 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Dominguez4/30/2004
A jury convicted defendant Vicente Dominguez of second degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen.Code, § 191.5), driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and driving with a blood alcohol level greater than .08 percent causing injury (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). The trial court found he had suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. All of the charges arose from a fatal automobile collision occurring while he drove under the influence of alcohol. Defendant complains of instructional error, and contends malice, an element of murder, was lacking. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Karla Davila drove defendant and Alma Rios to Dave & Busters, a restaurant and bar located in Orange, around 6:00 p.m. on June 14, 2000. Defendant became intoxicated after drinking throughout the evening. He grew angry when Davila talked to another man, and the group left around midnight. Davila and Rios dropped defendant off at his Anaheim apartment between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m.
About two hours later, defendant drove his Ford Thunderbird northbound in the southbound carpool lane of Interstate 5 south of Lake Forest Drive, causing a head-on collision with a minivan. Both cars were traveling 65-70 miles per hour. The impact lifted the minivan off the ground before collapsing on its side. Brian John Kim, asleep in the van's front passenger seat at the time of the collision, died at the scene. The driver, Young Ro, survived with minor injuries.
Before the collision, the driver of another car, Warren Witt, attempted to warn defendant he was driving on the wrong side by flashing his headlights on and off several times, but defendant failed to respond as he passed Witt's car. Seeing the collision in his rear view mirror, Witt parked his car and ran to the scene. He found defendant hunched over in the driver's seat, secured by a seatbelt. Defendant was unconscious and smelled of alcohol. Several other witnesses at the scene, including California Highway Patrol Officer David Ferrer, concluded defendant was under the influence of alcohol.
California Highway Patrol Officer Aaron Knarr interviewed defendant as he sat dazed in the backseat of his car. Defendant admitted drinking six to seven beers at a friend's house in Anaheim, and believed he was on the 57 freeway heading toward Anaheim. Defendant's speech was thick and slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and it was apparent to Knarr defendant was intoxicated. Defendant's blood alcohol level was measured at .243 and .252, well above the legal limit of .08 percent.
The parties stipulated defendant suffered a May 1997 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) with a .14 blood alcohol level. In July 1999, he was convicted of DUI, with a .32 alcohol level, and leaving the scene of an accident. The victim followed him after a minor collision, and an argument ensued. Defendant completed three- and nine-month alcohol counseling programs, attending in each case as a first time offender because he supplied different names for his two arrests. A significant component of the curriculum in both programs involved the dangers of drinking and driving. The topic was covered in group discussions, instructional videos, and films presenting graphic accident scenes caused by drivers convicted of DUI. Ironically, defendant had completed the nine-month program just weeks before the fatal collision in this incident.
*2 On the night the crash occurred, defendant testified he had planned to visit his girlfriend in San Diego. But he held a restricted license permitting him to drive only to and from work or his alcohol program. Believing the restrictio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|