People v. Campbell
B267280
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Defendant Nathan Campbell drove onto the Venice Beach boardwalk and deliberately struck multiple groups of pedestrians, causing one death and numerous injuries; surveillance and witness testimony showed he accelerated and steered to hit people.
- Campbell turned himself in hours later, admitted he had hit people, and at the station waived Miranda rights and answered some questions (including about drinking); later he invoked his right to silence when homicide detectives arrived.
- At trial Campbell emphasized his cooperation with police after surrendering and argued that his openness showed lack of consciousness of guilt.
- On cross-examination the prosecutor questioned whether Campbell had refused to speak to detectives after invoking counsel; the court allowed limited questioning and gave a limiting instruction after denying a mistrial motion.
- A jury convicted Campbell of second degree murder, multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and ten counts of violating Vehicle Code §20001 (leaving the scene of an accident); the trial court stayed punishment on nine of the ten hit-and-run counts under Penal Code §654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s questioning about post-Miranda silence violated Doyle due process rule | Prosecutor contends the questions were a fair response to defendant’s trial assertions of full cooperation with police | Campbell contends referencing his post-Miranda silence penalized invocation of rights and required mistrial | Court: No Doyle violation — questioning was a fair response to defense evidence of full cooperation; mistrial not required |
| Whether each collision supported a separate count under Vehicle Code §20001 | State: Each distinct collision created a separate opportunity to stop/render aid; each constituted a separate violation | Campbell: All collisions were part of one continuous incident so only one hit-and-run count is supportable | Court: Affirmed 10 convictions — each deliberate collision was a separate accident for §20001 purposes |
| Whether multiple convictions permitted where sentences largely stayed under §654 | State: Multiple convictions valid; §654 governs punishment, not number of convictions | Campbell: Multiple counts unjust because single course of conduct | Court: §654 only prevents multiple punishments; convictions may stand though punishment was stayed on nine counts |
| Whether lenity or case law requires treating sequential collisions as single accident | Campbell invoked lenity and analogies to chain-reaction cases | State relied on cases treating intentional separate acts as separate accidents | Court: Rejected lenity; legislative purpose supports treating separate deliberate strikes as distinct violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-Miranda silence generally cannot be used to impeach defendant)
- Wilkoff v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 345 (1985) (number of times the act is committed determines number of statutory violations)
- People v. Delgado, 181 Cal.App.4th 839 (2010) (prosecutor may fairly question defendant’s post-Miranda silence when defendant claims full cooperation)
- People v. Jimenez, 11 Cal.App.4th 1611 (1992) (intentional collisions are "accidents" for purposes of Vehicle Code §20001)
- People v. Champion, 134 Cal.App.4th 1440 (2005) (post-Miranda silence may be fair response to defendant’s testimony)