People v. Kimble

Supreme Court of California · 1988 · Evidence
44 Cal. 3d 480 (1988)
Updated
Evidenceconsciousness of guiltfalse statementsfalse exculpatory statementsadmissibilityrelevancesearch warrantsnighttime search

Facts

After two victims were murdered in their home and the husband's stereo store was burglarized the same night, police linked defendant to both scenes through eyewitness identification, fingerprints in the victims' house, stolen store property, and the victims' store keys found in defendant's residence. After his arrest and Miranda advisement, defendant told police he had bought the stereo equipment months earlier from a stranger and had never been in any house in the victims' neighborhood. At trial, the prosecution had already presented evidence indicating the equipment was stolen that night and that defendant's fingerprints were found inside the victims' home. Over objection, the trial court admitted defendant's recorded statement.

Issue

May the prosecution introduce a defendant's false exculpatory statement as evidence of consciousness of guilt when the statement's falsity is shown by other prosecution evidence rather than by inconsistency with the defendant's own trial testimony? The case also asked whether the initial nighttime search warrant was valid and whether certain penalty-phase errors required reversal.

Rule

A defendant's deliberately false statement to police about matters within the defendant's own knowledge, relating to guilt or innocence, is admissible to show consciousness of guilt if the statement's falsity may reasonably be inferred from the evidence. The falsity need not be established by the defendant's own trial testimony; it may be shown through other reliable evidence, and disputes over whether the statement was false generally go to weight, not admissibility.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Police in Sacramento investigate a jewelry-store robbery. After receiving Miranda warnings, Nolan Reyes says he has never been inside the store and has never met the owner. At trial, the prosecution offers latent fingerprints from a display case and two customer witnesses who identify Nolan as having been in the store shortly before the robbery; Nolan does not testify.

Should the trial court admit Nolan's statement that he had never been inside the store?

Explanation. The statement is admissible to show consciousness of guilt, not for its truth. Under the majority rule, deliberately false exculpatory statements concerning matters within the defendant's own knowledge and relating to guilt or innocence are relevant if the evidence permits a reasonable inference that they are false. The falsity may be shown by fingerprints or other witness testimony; the defendant need not testify.