People v. Valencia CA1/3

Filed 11/30/22 P. v. Valencia CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162358 v. WILFREDO AMAYA VALENCIA, (San Mateo Super. Ct. No. 19NF010885A) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Wilfredo Amaya Valencia of misdemeanor false imprisonment and acquitted him of several felonies, including kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt (CALCRIM No. 362). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Early one August 2019 morning, defendant’s wife returned home from work and heard noises coming from her 15-year-old daughter’s bedroom. Defendant went to the bedroom to investigate and found 17-year-old John Doe—the daughter’s boyfriend—hiding in the closet. Neither defendant nor his wife had met Doe, and they had not given him permission to visit the daughter.

1

Defendant asked Doe, “ ‘What are you doing here?’ ” “ ‘Nothing,’ ” Doe replied, and he punched defendant in the chest. Then defendant and Doe “tussle[d].” Because Doe was “out of control,” defendant wrapped a rope around his neck and one of his arms. Defendant punched Doe in the face, pressed a machete against his cheek, and threatened to kill him. One or two hours later, defendant led Doe outside and—after threatening to kill him if he returned—untied Doe and let him leave. Later that day, Doe went to the police station with his father and gave a statement. Thereafter, an officer interviewed defendant. During the interview—which was played for the jury—defendant admitted using a rope to restrain Doe, but he denied wrapping the rope around Doe’s neck. Defendant estimated Doe was tied up for 20 minutes. Defendant acknowledged telling Doe he “ ‘could’ ” kill him, but claimed he decided to release Doe because he was “ ‘not that type of person.’ ” Finally, defendant denied placing the machete near Doe’s face, insisting he used it only to cut the rope after binding Doe’s hand. The prosecution asked the trial court to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 362, which provides: “If a 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 the crime, and you may consider it in determining his . . . guilt. [¶] If you conclude that the defendant made the statement, it is up to you to decide its meaning and importance. However, evidence that the defendant made such a statement cannot prove guilt.” Defense counsel acknowledged “there were inconsistencies,” but he objected to the instruction; according to counsel, the instruction was unnecessary because he would explain the inconsistencies. The court disagreed. It