 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Stamps2/7/2002
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 18, 1998, appellant Yolanda Stamps was convicted by jury in Fresno County Superior Court of the vehicular manslaughter, while intoxicated and with gross negligence, of Anthony Rucker, in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (a), (count I). The jury also found appellant guilty of two counts of child endangerment, in violation of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision(a), (counts III and IV); and two counts of driving under the influence and causing injury to both Alexus Jackson and Kieiko Jackson, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153 (counts VI and VII). The jury also found true allegations that appellant had caused bodily injury to both Kieiko and Alexus Jackson in violation of Vehicle Code section 23182 (count I) and in violation of section 12022.7 (counts III, IV, VI and VII).
In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant admitted she had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (robbery) within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and section 667, subdivision (b) through (i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e). She also admitted she had suffered two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Also, before submission of the case to jury, appellant entered a plea of guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1, subdivision (a), driving on a suspended license.
Appellant was sentenced on June 16, 1999, to the aggregate term of 34 years and 4 months in state prison, as follows: 20 years on count I (upper term, doubled), 32 months on count III (consecutive one-third midterm, doubled), the same on count IV, plus a 1-year Vehicle Code section 23182 enhancement, 2 consecutive 1-year section 12022.7 enhancements, a 5-year consecutive enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a) (prior felony conviction) and a 1-year consecutive enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) (prior prison terms). The sentences on counts VI and VII were ordered stayed pursuant to section 654.
Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on June 24, 1999.
DISCUSSION
I. Recall Notice
The trial court did not err by excluding evidence that the car appellant was driving was subject to a manufacturer's recall notice concerning a possible problem with the steering mechanism. The recall notice cautioned that the lower steering column coupler might separate after a hard underbody impact, which could result in a loss of steering control and cause an accident without prior warning.
First, the exclusion of the recall notice and related testimony did not violate article I, section 28, subdivision (d), by undercutting appellant's ability to challenge Michael Stauff's credibility. (See People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1080-1081.) The notice had nothing to do with Stauff's version of the role played by Stauff in the accident; it had instead to do with the role played by the mechanical condition of the auto appellant was driving, a subject about which Stauff did not testify. Stauff was not questioned about the recall notice, the condition described in it, or any problems with the steering mechanism of appellant's car. Also, any lock-up of the steering mechanism had no bearing on whether or not Stauff had previously cut appellant off. Thus, admission of the recall notice might have corroborated appellant's testimony but it would not have impeached Stauff's because it did not tend to show that any part of his testimony was untruthful. (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (e) [Evidence is relevant to attack the credibility of a witness if that evidence has a tendency in reason to prove the witness's testimony is untruthful]; People v.
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.
|
|