversible error by discussing with counsel how to respond to a question from the jury during deliberations when he was not present. After the jury retired to deliberate, the trial court asked whether Sandoval wished to be present if the jury requested that testimony be read back. Sandoval personally waived his right to be present. The court then asked whether both of his attorneys wished to be present if the court was called upon to respond to a question from the jury.

Defense counsel agreed that only one attorney, William Ringgold, would be present. Sandoval personally waived his right to have both of his attorneys present. He was not asked if he waived his right to be personally present when the court responded to the jury’s question. On the second full day of deliberations, the jury sent the court a written question regarding the attempted murder charge in count two. The question stated in part: ‘“Pages 54 and 55 of the instructions do not states [s/c] that this must be a premeditated act. Is my

interpretation of the elements right?” The trial court consulted by telephone with the prosecutor and both defense counsel, and they agreed upon the following response, which was sent to the jury: “Whether or not there was premeditation as to count two is a finding you are required to make. Please refer to CALJIC 8.67 at pages 56 and 57.” Sandoval does not claim this was error.

Later that morning, the court received a second written question from the jury: “If we find the person guilty of count two attempted murder, but find the attempt not to be premeditated, is this person still guilty of the crime?” The prosecutor and defense counsel, Ringgold, appeared. The trial court asked Ringgold whether he wanted Sandoval to be present, and Ringgold replied: “No.

Til waive his presence.” The trial court and both counsel agreed to send the jury the following response: “Yes.” Near the end of the following court day, the jury returned its verdict. “ ‘Broadly stated, a criminal defendant has a right to be personally present at certain pretrial proceedings and at trial under various provisions of law, including the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Uni

[…]