19 Cal.App.5th 1195
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 24, 2016, Montrell Taylor, while driving a vehicle, willfully fled from a marked Los Angeles County Sheriff vehicle after the deputy activated lights and siren.
- During the pursuit Taylor ran stop signs, exceeded speed limits (up to 75 mph in a 35 mph zone), and committed eight traffic violations that carry points under Veh. Code § 12810.
- Taylor stipulated he willfully fled intending to evade the officer; Sergeant Bryerton was the sole witness to the pursuit.
- Taylor was convicted of evading a pursuing officer with willful or wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code §§ 2800.1, 2800.2).
- The trial court found prior convictions and sentenced Taylor to 10 years; Taylor appealed arguing that Veh. Code § 2800.2(b) and CALCRIM No. 2181 created an improper mandatory presumption regarding the requisite mental state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code § 2800.2(b) creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that three or more traffic violations prove the "willful or wanton disregard" element | § 2800.2(b) defines conduct that may constitute willful or wanton disregard; it is a substantive legislative definition, not a presumption | § 2800.2(b) impermissibly presumes the complex mental state from mere commission of traffic violations, relieving prosecution of burden of proof | No presumption; subdivision (b) is a legislative definition/elemental modification, not an unconstitutional mandatory presumption; upheld |
| Whether CALCRIM No. 2181 improperly instructed the jury to apply a presumption that three traffic violations establish the mental state | Instruction correctly recited statutory elements and the alternative means to show willful/wanton disregard | Instruction misleadingly suggested reckless-driving mental state was required or presumed from violations | Instruction was potentially ambiguous but any error was harmless because prosecution proved three-or-more qualifying violations (eight shown) and Taylor stipulated to willful flight |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McCall, 32 Cal.4th 175 (discussing permissible presumptions and due process constraints)
- People v. Pinkston, 112 Cal.App.4th 387 (concluding § 2800.2(b) is a substantive rule, not an improper presumption)
- People v. Williams, 130 Cal.App.4th 1440 (same)
- People v. Laughlin, 137 Cal.App.4th 1020 (same; legislative history supports definitional function of § 2800.2(b))
- Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (invalidating jury instruction that impermissibly presumed intent in theft-by-rental context)
- People v. Richie, 28 Cal.App.4th 1347 (discussing ordinary meaning of "willful or wanton" in reckless driving context)