37 Cal. App. 5th 270
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- 13-year-old Jonathan Hernandez was struck and killed by a First Student school bus driven by Barbara Calderon after he rode his bicycle off the sidewalk into the street at a Glendale roundabout. Jury found Jonathan 80% at fault and awarded $250,000 (reduced for comparative fault).
- Calderon had prescription medications in her system (tramadol, alprazolam, oxazepam, temazepam); a certified Drug Recognition Expert concluded impairment from tests, while an ER doctor found no impairment. Calderon had inconsistent memory about medications and naps that day.
- Trial was bifurcated (liability and damages). Liability evidence included conflicting expert testimony about impairment and accident reconstruction. Damages evidence included parents’ relationship with Jonathan and the mother’s history of methamphetamine use and incarcerations.
- Appellants (Jonathan’s parents) moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct, evidentiary/instructional errors, and attorney misconduct; the trial court denied the motion in a detailed written ruling.
- On appeal, the court found appellants forfeited most issues for inadequate briefing/record citation; it reviewed a subset of claims (admission of mother's meth use at damages phase; qualification of a retired officer as expert; limit of 10 photos; bicycle-operation jury instructions; alleged personal attacks and in limine violations by defense counsel; alleged perjury) and rejected them, affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| New trial denial based on juror/attorney misconduct and court rulings | Trial court abused discretion; misconduct and errors warranted new trial | Trial court properly evaluated declarations, admissibility, credibility; no prejudicial misconduct shown | Forfeited for inadequate briefing; in any event no reversible error shown |
| Admission of mother’s crystal meth use at damages phase | Meth use was highly prejudicial and irrelevant to damages | Use was relevant to quality/character of parent-child relationship; limiting instruction given | Admission was within court’s discretion; not an abuse under Evid. Code §352 |
| Qualification of retired officer (Charles Smith) as expert | Smith lacked medical training, DRE certification, and sufficient foundation | Smith had 25 years police/DUI/DRE experience, teaching and certification history; applied national standards | Trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying Smith as an expert |
| Limiting plaintiffs to 10 photos of decedent | Limit unfairly suggested poor parental care and prejudiced damages | Number was within trial court discretion; plaintiffs could present representative photos | No abuse of discretion shown |
| Jury instruction re: bicycle operation/business district | Instruction ambiguous and unsupported without zoning expert; applicability disputed | Officer testified >70% multi-unit residences within 600 feet; evidence supported instruction | Instruction proper; court did not err |
| Defense counsel misconduct (personal attacks, in limine violations, arguing matters not in evidence, suborning perjury) | Counsel engaged in personal attacks, violated in limine rulings, argued unsupported facts, allowed perjury — prejudicial | Many complaints were unobjected to at trial (forfeited); challenged remarks not incurably prejudicial; no evidence counsel knew of perjury | Most claims forfeited for lack of timely objection or inadequate briefing; remaining claims found non-prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Nazari v. Ayrapetyan, 171 Cal.App.4th 690 (appellate briefing must provide precise record citations to permit review)
- Hearn v. Howard, 177 Cal.App.4th 1193 (party must make cognizable argument showing abuse of discretion in denying new trial)
- Barboni v. Tuomi, 210 Cal.App.4th 340 (three-step analysis for juror-misconduct new-trial motions)
- Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (standard for prejudice from attorney misconduct in civil trial)
- People v. Bolin, 18 Cal.4th 297 (trial court’s expert-qualification decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Mann v. Cracchiolo, 38 Cal.3d 18 (no rigid rule for expert qualification; weight vs admissibility)