People v. Luo
H042668
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Dan Luo, acting as project manager for a contractor/real estate owner, supervised excavation of a hillside residential foundation that included a 12-foot unsupported dirt wall with an overhanging ledge.
- City inspector issued a Stop Work Notice to Luo on January 25, 2012 directing all work cease due to excavation without required shoring; Luo did not tell workers to stop and later instructed them to work in the excavation to show progress.
- A worker, Raul Zapata, was killed when the excavation wall collapsed while he was working in the trench two days after the notice.
- A grand jury indicted Luo for involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code § 192(b)) and three counts of willful violation of occupational safety orders causing death (Lab. Code § 6425(a)); a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to two years in county jail (mitigated term).
- On appeal Luo challenged sufficiency of evidence (including absence of expert testimony), several instructional rulings, limitations on cross-examination, lack of notice/election by the prosecution, and a vagueness challenge to Labor Code § 6425(a).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the evidence supported both involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) and the § 6425 convictions, and rejecting all other asserted errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for involuntary manslaughter | Prosecution: evidence that Luo supervised site, ignored safety notice, ordered work in dangerous area, and failed to implement safety measures supported criminal negligence. | Luo: prosecution needed expert testimony to establish duty/standard of care and breach; without experts evidence insufficient. | Affirmed — no expert required; criminal negligence is assessed by ordinary-prudent-person standard and the record supported a rational jury finding. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for willful violation of safety orders (Lab. Code § 6425(a)) | Prosecution: expert on excavation safety showed regulations aim to prevent cave-ins; photographs and collapse facts supported causation. | Luo: prosecution lacked expert proof that regulatory violations proximately caused death. | Affirmed — expert testimony and physical evidence supported inference that regulatory noncompliance caused the cave-in and death. |
| Jury instructions and notice/election doctrine | Prosecution: instructions stating the lawful act as "construction of a residence" and giving full text of regulations adequately informed jury and defendant. | Luo: court should have defined "construction of a residence," instructed on extent of duty, elected specific acts, and the jury should not have been given long regulations without guidance (risk of strict liability). | Affirmed — no sua sponte duty to further define; no heightened duty beyond ordinary-prudent-person; election doctrine inapplicable because evidence showed a single discrete crime; jury properly instructed and presumed to follow instructions. |
| Evidentiary rulings and vagueness of § 6425(a) | Prosecution: exclusions were proper; § 6425(a) clearly not vague and expressly covers supervisors/employees with direction/management. | Luo: trial court improperly sustained hearsay objections limiting cross-examination; § 6425(a) is vague as regulations alone do not warn supervisors they face criminal liability. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion on evidentiary rulings; exclusion was either forfeited or nonprejudicial; § 6425(a) is not unconstitutionally vague because its text notifies supervisory employees of liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mehserle, 206 Cal.App.4th 1125 (California Ct. App.) (criminal negligence judged by ordinary-prudent-person standard)
- People v. Butler, 187 Cal.App.4th 998 (California Ct. App.) (distinguishing criminal negligence from subjective awareness required for murder)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (court must instruct on general principles of law raised by evidence)
- People v. Hudson, 38 Cal.4th 1002 (Cal. 2006) (requirement to define technical statutory terms when meaning differs from ordinary usage)
- People v. Russo, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) (election doctrine and unanimity when evidence shows multiple discrete crimes)
- People v. Ellison, 68 Cal.App.4th 203 (California Ct. App.) (facial vagueness standard for penal statutes)
- People v. Superior Court (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC), 224 Cal.App.4th 33 (California Ct. App.) (§ 6425(a) creates criminal liability)