Page 825a
27 Cal.4th 825a
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KRISTIN WILLIAM HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant.
S017869.
Supreme Court of California
April 10, 2002
THE COURT
The opinion herein, appearing at 27 Cal.4th 287, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, is modified as follows:
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 335-339 and 382-407 of the bound volume report.
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 [244 Cal.Rptr. 148]), 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 [244 Cal.Rptr. 148].)” Footnote 6 is unchanged.
2. The statutory citations in the first partial paragraph 27 Cal.4th at page 352— “(E.g., sections 243.4 [sexual battery], 288 [forcible lewd or lascivious act], 289 [forcible sexual penetration].)”—are modified to read as follows: “(E.g., sections 243.4 [sexual battery], 289 [forcible sexual penetration].)”
3. The second and third full paragraphs at 27 Cal.4th at p. 382— “As an initial matter, this point is waived by defense counsel’s failure to object on this ground below. (Evid. Code, section 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—“Or, stating the issue more accurately, because the claim was waived,
Page 825b
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.