People v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | B306773 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Davion Demetrious MURPHY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stephen M. Vasil, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David Williams, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Davion Demetrious Murphy appeals from the judgment entered on his three convictions for second degree murder. ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).).1 Murphy argues the evidence supporting his convictions is insufficient because the prosecution failed to prove he acted with implied malice when, while under the influence of marijuana, he drove his car at nearly 90 miles per hour through a red light and collided with another vehicle, killing its occupants.
We conclude sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict. Although there is not yet a commonly administered and standardized medical test equivalent to the blood alcohol concentration test that accurately determines a person's level of impairment from lipophilic, psychoactive drugs such as marijuana, there was substantial evidence that at the time of the accident Murphy was impaired from using marijuana. There was also substantial evidence that Murphy acted with implied malice both when he smoked marijuana with the intent to drive, and when he drove in a manner that demonstrated a conscious disregard for human life.
Murphy also asserts the abstract of judgment contains an error. Only Murphy's complaint regarding the abstract of judgment has merit. Accordingly, we affirm and direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.
On the morning of January 11, 2018, Murphy (then 19 years old) was at his home in Lancaster with his cousin, Anthony Brown, and two friends, Derick James and Nicholas Clayton. The four smoked marijuana, ate breakfast and "rapped for a little bit." Murphy then drove Brown, James and Clayton to the Eastside Car Wash & Quick Lube to get the oil changed in Murphy's silver Lexus.
The surveillance video from the car wash recorded the four men arriving in Murphy's car at 10:39 a.m.2 When Murphy rolled down the driver's window to speak with the oil change technician, the technician saw smoke coming out of the window and smelled a "strong" odor of marijuana. The smoke and odor emanating from the car caused the technician to back away from the vehicle and rub his eyes.
After Murphy and his companions left the car with the technician, they walked to a courtyard adjacent to the car wash office and waited for the car during the oil change. According to Brown, while waiting they smoked more marijuana.3 Eventually the car wash manager asked them to stop smoking marijuana near the door of the car wash office. By then, Brown said he was "feeling woozy" from "the same weed that everyone was smoking." As they walked to get the car, Murphy embraced one Eastside Car Wash employee and then fist bumped another4 before getting into his Lexus. The surveillance video showed Murphy driving out of the car wash at 11:27 a.m.
Shortly after leaving the car wash the group stopped at a gas station, then drove through a residential neighborhood of Lancaster, traveling east on Avenue J-8, as they headed back to Murphy's house. At approximately 12:00 p.m., when they were about a mile from Murphy's home, Murphy's car ran a red light at the intersection of Avenue J-8 and Challenger Way. Although the posted speed limit was 40 miles per hour, Murphy's car was traveling approximately 88 miles per hour through the intersection.
As Murphy approached the intersection, Tinei Delatorre was stopped at the same intersection in the middle lane of Challenger Way waiting for the signal light in her direction to turn from red to green. To her right, a blue Subaru was waiting at the signal light in the lane closest to the curb. After the signal on Challenger Way turned green, and before Delatorre began to drive into the intersection, Delatorre saw Murphy's silver Lexus "flying from" her left, driving east on Avenue J-8 at "freeway speed." Delatorre said Murphy did not honk his horn to provide a warning of his approach. It appeared to Delatorre that Murphy had "no intention of stopping" at the red light. The blue Subaru in the lane to Delatorre's right had already driven into the middle of the intersection when Murphy's car ran the red light.
Murphy's Lexus broadsided the driver's side of the Subaru. Yovanny Salazar Calzada was driving the Subaru, his wife Rocio Lopez, was in the front passenger seat and his grandmother, Virginia Martinez, sat in the backseat. Calzada, Lopez and Martinez died from multiple blunt force traumatic injuries. Neither Murphy nor his passengers were seriously injured in the accident.5
Rochelle Roberts was in her car on Challenger Way near the intersection of Avenue J-8 at the time of the accident. She described the crash, stating it did not appear Murphy's car intended to stop at the red light. Roberts estimated Murphy's car sped through the intersection at over 80 miles per hour. Crystal Aunchman was also an eyewitness; she was in her car, waiting at the signal at the intersection of Challenger Way and Avenue J-8 when the accident occurred. She noticed the occupants inside the Lexus were "laughing and having a good time" just before the crash.6
At noon on January 11, 2018, Jose Ruiz, who lived on the southeast corner of the intersection of Avenue J-8 and Challenger Way, was in his garage when he heard an explosion. He did not hear any car horns or brakes screeching before the collision.
After the accident, Murphy admitted to four different police officers and a paramedic that he had been driving the silver Lexus at the time of the crash.
Murphy thought he had been driving south on Challenger Way (not Avenue J-8). As he approached the intersection with Avenue J-8, he saw the traffic light turn red and knew he could not stop in time but claimed he honked his horn while braking as he approached the intersection.
During the investigation officers found three marijuana "canisters" in the Lexus, two of which were empty. The investigators found no skid marks to suggest Murphy tried to brake before the collision.
On April 8, 2019, Murphy was charged with three counts of second degree murder. ( § 187, subd. (a).)7
At trial the prosecution presented testimony from witnesses who described the events from the morning of January 11, 2018, through the time of the crash; the witnesses included Brown,8 the oil change technician and the eyewitnesses to the collision. The prosecution presented evidence that Murphy had received multiple warnings about the dangers of driving while under the influence of controlled substances. Approximately three and a half years earlier, in September 2014, Murphy attended a multi-day educational program for at-risk youth9 during which he learned about instances of fatalities and dangers caused by drivers who drove under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Instructors shared personal stories, including one instructor who described being hit by a drunk driver and another who recounted the details of his wife's accident when an intoxicated driver struck her car. One of the program's purposes was to warn participants about the serious potential consequences of their conduct if they drove under the influence of controlled substances.
In 2016, when Murphy applied for a California driver's license, he acknowledged in the application 10 After the accident, authorities also found a marijuana container in Murphy's Lexus with a warning label advising it was dangerous to drive while under the influence of marijuana.
The prosecution presented several expert witnesses during trial, including Vanessa Meneses, a forensic scientist in the toxicology section at the Orange County crime lab and the prosecution's expert toxicologist. Meneses described the differences between how alcohol and marijuana are metabolized and measured in the human body and the cognitive and physical effects of marijuana on users. She testified about the toxicology results of Murphy's blood test after the accident and opined on several hypothetical scenarios that tracked the case's facts.
Regarding the toxicological differences between marijuana and alcohol, Meneses first explained that alcohol is a hydrophilic substance, which means alcohol is metabolized in water-based systems of the body, including blood. A blood test to measure blood alcohol concentration (commonly known as a BAC) therefore provides an accurate measure of the concentration of alcohol in a person's body at the time of a blood draw and a fairly uniform measure of impairment. Additionally, because the body eliminates alcohol at a constant rate, a toxicologist can use a person's BAC at a given point in time to extrapolate that person's estimated BAC at an earlier point in time.
In contrast, Meneses explained marijuana is a lipophilic drug, meaning it is stored in the body's fatty tissue and organs, including the brain. She stated the effect of lipophilic drugs varies from one person to another but that generally, within 90 minutes after a person smokes marijuana, 90 percent of the marijuana will have left the bloodstream and moved into the brain. Blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Saucedo
...decision to drive while high strongly supports the jury's finding of implied malice. (Bennett, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1038; Murphy, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 727; Johnigan, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at 1091.) Finally, and at greatest length, appellant argues the evidence of his prior driving......
- People v. Diggs
-
People v. Khemphomma
...of implied malice is subjective, requiring that the defendant actually appreciate the risk of his or her actions. (People v. Murphy (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 713, 726; People v. Superior Court (Costa) (2010) Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) People v. Watson is the leading case on vehicular murder on a th......
-
Connolly Ranch, Inc. v. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
...the witnesses' personal observations].) Nor must a witness be designated as an expert to testify to such matters. (See People v. Murphy (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 713, 733 ["Cases allowing lay opinion testimony uniformly that a lay opinion based on a witness's personal observation, including obs......