PEOPLE v. BRADY





















Filed 8/9/10

















IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA







THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff
and Respondent, )

) S078404

v. )

)

ROGER HOAN BRADY, )

) Los
Angeles County

Defendant
and Appellant. ) Super. Ct.
No. YA020910

__________________________________ )



Story continued from part I…..

5. Jury Instruction on Consciousness of Guilt

Defendant contends the trial court erred
in instructing the jury, at the request of the prosecution and over his
objection, that it could consider his flight after Officer Ganz's
shooting as evidence of his guilt.^[1]

Here, defendant claims, the instruction
unfairly highlighted facts favorable to the prosecution and invited the jury to
draw a favorable inference from this evidence, which allowed the jury to infer
from his departure from the crime scene that he harbored the requisite mental
state at the time of the shooting. As
defendant concedes, we previously have rejected similar claims, and we do so
again here. (People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 620-621; >People v. Boyette
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 438-439; see People
v. Nakahara (2003) 30 Cal.4th 705, 713 [rejecting a similar challenge to a
jury instruction regarding consideration of false statements as evidence of
consciousness of guilt].)

II. Penalty Phase and Posttrial Issues

A. Facts

1. Prosecution Evidence

Over the course of 12 days, more than 60
witnesses testified during the prosecutor's case in aggravation. Many testified about the impact Officer Ganz's murder had on them; others were the victims of
defendant's other offenses. The
prosecution also introduced a videotape of Officer Ganz
celebrating Christmas with family members and a videotape depicting portions of
his memorial and funeral services.

a. Prior criminal activity (§ 190.3,
factors (b), (c))

On October 14, 1986, defendant took some juice from a
market in Santa Monica without
paying for it. When confronted by Khosrow Hakimian, one of the
owners, defendant pushed his arm aside to get away.

From August to October of 1989,
defendant robbed six banks in the Los Angeles
area and attempted to commit two additional bank robberies. With each robbery, defendant demanded money
from a teller; he usually would then display, and sometimes brandish, a firearm
that he carried tucked into his waistband.

Defendant finally was apprehended on October 12, 1989, when Deputy
Christopher Germann of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department heard a police radio broadcast regarding one of the bank
robberies that had occurred that day.
Deputy Germann spotted defendant's car, followed
him, and then attempted to pull him over, but defendant sped away. Defendant eventually drove up the long,
dead-end driveway of his own residence (his parents' home) and fled on foot
into the undeveloped hillside. Deputies
apprehended and subdued defendant, who had in his possession numerous bills
with serial numbers that matched those on the bait money from the bank that had
been robbed earlier that day. A search
of defendant's car revealed a BB gun on the floorboard of the driver's
seat. While receiving medical attention,
defendant said something along the lines of â€