 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Nettles1/26/2004
As defendant's conduct in violating at least three Vehicle Code sections during the same driving episode constituted "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" (§ 2800.2, subd. (a)) as a matter of law, there was no " 'question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present' " (cf. Bradford, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1055), and thus there was no sua sponte duty on the part of the trial court to instruct on the lesser offense.
III. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Instructing the Jury It May Consider Evidence of Flight
*8 Over defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.52 that the flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt but may be taken into consideration.
On appeal, defendant renews his argument that the instruction was improper because "the only issue" in this case was defendant's "identity as the perpetrator of a crime whose actus reus consisted only in flight." In defendant's view, the instruction required the jurors to "credit a sophistry: [I]f [he] was fleeing the police, this was evidence of his consciousness of guilt of the crime of fleeing the police, which in turn was evidence that he committed that same crime."
Under the circumstances here, it was not error to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 2.52.
Defendant ignores that the flight instruction was arguably applicable to the other counts against him. He does not dispute that the jury could properly consider defendant's flight as evidence of his consciousness of guilt on the charges of driving under the influence or driving on a suspended license. "In general, a flight instruction 'is proper where the evidence shows that the defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances suggesting that his movement was motivated by a consciousness of guilt.' [Citations.] ' "[F]light requires neither the physical act of running nor the reaching of a far-away haven. [Citation.] Flight manifestly does require, however, a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested." ' [Citations.]" (Bradford, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1055.) The jury could properly infer from the evidence that defendant fled to avoid CHP Officers Goodwin and Glaser because he knew he was unlawfully driving while intoxicated and on a suspended license. Where a flight instruction is properly considered as to some of the several charges against a defendant, "[i]t is for the jury to determine to which offenses, if any, the inference should apply." (People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 180.)
Moreover, even were the jurors to attempt to apply the flight instruction to the charge of attempting to evade a pursuing police vehicle, CALJIC No. 2.52 makes it clear on its face that only flight "immediately after the commission of a crime, or after [a defendant] is accused of a crime" is implicated. The jury therefore necessarily would have understood that it first had to find defendant guilty of willfully evading a peace officer based on evidence establishing the element that defendant, "while operating a motor vehicle, willfully fled or otherwise attempted to elude a pursuing peace officer" (CALJIC No. 12.85, par. 1) before it could consider any subsequent evidence of flight pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.52. Jurors are presumed to follow the court's instructions (People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120); we do not speculate that they ignored the parameters of the instruction and indulged instead in the impermissible analysis defendant hypothesizes.
*9 There was no error in giving the instruction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
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.
|
|