How has the court treated the issue of substitute counsel in the sanity phase of a criminal case?

After the case was submitted to the jury at the conclusion of the guilt phase, appellant advised the court he was dissatisfied with his defense counsel and the court held a hearing to consider appointing substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The court denied the motion and appellant does not challenge that ruling in this appeal. At the commencement of the sanity phase, appellant would not talk to his defense counsel and indicated he wished to speak to the court about testifying. The court explained that the burden of proof was on appellant to show insanity by a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not"), that it was up to appellant to decide whether to take the stand, and that if he did not take the stand the jury could consider evidence from the guilt phase to determine whether he was insane at the time of his crimes, assuming there was sufficient evidence of insanity for the case to go to the jury.