People v. Elder
11 Cal. App. 5th 123
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Stuart Elder drove after drinking, reached ~70+ mph on a narrow 25 mph road, crossed into the opposing lane and collided head‑on; two occupants of the other car died and a passenger in Elder’s car was injured. Elder’s post‑collision blood test showed BAC 0.17%.
- A jury convicted Elder of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code § 191.5(a)), driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code § 23153(a)), and driving with BAC ≥ 0.08% causing injury (Veh. Code § 23153(b)); enhancements for great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 12022.7(a)) and multiple victims (Veh. Code § 23558) were found true.
- Before trial Elder moved to suppress the blood test on Fourth Amendment grounds (he argued the draw was nonconsensual); the court found he signed a consent form before the draw and denied suppression.
- Elder sought California Highway Patrol collision records for the intersection for the prior seven years; the court denied the motion to compel discovery as not exculpatory.
- The parties stipulated to the victim driver’s BAC (0.07%) rather than litigate conflicting postmortem results; Elder requested a civil negligence instruction (CACI No. 411) and other causation clarifications which the court declined. At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms including three § 12022.7 enhancements and a consecutive two‑year Veh. Code § 23558 enhancement. The Court of Appeal reversed only as to the § 23558 enhancement and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of blood test | Prosecution: Elder signed consent at hospital; consent exception to warrant requirement applies. | Elder: Blood draw was effectively nonconsensual; McNeely line requires warrant absent exigency. | Trial court findings that Elder consented were supported by substantial evidence; denial of suppression upheld. |
| Discovery of other collisions at location | Prosecution: Records not exculpatory under Penal Code § 1054.1 and irrelevant to gross negligence/causation. | Elder: Prior collisions would undermine gross negligence finding and support intervening causation defense; thus exculpatory. | Denial of discovery was not an abuse of discretion; even if error, it was harmless given overwhelming evidence. |
| Admission of victim’s BAC evidence | Prosecution: sought exclusion of specific BAC level; court indicated concern about mini‑trials but took issue under submission. | Elder: High postmortem BAC (one test 0.19%) was relevant to causation and contributory negligence. | Parties stipulated to 0.07% BAC; trial court never excluded the evidence; stipulation binds parties and forfeits appellate challenge. |
| Jury instructions on causation | Elder: Court should have given CACI No. 411 or an instruction expressly on superseding intervening causation; court’s answer to jury note was inadequate. | Prosecution: Pattern criminal instructions (CALCRIM No. 590 et seq.) properly explained causation; CACI 411 is civil and inapplicable. | Court properly refused CACI No. 411 (inapplicable civil instruction); pattern instructions adequately covered superseding cause; response to jury note was sufficient; no instructional error. |
| Multiple enhancements (Veh. Code § 23558 vs. Pen. Code § 12022.7) | Prosecution: 1999 amendment to Veh. Code § 23558 ("notwithstanding § 1170.1(g)") permits imposition of § 23558 multiple‑victim enhancements in addition to other enhancements. | Elder: Imposing § 23558 consecutive term plus § 12022.7 enhancements for same victims violates Penal Code § 654 (no multiple punishment for same act). | Court holds § 23558 enhancement (consecutive two‑year term) could not be imposed in addition to § 12022.7 enhancements for the same victims; remand for resentencing without duplicative enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Letner & Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (deferring to trial court credibility findings on suppression and substantial evidence standard)
- People v. Ahmed, 53 Cal.4th 156 (statutory scheme for enhancements controls § 654 analysis; compare enhancements by "aspect" of crime)
- People v. Arndt, 76 Cal.App.4th 387 (holding Veh. Code multi‑victim enhancement cannot stack with Pen. Code § 12022.7 for same injuries)
- People v. Schmies, 44 Cal.App.4th 38 (discussing foreseeability and intervening cause in criminal causation context)
- People v. Fudge, 7 Cal.4th 1075 (court’s duty to correct or tailor defendant‑proposed instructions when appropriate)