People v. Johnigan
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- On May 1, 2008, Ashley Johnigan, heavily intoxicated, drove a Mercedes and killed Laura Cleaves on Highway 154.
- Police observed Johnigan stopped on the road shoulder; she sped away at high speed and collided with two oncoming cars, killing Cleaves and injuring Lisa Raines.
- Johnigan had BAC 0.24% and admitted excessive drinking; she had 16 standard drinks per month between bar and home timeline.
- Prior warnings existed before May 1, 2008 that driving while intoxicated could injure or kill someone; she rejected offers for safe rides home.
- She was convicted by jury of second degree murder (implied malice), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, DUI, and BAC 0.08%; sentenced to 15 years to life plus restitution.
- Defense argued lack of implied malice and requested various jury instructions; trial court denied those requests and admissions of certain testimony.
- The appellate court held the evidence sufficient for implied malice, rejected instructional challenges, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of implied malice for second degree murder | People argues conduct shows conscious disregard for life. | Johnigan contends no predicate act required and lack of awareness negates malice. | Sufficient evidence of implied malice; conduct showed conscious disregard. |
| Instructional error on gross vehicular manslaughter vs. murder | CALCRIM 520/590 properly instructed; defense wanted subjective awareness | Subjective awareness should be considered for gross negligence. | No reversible error; instruction correct and harmless. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary handling | Prosecution elicited improper memory-impairment testimony and pressed witnesses. | Any misconduct was cured; no prejudice shown. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; curative instructions and trial context diminished impact. |
| Jury selection and change of venue | Pretrial publicity biased jurors; venue should be moved. | Record shows a fair jury pool; change of venue unwarranted. | No abuse of discretion; denial of venue change affirmed. |
| Admission and handling of expert memory testimony | Memory-impairment testimony aided by prosecution to mislead jury. | Any error was cured; the testimony was outside expertise and stricken. | Harmless error; jury instructed to disregard the testimony and received proper guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) (implied malice from grossly intoxicated driving)
- People v. Olivas, 172 Cal.App.3d 984 (1985) (factors for implied malice; case-by-case approach)
- People v. Moore, 187 Cal.App.4th 937 (2010) (comparing high-speed reckless driving to inferred malice)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (1998) (harmless error standard for misinstructed juries)
- People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 (1998) (harmless error in instructional issues; standard)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (1993) (gross negligence objective standard; subjective awareness not required)
- People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.4th 983 (2001) (murder vs. manslaughter; multiple offenses can arise from same act)
- People v. Crew, 31 Cal.4th 822 (2003) (experimental questions; improper evidence handling; cure)
- People v. Hart, 20 Cal.4th 546 (1999) (change of venue; publicity impact on fairness)
- People v. Fauber, 2 Cal.4th 792 (1992) (factors in ruling on change of venue; public exposure)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (2000) (change of venue; publicity and juror exposure context)
- People v. Chatman, 38 Cal.4th 344 (2006) (crucial balancing of credibility and cross-examination relevance)