People v. Joseph CA3, C093949

Late-night collision: defendant’s car struck bicyclist B.Z., who was thrown into the air and later run over; eyewitnesses saw a car stop briefly then leave the scene.
Physical evidence at the intersection included bicycle parts, blood, and defendant’s license plate; defendant’s car had front-left damage and red paint transfer consistent with striking the bicycle/person.
Officer concluded initial impact was on the driver’s side hood/windshield; force reaching the windshield was noted.
Defendant testified she heard a loud noise, pulled into a nearby lit parking lot about 500 feet away, saw windshield and hood damage, felt scared, and drove home without returning; she later arranged repairs and discussed the event with her boyfriend.
At trial the jury convicted defendant of leaving the scene of an accident involving an injured person; the court gave CALCRIM No. 3407 (mistake of law) over defense objection.
On appeal the People conceded the mistake-of-law instruction was erroneous but argued the error was harmless; the Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant knew or should have known she injured a person	Evidence (impact noise, windshield/hood damage, paint transfer, eyewitness accounts, defendant’s post-collision conduct) supports constructive knowledge	Darkness and unexpected bicyclist made it reasonable not to recognize the object hit as a person	Affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supports conviction
Instructional error: court gave mistake-of-law instruction (CALCRIM No. 3407)	Instruction was erroneous but harmless because parties did not rely on it, defense disclaimed that theory, and jurors were told some instructions may not apply	Instruction likely misled jury and prevented consideration of defendant’s actual defense	Instruction was erroneous but harmless under state and federal standards; no reasonable probability of a different outcome

People v. Harbert, 170 Cal.App.4th 42 (constructive knowledge factors for hit-and-run convictions)
People v. Rocovich, 269 Cal.App.2d 489 (knowledge or constructive knowledge required for hit-and-run)
People v. Kidane, 60 Cal.App.5th 817 (force reaching windshield indicates collision with a person)
People v. Mace, 198 Cal.App.4th 875 (actual knowledge not required; constructive knowledge may suffice)
People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (error to give an instruction that has no application to the facts)
People v. Olguin, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355 (inapplicable instruction does not necessarily prevent jury from considering a defense)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (state harmless-error standard)
People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)