People v. Hudson
11 Cal. App. 5th 831
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Rayshaun Hudson used a stolen key fob, entered a dealership service garage, started a vehicle, and drove it out the exit while an employee (Angel Ruiz‑Maldonado) tried to stop him.
- Ruiz‑Maldonado slammed the trunk, opened the driver’s door, grabbed at Hudson and was struck by the door edge; Hudson exited the garage in reverse at about 5–10 mph and later was detained on the freeway.
- Charged with carjacking (Pen. Code § 215(a)) and second‑degree commercial burglary; jury convicted on both counts; court imposed the high term for carjacking and stayed the burglary sentence.
- At trial, prosecutor sought a supplemental CALCRIM No. 1650 instruction defining force as "sufficient to overcome the victim’s resistance." Defense sought either no definition or a Morales‑style instruction that force must be "more than just the quantum necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property."
- The trial court combined both formulations: force must be "more than just the quantum necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property, [and] the force must be sufficient to overcome the victim’s resistance." Hudson appealed, arguing the instruction allowed conviction based on mere vehicle momentum rather than extra force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper definition/quantum of "force" for carjacking | Force sufficient to overcome victim’s resistance is a correct and adequate formulation | Instruction improperly allows conviction based on vehicle momentum without extra force beyond seizure | Court affirmed: Burns/"overcome resistance" formulation is valid for carjacking and encompasses Morales test |
| Whether overcoming resistance via vehicle movement can satisfy force element | Overcoming physical resistance while driving off is force and supports carjacking conviction | Movement/momentum of car alone cannot be the requisite force; would convert any theft into carjacking | Court held vehicle movement that overcomes resistance constitutes force in excess of mere seizure and can support conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Hudson used required force | Evidence showed Ruiz‑Maldonado physically attempted to stop Hudson and was overcome when Hudson drove off | Hudson claimed no more force than needed to move vehicle; no aggressive driving proven | Court found evidence sufficient: opening door, grabbing victim’s arm mark, and driving off while victim held/held on supported carjacking |
| Whether instruction permitted conviction without proof of additional force beyond seizure | Prosecutor: instruction properly tracks robbery jurisprudence; intent to cause fear not required | Defendant: instruction improperly conflates seizure and asportation force and is overbroad | Court: Burns formulation encompasses Morales; trial instruction lawful and did not permit improper conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Anderson, 51 Cal.4th 989 (California Supreme Court) (robbery requires force in excess of that necessary to seize property)
- People v. Morales, 49 Cal.App.3d 134 (Cal. Ct. App.) (articulated ‘more than mere seizing’ formulation for robbery)
- People v. Burns, 172 Cal.App.4th 1251 (Cal. Ct. App.) (force sufficient to overcome resistance is an accepted articulation)
- People v. Lopez, 8 Cal.App.5th 1230 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holding that driving while a victim holds on or resists satisfies carjacking force element)
- People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (California Supreme Court) (asportation requires only slight movement)
- People v. O’Neil, 56 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App.) (vehicle theft becomes carjacking if force or fear is used while driving away)