We review assignments of guilt phase error in capital cases no differently than in noncapital cases. State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 849, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992). However, claims of error associated with the sentencing phase of a capital case are given heightened scrutiny.

Dr. Blake, who performed the PGM test in this case, had conducted thousands of PGM tests and explained that it was one of the standard conventional genetic marker tests done in all crime labs that do serological examinations. See also State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 121 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992). From our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results of the PGM test.

Photographs have probative value when "they are used to illustrate or explain the testimony of the pathologist performing the autopsy." State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 870, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992). See State v. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. 340, 349, 698 P.2d 598 (1985) (photographs should not be admitted when the same information could be revealed in a nonprejudicial manner).

The jury found insufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency, and Lord was sentenced to death. A summary of the pertinent facts can be found in State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 121 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992). Lord's conviction and death sentence were affirmed.

This court has held that we apply this procedural rule more liberally in such cases, including to asserted guilt phase errors raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Lord , 117 Wash.2d 829, 849, 822 P.2d 177 (1991) (Lord I ) (citing State v . Jeffries , 105 Wash.2d 398, 418, 717 P.2d 722 (1986) ). ¶29 It is clear, however, that there is no constitutional right to presence at the noncourt, nonadversarial office visits to view juror declarations that are at issue here.

This court has held that we apply this procedural rule more liberally in such cases, including to asserted guilt phase errors raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 849, 822 P.2d 177 (1991) ( Lord I ) (citing State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash.2d 398, 418, 717 P.2d 722 (1986) ). ¶29 It is clear, however, that there is no constitutional right to presence at the noncourt, nonadversarial office visits to view juror declarations that are at issue here.

Any prejudicial aspects were neither particularly inflammatory nor similar to the crime at issue. See State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 873, 822 P.2d 177 (1991). An evidentiary error which is not of constitutional magnitude, such as erroneous admission of ER 404 (b) evidence, requires reversal only if the error, within reasonable probability, materially affected the outcome.

We construe procedural rules liberally in capital cases even when errors are raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 849, 822 P.2d 177 (1991). 1. JURY SELECTION

In State v. Lord, this Court held that a jury instruction similar to jury instruction number 13 was incomplete because it and the special verdict form allowed the jury to find that either rape or kidnapping was the underlying crime. However, the Court concluded that the special verdict form, when read with the "to convict" instruction for the alternative of first degree murder, cured any problem because that instruction informed the jury its verdict had to be unanimous on which of the alternatives was committed by the defendant: premeditated murder, first degree murder (felony-rape) or first degree murder (felony-kidnapping). 117 Wn.2d 829, 878, 822 P.2d 177 (1991).Id. at 877.

The purpose of article IV, section 16 is to prevent the jury from being influenced by knowledge conveyed to it by the court as to the court's opinion of the evidence submitted. State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 862, 822 P.2d 177, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856, 113 S.Ct. 164, 121 L.Ed.2d 112, overturned on other grounds, 1999 WL 493290 (9th Cir.). See also State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 267, 525 P.2d 731 ("To constitute a comment on the evidence, it must appear that the court's attitude toward the merits of the cause are reasonably inferable from the nature or manner of the court's statements."); City of Seattle v. Arensmeyer, 6 Wn. App. 116, 120, 491 P.2d 1305 (trial court's interruption of counsel during closing argument to say he was mistaken as to the evidence was an unconstitutional comment on the evidence).