 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Stamps2/7/2002
Taylor (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 622, 629.)
Second, appellant was not deprived of the opportunity to present a defense based upon a locked steering wheel. Indeed, the jury heard without editing, and considered in its deliberations, appellant's testimony that, after Stauff had cut appellant off, the steering mechanism had locked, causing appellant's car to spin out of control.
The jury also heard and considered the testimony of the vehicle's owner, Antoinette Gumbs, that, the day before the accident and while making a U-turn, the steering on the car locked momentarily. Therefore, the stringent federal constitutional standard of review expressed in Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1968) 475 U.S. 673 does not apply. (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 [rejection of some part, but not all, of defense evidence tending to prove a defense is not federal constitutional error].)
Finally, in point of fact the recall notice was irrelevant to a defense based, at least in part, upon a locked steering wheel. The trial court was correct that the notice of recall was not material because there was no proof before the jury that the steering mechanism had failed in the manner anticipated by the notice, which addressed the possible separation of the lower steering column coupler after a hard underbody impact. (Evid. Code, § 210 [Relevant evidence is evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove a disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action]; People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 222-223 [The general test of relevancy of indirect evidence is whether it tends logically, naturally and by reasonable inference to prove or disprove a material issue]; Andalon v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600, 604, fn. 3 [Whether or not a disputed fact is of consequence and is material is determined by the pleadings, rules of pleading, and the substantive law relating to the particular kind of case].) Nothing in appellant's evidence tended to show that the steering coupler on appellant's auto had separated or that the car had experienced a hard underbody impact. The incidents testified to by Gumbs and by appellant -- the freezing of the steering after a swerve and after a U-turn -- were not consistent with the problem identified in the recall notice. The offer of proof from appellant's expert did not include evidence that it was or that this type of problem caused the accident. This lack of any link between the hazard described in the notice and the hazard relied upon by appellant means the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the notice. (People v. Jones, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 305 [a trial court's decision about the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the ruling was an abuse of discretion]; People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 [same].)
Furthermore, even assuming error, appellant suffered no resulting prejudice. (Evid. Code, § 354; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 881.) The jury heard the testimony by appellant concerning the claimed steering lock-up, but her credibility was put in serious question because she never told the officers at the scene investigating the accident that the failure of the car's steering had caused her to lose control and the evidence supported a conclusion by the jury that appellant had lied about who was driving, how much alcohol she had had to drink before the accident, her speed at the time of the accident, and the use of safety restraints on the children. The evidence also supported a conclusion that appellant enlisted the help of Gumb and Stephanie Jackson to attempt to sell a false story to the jury. On the other hand, there was nothing to undermine or impeach
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.
|
|