People v. Goff CA5

Filed 5/18/16 P. v. Goff CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069597 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Kings Super. Ct. No. 13CM3020) v.

NICHOLAS COLE GOFF, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Donna L. Tarter, Judge. Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, William K. Kim and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

Appellant Nicholas Cole Goff appeals his convictions on nine criminal counts arising out of a violent encounter with his wife, Natalie Goff (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)1 [willful infliction of corporal injury]/count 1; § 136.1, subds. (b) & (c)(1) [intimidation of witnesses and victims]/count 2; § 236 [false imprisonment]/count 3; § 245, subd. (a)(4) [assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury]/count 4; § 245, subd. (a)(1) [assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm]/count 5; § 664 & § 422 [attempted criminal threats]/count 6; § 240 [assault]/count 7; § 422 [criminal threats]/count 8; and § 136.1, subds. (b) & (c)(1) [intimidation of witnesses and victims]/count 9). Appellant claims his convictions cannot stand because the trial court improperly instructed the jury in two ways: first, by giving CALCRIM No. 318 regarding evidence of out of court statements, which appellant contends erroneously lessened the prosecution’s burden of proof; and second, by giving CALCRIM No. 372 regarding evidence of flight after a crime was committed, which appellant contends was not warranted by the evidence and again lessened the prosecutor’s burden of proof. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2013, appellant and Ms. Goff were married and living in motels. On or around August 4, the couple was staying at the Sequoia Inn, in Hanford, California. One day, appellant became angry with Ms. Goff, apparently believing she was having an affair. Appellant tied a bedsheet between the front door and the bathroom door of their motel room, so that Ms. Goff could not exit the room. Appellant then spent the next three hours punching and choking Ms. Goff. Following this incident, appellant and Ms. Goff left the Sequoia Inn together. They walked to a place called the Recycle Depot, with appellant holding a knife to appellant’s side as they travelled. On the walk, appellant told Ms. Goff that he would kill