CALCRIM No. 362. Consciousness of Guilt: False Statements

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Bgd1

362 . Consciousness of Guilt: False Statements

If [the] defendant [

defendants on trial> ] made a false or misleading statement befor e this

trial relating to the charged crime, knowing the statement was false or

intending to mislead, that conduct may show (he/she) was aware of (his/

her) guilt of the crime and you may consider it in determining (his/her)

guilt. [Y ou may not consider the statement in deciding any other

defendant’ s guilt.]

If you conclude that the defendant made the statement, it is up to you to

decide its meaning and importance. However , evidence that the

defendant made such a statement cannot prove guilt by itself.

New January 2006; Revised August 2009, April 2010, September 2019

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

This instruction should not be given unless it can be inferred that the defendant

made the false statement for self-protection rather than to protect someone else.

( People v . Rankin (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 430, 436 [11 Cal.Rptr .2d 735] [error to

instruct on false statements and consciousness of guilt where defendant lied to

protect an accomplice]; see also People v . Blakeslee (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 831, 839

[82 Cal.Rptr . 839].)

Consider modifying this instruction when the evidence supports an inference that the

defendant was aware of his or her guilt generally , but not of the charged crime.

People v . Burton (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 917, 926, fn.2 [241 Cal.Rptr .3d 35].

• Instructional Requirements. People v . Najera (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1132, 1 139 [77

Cal.Rptr .3d 605, 184 P .3d 732] [in context of adoptive admissions]; People v .

Atwood (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 316, 333 [35 Cal.Rptr . 831]; but see People v .

Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1 166, 1 197-1 198 [135 Cal.Rptr .2d 553, 70 P .3d 981];

see also People v . Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 102-103 [17

Cal.Rptr .3d 710, 96 P .3d 30].

• This Instruction Upheld. People v . McGowan (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1104

[74 Cal.Rptr .3d 57].

COMMENT AR Y

The word “willfully” was not included in the description of the making of the false

statement. Although one court suggested that the jury be explicitly instructed that

the defendant must “willfully” make the false statement ( People v . Louis (1984) 159

Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162 [205 Cal.Rptr . 306]), the California Supreme Court

Bgd2

subsequently held that such language is not required. ( People v . Mickey (1991) 54

Cal.3d 612, 672, fn. 9 [286 Cal.Rptr . 801, 818 P .2d 84].)

RELA TED ISSUES

The false nature of the defendant’ s statement may be shown by inconsistencies in

the defendant’ s own testimony , his or her pretrial statements, or by any other

prosecution evidence. ( People v . Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 498 [244 Cal.Rptr .

148, 749 P .2d 803] [overruling line of cases that required falsity to be demonstrated

only by defendant’ s own testimony or statements]; accord People v . Edwar ds (1992)

8 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1 103 [10 Cal.Rptr .2d 821]; People v . W illiams (1995) 33

Cal.App.4th 467, 478-479 [39 Cal.Rptr .2d 358].)

Un-Mirandized V oluntary Statement

The Miranda rule ( Miranda v . Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444, 479 [86 S.Ct.

1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]) does not prohibit instructing the jury that it may draw an

inference of guilt from a willfully false or deliberately misleading un- Mirandized

statement that the defendant voluntarily introduces into evidence on direct

examination. ( People v . W illiams (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1 157, 1 166-1 169 [94

Cal.Rptr .2d 727].)

SECONDAR Y SOURCES

1 W itkin, California Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Hearsay , § 1 1 1.

5 W itkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal T rial, § 641.

4 Millman, Sevilla & T arlow , California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83,

Evidence , § 83.13[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and V er dict , § 85.03[2][c]

(Matthew Bender).

363-369. Reserved for Future Use

CALCRIM No. 362 EVIDENCE

Page last reviewed May 2024

Austin Sarat

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose conviction has been challenged by the state’s attorney general, and the broader constitutional question of executing innocent people.

Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free directory profile listing