`
`
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`)
`THE PEOPLE,
`)
`
`)
`Plaintiff and Respondent,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`)
`
`
`)
`TODD JESSE GARTON,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant and Appellant.
` ____________________________________)
`
`
`
`S097558
`
`
`
`Shasta County
`Super. Ct. No. 98F4493
`
`
`
`A jury in Shasta County convicted defendant Todd Jesse Garton of first
`
`degree murder and conspiracy to murder his wife, Carole Garton, and her fetus,
`
`and conspiracy to murder his codefendant’s husband, Dean Noyes. (Pen. Code,
`
`§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a); all undesignated references are to this code.)
`
`The jury found true special circumstance allegations that defendant committed
`
`multiple murders, that he committed the murders for financial gain, and that a
`
`principal in each offense was armed with a firearm. (§§ 190.2, subds. (a)(3),
`
`(a)(1), 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is
`
`automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We reverse
`
`defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to murder Dean Noyes and affirm the
`
`judgment in all other respects.
`
`SEE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
`
`
`
`I. FACTS
`
`A. Guilt phase
`
`
`
`Defendant was originally charged with a codefendant, Lynn Noyes. Before
`
`trial, the court severed their cases, and Lynn Noyes pleaded guilty to the murder of
`
`Carole Garton and to the conspiracy to murder her husband, Dean Noyes. For
`
`clarity, we refer to Carole Garton, Lynn Noyes, and Dean Noyes by their first
`
`names. The parties presented the following evidence in Garton’s trial.
`
`1. Prosecution evidence
`
`
`
`Garton and Lynn met in high school in 1986 and dated for a time. After
`
`Lynn was suspended from high school, she saw Garton less, and by 1987, Garton
`
`had begun dating Carole. In 1990, Garton entered the Marine Corps, and he and
`
`Carole married in 1991. Although Lynn and Garton remained in contact, Lynn
`
`began dating Dean, and the two were married in 1992. Lynn and Dean had
`
`divorced by the time of Garton’s trial in 2001.
`
`a. Conspiracy to kill Dean Noyes
`
`
`
`In the beginning of 1996 or 1997, after he and Carole had moved to Shasta
`
`County, Garton told his friend Dale Gordon that he was a paid assassin for an
`
`organization he called “The Company.” He began to talk about murdering Lynn’s
`
`husband, Dean, as a “hit” or “assassination” for this organization in exchange for
`
`money. Over the course of one or two years, Garton and Gordon discussed the
`
`murder “about 50 times, at least,” and “[m]aybe a hundred times.” Garton said he
`
`would be paid $25,000 for such a murder, and although he did not agree to a
`
`particular amount, Garton told Gordon that Gordon would be paid from Dean’s
`
`life insurance policy if he was involved in his murder. Gordon agreed to help plan
`
`and participate in Dean’s murder.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`In the spring of 1997, Garton told Lynn that Dean was having an affair and
`
`that “he knew people who could take him out.” Later that year, Lynn received a
`
`call from the husband of the woman with whom Dean was having an affair. When
`
`she confronted Dean, he acknowledged the affair. Lynn then told Garton to “go
`
`ahead and take him out.” She told Garton that Dean would be taking a trip to San
`
`Francisco in the future, and she sent Garton a box with keys to the cars that she
`
`and Dean owned; keys to their home in Gresham, Oregon; pictures of Dean; and
`
`information about where he parked and typically went after work in Portland,
`
`Oregon.
`
`
`
`Garton began discussing a plan to murder Dean with another friend,
`
`Norman Daniels, around October 1997. Garton said there were several “contracts
`
`on [Dean’s] head” because he had embezzled money, and Daniels agreed to
`
`accompany Garton and Gordon and provide “support” for the plan. Garton told
`
`Daniels that he would receive $1,000 after Lynn received Dean’s life insurance
`
`payment if Daniels participated.
`
`
`
`Garton originally planned to kill Dean in San Francisco while he was
`
`attending a conference, and he discussed this plan with Gordon and Daniels. But
`
`the trip was cancelled, and the three never followed through on the plan.
`
`
`
`Instead, Garton and Gordon began planning to murder Dean in Oregon at
`
`his home or workplace. The two told Daniels that they would travel to Portland in
`
`October 1997 “to scout out the area,” and on October 10, 1997, Garton and
`
`Gordon rented rooms in a hotel in Portland. That afternoon, they went to the
`
`Noyeses’ home in Gresham and walked through the house while she was there.
`
`Garton drew a picture of the house, and later Garton and Gordon drove by Dean’s
`
`workplace in downtown Portland. That night, Lynn and Garton had sex in
`
`Garton’s hotel room.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Gordon and Garton returned to Oregon on January 3, 1998. They stayed in
`
`a hotel in the Eugene area, where they met with Lynn. They talked with Lynn
`
`about killing Dean and showed her several guns and knives, as well as
`
`ammunition, additional magazines, handcuffs, latex gloves, and a first aid kit.
`
`Gordon said they did so “to show Lynn that we were really going to do this.”
`
`Lynn spent the night in Garton’s room; the two had sex and returned to their
`
`respective homes the following day.
`
`
`
`In late January or early February 1998, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels met at
`
`the Moose Lodge in Anderson, California, to plan a trip to Oregon to murder
`
`Dean. They discussed two plans: first, they would try to kill Dean at his
`
`workplace; failing that, they would enter the Noyes residence and shoot him there.
`
`Garton also discussed paying Gordon and Daniels for their roles in the killing.
`
`On February 6, 1998, the three men drove up to Oregon. They brought a
`
`variety of guns, a silencer, communication devices, handcuffs, and latex gloves.
`
`Upon arriving in Gresham, they checked into a motel and stashed their equipment
`
`in their room. They then drove to the parking garage near Dean’s workplace,
`
`where they planned to kill him the next day.
`
`The next morning, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels rose early and drove to the
`
`parking garage to await Dean’s arrival. But Dean never arrived; unbeknownst to
`
`Garton, Lynn had told Dean to drive the larger of their cars, knowing that this car
`
`would not fit into the garage where the three men waited. After realizing that
`
`Dean had parked elsewhere, the men left and checked into a different hotel. Later,
`
`Garton shot a rifle out the hotel window into a deserted field.
`
`That afternoon, Lynn came to the hotel. She tried to convince Garton to
`
`abandon the plan, but he insisted that it was too late to do so and that he would try
`
`to kill Dean again that evening. She later called Garton and said she would try to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`get Dean and his brother, who was visiting at the time, out of the house so that the
`
`killing would not occur in her home.
`
`That night, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels left the hotel and parked near the
`
`Noyes residence. The men, all armed, approached the house, and Garton went to
`
`the front door. But Garton was unable to open the door, and the men ran back to
`
`their car. They returned to their hotel and departed for California the next
`
`morning.
`
`
`
`After returning home, Garton concocted a new plan to kill Dean. At the
`
`time, Lynn thought Dean was embezzling money from his employer. Garton
`
`planned to use this information to extort Dean and then kill him. He returned to
`
`Gresham in May 1998 and, with Lynn’s assistance, staged a break-in of the Noyes
`
`residence, taking a planner, a laptop, and some computer disks and equipment.
`
`According to Daniels, Garton also planned to kill Dean on this trip if the
`
`opportunity arose. Following the staged break-in, Garton called Daniels from his
`
`hotel room, telling him to send Dean an anonymous e-mail insinuating that
`
`someone knew he was embezzling and threatening harm to his children if he
`
`didn’t cooperate. Daniels complied. Subsequently, Dean received several cryptic
`
`messages from the same anonymous e-mail address. Garton’s computer contained
`
`evidence that he had accessed the account from which these e-mails were sent.
`
`Garton continued to discuss the possibility of murdering Dean with Lynn after
`
`sending these e-mails and after Carole’s murder, but the conspiracy to murder
`
`Dean was never carried out.
`
`b. Murder of Carole Garton and her fetus
`
`In October 1997, Carole and Garton discovered that Carole was pregnant.
`
`The prosecution presented evidence that Garton thought children were “pains”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`who would take away his freedom. He told people that he did not want the child
`
`and that it was not his.
`
`A few months later, Garton and Carole applied for life insurance. Carole
`
`was approved for a policy of $125,000, which was in effect at the time she was
`
`murdered. Garton was listed as the primary beneficiary.
`
`In early April 1998, two months after Garton, Daniels, and Gordon had
`
`driven to Oregon to murder Dean, Garton approached Daniels about another
`
`killing. He explained his involvement in The Company and said the organization
`
`would pay Daniels for fulfilling one of its “contracts” to kill someone. After
`
`completing one assassination, Daniels would become a member of The Company.
`
`If Daniels agreed to do this, Garton explained, The Company would send him a
`
`package revealing Daniels’s target. Garton’s code name was “Patriot,” and he
`
`gave Daniels a business card that said “Patriot” and had Garton’s pager number on
`
`it.
`
`Later that month, in preparation for the killing, Daniels and Garton bought
`
`a handgun, cleaning equipment, a holster, and two boxes of ammunition. Garton
`
`advised Daniels what gun to buy, paid for it, gave Daniels a holster for it, and
`
`helped him break it in. Daniels used that gun to kill Carole.
`
`On April 27, 1998, Garton bought a label maker, label tape cartridges, a
`
`manila envelope, and a pager. That night, he delivered the “target package” to
`
`Daniels. The package was in a manila envelope with a label on it, and it bore a
`
`wax seal with an imprint resembling a trinket of Garton’s. As Daniels opened the
`
`envelope, Garton told him that if he opened it, he would have to carry out the
`
`assigned killing or else be killed himself.
`
`The package contained a pager, some photographs, and some newspaper
`
`and magazine excerpts about the Irish Republican Army (IRA). All three
`
`photographs depicted Carole, and the back of one photograph contained
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`information about Carole and Garton, along with a timeframe in which the murder
`
`was to take place and other instructions.
`
`Garton looked over the package’s contents with Daniels and seemed upset
`
`that the intended victim was his wife. Daniels said he couldn’t carry out the
`
`murder and asked Garton to call someone to change the target; Garton picked up
`
`the phone and started dialing, but then put the phone down and said, “Well, at least
`
`it’s not me.” Garton explained that Carole had been a member of the IRA and had
`
`worked with The Company, but had betrayed the group and so was being targeted
`
`as retribution. Later, on Garton’s advice, Daniels destroyed the photographs and
`
`documents, but kept the imprinted wax seal.
`
`After that meeting, Garton told Daniels that Daniels should have a received
`
`an introductory e-mail from The Company. Daniels said he had probably deleted
`
`it, and Garton said he would have The Company resend it. Soon thereafter, on
`
`May 6, 1998, Daniels received the introductory e-mail from the address
`
`“companyt@usa.net.” It welcomed him to the organization, informed him how he
`
`would receive coded messages, and explained that someone would be assigned to
`
`follow him and make sure he did his job. Garton responded to the e-mail on
`
`Daniels’s behalf. Over the next week, Daniels exchanged a series of e-mails with
`
`companyt@usa.net regarding his assignment. One of those e-mails contained a
`
`threat on Daniels’s life if he failed to kill Carole. The Company’s e-mail address
`
`was registered to a physical address in Northern Ireland, and drafts of The
`
`Company’s e-mails were found on the computer at the Garton residence.
`
`As Daniels prepared to murder Carole, Garton provided assistance and
`
`advice. He initially told Daniels to kill Carole while Garton was in Oregon in
`
`early May, so that Garton would have an alibi. He told Daniels how to dispose of
`
`the murder weapon. When Daniels’s request for additional money was denied by
`
`the companyt@usa.net address, Garton offered him money. Garton then advised
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Daniels to kill Carole on May 16, 1998, because Garton would be gone all day at a
`
`gun show.
`
`Garton also asked Lynn to help Daniels with the killing. In the fall of 1996,
`
`Garton and Lynn had previously discussed killing Carole as a way for them to
`
`reunite. This time, Garton began by saying that because of the earlier incident in
`
`Oregon, Lynn had no choice but to help The Company with one of its contracts.
`
`He later revealed that Carole was the target and that there was nothing he could do
`
`about it.
`
`At Garton’s request, Lynn often spoke with Daniels via e-mail, online chat
`
`rooms, instant messaging, and telephone in the weeks leading up to Carole’s
`
`murder. Garton told Daniels that Lynn would psychologically evaluate him on
`
`behalf of The Company, which allowed Lynn to glean information from Daniels
`
`about his preparedness and then pass that information on to Garton.
`
`
`
`On May 16, 1998, Garton and Daniels went to work at a gun show. Garton
`
`had previously recommended killing Carole that day because everyone would be
`
`at the show and killing her at home because they lived in a sparsely populated
`
`area. Carole briefly dropped by the show after a doctor’s appointment, and
`
`Daniels went home with her. After the two watched a movie together, Carole
`
`went to her room and lay down. Daniels drove to return the video, went back to
`
`the house, and then shot her five times.
`
`
`
` Daniels left the house and drove the Gartons’ Jeep to a nearby parking lot,
`
`where he abandoned the vehicle; he and Garton had planned to make the murder
`
`look like it occurred during a robbery. Daniels went home and paged Garton with
`
`the message, “All done, going home.” Garton called Daniels to ask whether the
`
`message was for him, and Daniels confirmed it was. Daniels then left a message
`
`for Lynn, and the two later communicated online and over the phone; she advised
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`him to dispose of any evidence. He also e-mailed companyt@usa.net with the
`
`message, “Package delivered.”
`
`Later that afternoon, Gordon’s girlfriend, Sarah Mann, arrived at the Garton
`
`residence. Gordon, Daniels, Garton, Carole, and Mann had all planned to go out
`
`that evening. On her way there, Mann saw Daniels driving the Gartons’ Jeep. She
`
`entered the home but saw no one there, so she watched television and played on
`
`the computer. Gordon arrived next, followed about 10 minutes later by Garton.
`
`Garton asked where Carole was, went outside, quickly came back in, and asked
`
`someone to call 911 because their Jeep had been stolen. Mann said she had just
`
`seen Daniels driving the Jeep. But Garton insisted the Jeep had been stolen and
`
`told Gordon he had to call 911.
`
`
`
`Garton then went into the bedroom and discovered Carole’s body. He
`
`yelled for someone to call 911 and attempted to resuscitate Carole. The police
`
`arrived, followed by emergency medical technicians, but they were unable to
`
`revive her. Carole was pronounced dead at the scene.
`
`
`
`That night, Garton paged Daniels and the two spoke on the phone. Garton
`
`asked Daniels if he knew that Carole had been murdered and said the police were
`
`looking for Daniels. Garton also told him to dispose of the evidence. Daniels,
`
`who was at a friend’s house, asked Garton for a ride home to get rid of the gun,
`
`but Garton refused.
`
`The next morning, May 17, 1998, Daniels asked Lynn to have The
`
`Company protect him. Lynn told Daniels that Garton wanted Daniels to return
`
`home and dispose of the gun, though Garton warned that the house was being
`
`watched; Garton also mentioned the possibility of Daniels fleeing to New York.
`
`On returning home, Daniels encountered two detectives who had been
`
`monitoring his home and had received information of his return, and Daniels was
`
`taken into custody. The next day, May 18, 1998, at the behest of the detectives,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Daniels called Garton. In that recorded conversation, after Daniels told Garton
`
`that he had “copped a plea of jealousy,” Garton said, “I’m going to get on the
`
`phone to the big boys and see what we can pull here,” and “I’ll see whatever
`
`monies you had coming . . . goes to your kid or family or something,” which
`
`Daniels understood as a reference to The Company and the money he would be
`
`paid for killing Carole.
`
`After Daniels’s arrest, Garton advised Lynn to tell the police that Daniels
`
`was jealous of Garton and Carole’s relationship, that she had only ever interacted
`
`with Daniels over the internet, and that she and Garton had no romantic
`
`relationship. In June 1998, detectives came to Lynn’s house. Seeing them
`
`approach from the kitchen window, she quickly called Garton, who told her to
`
`“remember the truth that [they] discussed, and stick to that.”
`
`2. Defense evidence
`
`Garton testified in his defense and denied he was involved in the plot to kill
`
`Dean or in Carole’s murder. He presented the following evidence through his own
`
`testimony and the testimony of several other witnesses.
`
`a. Conspiracy to kill Dean Noyes
`
`Garton dated Lynn in high school and broke off the relationship when he
`
`met Carole. But the two remained in contact. When Garton informed her that he
`
`was marrying Carole, Lynn responded that she planned on marrying him and sent
`
`Carole all of Garton’s letters to her in an attempt to stop the wedding. A year
`
`passed without further contact, until Lynn wrote Garton to say she too was getting
`
`married. After moving from California to Bend, Oregon, in the early 1990s,
`
`Garton and Carole reconnected with Lynn and began speaking regularly. During
`
`these conversations, Lynn repeatedly expressed romantic interest in Garton,
`
`although he discouraged such advances.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Carole and Garton eventually moved back to Redding, California, where
`
`Garton began working for a fencing company and a hunting equipment supplier.
`
`On weekends, he would travel to hunting equipment shows across the region;
`
`these trips often took him to Oregon. One of these trips was to Eugene, Oregon,
`
`with Gordon. He met Lynn on this trip, but the two did not have sex; according to
`
`Garton, the two never had sex in the years leading up to Carole’s death. Although
`
`Lynn repeatedly told Garton about her suspicion that Dean was having an affair,
`
`Garton never provided her with any information to confirm these suspicions.
`
`
`
`In early 1998, Garton met with Gordon and Daniels at the Moose Lodge to
`
`discuss an upcoming trip to Portland. The three did not discuss killing Dean.
`
`Instead, they discussed going to a hunting equipment show.
`
`
`
`In February 1998, Garton, Gordon, and Daniels traveled to Portland to
`
`promote Garton’s business. They brought a variety of weapons and gear for their
`
`work, but Garton shot none of the guns they brought during the trip. They spent
`
`the first night at a Quality Inn and visited downtown Portland the next morning;
`
`they did not go to the parking garage near Dean’s work. They then went to the
`
`Hampton Inn, where Garton met Lynn. That evening, Daniels and Gordon took
`
`Garton’s car and went to a bar near Lynn’s home. The three men left the next
`
`morning.
`
`
`
`Garton returned to Portland on May 9, 1998, accompanied by Carole. He
`
`phoned Daniels from the hotel during that visit to discuss an ongoing fencing
`
`project that was behind schedule.
`
`b. Murder of Carole Garton and her fetus
`
`Garton presented evidence that he was loving toward Carole and excited for
`
`the impending birth of their child. Garton had been a volunteer youth soccer
`
`coach for a season and was good with kids. He attended a childbirth class with
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Carole; although he initially admitted being there involuntarily, he became an
`
`active participant in the class. Upon learning that the child would be a boy,
`
`Garton began referring to him as Jesse and bought him a rifle.
`
`Garton had life insurance through the United States Department of Veterans
`
`Affairs and acquired another policy through a private company in May 1998. He
`
`did not believe Carole had life insurance. He denied having any involvement in
`
`Carole’s killing. He never approached Daniels about becoming a paid assassin.
`
`He never made or saw a wax seal imprinted with a trinket from his home.
`
`Although he did buy an electric label maker, it was for his mother to give to her
`
`friend.
`
`Garton also did not buy Daniels the gun used in Carole’s murder, nor did he
`
`suggest buying that particular gun. He did give Daniels a holster for it, as well as
`
`drive him to pick up the gun. He also went with Daniels to fire the gun after
`
`Daniels had purchased it.
`
`On May 16, 1998, Garton went to work at a nearby gun show. Carole
`
`visited the show on the way home from a doctor’s appointment and went home
`
`with Daniels. Later that afternoon, Garton received a message from Daniels
`
`saying, “All done, going home.”
`
`When Garton came home, Mann and Gordon were there. He asked where
`
`Carole was, but did not tell Mann to call the police because the Jeep had been
`
`stolen. He then discovered Carole’s body. Seeing blood, he yelled for someone to
`
`call 911, tried to find her pulse, and began trying to resuscitate her. The police
`
`arrived and removed him from the house.
`
`The day after the murder, Garton did not speak with Lynn or with Daniels.
`
`The next day, he received a call from Daniels. Although Daniels said he had
`
`“copped a plea of jealousy,” Garton did not realize at the time that Daniels was
`
`confessing to having killed Carole. In the conversation, Garton assured Daniels
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`that he would receive the money Garton’s fencing company owed him. He also
`
`told Daniels that he would speak with his dad and his older brother — whom he
`
`had previously called “the big boys” — to see what they thought of the situation.
`
`3. Prosecution rebuttal evidence
`
`The prosecution presented additional evidence in rebuttal, including the
`
`following: Garton and Carole traveled to Oregon in April 1998; during that visit,
`
`Garton met up with Lynn and the two had sex. During the same month, Garton
`
`ordered business cards from a local printing store for someone who went by
`
`“Patriot,” and he later ordered a flier for Carole’s memorial service from the same
`
`store. He also kept an April 27, 1998 receipt from Office Max, showing the
`
`purchase of a manila envelope, a pager, and a label maker, along with several
`
`other office supplies.
`
`4. Defense surrebuttal evidence
`
`The defense presented testimony from Lynn in response to the
`
`prosecution’s evidence concerning the Gartons’ April 1998 trip to Oregon. Lynn
`
`acknowledged she may have made contradictory statements about the trip; she had
`
`previously told detectives that she had not seen Garton in Oregon that month, and
`
`she had later told the prosecution a different story.
`
`B. Penalty phase
`
`
`
`The prosecution’s penalty phase evidence consisted of victim impact
`
`testimony from Carole’s father, stepmother, and two brothers. The family
`
`members described Carole’s personality and interests, as well as her excitement
`
`about becoming a parent. They described how they learned about Carole’s death
`
`and how seriously her death had affected them as a family and as individuals.
`
`
`
`The defense did not present evidence at the penalty phase. At the
`
`beginning of his closing argument, before discussing the existence of mitigating
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`factors and arguing in favor of a sentence of life without parole, Garton’s counsel
`
`said he had “a message as counsel for Mr. Garton to deliver to” the jury. He
`
`pointed out Daniels’s role in the crime, noted that Garton was incarcerated and
`
`found guilty, and concluded, “To Todd, life without family, freedom, or honor, has
`
`little value. You might as well kill him. He is neither asking nor he expects more
`
`than death from you [sic].”
`
`II. GUILT PHASE ISSUES
`
`A. Wedding ring ruling
`
`
`
`Garton argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request to wear
`
`his wedding ring during trial. He contends this alleged error “violated . . . his right
`
`to present evidence in his defense, to be dressed in civilian attire in the jury’s
`
`presence, and to a reliable guilt and penalty determination in violation of the Fifth,
`
`Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
`
`his rights under article I, sections 7, 15, 16, and 17 of the California Constitution.”
`
`1. Background
`
`
`
`At a pretrial hearing, defense counsel requested that the court allow Garton
`
`to wear his wedding ring and a religious necklace during trial. The court found the
`
`request “problematic” and indicated that it would discuss the request with the
`
`bailiff. The prosecutor opposed the request for security reasons. The prosecutor
`
`also commented, “I see no benefit for him wearing [the wedding ring] . . . other
`
`than his attempt to try and persuade the jury that he has nothing to do with this
`
`murder, and that he’s still bonded with his wife, whatever it is he’s trying to
`
`convey subconsciously, or directly to the jury.”
`
`
`
`The court took issue with the non-security ground of opposition concerning
`
`the wedding ring: “I see the People’s point with regards to the wedding band, and
`
`that is, that one could consider the wearing of that band to be an — in effect, a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`form of communication . . . . The problem with that argument . . . is that if the
`
`Defendant wasn’t in custody, I’m not sure there would be any way I could compel
`
`him to take off his wedding band, even though you may or may not ever get to ask
`
`him about why he’s wearing it.” But the court acknowledged security concerns as
`
`to both items and opined that the effort required to ensure that the necklace and
`
`ring did not enter the jail “may be more of a burden than a busy Deputy Marshal
`
`should have to undertake.”
`
`
`
`At a subsequent hearing, the trial judge said he had spoken with his marshal
`
`and summarized the reasons the jail does not generally allow jewelry to be worn
`
`by inmates: jewelry can be made into a weapon or used for barter, even if the
`
`original wearer does not so intend. The court also noted that Garton would be
`
`wearing a tie and belt at trial, and said that “[t]here [are] roughly at least a hundred
`
`opportunities for the busy Marshal to inadvertently miss one of the now four
`
`items, two of which are small and not readily visible, to be missed and find their
`
`way back to the jail.” Defense counsel offered several options to ensure the
`
`marshals would not miss the jewelry; he suggested providing the marshals with a
`
`checklist or personally taking responsibility for the jewelry. Defense counsel
`
`argued, “[A]ny other defendant who is not in custody in this court . . . would
`
`obviously come in wearing a wedding ring, if that’s their normal course. And so
`
`what we’re now saying is that he is being deprived of the rights that any other
`
`person would have to correctly appear or make a normal appearance before a jury
`
`because of the no-bail situation . . . . And the fact that he does not have a wedding
`
`ring could well be interpreted by jurors as abandonment of his wife, in some sense
`
`or another.” The court was not persuaded and said: “[C]ounsel, there are a great
`
`many married men who never have worn wedding rings. It would really shock me
`
`to think that any juror would start making negative assumptions about a man
`
`whose wife died roughly two years ago because he isn’t currently wearing a ring,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`never having any knowledge about whether he ever wore a ring.” The court
`
`denied Garton’s request. Garton challenges the court’s ruling as to the wedding
`
`ring but not as to the religious necklace.
`
`2. Analysis of civilian attire claim
`
`
`
`We first address Garton’s claim that the trial court’s denial of his request to
`
`wear his wedding ring violated his state and federal constitutional rights to be tried
`
`in civilian attire.
`
`
`
`The high court “has declared that one accused of a crime is entitled to have
`
`his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at
`
`trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or
`
`other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” (Taylor v. Kentucky (1978) 436
`
`U.S. 478, 485.) In particular, “the State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in
`
`identifiable prison clothes.” (Estelle v. Williams (1976) 425 U.S. 501, 512
`
`(Estelle).)
`
`
`
`Among the “substantial reasons for the rule that a criminal defendant is
`
`entitled to be tried in ordinary clothing[, f]oremost is the rationale that compelling
`
`a defendant to go to trial in jail clothing could impair the fundamental presumption
`
`of our system of criminal justice that the defendant is innocent until proved guilty
`
`beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Taylor (1982) 31 Cal.3d 488, 494
`
`(Taylor).) “ ‘Jurors required by the presumption of innocence to accept the
`
`accused as a peer, an individual like themselves who is innocent until proved
`
`guilty, may well see in an accused garbed in prison attire an obviously guilty
`
`person to be recommitted by them to the place where his clothes clearly show he
`
`belongs.’ ” (Ibid., citing Estelle, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 518–519 (dis. opn. of
`
`Brennan, J.).) In such circumstances, a defendant may not be able to sufficiently
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`present his or her defense due to “the embarrassment associated with . . . wearing
`
`jail garb.” (Taylor, at p. 495.) Further, requiring defendants held in custody to
`
`wear inmate attire can violate the principles of equal protection: “[C]ompelling
`
`the accused to stand trial in jail garb operates usually against only those who
`
`cannot post bail prior to trial.” (Estelle, at p. 505; see Taylor, at p. 495.)
`
`
`
`The trial court’s denial of Garton’s request to wear his wedding ring during
`
`trial does not raise the concerns above. The absence of a wedding ring does not
`
`“identif[y]” a defendant as a person in custody (Estelle, supra, 425 U.S. at p. 502),
`
`nor does it act as a “constant reminder of the accused’s condition” that stems from
`
`“distinctive, identifiable attire” associating a defendant with jail or prison (id. at
`
`pp. 504–505).
`
`
`
`Garton argues that even if his request did not implicate the due process and
`
`presumption of innocence rationales for civilian attire, “he was denied equal
`
`protection of the laws due solely to his custodial status.” He argues that out-of-
`
`custody defendants may wear a wedding ring at trial and implies that there was no
`
`justification for Garton’s inability to do so. It is true that an in-custody criminal
`
`defendant’s compelled wearing of jail-associated attire “impinges on the tenets of
`
`equal protection” because it tends to affect those who cannot afford bail. (Taylor,
`
`supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 495.) When a criminal defendant who cannot afford bail
`
`must appear at trial in jail attire, “ ‘[h]e suffers a disadvantage as a result of his
`
`poverty [and o]ur traditions do not brook such disadvantage. [Citation.]’ ” (Ibid.)
`
`However, we need not resolve the merits of Garton’s equal protection theory; any
`
`such violation was harmless because the absence of his wedding ring did not
`
`impermissibly remind the jury of Garton’s custodial status.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`3. Analysis of evidentiary claim
`
`
`
`We next address Garton’s claim that he was “entitled to wear his wedding
`
`ring to rebut evidence that he did not love his wife and child and to prove
`
`affirmatively that he did” during his testimony and while otherwise present at trial.
`
`Garton notes that the jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC 2.20 that when
`
`evaluating witness testimony during trial, it “may consider . . . [t]he demeanor and
`
`manner of the witness while testifying.” He argues that