X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* - page 17 / 19

49 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 19

    b.  Hernandez’s contention.

Hernandez contends the trial court should not have instructed the jury on flight in the words of CALJIC No. 2.52. 6  Hernandez claims merely departing the scene of a crime is insufficient to support the instruction because there was no showing Hernandez fled to avoid being identified or arrested.  (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869.)People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1226.)  Hernandez claims the flight instruction should have been limited to Fuentes or modified to specify which acts the jury could consider as evidence of flight.  Hernandez concludes reversal is required because the flight instruction improperly permitted the jury to use flight as evidence of guilt.

    c.  Resolution.

A flight instruction is proper when the evidence supports an inference the defendant left the scene of the crime under circumstances showing a consciousness of guilt.  (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055; People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 345; § 1127c.)  “Mere return to familiar environs from the scene of an alleged crime does not warrant an inference of consciousness of guilt [citations], but the circumstances of departure from the crime scene may sometimes do so.”  (People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 695.)

Here, the evidence permitted the jury to conclude Hernandez departed the crime scene and ran from Officer Colquette to avoid apprehension.  When Rodriguez screamed for help, Hernandez and Fuentes looked at each other and then fled.  Thereafter, Hernandez went to extraordinary lengths to avoid speaking to Colquette including jumping from the second story of an apartment building to the roof of another building, running across the roof and jumping to the ground.  Thus, Hernandez did not merely

6 The trial court gave CALJIC No. 2.52, which provides:  “The flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime . . . is not sufficient in itself to establish  . . . guilt, but is a fact which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.  The weight to which this circumstance is entitled is a matter for you to decide.”  

Document info
Document views49
Page views49
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 01:11:05 UTC 2016
Pages19
Paragraphs129
Words6033

Comments