People v. Aznavoleh
210 Cal. App. 4th 1181
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant drove a minivan at high speed through a red light, colliding with another vehicle and injuring its occupant; two passengers in appellant’s vehicle suffered injuries; police and witnesses described racing behavior and failure to slow or brake; expert and lay testimony supported that speeding and racing contributed to the collision; trial court instructed the jury with a version of CALJIC 9.00 and added a misinstruction requiring knowledge of injury; verdict: two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of reckless driving causing injury; appellant challenges sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the appellate court affirms, finding sufficiency, harmless error, and no prejudice from asserted evidentiary errors; Williams governs assault liability without requiring intent to injure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon | Appellant argues racing through red light shows recklessness, not intent to cause injury | Contrary evidence indicates attempt to avoid collision; cannot prove assault | Sufficient evidence supports assault convictions based on foreseeability of injury |
| Harmless error from misinstruction on assault elements | Instructing must require knowledge of injury risk | Error was harmless and favored appellant | Misinstruction not prejudicial; harmless error |
| Admissibility of street racing evidence under 352 | Evidence irrelevant and prejudicial, should be excluded | Evidence relevant to establish intentional racing and foreseeability | No prejudice; admission proper given probative value and context |
| Ineffective assistance regarding objections to evidence | Counsel failed to object; prejudice presumed | No reasonable probability of different outcome even with objections | No ineffective assistance demonstrated; no prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001) (assault requires general criminal intent; knowledge of facts to foresee direct consequence)
- People v. Silva, 25 Cal.4th 345 (Cal. 2001) (standard for sufficiency review; defer to jury credibility determinations)
- People v. Boyer, 38 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2006) (reversals require substantial evidence lacking; presume facts in support)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2008) (sufficiency review; corroborates substantial evidence standard)
- People v. Bolin, 18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Cotton, 113 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. App. 1980) (discusses intent to commit battery in earlier assault cases; later overruled by Williams)
- People v. Jones, 123 Cal.App.3d 83 (Cal. App. 1981) (prior approach requiring intent to commit battery for assault with deadly weapon)
- People v. Wright, 100 Cal.App.4th 703 (Cal. App. 2002) (implements Williams; discusses CALJIC 9.00 refinement)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (bound to Williams interpretation of assault liability)
- Lathus, 35 Cal.App.3d 466 (Cal. App. 1973) (comparison of shooting into stalled car; historical context cited in Williams)