In People v. Jacla (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 878, defendant was tried in handcuffs and leg irons. The only evidence offered to the court on the issue of the necessity for restraint was that within 48 hours immediately preceding the trial defendant, while at liberty on bail, had been involved in a shooting spree. ( Id., at pp. 882-884.) The Jacla court concluded that it was error to shackle defendant, interpreting People v. Duran (1976) to require a showing of the likelihood of escape from the courtroom or a threat of violence or other nonconforming conduct in the courtroom. The court refused to condone consideration of defendant's attempt to evade arrest as evidence of intent to escape. The court concluded: "We conceive Duran to hold that it is the defendant's conduct in custody, now or at other times , or his expressed intention to escape or engage in nonconforming conduct during the trial that should be considered in determining whether there is a 'manifest need' for shackles." ( Id., at p. 884.)