X hits on this document





54 / 115

[defendant] even if it was less than more likely than not to be true.”18  

We rejected this precise contention in People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1054, and rejected closely related claims in People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1200, People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 144, and other decisions.  Defendant’s citation of federal decisions involving the constitutionality of permissive presumptions in criminal cases (Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 166, fn. 28; Schwendeman v. Wallenstein (9th Cir. 1992) 971 F.2d 313, 316) adds no merit to his contention.  The challenged CALJIC instructions do not create a presumption, permissive or mandatory, as they do not permit or require any particular ultimate fact to be inferred from any particular predicate fact; they simply direct the jury, in general, to choose a reasonable conclusion over an unreasonable one in evaluating circumstantial evidence.  (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 181.)  Moreover, even if we viewed the instructions as creating permissive presumptions, we would find they met the “more likely than not” standard of Ulster County Court v. Allen, supra, 442 U.S. at page 166, footnote 28.  When only one inference may reasonably be made from circumstantial evidence, that inference is indeed more likely than not to be true.

The instructions did not deprive defendant of due process or a fair and reliable penalty determination.

XVIII.  Instruction on False Statement Showing Consciousness of Guilt

The jurors were instructed, by CALJIC No. 2.03, that if they found defendant made “a willfully false or deliberately misleading statement”

18 Defendant also lists CALJIC No. 2.00, which does not contain the criticized language, as under attack, but makes no argument for its unconstitutionality separate from the other four instructions.  In a later discussion, defendant also criticizes the use of “appears” in CALJIC No. 2.01, which he argues further dilutes the reasonable doubt standard; we disagree for the reasons stated in People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1050-1051.

Document info
Document views590
Page views590
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 13:37:38 UTC 2017