People v. Martinez
218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 140
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Martinez was involved in a collision with a 12-year-old on a scooter; the child suffered serious injuries (facial fractures, fractured clavicle, traumatic brain injury) and was hospitalized.
- Martinez stopped, checked on the boy, but later left the scene after the victim was loaded into an ambulance; Martinez was unlicensed and on felony probation and later admitted leaving because he feared probation violation.
- Martinez pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run (Veh. Code § 20001(a)) and received a three-year prison term; no findings were made at sentencing about who caused the collision.
- Months after sentencing the trial court, relying on People v. Rubics, ordered Martinez to pay $425,654.63 in direct victim restitution for the victim’s medical bills arising from the accident, based on a stipulated amount.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that restitution under Penal Code § 1202.4 is limited to losses caused by the criminal flight (failure to identify/render aid), not losses caused solely by the underlying accident; remanded to permit the People to seek restitution for losses caused or exacerbated by the flight.
- The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeal: direct restitution under § 1202.4 is available only for losses that are the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct (i.e., the flight), not for injuries caused solely by the accident itself; Rubics is disapproved to the extent inconsistent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether direct victim restitution under Pen. Code § 1202.4 may include medical costs caused by the underlying accidental collision in a § 20001(a) (hit-and-run) conviction | § 20001(a) requires proof that the driver was "involved" in an injury accident; therefore accident-related losses occur "as a result of the commission of a crime" and are recoverable | Restitution under § 1202.4 is limited to losses caused by the criminal conduct (the flight). Accident injuries that result from noncriminal conduct are not restitutionary losses under § 1202.4 | Reversed trial court: § 1202.4 authorizes restitution only for losses that resulted from the defendant’s criminal conduct (the unlawful flight), not losses caused solely by the accident itself |
| Whether the trial court may rely on the fact of the accident (an element proved for conviction) to impose full accident-related restitution without any finding of fault | The occurrence of the accident is an element of the offense; hence the conviction supports restitution for accident losses, subject to sentencing judge’s determination of fault | A conviction under § 20001(a) does not establish fault for the accident; involvement in an accident is an attendant circumstance, not criminal conduct giving rise to restitution under § 1202.4 | Held that involvement in an accident is not criminal conduct for § 1202.4 purposes; fault for the accident remains a civil matter unless separate criminal conduct causing the accident is charged and proven |
| Scope of restitution when flight exacerbates injuries or causes additional losses (e.g., delay in care, investigation costs) | Limiting restitution to only flight-related losses could undermine deterrence and enable at-fault drivers to avoid liability | § 1202.4 permits restitution for losses caused or exacerbated by the criminal flight (e.g., delayed medical care, costs of locating the fleeing driver) | Court accepts that restitution may cover exacerbation or additional costs that are the direct result of the criminal flight, but not basic accident injuries caused by noncriminal conduct |
| Precedential effect of People v. Rubics | Rubics supports awarding accident-related restitution in hit-and-run cases | Rubics is inconsistent with § 1202.4’s text and prior authorities that treat the offence as flight-based | Rubics is disapproved to the extent it holds accident-only injuries are recoverable as direct restitution under § 1202.4 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (explaining types of restitution and § 1202.4 framework)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (probationary restitution broader than § 1202.4 direct restitution)
- People v. Rubics, 136 Cal.App.4th 452 (upheld accident-related restitution in hit-and-run; disapproved to extent inconsistent)
- People v. Escobar, 235 Cal.App.3d 1504 (describing the gravamen of § 20001 as fleeing, not the initial injury)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (noting occurrence of an injury accident is a condition precedent, not an element defining criminal conduct)
- California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (upholding disclosure duty in hit-and-run statute and recognizing accidents themselves are not criminal)