California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Chandra, A138401, A143741 (Cal. App. 2015):
A defendant's " ' "[e]fforts to suppress testimony against himself indicate a consciousness of guilt on the part of a defendant, and evidence thereof is admissible against him. [Citation.] Generally, evidence of the attempt of third persons to suppress testimony is inadmissible against a defendant where the effort did not occur in his presence. [Citation.] However, if the defendant has authorized the attempt of the third person to suppress testimony, evidence of such conduct is admissible against the defendant." ' " (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 599, disapproved on another ground by People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 762-763.) "Whether or not any given set of facts may constitute suppression or attempted suppression of evidence from which a trier of fact can infer a consciousness of guilt on the part of a defendant is a question of law. Thus in order for a jury to be instructed that it can infer a consciousness of guilt from suppression of adverse evidence by a defendant, there must be some
Page 9
evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, will sufficiently support the suggested inference." (Hannon, p. 597.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.