People v. McNiece
Decision Date | 30 May 1986 |
Citation | 226 Cal.Rptr. 733,181 Cal.App.3d 1048 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Bryan McNIECE, Defendant and Appellant. F004998. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Eddie T. Keller, Susan Rankin Bunting, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An information charged appellant with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in count I (Pen.Code, § 192, subd. (c)(3)), 1 driving under the influence of alcohol with injury in count II (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and driving with a blood alcohol level of .10 or above causing injury in count III (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (b)).
After a seven-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
Appellant was sentenced to a six-year term on count I and an eight-month consecutive term on count II. The sentence on count III was stayed pursuant to section 654.
On January 21, 1984, appellant, the owner and president of California Gun Specialties, hosted an annual sales meeting at the Lamp Liter Inn in Visalia. A cocktail party and dinner were held. Testimony is conflicting as to the amount of alcohol consumed by appellant. Various people testified that appellant did not appear to be intoxicated.
At approximately 11:30 p.m., appellant left the Lamp Liter Inn; around midnight, appellant traveled on Country Center Drive toward the Caldwell Avenue intersection. The speed limit on Country Center Drive is 30 mph; the speed limit on Caldwell Avenue is 45 mph. The traffic on Caldwell Avenue has the right of way; a stop sign is at the Caldwell intersection. Experts for the prosecution and eyewitnesses testified appellant was traveling at a speed of about 50 to 55 mph; he failed to slow down or stop at the stop sign. When he entered the intersection, appellant, driving a Ford Bronco vehicle, struck a Volkswagen automobile traveling on Caldwell Avenue carrying Karen Wonacott and Russell Bitney. Bitney was seriously injured in the accident; Wonacott was killed.
When Officer Jeff Goodwin of the Visalia Police Department arrived, he saw Bitney and Wonacott lying on the ground away from the vehicle. Although he felt no pulse, Goodwin administered CPR to Wonacott until an ambulance arrived. When Goodwin turned his attention to appellant, he noticed the smell of alcohol and that appellant was unstable in his coordination. Appellant's conduct during a field sobriety test administered by another officer led Goodwin to believe appellant was under the influence of alcohol. A blood test taken about an hour later showed appellant's blood alcohol level to be .155.
Felony vehicular manslaughter is defined in this manner:
The differences in these types of vehicular manslaughter involve only the element of gross negligence and the applicable lengths of imprisonment. The difference in punishment between the two subdivisions of section 192 is impressive. Subdivision (c)(3) involves a penalty of four, six, or eight years in state prison, while the finding of vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence (subd. (c)(4)) supports a prison penalty of only sixteen months, two or four years ( § 193). Appellant argues it was crucial the jury was not instructed clearly that a finding of gross negligence may not be based solely on the fact of driving under the influence of alcohol. Because no such instruction was given, appellant contends he was deprived of a fair trial.
The instructions regarding vehicular manslaughter and gross negligence stated:
No further instructions on the distinctions between ordinary negligence and gross negligence were given. The jury was never informed that the fact appellant was under the influence of alcohol was insufficient in itself to support a finding of gross negligence. The question of whether gross negligence existed was a complicated one and difficult to resolve. The jury was entitled to know what could not be considered on this point. (See People v. Hebert (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 514, 519-520 [ ].)
" (People v. Sheffield (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 158, 163-164, 214 Cal.Rptr. 40.)
Although the general definition of gross negligence was given, a statement made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument could have greatly misled the jury:
No one contested that appellant's use of alcohol was a cause of the accident, but gross negligence deals with much more than intoxication. The People continued and argued further:
Under the circumstances, the definition of gross negligence was improperly presented to the jury. It was not made clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Moore
...has a duty, sua sponte, to instruct the jury correctly on all essential elements of the crimes charged. (People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1057, 226 Cal.Rptr. 733, review den. September 11, 1986, disapproved on other grounds in People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 805, 254 ......
-
People v. Flood
...defendant on the omitted element....' " (People v. Gary (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1217, 235 Cal.Rptr. 30; People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1057, 226 Cal.Rptr. 733, disapproved on other grounds in People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 804-805, 254 Cal.Rptr. 331, 765 P.2d 4......
-
People v. Calhoun
...victims within the meaning of [former] rule 425(a)(4), as each count alleged only a single victim."]; People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1061, 226 Cal.Rptr. 733 (disapproved on another ground in People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 804-805, 254 Cal.Rptr. 331, 765 P.2d 493); ......
-
People v. Mehserle
...died,” and claims the court denied probation solely due to Grant's death. Defendantrelies on the rule stated in People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, 226 Cal.Rptr. 733,21 for the proposition that a sentencing court cannot deny probation based solely on facts inseparable from the cri......
-
Drunk driving offenses
...the intoxication element and the degree of intoxication could not also be used to prove gross negligence ( People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048; People v. Soledad (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 74, 80; People v. Leffel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 575). Other cases had held that intoxication may be......
-
Table of cases
...(2009) 46 Cal.4th 1183, §§9:37.4, 9:37.5, 11:122.2.2 People v. McNeil (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1302, §7:20.33 People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, §§1:31.1, 1:32.1 People v. McNutt (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d Supp. 835, §2:51.2 People v. McSherry (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 598, §§1:15.1, 3:46 Pe......