People v. Mathson
210 Cal. App. 4th 1297
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs under Vehicle Code §23152(a), with a §23550 allegation for three or more prior DUI-related convictions within 10 years, plus counts for driving with a suspended license and for driving a vehicle not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device.
- Defendant claimed sleep driving while on Ambien rendered him unconscious during the October 16, 2008 incident.
- Blood testing showed zolpidem (Ambien) at 0.13 mg/L and no alcohol or other drugs; Police observed droopy eyes, slow speech, swaying, and impaired balance after stopping him.
- Expert testimony linked Ambien to drowsiness and potential sleep-driving behaviors; defense presented experts who described partial consciousness with complex behaviors while asleep.
- The trial court gave modified CALCRIM instructions on unconsciousness, voluntary intoxication, and involuntary intoxication, and a modified 250 on act/intent; a probation condition prohibited driving or access to a vehicle while taking Ambien.
- On appeal, the court held the unconsciousness instruction was flawed but harmless, and one aspect of the probation condition was overbroad and must be addressed by remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unconsciousness instruction adequacy | Defendant contends CALCRIM No. 3425 omits sleep driving as a cause and misleads the jury about expert testimony. | Defendant argues the instruction effectively requires consciousness and ignores sleep-driving evidence. | Unconsciousness instruction flawed but harmless. |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction adequacy | The modification to voluntary intoxication could excuse lack of knowledge of Ambien’s effects. | Voluntary intoxication not a defense to DUI, so consciousness should not be exculpated. | Instruction adequate; voluntary intoxication not a defense to DUI. |
| Involuntary intoxication instruction adequacy | Defendant should have been instructed that involuntary intoxication could negate consciousness if the drug’s effects were not foreseeably caused by Ambien. | Ambien’s unpredictable effects may render intoxication involuntary. | Involuntary intoxication instruction adequate; not require additional theories. |
| Probation condition overbreadth | Probation condition restricting access to a vehicle while taking Ambien is necessary for safety. | Condition is overbroad and infringes travel/privacy; should be tailored. | Remand to modify overbroad probation condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379 (Cal. 2007) (unconsciousness as defense; law on legal unconsciousness)
- People v. Babbitt, 45 Cal.3d 660 (Cal. 1988) (unconsciousness not an element; presumption framework)
- Velez v. Garcia, 175 Cal.App.3d 785 (Cal. App. 1985) (voluntary vs involuntary intoxication; general intent crime)
- Chaffey, 25 Cal.App.4th 852 (Cal. App. 1994) (presumption of consciousness; prescription drug intoxication)
- Williams, 22 Cal.App.3d 34 (Cal. App. 1971) (earlier CALJIC 4.31; expert testimony vs appearance of consciousness)
- Cruz, 83 Cal.App.3d 308 (Cal. App. 1978) (CALJIC 4.31 revision discussion)
- Kitt, 83 Cal.App.3d 834 (Cal. App. 1978) (CALJIC No. 4.31 cure discussed; use of 'must')
- Caldwell, 102 Cal.App.3d 461 (Cal. App. 1980) (improved instruction on consciousness)
- Dieguez, 89 Cal.App.4th 266 (Cal. App. 2001) (instruction evaluation; harmless error standard)
- Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (Cal. 1999) (harmless error review; instruction ambiguity)
- Paysinger, 174 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. App. 2009) (harmless error in instruction; consideration of evidence)