 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Spaccarotella5/30/2002
Donald Spaccarotella was convicted by a jury of two felony counts of committing an unlawful act resulting in great bodily injury to another person, while driving under the influence of alcohol and while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher. On appeal, he argues (1) there was no substantial evidence to support his convictions, and (2) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the theory that defendant had the right-of-way in making a left turn and therefore did not commit an unlawful act.
We affirm because there was substantial evidence from which the jury could determine defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and because defendant waived the reading of the jury instruction in question. In any event, the evidence did not support the instruction.
FACTS
On February 20, 1999, at approximately 1:20 a.m., Lisa Liltz and defendant were involved in a serious automobile accident at the intersection of Slater Avenue and Goldenwest Street in Huntington Beach. Liltz was driving eastbound on Slater; defendant was traveling westbound on Slater and preparing to make a left turn onto southbound Goldenwest. Their cars collided in the intersection. Liltz suffered great bodily harm in the accident.
Defendant was charged in a two-count information with felony violations of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) (driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and doing an act forbidden by law or neglecting any duty, which proximately causes bodily injury to another person) and section 23153, subdivision (b) (driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher and doing an act forbidden by law or neglecting any duty, which proximately causes bodily injury to another person). The unlawful act alleged in both counts was failing to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn. (Veh. Code, § 21801, subd. (a).)
It is undisputed there was substantial evidence that (1) defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages and his blood alcohol level was 0.08 percent or higher at the time of the accident, and (2) Liltz suffered serious bodily injuries. The only disputed issue is who caused the accident - defendant or Liltz.
The People offered the testimony of Liltz and a witness to the crash. Both testified Liltz was lawfully in the intersection and defendant turned left into her car. The investigating officer testified that at the accident scene, defendant stated he had turned left and struck Liltz's car.
Defendant testified, to the contrary, his car had remained within the imaginary lines of the left-turn pocket and Liltz had crashed into him. The auto body specialist who repaired defendant's car testified the accident could not have been caused by defendant turning left into Liltz's car, but rather Liltz must have veered into defendant's lane, striking his car. Based on the testimony of others as to the location of the impact, the resting place of the vehicles, and the pattern of debris from the accident, defendant's expert witness on accident reconstruction opined Liltz was traveling between 48 and 59 miles per hour at the time of the accident, while defendant was traveling between 13 and 17 miles per hour. The expert had not seen any evidence that the accident occurred as the People contended and in his opinion the police investigation of the accident scene was substandard.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We must examine the entire record to determine whe
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|