People v. Nordberg, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558

Nordberg was driving while intoxicated when she struck and killed a motorcyclist on a freeway.
She was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and of the enhancement for fleeing the scene under Vehicle Code 20001, subdivision (c).
She received a nine-year sentence: four years for the offense plus five years for the enhancement.
The enhancement addition required knowledge that the accident injured someone or was likely to cause injury, but the jury was not instructed on this knowledge element.
The trial evidence showed Nordberg knew the accident was of such a nature that it was probable someone was injured, according to the prosecution and Nordberg’s own testimony.
At issue on appeal was whether the omission of the knowledge element instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Knowledge element instruction omission	Nordberg argues knowledge was essential for §20001(c).	Nordberg asserts the court should have instructed the jury on knowledge.	Trial court erred by not instructing on knowledge.
Harmless error analysis for enhancement	Error could have affected verdict.	Error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence and Nordberg’s own testimony.	Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Holford, 63 Cal.2d 74 (Cal. 1965) (establishes knowledge of injury as essential to section 20001 knowledge)
People v. Harbert, 170 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. App. 2009) (knowledge may be inferred from the accident’s nature)
People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 (Cal. 1998) (harmless error framework for omitted elements in enhancement)
People v. Sengpadychith, 26 Cal.4th 316 (Cal. 2001) (performs Chapman harmless error analysis guidance)
People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 2007) (due process and jury trial rights in enhancement contexts)
People v. Carter, 243 Cal.App.2d 239 (Cal. App. 1966) (recognizes imputed knowledge when the nature of the accident shows injury probable)