People v. Moroyoqui
| Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | F079573 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT CHRISTOPHER MOROYOQUI, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. No BF169110A John D. Oglesby, Judge.
Tracy A. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Nikta Allami, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Vincent Christopher Moroyoqui (defendant) killed a mother and daughter in a head-on vehicle collision on a rural highway. Defendant had consumed four beers and some whiskey before driving. He registered a blood-alcohol content more than three times the legal limit after the collision, and the prosecutor's expert opined defendant drove 99 mph immediately preceding the crash.
The People charged defendant with two counts of second degree murder and two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. A jury convicted defendant on all counts.
Defendant's appeal raises evidentiary and instructional claims and also challenges the fines, fees, and assessments the trial court imposed at sentencing. He argues the trial court erred when it admitted evidence he had received two prior speeding tickets. He contends further error arose when the trial court failed to provide a limiting instruction sua sponte on evidence relating to defendant's prior driving under the influence (DUI) charges pursuant to CALCRIM No. 375. Finally defendant claims the imposition of the fines, fees, and assessments violated his constitutional rights to due process.
We disagree with defendant's contentions and affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant worked as a relief operator on an oil rig in Lost Hills. After work on July 20, 2017, defendant's coworker drove defendant to his truck parked at a Shell station. When they arrived, they purchased whiskey and two types of beer. While in the truck, defendant drank four bottles of beer and took a couple swigs of whiskey.
Defendant spent roughly 30 minutes in his coworker's truck drinking and talking about work. He then received a call from his wife notifying him a birthday gift arrived in the mail for his daughter. Defendant left in his truck and drove eastbound on Taft Highway (State Route 119) so he could wrap the gift before his wife and daughter arrived home. He took one bottle of beer and the whiskey with him.
While on the highway, defendant passed several vehicles and was speeding. Other drivers on the road noticed defendant driving erratically. One witness, Jose Corona, observed defendant tailgating his car so closely he could see the grill of defendant's truck but not the bumper. Another driver, Anthony Banks, saw defendant pass cars with very little room to pass. Defendant's truck passed Corona's vehicle and cut in front of him to the point Corona needed to apply his brakes to avoid hitting defendant. Corona called 911 to report defendant's driving.
Defendant, who was traveling east, entered the westbound lane at a high rate of speed to attempt another pass. A Ford Focus was traveling westbound at the time. Both cars swerved into the north dirt shoulder and collided head-on.
Corona and Banks pulled over to render aid to the passengers of the Ford Focus. Corona yelled into the car to check if either passenger was okay but did not receive a response. Banks checked the driver for a pulse and found none. He detected a slight pulse from the passenger. The passenger squeezed Banks's hand when he asked her to, but ultimately, she let go.
Corona observed defendant sitting in his truck for about five minutes. Eventually, defendant walked over to the passenger side of the Ford Focus and attempted to open the door. Corona yelled at defendant to go back to his truck, but defendant stayed near the Ford making a rocking motion. At some point, defendant returned to his truck and drank the beer and remaining whiskey located in his vehicle. Corona noticed an empty beer bottle near the driver's side door.
When first responders arrived, they detected no pulse or respiration from either of the passengers in the Ford Focus. The coroner identified the passengers as Raeleen and Regan Sorenson.
Officer Nathan Petty spoke with defendant at the scene. He noticed defendant appeared lethargic and struggled to maintain his balance. He detected the smell of alcohol coming from defendant's breath within five seconds of contacting him. When Officer Petty asked defendant what he had been drinking, defendant replied, " " Defendant admitted to Officer Petty-after hesitating- that he drank alcohol after the crash. He told Officer Petty that he was "pretty fucked up" and he was "done" in response to other questions. Officer Petty placed defendant under arrest for driving under the influence.
Defendant submitted to a blood test at Kern Medical Center. A criminalist examined defendant's blood and determined a blood-alcohol content of 0.264. The criminalist further estimated that, while driving, defendant's blood-alcohol content ranged from 0.285 to 0.318. This equates to between 8.5 and 13.7 standard drinks.
An accident reconstruction expert with the California Highway Patrol examined data from the crash. Data from defendant's truck indicated he was traveling 86 mph five seconds prior to the crash and 60 mph one second before the crash. However, based on the oversized tires on defendant's truck, the expert estimated defendant's true over-the-ground speed was 99 mph five seconds before the crash and 66 mph one second before the crash.
An information charged defendant with two counts of second degree murder pursuant to Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). Defendant was also charged with two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated pursuant to section 191.5, subdivision (a). With respect to the gross vehicular manslaughter counts (§ 191.5, subd. (d)), the information further alleged defendant received two prior DUI-qualifying convictions within 10 years of the accident.
In addition to testimony from eyewitnesses, law enforcement, accident reconstruction specialists, and the criminalist who examined defendant's blood, the prosecution presented evidence of defendant's participation in the "Special Treatment Education and Prevention Services" (STEPS) program. STEPS primarily provides services for persons convicted of driving under the influence.
Additionally, on cross-examination, the prosecution introduced evidence of defendant's three prior DUI convictions. The People also introduced evidence defendant received two prior speeding citations-one of which occurred near the area of the accident.
A jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found all special allegations true. On June 25, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life with respect to each murder count (counts 1 and 2), for a total indeterminate term of 30 years to life. Defendant's sentences for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (counts 3 and 4) were stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The trial court also imposed (1) four court operations assessments in the amount of $40 each; (2) three conviction assessments in the amount of $30 each pursuant to Government Code section 70373; (3) a $300 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b); and (4) a $300 parole revocation fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.
Defendant timely noticed his appeal on July 2, 2019.
Defendant first challenges the admission of his two prior speeding tickets into evidence. He primarily argues Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) precluded their admission. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.) In the alternative, defendant asserts section 352 required exclusion of the speeding tickets. Finally, defendant claims admission of this evidence violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.
The People counter defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object at trial, and even if he did not, the trial court properly admitted this evidence. The People further argue any error in admitting the evidence was harmless.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting the challenged evidence.
Prior to trial, the prosecution moved in limine to admit two speeding tickets defendant received in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The motion argued the citations were admissible under section 1101, subdivision (b) to prove defendant's knowledge because the tickets "tend[ed] to establish [defendant's] subjective awareness" of the dangers posed by recklessly operating his truck.
At the hearing on the motion, the court indicated it was "flinching" about admitting the evidence. The prosecution argued the prior tickets supported a showing of implied malice necessary to convict on the murder charge. Defense counsel countered by classifying the evidence as "character evidence" and argued the speeding tickets "would be highly prejudicial under [section] 352." In response, the prosecution clarified the two bases upon which it sought admission of the tickets were (1) knowledge and (2) absence of mistake pursuant to section 1101, subdivision (b).
After argument, the trial court stated the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial