People v. Ming CA2/2
B306503
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- On March 7, 2017 Hicks (driving a silver Audi) and Ming (driving a black Mercedes) were involved in a high‑speed interaction on Crenshaw Blvd after Hicks allegedly hit Ming’s car and fled; both vehicles traveled ~80–100 mph through red lights.
- Hicks’s Audi struck a southbound minivan driven by Jesse F., with passenger Jesse E. (son); Jesse E. died at the scene and Jesse F. suffered serious injuries; Ming’s SUV struck the van seconds later; the Audi fled and was later linked to Hicks.
- A jury convicted both Ming and Hicks of vehicular manslaughter and related offenses; Hicks received an 11‑year term; Ming received 2 years 8 months.
- On appeal appellants challenged the trial court’s exclusion of two categories of defense expert evidence (seat‑belt causation and 911 operator protocol), Ming challenged lack of a unanimity instruction on a count alleging injuries to two victims, and Hicks challenged voir dire limitations and denial of a Batson/Wheeler motion.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, rejected the evidentiary and jury selection challenges, but remanded for resentencing Hicks under the retroactive SB 567 amendments to Penal Code § 1170(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of expert testimony that Jesse E. would have survived if belted (seat‑belt causation) | Seat‑belt evidence is irrelevant; defendant’s gross negligence was the substantial factor | Seat‑belt failure was sole/superseding cause; expert testimony was necessary to rebut causation | Admission was properly excluded: victim’s nonuse of a seat belt was a preexisting condition, not a superseding cause; exclusion within trial court’s discretion |
| Exclusion of expert testimony on 911 dispatcher protocol | Whether dispatcher violated protocol is collateral and irrelevant to Ming’s state of mind; admission would cause a trial within a trial | Dispatcher’s instruction encouraged pursuit and tended to negate gross negligence; expert protocol evidence necessary | Exclusion proper: call itself was admitted; dispatcher protocol was collateral, risked confusion and undue time under Evid. Code §352 |
| Unanimity instruction for count pleading specified injuries to two victims | Not addressed by People separately; prosecution relied on single reckless act causing injuries | Ming argued jury must unanimously agree on which act caused each injury | No unanimity error: evidence showed a single discrete act of reckless driving; verdict form required separate findings for each victim |
| Limits on voir dire about Kaepernick kneeling and hypothetical jury racial composition | Court allowed reasonable race bias questions; plaintiff opposed inflammatory, irrelevant questioning | Hicks argued need to probe racial bias and attitudes using controversial hypotheses | Court did not abuse discretion: it reasonably limited argumentative/speculative questions while permitting direct questions about racial bias; no fundamental unfairness |
| Batson/Wheeler challenge to peremptory strike of sole remaining African‑American veniremember | Strike was discriminatory; comparative juror analysis would show pretext | Prosecution offered race‑neutral reasons (juror’s expressed inability to be fair, distrust of police, religious reluctance to judge) | Denial upheld: defendant failed to make prima facie showing; prosecutor’s reasons credible; comparative juror argument forfeited by failure to renew at trial |
| Sentencing under Penal Code §1170(b) (SB 567) | No retroactive relief needed; trial court’s findings support upper term | SB 567 limits imposition of upper term unless aggravating facts stipulated or found beyond reasonable doubt; applies retroactively | Remand required: SB 567 applies retroactively and court must resentence Hicks consistent with amended §1170(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wattier, 51 Cal.App.4th 948 (appellate court upholding exclusion of seat‑belt nonuse as superseding cause)
- People v. Autry, 37 Cal.App.4th 351 (preexisting failure of protection does not break causal chain for criminal liability)
- People v. Cervantes, 26 Cal.4th 860 (principles on proximate cause and dependent vs independent intervening acts)
- People v. Zemek, 44 Cal.App.5th 535 (proximate cause as element in vehicular homicide)
- People v. Johnson, 12 Cal.5th 544 (trial court evidentiary discretion and constitutional right to present a defense)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race‑based peremptory challenges)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (state counterpart to Batson)
- People v. Lenix, 44 Cal.4th 602 (comparative juror analysis and appellate review of Batson rulings)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (retroactivity of ameliorative sentencing legislation)