People v. Garcia CA4/2
E075995
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- In pre-dawn hours defendant Damian Garcia drove a stolen 2015 Nissan Sentra while high on methamphetamine and extremely sleepy; a passenger and officers warned him to stop.
- Police activated lights/sirens and pursued after confirming the car was stolen; the pursuit lasted about five minutes and reached speeds up to 120 mph.
- During the chase defendant ran multiple stop signs and red lights on surface streets and on freeway on/off-ramps, swerved across lanes, and cut off other vehicles.
- At the Fifth Street offramp defendant ran a red light and T‑boned a Honda, killing its driver, Cornelius Holly.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of second‑degree murder (implied malice), evading an officer causing death, and vehicle theft; sentenced to 18 years to life.
- On appeal Garcia argued (1) insufficient evidence of implied malice and (2) the trial court erred by refusing a special instruction defining implied malice and distinguishing it from gross negligence; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of implied malice | Driving stolen car at extremely high speeds, running multiple red lights/stop signs, dangerous lane changes, and prior near‑misses support an inference Garcia subjectively appreciated the risk and acted with conscious disregard for life. | Garcia lacked intent to kill and was so sleepy/impaired that he may not have been subjectively aware of the life‑endangering risk; objective obviousness is insufficient. | Affirmed. Court held jurors could infer subjective awareness from the driving pattern and surrounding circumstances; objective obviousness may permissibly support an inference of subjective awareness. |
| Denial of defendant's proposed special instruction distinguishing implied malice from gross negligence | CALCRIM No. 520 adequately required the jury to find the defendant actually knew his act was dangerous and acted with conscious disregard; the proposed instruction was duplicative/confusing and legally incorrect in parts. | Garcia sought a pinpoint instruction stressing the subjective standard (actual knowledge) and that gross negligence alone is insufficient; absence deprived his ability to argue manslaughter/gross negligence. | Affirmed. Trial court properly refused the proposed instruction because CALCRIM No. 520 covered the required subjective mens rea, the proposal was duplicative/ambiguous, and parts misstated the law (e.g., requiring awareness of imminent death or risk to a particular person). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (establishes subjective awareness requirement for implied malice and contrasts it with objective gross‑negligence test)
- People v. Moore, 187 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (upholds implied‑malice murder where extreme speeding, lane crossing, and running red light supported inference defendant subjectively appreciated lethal risk)
- People v. Fuller, 86 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (high‑speed chase facts can support implied malice where defendants’ conduct created obvious risk of death)
- People v. Young, 11 Cal.App.4th 1299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (pattern of reckless flight can show conscious disregard for life sufficient for murder)
- People v. Ricardi, 221 Cal.App.3d 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (reckless driving pattern immediately before fatality may indicate implied malice)
- People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (Cal. 2018) (defines physical and mental components of implied malice)
- People v. Calderon, 129 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (an act is dangerous to life when there is a high probability it will result in death)
- People v. Albright, 173 Cal.App.3d 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (implied malice does not require awareness of life‑threatening risk to a particular person)