Can a jury infer that a defendant was aware of their guilt at the time of the crime?

impermissible inferences with regard to a defendant's state of mind at the time the offense was committed. CALCRIM No. 362 is permissive, not mandatory, and allowed the jury to compare Carver's testimony with other evidence to determine whether any of his statements was "false or deliberately misleading, and if so, what weight should be given to that evidence." (People v. McGowan (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1104.) The jury could properly infer whether Carver was aware of his guilt and could consider that inference along with other evidence to reach a verdict. (See People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 643 [jury may properly infer consciousness of guilt from the defendant's false trial testimony regarding incriminating circumstances]; Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 180 [that a defendant's flight after commission of crime might show a "consciousness of guilt" violates neither reason nor common sense].)