People v. Bipialaka
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Bipialaka, after using methamphetamine and wearing a makeshift mask, led police on a high‑speed chase and drove through a red light toward another car to “freak them out.”
- He accelerated at the occupied vehicle without braking; the targeted driver stopped and Bipialaka swerved at the last moment, narrowly avoiding a collision; victims were frightened and shaken.
- Bipialaka was convicted by a jury of assault on a police officer, reckless fleeing, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (the car) against the occupants of the targeted car; he appeals only the two deadly‑weapon assault convictions.
- Bipialaka also moved under Pitchess for deputy personnel records (one in camera review yielded no disclosable material; a second motion was denied without an in camera review); he challenged those rulings on appeal.
- Parties agreed and the court found clerical errors in the abstract of judgment (presentence credits and restitution fine amounts) that required correction; defendant sought remand under SB 1393 to allow the trial court discretion to strike a prior serious‑felony enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon | People: vehicle can be a deadly weapon and facts show assault under People v. Williams | Bipialaka: driving through a red light did not probably and directly result in application of force; he lacked intent to injure and merely swerved to avoid collision | Affirmed: Under Williams, substantial evidence supports assault; defendant acted with purpose to frighten and threat was imminent |
| Applicability of Williams imminence test | People: Williams governs and focuses on defendant's knowledge and immediacy of threat | Bipialaka: relies on pre‑Williams authority and argues threat not imminent/was reckless rather than purposeful | Court applies Williams, finds this case clearer than Williams (no ambiguity about imminence) and upholds convictions |
| Pitchess discovery (first in camera review) | Bipialaka: sought deputy records re fabrication/false reports | People: no objection to appellate review; trial court performed proper sealed in camera review and found no discoverable material | Affirmed: trial court followed Pitchess procedures and did not abuse discretion |
| Pitchess discovery (second motion re two deputies) | Bipialaka: alleged deputies fabricated testimony about donuts and waving object, asserting good cause | People: motion failed to propose a defense or show relevancy to charged counts | Affirmed: motion did not show good cause or logical link to charges; denial without in camera review was not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (clarified mental state test for assault; whether act would directly, naturally, and probably result in application of force)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (vehicle‑as‑deadly‑weapon cases listed as context)
- People v. Wolcott, 34 Cal.3d 92 (pre‑Williams authority on assault and related intent issues)
- People v. Ervine, 47 Cal.4th 745 (discussion of jury instruction language; cited but not treated as overruling Williams)
- People v. Mortensen, 210 Cal.App.2d 575 (early authority recognizing automobiles as deadly weapons)
- People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206 (historical discussion of assault/assault with a deadly weapon jurisprudence)
Disposition: Judgment affirmed in all other respects; remanded for resentencing to permit trial court discretion under SB 1393 and to correct abstract of judgment (credit calculation and restitution fine amounts).