 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rodriguez10/5/2004
Guillermo Rodriguez appeals from his convictions by jury verdict of murder and vehicular manslaughter. He argues the trial court should have granted his motion for acquittal, challenges the instruction on gross negligence, and contends the trial court should have granted him access to personal juror identification information. We find no basis for reversal. We find merit in the Attorney General's argument that appellant was not entitled to conduct credits because he was convicted of murder and modify the abstract of judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appellant went drinking on the night of March 2, 2003 with his brother, Rene Morales, and a friend, Adrian Rodarte. While under the influence, appellant crashed his car into a sound wall on Interstate 5 early in the morning hours of March 3, 2002. (Stipulation of the parties.) His passenger, Rodarte, died in the collision. A hole in the sound wall caused by the collision measured eight feet by three feet. When interviewed by California Highway Patrol officers at the scene, appellant denied being the driver or being in the car. His blood alcohol level was .24 and he had amphetamine and methamphetamine in his blood as well. After being placed under arrest, appellant repeated his claim that he was not in the car with Rodarte when the crash occurred.
Six weeks after the crash, appellant and a companion went to Rodarte's grave. Rodarte's aunt, Maria Gonzalez, was there with family members. Appellant sat on the grass on Rodarte's grave and appeared to cry. When Gonzalez asked him what had happened on the night of the accident, appellant made the sign of the cross, kissed his hand, and swore on his grandmother that he was going to tell the truth. Twice he said he knew he was going to go to jail.
Appellant said that he had gotten into a fight with people at the club, and that he was upset with his brother not backing him up during the fight. Rodarte said he was not feeling good about being at the club because his son had been in an accident earlier in the day. After being in the club for a while, appellant decided to leave. He found his brother, but they were not able to find Rodarte. They went out to their car, saw the side window was broken, and found Rodarte lying in the back seat. Appellant and Morales got into the car, with appellant driving. While on the freeway, appellant and Morales got into an argument about Morales' failure to back up appellant during the fight at the club. Morales opened the car door and put his leg out, asking appellant to stop the car. After appellant stopped the car, Morales got out on the freeway.
Rodarte moved up to the front passenger seat and the two drove away. Appellant intended to take Rodarte home, but got lost. They decided to go back to the freeway to pick up Morales. They were unable to find Morales, but saw the people appellant had fought at the club. According to appellant, people from the club started to chase him. He told Gonzalez that he had wanted to exit the freeway, tried to get to the right lane in order to exit, lost control of the car, and hit the sound wall. After giving this information to Gonzalez, appellant made the sign of the cross again and said this was the true account of the accident. When Gonzalez asked appellant why he told the police that Rodarte was driving, appellant said: "Oh, I got confused, and I didn't want to talk to the police officers." Appellant never told Gonzalez that Rodarte had pulled or grabbed at the steering wheel before the accident.
*2 Appellant testified in his own defense. He testified that after his brother got out of the car on the freeway, he and Rodarte pulled off the freeway, parked, and went to look for him. When they did not find his brother, they got back into the car and got onto the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|