People v. Rebosio CA4/2
E074494A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 9, 2022Background
- At ~1:00 a.m. on Sept. 15, 2018, a black Mustang (later determined stolen) crossed a double yellow, passed multiple vehicles at ~106 mph, re-entered its lane and rear‑ended a Ford Fusion on SR‑58 (a two‑lane highway in a construction zone), propelling the Fusion into oncoming traffic; the Fusion driver died.
- Data from the Mustang’s airbag RCM showed peak speed ~106.7 mph and corroborated the collision sequence; CHP investigators linked the Mustang to defendant Dominic Rebosio (phone/VIN) and identified him as the driver.
- Robert DeJager arrived in a grey Mustang after the crash, picked up an injured/bloody Rebosio at the scene, and they drove to Las Vegas; officers stopped DeJager in Las Vegas ~2 hours later and found Rebosio riding as a passenger, with blood and a false name.
- A jury convicted Rebosio of gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code §192(c)(1)) and hit‑and‑run resulting in death (Veh. Code §20001(b)(2)); a bifurcated proceeding found a prior serious/strike conviction; Rebosio received an upper‑term doubled sentence (total 19 years).
- DeJager was convicted as an aider and abettor of the hit‑and‑run and sentenced to 3 years.
- On appeal this court affirmed the convictions but—after supplemental briefing on S.B. 567—vacated Rebosio’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because some aggravating facts used to impose the upper term were not admitted or found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert (Sergeant Berns) hypothetical opinions that the driving violated Vehicle Code and showed "disregard for safety" | People: Berns, as an accident‑reconstruction expert, may give opinions based on hypotheticals grounded in the evidence to help jurors assess gross negligence. | Rebosio: Berns invaded the jury's province, opined on defendant's state of mind and guilt, and exceeded his expertise. | Court: Admission proper. Berns’s hypothetical opinion assisted jury on objective gross negligence; he did not opine on Rebosio’s subjective guilt. No abuse of discretion. |
| Jury instruction on gross vehicular manslaughter — failure to instruct on all statutory elements of the speeding infraction (two‑lane undivided highway; reasonable signing) | People: CALCRIM No. 592 + element instructions were sufficient; omitted particulars were either undisputed or pinpoint details. | Rebosio: Omission deprived jury of required elements of the charging infraction (Veh. Code §22349(b)). | Court: No sua sponte duty to give pinpoint instructions; highway was undisputedly two‑lane and signing intent is not an element. Any omission forfeited by lack of request and was harmless. |
| Use of CALCRIM No. 315 eyewitness‑certainty factor | People: Instruction proper; listing certainty among many factors is permissible. | Rebosio: Certainty language improperly equates certainty with accuracy and violates due process. | Court: Under People v. Lemcke, including the certainty factor did not deny due process here; instructions taken as a whole and jury told People bore ID burden. |
| Sentencing under S.B. 567 (Pen. Code §1170(b)) — whether upper‑term imposed permissibly | People: Court could rely on certified prior conviction record to justify upper term; other aggravators supported upper term. | Rebosio: S.B. 567 requires that facts supporting aggravation be admitted or found beyond reasonable doubt; some aggravating facts here were neither. | Court: S.B. 567 applies retroactively. Because the trial court relied on aggravating facts not stipulated or found beyond a reasonable doubt (other than the prior‑conviction record), sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing consistent with S.B. 567. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that DeJager aided/abetted hit‑and‑run | People: DeJager knowingly assisted Rebosio by arriving, picking him up at the scene and driving him away — conduct that aided commission of hit‑and‑run. | DeJager: Crime was complete before he arrived; no evidence he encouraged or advised flight. | Court: Substantial evidence supports that the hit‑and‑run was completed when Rebosio fled in DeJager’s car; DeJager’s actions in picking up and transporting Rebosio sufficed to aid and abet. |
| Admissibility of Las Vegas traffic‑stop evidence and evidence the Mustang was stolen | People: Both items are relevant to consciousness of guilt, identity, motive to flee, and to show DeJager’s assistance; probative value outweighs prejudice. | DeJager: Highly prejudicial and marginally probative; theft evidence paints Rebosio (and by association DeJager) as bad character. | Court: Evidence admissible. Court properly limited use of theft evidence to identity/motive and instructed jury; Las Vegas stop was probative of concealment and flight; no abuse under Evid. Code §352. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may give opinions based on hypotheticals grounded in competent evidence and may explain reasons under Evid. Code §802)
- People v. Duong, 10 Cal.5th 36 (Cal. 2020) (limits on expert testimony about defendant's mental state and on opinions amounting to guilt determinations)
- People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (Cal. 2021) (upheld CALCRIM No. 315 with certainty factor in context; directed Judicial Council to consider modification and recommended omitting certainty until revised)
- People v. Bennett, 54 Cal.3d 1032 (Cal. 1991) (definition and objective test for gross negligence / conscious indifference)
- People v. Holford, 63 Cal.2d 74 (Cal. 1965) (a person who advises, encourages, or assists in leaving an accident scene may be a principal / accomplice to hit‑and‑run)
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984) (elements of aiding and abetting: knowledge, intent to encourage or facilitate, and act or advice that aids the crime)
- People v. McDowell, 54 Cal.4th 395 (Cal. 2012) (trial court’s broad discretion in admitting expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2011) (hypothetical questions to experts must be based on evidence; hypotheticals may mirror case facts)
- People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2012) (expert opinion admissible unless it adds nothing to jurors' common knowledge)