People v. Hartman CA3

I. DISCUSSION

A. Alleged Instructional Error Defendant raises two assertions of instructional error. At trial, defendant did not raise either argument. “We nevertheless address their merits, because claims of instructional error are reviewable on appeal to the extent they implicate a defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Famalaro (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1, 35.) 1. Instructions on Post-Crime Conduct Defendant argues the trial court violated due process by giving the jury “one- sided” and “unbalanced” instructions on post-crime conduct and consciousness of guilt. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 362 (false statements), CALCRIM No. 371 (suppression of evidence), and CALCRIM No. 372 (flight).3 Defendant argues these instructions violated his right to due process by informing the jury that evidence of his post-crime conduct could be used to convict, without also explaining that it could rely on

3 The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 362 as follows: “If the defendant made a false or misleading statement before this trial relating to the charged crime, knowing the statement was false or intending to mislead, that conduct may show he was aware of his guilt of…