P. Doane
A153709
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- On March 27, 2016 Doane lost control of his Ford F-250 on a winding, one-lane stretch of Highway 84, crossing double yellow lines and colliding nearly head-on with Francis Jouaux, who died of internal injuries.
- Doane exited the truck, behaved disoriented (witnesses smelled alcohol), then walked into nearby woods and was not apprehended until the next day; he later sought medical care for severe hand injuries.
- Evidence at trial included witness estimates the truck was traveling well above the advisory/posted speeds, uneven/worn oversized tires, absence of useful vehicle computer data, and a text received by Doane one minute before the first 911 call.
- Jury convicted Doane of gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code §192(c)(1)) with a Vehicle Code fleeing enhancement and of leaving the scene (Veh. Code §20001); trial court imposed an aggregate 11-year sentence.
- On appeal the court found (1) sufficient evidence supported gross negligence; (2) the prosecutor misstated the circumstantial-evidence instruction (CALCRIM No. 224); (3) the trial court’s written answer to a jury question about using post-crash flight to prove gross negligence was legally misleading; and (4) there was no duty to instruct sua sponte on unconsciousness for the leaving-the-scene count.
- Because the prosecutor’s misstatement and the court’s answer were cumulatively prejudicial, the court reversed the felony gross-vehicular-manslaughter conviction (People may retry) but affirmed the leaving-the-scene conviction; if not retried, the felony must be reduced to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter and the fleeing enhancement stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for gross vehicular manslaughter (gross negligence and causation) | Evidence (excessive speed, winding road, worn/oversized tires, alcohol, post-crash conduct) supports gross negligence and proximate causation. | Evidence only supports ordinary negligence; alternative explanations (momentary lapse, tire noncausation, no proof of impairment) make gross negligence unsupported. | Sufficient evidence supported gross negligence and causation; conviction factually supportable. |
| Prosecutor’s explanation of CALCRIM No. 224 (circumstantial evidence / “innocence”) | Prosecutor argued "innocence" means only not guilty of any wrongdoing, not that a reasonable doubt between greater and lesser offenses requires convicting only of the lesser. | Defense argued instruction requires choosing the reasonable conclusion favoring innocence; reasonable doubt between gross and ordinary negligence mandates conviction of lesser. | Prosecutor misstated law: CALCRIM No. 224’s “innocence” encompasses being not guilty of the charged offense such that a reasonable inference favoring only ordinary negligence requires acquittal of the greater charge. Error could be read by jury in an objectionable way. |
| Trial court’s written answer to jury question about using post-crash flight to find gross negligence | Court’s answer (referencing part of CALCRIM No. 372) improperly suggested jurors could use flight for any purpose, possibly to upgrade ordinary negligence to gross negligence. | Court and People argued flight evidence may bear on defendant’s regard for life and can be considered circumstantial evidence of mental state; re-referral to standard instructions was sufficient. | Court erred: jurors asked whether they could convict of gross manslaughter based on post-crash behavior even if pre-crash conduct was only ordinary negligence; answer was misleading by isolating part of the flight instruction and could permit impermissible inference. |
| Duty to instruct sua sponte on unconsciousness as defense to leaving-the-scene (Veh. Code §20001) | Defense contended witnesses’ descriptions and severe hand injury justified an unconsciousness instruction. | People argued the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt about consciousness; defendant was purposive and communicative after crash. | No duty to instruct: insufficient substantial evidence of unconsciousness (no expert, no self-report, some purposeful conduct); any omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1993) (gross negligence analysis — consider defendant’s actual awareness and objective standard)
- People v. Bennett, 54 Cal.3d 1032 (Cal. 1991) (definition of gross negligence as conscious indifference)
- People v. Nicolaus, 54 Cal.3d 551 (Cal. 1991) (flight instruction speaks to consciousness of some wrongdoing and is not equivalent to a confession)
- People v. Loker, 44 Cal.4th 691 (Cal. 2008) (limits on inferences from flight instruction when mental state is disputed)
- People v. Dewberry, 51 Cal.2d 548 (Cal. 1959) (when evidence supports both greater and lesser offenses, jury must convict only of lesser if reasonable doubt exists)
- People v. Daveggio & Michaud, 4 Cal.5th 790 (Cal. 2018) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and federal due process review)
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (Cal. 1999) ("reasonable likelihood" test for juror interpretation of prosecutor remarks)
- People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379 (Cal. 2007) (unconsciousness as complete defense; burden to produce evidence)
- People v. James, 238 Cal.App.4th 794 (Cal. Ct. App.) (unconsciousness instruction warranted where ample evidence and expert testimony supported it)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state-law prejudice standard for reversible error)