CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Admissions (Crim.)
.........Statement Need Not Be Inculpatory
18 Cards On This Topic:

Trial court properly instructed jury it could consider D's false stmts as evidence of consciousness of guilt where jury could quite reasonably conclude D made series of false stmts to deflect suspicion from himself.

No error in giving consciousness of guilt instruction which included consideration of D's initial willfully false or misleading statements.

Court did not err in instructing on consciousness of guilt where cautionary nature of instruction benefits defense and is not merely duplicative of other instructions addressing more general principles of evidence.

CALJIC No. 2.03 does not authorize jury to draw irrational permissive inferences, nor is it impermissibly partisan and argumentative.

As previously decided, consciousness of guilt instructions not impermissibly argumentative and did not improperly allow jury to make unreasonable inferences re D's mental state during offenses.

D's prior stmts re not knowing how V injured, though exculpating in form, could be highly incriminating at trial because, upon showing of falsity, they could be evidence of consciousness of guilt; CALJIC No. 2.03 properly given.

D's false statements to police disclaiming involvement in V's robbery and attempt to wipe down/alter murder weapon, were evidence of a consciousness of guilt and relevant to D's guilt.

CALJIC No. 2.03 not misleading, especially as it expressly admonishes jury that false statements about charged crimes alone are not sufficient to prove guilt.

D's false denial that he knew V was relevant to consciousness of guilt even if there was possible alternate basis for the false denial that would not incriminate D as to charged offenses.

D's false statements denying guilt at time of arrest are admissible, not for truth of statements, but to show consciousness of guilt. D need not testify inconsistently prior to admission.

Although some instruction that D’s oral admissions re gang membership to be viewed with caution should have been given, not reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have ensued had CALJIC 2.71 or 2.71.7 been given.

To extent a statement is exculpatory it is not an admission to be viewed with caution.

Exculpatory statements properly admitted as relevant nonhearsay statements which, when proved false, tended to establish consciousness of guilt.

D's statements need not be incriminating in order to be admissions.

Any statement of D admissible as statement of party; statement need not be admission.

D's statements need not be incriminating in order to be admissions.

No error to give jury instructions re false statements and admissions when D's falsehood reasonably has some relevant bearing, even if slight, on guilt.

Trial court need not sua sponte modify CALJIC No. 2.71 to fit each possible interpretation jury might have given to D's statement.