199 Cal. App. 4th 1438
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant L.K., 15, appeals from a true finding on Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a) for allegedly running over 17-month-old M.S. with her mother’s truck, causing severe injuries.
- Witness Robert L. testified he saw the truck hit M.S., and that L.K. appeared to strike and drive over him; Latasha, Gracey, and others described hearing a loud noise and seeing M.S. near the driveway.
- Defense suggested Ebony caused the harm; no one testified that M.S. was injured other than by the truck; M.S. sustained a broken rib, liver and kidney injuries requiring removal of a kidney.
- At a dispositional hearing, the court ordered maximum confinement of seven years (six years for count 1, one year for count 2) with probation and placement at Pathways Academy, based on L.K.’s failure to speak up after the injury.
- The court found counts 1 (direct infliction) and 2 (hit-and-run / failure to render aid) true; on appeal, the court addresses the proper mens rea standard and remands for reclassification of the offenses and recalculation of the maximum term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the direct-infliction prong of 273a(a) used the correct mens rea. | L.K. argues the trial court applied criminal negligence to direct infliction. | The People contend the court properly considered direct infliction; however, the record shows it applied the wrong standard. | Remanded; the direct-infliction prong requires general criminal intent; insufficient evidence under criminal negligence. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence to support the indirect-infliction/first prong finding. | N/A | N/A | Substantial evidence supports willfully permitting suffering (indirect infliction) as to count 1. |
| Whether the Vehicle Code 20001 hit-and-run finding supports the 273a(a) conviction given knowledge requirements. | N/A | N/A | Evidence supports the knowledge that an injury occurred and failure to aid, tying to 273a(a) first prong. |
| Whether the disposition should be redetermined and the maximum term recalculated after remand. | N/A | N/A | Remanded to determine misdemeanor vs. felony and to recalculate the maximum confinement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargent v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 1999) (ambit of 273a(a) branches; distinguishes direct vs indirect infliction; governs mens rea for direct infliction)
- Valdez, 27 Cal.4th 778 (Cal. 2002) (defines direct vs indirect infliction and articulates criminal negligence standard for indirect infliction)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; rational trier could find beyond reasonable doubt)
- People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (Cal. 2000) (handles circumstantial evidence and standard of review in criminal cases)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003) (credibility determinations and appellate review of witness testimony)
- People v. Holford, 63 Cal.2d 74 (Cal. 1965) (knowledge requirement under Vehicle Code 20001 regarding hit-and-run injuries)
- People v. Harbert, 170 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. App. 2009) (interprets 20001 knowledge and duty to render aid)
- People v. Valdez, 189 Cal.App.4th 82 (Cal. App. 2010) (reiterates knowledge element and duty in injury accidents)
- Zapien v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.4th 929 (Cal. 1993) (rules that a correct law can support a ruling entered for different reasons)