People v. Hazlett

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY KUSUTH HAZLETT, JR., Defendant and Appellant. S126387 Kern County Superior Court BF100925A August 27, 2026 Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, and Fujisaki * concurred. Justice Liu filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Evans concurred. Justice Evans filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Liu concurred. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT S126387 Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. On March 17, 2003, the District Attorney of Kern County charged defendant Larry Kusuth Hazlett, Jr., with the first degree murder of Tana Woolley (Woolley) in violation of Penal Code section 187.1 Because the crime occurred in October 1978, the 1977 death penalty law applies.2 (See, e.g., § 190.2, subd. (c)(3), added by Stats. 1977, ch. 316, § 9; § 190.3, added by Stats. 1977, ch. 316, § 11.) Two felony-murder special circumstances were also alleged — namely, that the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of rape (former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(iii), now § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)) and burglary (former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(v), now § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)).3 Under the 1977 death penalty law, the rape and burglary special circumstances required a finding that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated (former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3); People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 48, fn. 14). After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first degree murder, and the jury found true each alleged special circumstance. Following a penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court entered a judgment of death. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The 1977 law was repealed on November 7, 1978. (See People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 41–42.) 3 We refer to these special circumstances as the 1977 rape-murder special circumstance and the 1977 burglary-murder special circumstance. 1  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment. I. FACTS A. Guilt Phase 1. Prosecution evidence a. The homicide of Woolley In October 1978, Ricky Rush and Woolley lived in Rosamond, California. They had been dating for about five years. On October 24, 1978, when it was still light outside, Rush met Woolley at her apartment. Rush spent about 45 minutes in the apartment during which time they had sex in the bedroom, lying on the sheet with the bedspread pulled down. Afterward the two drove to the store and went to Rush’s house where he lived with his mother and stepfather, a Kern County Sheriff’s Department sergeant. Before leaving the apartment, they turned on the lights for the kitchen and front porch and locked the apartment door. Rush and Woolley ate dinner and watched television at Rush’s house. Rush’s mother and stepfather arrived sometime after dinner. Woolley was barefoot and complained of being cold, so Rush gave her a pair of socks to wear. They continued to watch television and then returned to Woolley’s apartment. Upon arriving at Woolley’s apartment, Rush and Woolley noticed that the porch light was on but the kitchen light was off. They were “alarmed” and “thought it was strange.” Rush then went into the apartment, turned on lights, and looked around; he did not look in the bathroom or dining room. He saw that the glass in the bedroom window, which was already cracked, remained intact. Rush characterized Woolley as very tidy. She always left the shower curtain pulled back in the open position. The kitchen window 2  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. along an outside wall was open — it had no glass, and this was something Woolley had complained about to the apartment manager for the entire two weeks she had lived there. She had put a blanket in front of the window opening, which was approximately four feet high and three feet wide. Woolley kept the refrigerator positioned in front of the window opening to help keep the cold air out. The refrigerator was easy to move because it had wheels. When Rush looked through the apartment that evening, he did not notice that the refrigerator was out of place. Ultimately, Rush concluded they must have turned the kitchen light off before they had left. He was there for 10 to 15 minutes and except for when he looked through the apartment, he stayed immediately inside the door, talking to Woolley. Rush kissed Woolley goodbye and told her that he would return shortly with a half-gallon of milk they had left at his house. As he drove away from the apartment, Rush saw Woolley’s bedroom light turn on. After Rush arrived at his home, he decided not to return to Woolley’s with the milk because he did not think it was important. The next morning, Helen Woolley (Helen), the victim’s mother, was notified that Woolley had not reported to her job. When Helen arrived at Woolley’s apartment, the door was closed but unlocked. Helen entered the apartment and discovered Woolley’s body on the bed in her bedroom. b. The investigation i. 1978 Helen notified law enforcement. Around 10:30 a.m., Deputy Sheriff Craig Hatfield arrived at Woolley’s apartment. Upon entry, Hatfield immediately observed Woolley’s body lying perpendicular across the bed. Her body was naked except for her arms, which were covered by the sleeves of a shirt tucked under her torso, and her right 3  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. foot, which was clothed in a blue sock. Woolley’s head hung over the edge of the bed and was “almost touching the floor.” A blue sock that matched the one on her right foot was tied around the front of her neck with the ends hanging off the sides. She had a red, frothy substance extruding from her nose and mouth. Woolley’s body was lying on the bedsheet and partially on a green bedspread, with her left foot tangled in the bedspread. Her panties and shorts were lying neatly by the side of the bed and had not been torn from her. Hatfield noticed some dark- colored spots on the carpet directly below her head and a red substance that appeared to be blood smeared on a bedroom wall. Hatfield noticed that the shower curtain in the bathroom was drawn shut. He pulled the curtain open but found no one. Hatfield searched for possible suspects outside the apartment and found broken glass on the ground below a window that led to Woolley’s bedroom; the lower portion of the window was broken. Hatfield also found a wooden portion of the window frame lying on the ground. It appeared as if someone had broken the window from the inside out. A photograph taken during the crime scene investigation showed the refrigerator against the wall but not in front of the kitchen window. Rush looked over Woolley’s apartment with investigators to see if he noticed anything missing. Rush noticed that there were shoe prints inside the bathtub that he described as “dirt from a shoe, just a regular print — it wasn’t barefoot.”4 Rush confirmed that the refrigerator was normally positioned in front of the window opening and that nothing appeared to be missing from the apartment. 4 The prosecution introduced no evidence establishing the source of the shoe prints. 4  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Dwight Pendleton, an investigator with the Sheriff’s detective division, and his partner contacted the residents of the apartment complex to determine whether they had information relevant to the investigation. Defendant resided in apartment No. 5, east of Woolley’s apartment with no apartments between the two. When Pendleton first attempted contact with defendant at his apartment, defendant was not there. Pendleton returned around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. Defendant was home and told Pendleton that he had left his apartment sometime around 11:00 p.m. the previous night to buy food from a convenience store. Defendant stated that he was not gone very long, took a shower upon his return, and then went to bed around 11:30 p.m. Defendant told Pendleton that Woolley’s front porch light was on at that time. When defendant woke up later during the night, he noticed that the same light was off. Pendleton testified that defendant was cooperative and answered all questions during the interview. Pendleton did not observe any scratches on defendant and had no cause for concern regarding defendant. One day after discovery of Woolley’s homicide, Gregory Laskowski, a supervising criminalist with the Kern County Regional Criminalistics Laboratory in Bakersfield, observed Woolley’s partially nude body on an autopsy table. A blue sock had been tied around her neck as a ligature. He noted purple facial coloring with bleeding and frothing from her face and mouth and “some bruising to her upper shoulder area.” Laskowski removed the sock and put it in a bag after identifying it as evidence. With the sock removed from Woolley’s neck, Laskowski observed “deep purplish markings about the throat.” Laskowski collected two “rape kits” from Woolley’s body but did not find anything considered foreign, such as hairs that did not belong to Woolley. The vaginal swab that was obtained as part of the rape kit was later found to be missing and was not recovered. 5  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Laskowski explained that after the evidence was processed by the laboratory, it was stored in a bag and sent to the Kern County Sheriff’s property room, which consisted of a metal shed with shelves. The property room was subject to ambient conditions such that it was neither heated in the winter nor cooled in the summer. Evidence that was marked to be preserved was stored frozen, including biological samples with forensic significance such as cuttings from stains, vaginal swabs, oral swabs, and anal swabs. Larger items were stored under ambient conditions, including bedspreads, sheets, and pillows. With respect to People’s exhibit No. 4, a green bedspread, the parties stipulated that (1) Woolley’s body was found lying on the bedspread, as depicted in the photographs of People’s exhibit No. 6, and (2) the bedspread was properly bagged, marked, and taken to the Kern County crime lab. No arrest was made at the time of Woolley’s murder. ii. 1999–2000 The Kern County Criminalistics Laboratory adopted DNA analysis in 1999. That same year, Kern County Detective Christopher Speer was assigned to investigate Woolley’s 1978 homicide with “a fresh perspective.” Speer conducted background checks on various individuals listed in the case file and began checking for available physical evidence. On October 27, 1999, Speer contacted defendant and informed him that they were investigating a cold case involving Woolley. Defendant told Speer that he had not known Woolley. Defendant stated that he vaguely remembered the incident, having learned of Woolley’s death from some children at the apartment complex after arriving home from work in the “daylight hours” following the homicide. Defendant recalled Woolley as being possibly Caucasian or Hispanic, and that she may have had a fiancé. Although Speer had 6  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. obtained a search warrant, defendant voluntarily provided Speer with samples of his head hair and pubic hair and a saliva swab. Speer also obtained a DNA sample from Rush. iii. 2002 Following DNA testing — described below — police interviewed defendant and arrested him. The parties stipulated as follows regarding the interview: “[O]n December 17th, 2002, Detectives Joe Hicks and Scott Jelletich of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department interviewed the defendant, Mr. Hazlett, in Sacramento, California. During that interview, Mr. Hazlett stated that in 1978 he lived on . . . an end apartment in the apartment complex in Rosamond; that he did not know the victim, Tana Woolley; that he was never inside her apartment; that he saw three people moving the victim into the victim’s apartment but never talked to them; that the back window of his apartment faced the victim’s apartment; and that the victim’s apartment had a fence and that he believed it to be the only one that had a fence around it; that he didn’t help the victim or her friends move anything in; that Detective Hicks showed him photographs of the bedspread and the victim’s clothing from the crime scene and that he denied ever having seen those items; that he denied having sexual relations with the female depicted in . . . a photograph of . . . Tana Woolley shown to him by Detective Hicks; and that he never snuck into the victim’s apartment when she wasn’t there.” iv. 2003–2004 On three separate occasions in 2003 and 2004, Kern County District Attorney’s Office Criminal Investigator Trent Sproles examined Woolley’s apartment. Sproles determined that the “east- north” side of the front yard of Woolley’s apartment could be viewed from a window in defendant’s living room. Woolley’s apartment was 7  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. the “only stand-alone apartment in the complex,” meaning it did not share a wall with any other apartment. c. DNA analyses i. The bedspread In 2000, Kern County Regional Crime Laboratory Supervising Criminalist Brenda Smith examined Woolley’s green bedspread visually with her “naked eyes” and with an “alternate light source.” Using the alternate light, Smith observed multiple stains on the bedspread that she subjected to a chemical test for semen. Smith found two areas on the top surface of the bedspread and two additional areas from the underside of the bedspread. Each of the four areas screened positive for the presence of semen. Smith cut out each area from the bedspread and packaged them in an envelope and then into a “biopack” envelope for subsequent testing. In November 2002, Smith removed some of the bedspread cuttings from the biopack envelope and excised a portion of two of the semen stains from the underside of the bedspread for DNA testing. Smith did not test the two stains on the top of the bedspread because they were “very small stains” and “screened very weakly positive” as semen. Using a “Profiler Plus kit” that contains “the reagents necessary to copy the DNA at . . . ten specific locations or regions on the DNA strand,” Smith compared defendant’s DNA profile from his saliva sample with the profiles of the DNA extracted from the two semen stain samples. Smith concluded that “Larry Hazlett matched the profile . . . at eight locations . . . from the — the two stains on the bedspread, and [she] could not eliminate him as being a possible contributor to those two stains found on the bedspread.” In other words, “[t]he DNA from the sperm stains and Larry Hazlett’s DNA, based on [the] comparison, are identical.” Smith was unable to make a comparison at one of the 8  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. nine loci “because . . . of the age of the sample, the fact that it was somewhat degraded.” Smith noted that “[t]here’s approximately six billion individuals in the world” and opined that there is a probability that “approximately one person in 126 billion” will have the same DNA profile as the two sample semen stains.5 That is, Smith opined that there is a one in 126 billion probability that “the source of this DNA is from some unknown, unrelated individual who happens to have the same DNA profile as [defendant].” Alternatively, Smith explained that “[t]he DNA profile obtained from these two semen stains is approximately 126 billion times more likely to match the DNA profile of Larry Hazlett if he is the donor of this DNA rather than some unknown, unrelated individual.” Comparing the known reference sample of Rush to the DNA extracted from the two semen stain samples on the bedspread, Smith was able to exclude Rush as a possible contributor to either sample. Smith obtained only partial DNA profiles of DNA extracted from fingernails clipped from each of Woolley’s hands and collected at the time of the autopsy, either because the sample had degraded over time or there was not sufficient cellular material. The DNA Smith extracted from the fingernails was attributable to only Woolley. ii. The sock tied around Woolley’s neck On January 16, 2003, Smith examined the sock that was found tied around Woolley’s neck. Smith obtained only partial DNA profiles from each of the four samples of the sock she prepared because each sample was degraded to some extent. Smith determined that each sample had a mixture of DNA from at least two persons. Smith compared the DNA profiles of each sock sample with Rush, Woolley, 5 The DNA experts provided statistics using a single population database without reference to race. 9  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. and defendant. Rush was eliminated as a contributor “to any portion of the mixture found on the four sock samples.” Smith determined that Woolley was the major contributor of the mixture found on each sock sample. Smith could not eliminate defendant as a potential minor contributor to the mixture of DNA extracted from the four sock samples. Defendant’s DNA profile matched the DNA profiles of the samples based on comparisons at five of the nine genetic locations, i.e., loci. Based on one of the sock samples, Smith concluded that “[i]t’s approximately . . . 310,000 times more likely to match the DNA profile of Hazlett, if he is the donor or the contributor of this DNA, rather than some unknown, unrelated male individual.” d. Autopsy results Kern County Coroner’s Office contract pathologist Dr. Debra Hanks testified at trial after reviewing the autopsy photographs and report prepared by Dr. D.F. Ambrosecchia of the Kern County Coroner’s Office, who had died before trial. The autopsy report was not admitted in evidence. The autopsy report noted a circumferential wound on Woolley’s neck, blood spots on her face, and hemorrhages in her eyes, thyroid gland, and neck muscles resulting from strangulation. Nothing collected during the autopsy indicated that Woolley scratched the perpetrator. Nothing revealed that the perpetrator used his or her hands or any other instrument except the blue sock to commit the crime. Based on the autopsy report and photographs, Dr. Hanks determined that Woolley died from ligature strangulation from something being wrapped around her neck and pulled so hard that it cut off oxygen to her brain. The pathologist testified hypothetically about how long it would take for death to occur after pressure is first 10  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. applied by a ligature to a victim’s neck; she stated that it depends on the type of ligature used, the perpetrator’s strength, and whether the victim fought back and struggled. Dr. Hanks explained that the victim could become unconscious between 20 to 30 seconds to three minutes after pressure was initially applied and that death would result within three to five minutes, although it “could be considerably longer.” The three-minute minimum period before death would result assumed application of continuous pressure. Dr. Hanks further testified that with application of continuous pressure, “once you become unconscious and the flow of oxygen to the brain is cut off, because the blood flow is cut off, then death occurs within a few minutes.” On cross-examination, Dr. Hanks elaborated that during the period between unconsciousness and death “[i]t takes a while for all of the oxygen to get cut off to the brain for the body to go through the physiological mechanisms of death, which usually . . . first as you’re passing out you can’t see . . . then the oxygen is cut off, the body may go through convulsions. There may be voluntary and involuntary struggling that occurs during the strangulation, so it takes a little while after the flow is cut off for actual death to occur.” Dr. Hanks explained that “a brief stopping of the blood flow to the brain like [that effectuated by pulling very strongly] and then releas[ing] wouldn’t cause death.” The pathologist clarified that “certainly, situations like major blunt force trauma to the neck that would crush the larynx and the windpipe would [cause death]” but “[t]hat wasn’t in this case.” Regarding the force applied to the sock ligature around Woolley’s neck and the time between application of that force and Woolley’s death, Dr. Hanks testified that “it’s very clear from the [autopsy] report and the photographs that there’s a very large ligature around the neck with enough crushing force that crushes a necklace into the skin. There’s hemorrhaging of the thyroid gland and hemorrhaging of the 11  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. muscles, and so the fact that there was enough time for blood to even get into those tissues means that there were certainly seconds to minutes that this . . . person was alive and the blood was still pumping and certainly the ligature was enough that resulted in death.” The strangulation caused the “blood spots on the face and some hemorrhages in the eyes.” Dr. Hanks testified that Dr. Ambrosecchia performed a liver temperature test to determine the inner-core temperature of Woolley’s body, which assists in determining the time of death. Dr. Hanks assumed that Dr. Ambrosecchia conducted a proper test, although the test result was not noted in the autopsy report. Dr. Hanks related that Dr. Ambrosecchia found Woolley’s stomach contained digested food. Depending on the size of the meal eaten, complete digestion occurs within one to four or five hours. Based on the undocumented liver temperature and stomach contents, Dr. Ambrosecchia determined Woolley’s death occurred between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. In that respect, Dr. Hanks concurred in Dr. Ambrosecchia’s opinion. e. Evidence of other sexual offenses by defendant The prosecution introduced evidence of sexual offenses that defendant committed against four other women. Defendant contends this evidence, which included evidence of his racially charged comments to one or more of those other sexual assault victims, was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. (See Evid. Code, § 352.) We describe the evidence in more detail in this opinion’s subsequent treatment of this claim. 2. Defense evidence David Diosi was a forensic scientist employed by the Kern County crime laboratory assigned to collect trace evidence for examination and testing in this case. Diosi examined the green 12  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. bedspread and removed numerous hairs and fibers. Diosi did not report finding any stain or biological material such as blood or semen on the bedspread. Diosi examined the bedsheet taken from Woolley’s bed, from which he removed numerous hairs and fibers, and noted the presence of biological stains. Certain of these stains tested positive for acid phosphatase, which might indicate the presence of semen. In 2003, the defense retained Lisa Calandro, a former DNA laboratory supervisor in the forensics science division of Forensic Analytical. Calandro visually examined the bedsheet that was under Woolley when her body was found for the presence of biological stains. She observed and tested yellow stains on the sheet for acid phosphatase, found in high concentrations in semen and at lower concentration levels in other body fluids. A couple of the tests from these stains yielded weak positive results for acid phosphatase. Calandro cut four areas from these stains and ultimately determined that only two of the cuttings yielded a sufficient quantity of DNA for typing. Calandro compared DNA profiles of defendant and Rush to the two samples and was able to exclude defendant as a possible contributor to one sample but could not exclude Rush as a possible contributor to the same sample. The results of the other sample were indeterminate. B. Penalty Phase 1. Prosecution evidence The prosecution introduced a certified copy of a Los Angeles County Superior Court docket reflecting defendant’s 1971 misdemeanor conviction for assault with intent to commit great bodily injury under section 245. The prosecutor also introduced victim impact testimony from Woolley’s family members. 13  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. 2. Defense evidence a. Defendant’s family background Gina S., defendant’s half sister,6 testified that she had served in the Air Force for more than 24 years and had obtained the top enlisted rank of chief master sergeant. Defendant was about 14 years older than Gina and was the eldest of her nine brothers. Several of her brothers were successful, but five had been sentenced to prison. Gina considered defendant successful given that he attended night school and obtained his college degree. Defendant took care of his son, Lucas, during the day while his wife, Ellen, worked. Gina and defendant regularly took their children to parks and the Sacramento Zoo. Defendant treated Ellen’s daughter Rachel as if she were his child. Defendant encouraged Gina to go to college. Gina recalled that her father (defendant’s stepfather) physically abused their mother with his fists and leather belts, tied her up once, and threatened her with knives and guns. Gina had “vague memories” of altercations between her father and her older brothers, including defendant. Gina believed that she was less than 10 years old when defendant moved out of the family residence. Defendant lived close by and stayed in touch with his family members. Gina got to know defendant as an adult after she joined the military and was stationed near Sacramento, where defendant was living. When Gina experienced a midcareer crisis, defendant encouraged her not to quit and told her that he was proud of her. Gina felt defendant was “one of the most significant people [she] would have been letting down” if she quit. When Gina’s father was older, he lost his vision and one leg and became depressed. He was “always grousing and negative,” but 6 Gina and defendant had the same mother. 14  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. defendant was always “nice” and patient with him. When Gina’s brother Dan was unable to care for their father, defendant would assist, including carrying him to the bathroom. Gina later reflected on the compassion defendant showed her father before he died, and how he was able to forgive him for his prior abuse of the family. After their mother had heart surgery, defendant occasionally cared for both of his parents and at one point took his stepfather to his home until he and Gina could find an appropriate facility for him while their mother recuperated. Defendant’s half brother Dan, who was five years younger than defendant, testified that the three older brothers, including defendant, at times tried to intervene when their father beat their mother. They were shoved aside and told to go to their room. Dan recalled that defendant was beaten almost weekly by his stepfather (Dan’s father) and was once hit over the head with a plaque. Defendant’s stepfather cursed defendant while beating him, calling him an “MF” and “[u]ngrateful bastard.” Defendant’s stepfather would hit him with an open hand and various objects including a piece of wood, an electrical cord, and a clothes hanger. After the beatings, defendant sulked and was depressed. Years later, when their parents became elderly, defendant frequently visited them to see if they needed assistance. Kevin, one of defendant’s younger half brothers, testified that defendant’s stepfather (Kevin’s father) was “vicious” and “out of control” when he beat defendant. Defendant’s stepfather beat other children in the family, but defendant received the brunt. Defendant’s stepfather would hit defendant hard with his hand, an extension cord, a hose, or a board. David, defendant’s younger half brother, testified that his father (defendant’s stepfather) physically beat defendant and their mother 15  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. often when under the influence of alcohol. The father would use belts, extension cords, a hose, or a board and hit the other children. Sometimes, defendant and his siblings would go to school with welts from their beatings. Ellen Z. testified that she married defendant in 1983 and had a daughter, Rachel, who is not defendant’s child. Ellen and defendant had a son, Lucas. Defendant treated Rachel and Lucas the same. After Lucas was born, defendant stayed home to care for him. Later, after Lucas attended preschool, defendant worked part time and earned a college degree in 1992. When Ellen first met defendant, he enjoyed dancing at clubs, oftentimes without her. Defendant never hit Ellen or forced her to do anything against her will. Defendant’s son Lucas testified that at the time of trial, he was a student at a university in New York and planned to graduate in 2005. Lucas credited defendant with teaching him the value of education. Defendant was never physically abusive toward Lucas or his mother. Defendant’s stepdaughter Rachel referred to defendant as her father. Rachel testified that she was an early graduate from high school and attended college, earning her bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Rachel kept in contact with her parents and after her son was born, took him to see them. Defendant visited Rachel at times and helped take care of her son. b. Defense expert Dr. Rahn Minagawa, a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialty in forensic psychology and child and adolescent psychology, testified that children who are exposed to domestic violence are “derailed” from their developmental path. According to Dr. Minagawa, extensive years of research and clinical observations have shown how children are supposed to develop attachment, morals, 16  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. and “internal abilities to control themselves when they’re angry to deal with . . . setbacks.” As such children grow older, they are “much more likely” to develop problems with substance abuse, concentration, academic performance, and relationships. These children also can experience a change in brain physiology as a result of being constantly under anxiety and tension. The continued cycle of domestic violence can be “turned inwardly” and lead to self-mutilation and suicide attempts. Dr. Minagawa testified that children in the same family who are exposed to domestic violence are impacted differently based on their strengths and weaknesses, for example, in their ability to fend off stress in their lives. Older children tend to have more problems because they often try to protect their younger siblings. Domestic violence can have “more of an impact” on stepchildren depending on whether they are treated differently from the perpetrator’s biological children. Based on Dr. Minagawa’s interviews with defendant’s family members and his research and clinical experience, he opined that the family in which defendant grew up is a “textbook case of domestic violence gone completely amok.” Dr. Minagawa interviewed defendant’s wife and family members. He testified that he learned of one domestic violence incident in which defendant observed his father throw a knife at his mother, which missed defendant’s mother but struck his brother David’s head. The police were called to attempt to defuse the situation. Defendant’s siblings also once heard him pleading for their father to stop beating their mother and tried to intervene on her behalf. Defendant’s siblings also repeatedly witnessed their father striking defendant with various objects, leaving defendant with welts and scars on his back and legs. 17  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Dr. Minagawa testified that defendant’s wife stated that defendant had never hit or slapped her and never threatened her or their children with a weapon or bodily injury. Defendant’s wife also told Dr. Minagawa that he never physically abused their children, and that he did not abuse drugs or alcohol. On cross-examination, Dr. Minagawa testified that he administered psychological tests to defendant, who scored within normal limits with no significant psychological problems. Based on interviews with defendant’s wife, son, and stepdaughter, the defense expert agreed with the prosecutor that defendant “did not exhibit in the house any of the things . . . that a person who experienced the domestic violence that he experienced as a child, . . . might perpetrate.” The defense expert likewise agreed that defendant was “perfectly capable of controlling himself and not committing acts of violence if he doesn’t want to” and that he was not suggesting, among other things, that (in the prosecutor’s words) “because . . . defendant was in a house in which there was a good deal of domestic violence that he was irresistibly impelled to savagely rape women,” that he did not “know what he was doing” when he killed Woolley, “that he was compelled to commit murder because he suffered domestic violence as a child,” or “that the defendant was somehow forced to or irresistibly impelled to savagely rape four women.” The expert agreed with the prosecutor that defendant’s “free will was not affected by the fact that years before he had been in a household in which domestic violence had been demonstrated,” and further agreed when the prosecutor characterized his testimony as saying “that when [defendant] savagely raped and murdered [Woolley] 13 years after he had removed himself from this domestic violence situation, it’s because he chose to do so.” 18  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. II. BATSON/WHEELER CLAIM Defendant, who is African-American, asserts that the prosecutor violated his state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection and a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community when he used his first peremptory challenge against Prospective Juror A.E., the sole African-American remaining in the venire following the excusals of prospective jurors for hardship and cause. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson); People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler).) In denying the defense’s Batson/Wheeler motion, the trial court found that defendant had not made a prima facie showing that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge was racially discriminatory. Defendant contends that the denial of his motion was error. We conclude that defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. A. Factual and Procedural Background In her questionnaire, Prospective Juror A.E. described herself as a 17-year resident of Kern County who had attended college and had worked as an administrative assistant for the past seven and a half years. She indicated that a brother-in-law “went to jail” for “drugs.” In response to a question asking how she “[felt] about the way the [brother-in-law’s] matters were handled by the police, the district attorney, the defense attorney, courts, probation department and any others involved in the law enforcement and judicial systems,” A.E. stated, “They were handled fine.” She indicated that she had no attitude, in general, about law enforcement. A.E. indicated on the jury questionnaire that she knew of a niece by marriage who was the victim of a sexual assault but did not know the details because “[A.E.] wasn’t in the town.” She also stated that she knew of a brother-in-law who had been accused of a sexual assault but did not know the details because “[A.E.] wasn’t there and it was 19  PEOPLE v. HAZLETT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. out of town.” She responded “no” to a question whether viewing graphic photographs of the victim and crime scene “would preclude [her] from objectively analyzing the evidence in this case.” Asked whether the fact that defendant was African-American and the victim was Caucasian would bias her against or in favor of the defendant or otherwise affect her ability to be fair and impartial, A.E. indicated “No.” Asked how she felt about the criminal justice system, she wrote, “It[’]s ok.” A.E. had a “pos[i]tive” attitude about serving on the jury and stated that she previously served as a juror in a criminal trial and an alternate juror in a civil trial. A.E. wrote that her general feelings about the death penalty were that it is “used too often [and] everybody wants to get even with everyone.” Asked whether she felt the death penalty was used too often, seldom, randomly, or appropriately, A.E. responded: “Too seldom. People are accused [and] then come to find out they were innocent [and] released.” She indicated she could be a fair and impartial juror. During voir dire by the trial court, A.E. stated that she would not automatically vote for or against the death penalty, if the case reached that stage. When asked by the court about the apparent contradiction between her questionnaire answers that the death penalty was used too often and too seldom, and her response that people had been accused and later determined to be innocent, A.E. replied, “Well, just like I stated, peo