Title: P. v. Hughes
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S017869M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 2002

1
Filed 4/10/02
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
)
)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
)
)
S017869
v.
)
)
Monterey Co.
KRISTIN WILLIAM HUGHES,
)
Super. Ct. No. MCR7435
)
Defendant and Appellant.
)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
__________________________________ )
       [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
BY THE COURT:
The opinion herein, appearing at 27 Cal.4th 287, is modified as follows:
1.  The third sentence of the second full paragraph at 27 Cal.4th at page 335—
which currently provides, “It was not; false statements by a defendant [fn. 6] are
admissible to demonstrate consciousness of guilt (People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d
480, 495-496), and the trial court did not err in allowing the admission of this
testimony to prove intent to kill, as well as the commission of the offenses of robbery,
burglary, and forcible sodomy, and the various special circumstances alleged.”—is
modified to read as follows:  “It was not; false statements by a defendant [fn. 6] are
admissible to demonstrate consciousness of guilt.  (People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d
480, 495-496.)”  Footnote 6 is unchanged.
2.  The statutory citations in the first partial paragraph at page 352—which
currently provide, “(E.g., §§ 243.4 [sexual battery], 288 [forcible lewd or lascivious
act], 289 [forcible sexual penetration].)”—are modified to read as follows:  “(E.g.,
§§ 243.4 [sexual battery], 289 [forcible sexual penetration].)”
2
3.  The second and third full paragraphs at 27 Cal.4th at p. 382—which
currently provide, “As an initial matter, this point is waived by defense counsel’s
failure to object on this ground below.  (Evid. Code, § 353; Jackson, supra, 13 Cal.4th
1164, 1235.)  [¶]  Assuming the issue has been preserved, the trial court’s
misinstruction was error, and as explained below, the question of prejudice is
somewhat close.”—are deleted and replaced with the following:  “The trial court’s
misinstruction was error, and as explained below, the question of prejudice is
somewhat close.”
4.  The last sentence of the last full paragraph at 27 Cal.4th at p. 384—which
currently provides, “Or, stating the issue more accurately, because the claim was
waived, no ineffective assistance of counsel is established.”—is deleted.  Footnote 24
is moved to the previous sentence after the word “harmless” and is otherwise
unchanged.
The modification does not affect the judgment.