People v. Ortiz
| Decision Date | 23 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A095534.,A095534. |
| Citation | 109 Cal.App.4th 104,134 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eligio ORTIZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Counsel for Respondent.
On the morning of September 29, 2000, Anthony Pilton, his wife Nicole, and their two sons—Adam and Steven—were traveling south on Highway 29, near Napa, in their rented Ford Taurus. The Pilton family was visiting California from their home in New Zealand. Anthony drove, Nicole occupied the front passenger's seat, and the boys sat together in the back. About a fifth of a mile south of the entrance to Bothe State Park, the Piltons' car was struck by a 1972 Ford flatbed truck that, traveling at high speed, had crossed the double-yellow center line dividing the highway and crashed head-on into them. Defendant owned and was at the wheel of the Ford truck. Anthony and Adam Pilton were killed outright in the collision; Nicole and Steven were injured, both seriously.
In the ensuing accident investigation, California Highway Patrol officers determined defendant's truck was mechanically sound at the time of the collision and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour. Defendant, the investigating officers determined, was about 350 feet from the collision site when he pulled out to pass a Toyota 4-Runner, crossing a double-yellow line. He had a full view of oncoming traffic when he attempted to pass the Toyota, and was traveling at approximately 65 miles an hour. Given the road terrain and highway visibility, a prosecution expert testified, defendant's driving was "extremely dangerous."
Others who had witnessed the collision testified at defendant's trial for second degree murder. Gregory Remesal, traveling northbound on Highway 29 that morning, saw a white Ford truck stop in the southbound lane, execute a U-turn and accelerate quickly into the northbound lane. Traveling at an estimated speed of 55 miles an hour, the driver, according to Remesal, drove very close to the rear of a small car and then "slam[med] on the brakes." Following the truck, Remesal observed it tailgating the car in front "aggressively," driving as if to overtake it but unable to do so because of oncoming traffic. The driver of the white truck was "very reckless," according to Remesal, and "extremely dangerous." Remesal estimated the truck's speed as at least 80 miles an hour when it overtook the small car. As he rounded a curve in the highway, Remesal saw the collision scene. He also saw defendant leaving his truck and then begin running to the road shoulder.
At about the same time, Christina Palma and her passenger, Karen Campbell, were proceeding north on Highway 29 in Palma's 1987 Mazda station wagon. Palma noticed a white Ford truck close behind her. Frightened, she accelerated to put some distance between them. Three times the truck attempted to overtake her, dropping back each time because of oncoming traffic in the southbound lane. Eventually, crossing a double-yellow line, the Ford truck passed Ms. Palma's car, "flying around those curves." Ms. Campbell, Ms Palma's passenger, testified she saw the white truck pull off the side of the road, execute a U-turn and pull quickly in behind Palma's car, cutting off a white van. She observed dust flying behind the truck's tires and characterized the driver as "fast and irresponsible," as well as reckless and dangerous. Defendant pulled to within "a foot" of Ms. Palma's vehicle, frightening both women. As defendant's truck passed them, Ms. Campbell testified, it was traveling somewhere between 50 and 80 miles an hour, close to the center line.
Jane and Charles Mack were riding in their green Toyota 4-Runner that morning when they were passed "very dangerously" over a double-yellow center line by a compact silver or blue automobile. The occupants of that car, Ms. Mack testified, a woman and two men, were laughing. At that point, a white truck "came right up on [her] tail," traveling at about 50 miles an hour and very close to the center line, "looking as if it wanted to pass...." As the white truck accelerated around her vehicle, crossing the double-yellow center line, Mack saw the green Taurus some 20 feet north of her, its driver's face wearing an expression of "absolute terror." Ms. Mack watched as the truck and the green Taurus collided in the southbound lane. From the first time she saw the Taurus, she said, the white truck made no attempt to pull back into the northbound land; she thought he could have successfully taken evasive action but the driver "just kept giving it more gas."
George Basuto, seventeen years old at the time of trial, was a passenger in a car driven by Deborah Ortiz—his cousin and defendant's estranged wife—that morning. As they proceeded north, he heard Deborah say they had just passed her husband's truck, heading south. Deborah accelerated from 50 to 60 miles an hour. As Basuto looked back, he saw defendant behind them, traveling about 70 miles an hour and attempting to pass an SUV (sport utility vehicle). He did not see the Taurus until it collided with defendant's truck as he tried to swerve back into the light lane. When defendant tried to overtake the SUV, Basuto testified, he made no attempt to pull back in the northbound lane.
Jesus Robledo, also a passenger in Deborah Ortiz's car, remembered turning around to look back and seeing a truck that had been traveling south, slam on its brakes and make a U-turn. He told police at the accident scene that the white truck was passing other vehicles at "at least 80, 85." He thought the truck's passing was unsafe, crossing double-yellow lines and going over into oncoming traffic. Deborah Ortiz testified her husband was following her car in his truck and that she witnessed the collision with the Piltons. She observed defendant's truck cross the doubleyellow center line and considered his driving dangerous.
Highway Patrol Officer Jeff Dunlap was present at the hospital when defendant was admitted and his injuries treated. It was stipulated that at the time Dunlap examined him, defendant was not under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance. Gerald Rico, a Highway Patrol officer, was also present at the hospital. He heard defendant talking on the telephone from his bed. Speaking in English, defendant told someone on the telephone that he was going to jail, that he killed some people, had been driving about a hundred miles an hour, and had slowed down to about 60 or 70 miles an hour because of a slower car in front of him.
At trial, evidence of prior traffic incidents involving defendant also was introduced by the prosecution. On November 11, 1989, defendant was arrested in St. Helena for driving under the influence of alcohol after having registered a .20 percent and .19 percent blood-alcohol level; police officers had observed his car drifting over both the center line and shoulder of the road. He was convicted of the offense in 1991. Mike Elias testified that on October 25, 1990, he was driving a truck through a green light at an intersection in Long Beach when a vehicle, with defendant at the wheel, entered the intersection and collided with his car. Officer Michael Hillhouse of the Los Angeles Police Department testified that on October 25, 1990, he responded to a traffic accident involving a Buick LeSabre driven by defendant and a pickup truck driven by Elias. Defendant smelled of alcohol, Hillhouse testified, and appeared intoxicated. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was later convicted of that offense.
Robert Vandermeer testified that on March 6, 1991, he was working as a plainclothes police officer for the city of Long Beach when he was required to swerve to avoid a collision with a white Volkswagen. Following the vehicle, Vandermeer radioed for assistance. When the Volkswagen was pulled over, Vandermeer believed the driver—defendant—was drunk and arrested him. A custodian of records for the Long Beach Police Department testified that on March 6, 1991, defendant was arrested and subsequently convicted for driving with a blood-alcohol level above .08 percent. Anthony Farrar, a California Highway Patrol officer, testified that in 1993, he issued a traffic citation to defendant.
Nancy Merha testified that on April 12, 2000, she heard the screeching of tires and saw defendant driving a yellow Camaro in a fast, dangerous, and reckless manner. Christopher Hartley, a police officer, testified that around 8:00 a.m. on April 12, 2000, he responded to Ms. Merha's phone call about a yellow Camaro. When he questioned defendant about his driving, defendant did not appear to appreciate the danger of his behavior.
Ryan Aimer testified that on June 14, 2000, he and defendant were driving their vehicles to a job site, with Aimer in front and defendant following. At one point, Aimer testified, defendant crossed over the double-yellow center line, into the opposite lane, and passed Aimer's vehicle. There were no cars in the opposite lane "for a great distance," but had there been, Aimer testified, defendant's driving could have been dangerous. Juan Hernandez testified that he had worked with defendant as part of a program in which drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol receive counseling. Defendant began the program in May 1998 and completed it in February 2000.
After receiving instructions from the trial court, the jury retired to deliberate and returned with a verdict of guilty. This appeal is timely.
The legal principles underlying the only real issue before u...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
... ... (See People v. Pijal (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.) The evidence was thus quite material to the issues before the jury. (See People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 510-511; People v. Ortiz (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 113-116; People v. Brown, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395; People v. Evers (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 588, 598-599; People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 888, 894.) ... B. The Similarity of the Subsequent Misconduct ... We further ... ...
-
People v. Staden, A111629 (Cal. App. 2/7/2008)
...evidence was thus quite material to the issues before the jury. (See People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 510-511; People v. Ortiz (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 113-116; People v. Brown, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395; People v. Evers (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 588, 598-599; People v. Key (19......
-
People v. Hendrix
...166, 548 P.2d 366; Schader, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 773, fn. 6, 80 Cal.Rptr. 1, 457 P.2d 841; see also People v. Ortiz (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 111, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 ( Ortiz ).) Evidence of other crimes is admissible, however, when relevant for a non-character purpose—that is, when it ......
-
People v. Walker
...of the charged offenses. (Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 405, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757; see also People v. Ortiz (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 118, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 ["defendant had been punished — via convictions — for the prior bad introduced before the jury, a circumstance courts......
-
Character and habit
...was also cumulative, since the knowledge purportedly gained from the earlier encounters is common knowledge. People v. Ortiz (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 104, 115-116, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467. In a vehicular manslaughter case not involving intoxication, evidence of defendant’s prior drunk driving......
-
Table of Cases null
...337 (2d Dist. 2019)—Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(d); §2.3; C, §2.1.3(1)(b); §2.2.3(3); §4.1.2; §4.2.2(1); §6.1; D, §2.2.2(2) People v. Ortiz, 109 Cal. App. 4th 104, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467 (1st Dist. 2003)—Ch. 4-A, §1.3.1(1)(c); §4.1.4(2)(d).3 People v. Ortiz, 38 Cal. App. 4th 377, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 914......
-
Chapter 4 - §4. Character evidence of other acts offered for nonpropensity purposes
...vehicle, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant's earlier conviction for drunk driving. People v. Ortiz (1st Dist.2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 110-11. The purpose of the evidence was to establish that the drunk-driving conviction made the defendant aware of the extreme danger of......
-
Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
...from the charged offense. See People v. Merchant (4th Dist.2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1179, 1191-92; People v. Ortiz (1st Dist.2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 104, 110; People v. Johnson (3d Dist.2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 412. If an adequate foundation is established demonstrating that the witness has pers......