People v. Batchelor
229 Cal. App. 4th 1102
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On March 7, 2009 Larry Batchelor drove after drinking with passenger Idalee Mofsie; his vehicle failed to make a sharp curve at high speed, struck a traffic island and a palm tree, and Mofsie died of blunt-force injuries.
- Post‑collision observations and testing: Batchelor appeared intoxicated at the scene; blood drawn about an hour after the crash measured .22% BAC (extrapolated to .13–.24% at the time of driving). Traffic reconstruction estimated impact speed at 50–57 mph where the critical speed to negotiate the curve was ~30–37 mph.
- Mechanical inspection showed brakes were operational (some scoring that could reduce performance ~30%); skid marks suggested no braking before impact.
- Procedural history: First trial—jury convicted Batchelor of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated but hung on murder; second trial—convicted of second‑degree (implied malice) murder and sentenced to 15 years to life (manslaughter term stayed).
- On appeal Batchelor challenged sufficiency of evidence for both offenses, prosecutorial remarks in the first trial, the admission/usage of intoxication/implied‑malice law, and the trial court’s refusal to tell the second jury about the earlier manslaughter conviction (among other claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Batchelor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for gross vehicular manslaughter (first trial) | Evidence (high BAC, excessive speed, traffic violations, prior DUI and education) supports gross negligence and causation | Evidence insufficient to show gross negligence beyond mere DUI/traffic violations | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported gross vehicular manslaughter conviction |
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment in first trial (arguing trial status does not imply weakness) | Remarks were permissible response to defense theme; any error forfeited by failure to object | Remarks improperly commented on right to trial and vouched for case; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Forfeited; ineffective‑assistance claim rejected — tactical reasons plausible; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for implied malice murder (second trial) | Evidence of high BAC, predrinking intent to drive, prior DUI/education, and highly dangerous driving supports implied malice | Evidence insufficient for subjective awareness of risk required for implied malice | Affirmed on sufficiency: evidence supported implied malice but conviction later reversed on instructional error (see next issue) |
| Failure to inform second jury of prior manslaughter conviction / refusal to give manslaughter instruction | The second trial concerned only murder; disclosing prior conviction or instructing on manslaughter would be improper or unnecessary | Jury faced an all‑or‑nothing choice; nondisclosure misled jury into thinking no accountability if not guilty of murder | Reversed murder conviction: trial court erred by not informing jury of prior manslaughter conviction (misleading jury); error was prejudicial and requires reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (1993) (factors supporting gross vehicular manslaughter where defendant, aware of risks, drove highly intoxicated at unsafe speeds and with dangerous maneuvers)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) (implied malice murder may be found where a driver, knowing hazards, drinks to intoxication and drives with conscious disregard for life)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (1998) (limitations on instructing juries on uncharged lesser related offenses; prosecutor’s charging discretion)
- People v. Soojian, 190 Cal.App.4th 491 (2010) (consideration of prior hung jury when evaluating prejudice from instructional error at retrial)
- People v. Lopez, 42 Cal.4th 960 (2007) (strategic reasons may justify defense counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor’s argument)
- People v. Von Staden, 195 Cal.App.3d 1423 (1987) (gross negligence may be found where very high BAC and extreme speeding create substantial risk)
- People v. Bennett, 54 Cal.3d 1032 (1991) (upholding gross negligence where intoxicated defendant wove through traffic, exceeded speed limits, and lost control)
- People v. Moore, 187 Cal.App.4th 937 (2010) (affirming implied malice conviction where defendant drove well above speed limit, crossed into opposing lane, and caused fatal collision)
- People v. Knoller, 41 Cal.4th 139 (2007) (definition and elements of implied malice)
- People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.4th 983 (2001) (distinction between lesser related and lesser included offenses and instruction duties)