People v. Chavez
B307951
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- On December 13, 2019, Dylan W. Chavez (appellant) struck Juan Torres, Jr. with a Hyundai, then fled the scene; bystanders detained Chavez and he gave inconsistent/false statements to police.
- Torres suffered an open tibia/fibula fracture; within 12 hours he had surgery with internal fixation and later underwent a second surgery about six months later.
- Nine months after the collision Torres still had an open wound, unhealed bones, ongoing pain, difficulty walking, balancing, sleeping, and had not returned to work.
- Treating orthopedic surgeon Dr. Justin Tilan testified Torres had a delayed union/nonunion, might require additional surgeries, and it was “likely” the injured leg would never be as good as before (and “probably not” as good as the uninjured leg).
- Chavez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that Torres suffered a "permanent, serious injury" under Veh. Code § 20001(b)(2); the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Torres suffered a "permanent, serious injury" (loss or permanent impairment of function) under Veh. Code § 20001(b)(2) | People: Dr. Tilan’s expert opinion plus Torres’s testimony and visible ongoing impairment support a reasonable inference of permanent impairment | Chavez: Expert’s testimony was speculative because it used terms like “likely” and “probably,” which do not meet proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Affirmed — evidence was substantial; probabilistic medical opinion is admissible and not inherently speculative; jury could reasonably find permanent impairment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (establishes substantial-evidence standard of review in criminal appeals)
- People v. Cegers, 7 Cal.App.4th 988 (medical diagnoses stated as probability are admissible and have evidentiary value)
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (duration of an injury can support inference of permanence for disabling injury)
- People v. Wright, 4 Cal.App.5th 537 (expert opinion inadmissible if based on speculation; court must assess reasonable basis for expert’s opinion)
- People v. Thomas, 96 Cal.App.3d 507 (a long-unhealed fracture supports inference of permanency)