People v. Trombini CA4/2
E073991
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- On Feb. 24, 2016, Emanuele Trombini, driving a BMW, rear‑ended a Toyota Camry that was exiting a Del Taco parking lot; the Camry driver (Caryn Clemente) died and multiple occupants were injured.
- Vehicle data (ACM/CDR) showed the BMW at ~107 mph five seconds before impact and ~89 mph at impact in a 40 mph zone; the Camry entered the roadway at about 3.7–6.2 mph and the BMW was ~667 feet away when the Camry began entering traffic.
- Toxicology detected recent marijuana use and a Xanax level >3× therapeutic dose; experts testified combined effects can impair driving and that Trombini’s driving was impaired.
- Trombini was charged with murder (Pen. Code §187(a)) and two counts of driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code §23153 (former subd. (e))) with great‑bodily‑injury enhancements; first trial: DUI convictions and hung murder count; retrial: convicted of murder.
- Sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 6 years (for the DUI counts and enhancements, with some stays) and a consecutive 15 years‑to‑life for murder; on appeal, Trombini raised evidentiary and instructional errors, cumulative error, and argued multiple DUI convictions were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Trombini) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of evidence that decedent violated Vehicle Code | Exclusion proper because Vehicle Code violations only show contributory negligence and legal conclusions; not a defense to murder | Decedent’s statutory violations were relevant to causation and should be admitted | Exclusion proper: contributory negligence/legal‑conclusion evidence was irrelevant to murder; defense could present causation theory without Vehicle Code labels |
| 2. Refusal to instruct jury on Vehicle Code violations | No pinpoint instruction requested; not required sua sponte; evidence insufficient to compel instruction | Entitled to jury instructions on specific Vehicle Code sections the decedent may have violated | Forfeited and meritless: no pinpoint request and no basis for sua sponte instruction; no error |
| 3. Failure to instruct vehicular manslaughter as lesser included of murder | Gross vehicular manslaughter is not necessarily included in murder because it requires elements (use of vehicle/unlawful act/gross negligence) not in murder | Vehicular manslaughter is a lesser included offense and jury should have been instructed | No error: vehicular manslaughter is not a necessarily included offense of murder; instruction not required |
| 4. Refusal to instruct on vehicular manslaughter as lesser related offense | No constitutional right to lesser‑related offense instructions; prosecutor’s charging discretion bars compelled instruction | Even as a lesser related offense, jury should have been instructed on vehicular manslaughter | No error: defendant has no right to lesser‑related instruction; giving it over prosecution’s objection would intrude on prosecutorial discretion |
| 5. Cumulative error | Errors (if any) together deprived due process and fair trial | Cumulative effect mandates reversal | No cumulative prejudice: court found no individual errors; no due process violation |
| 6. Multiple convictions under Veh. Code §23153 for single driving act | Multiple convictions for one continuous act of driving are improper; only one act occurred | Convictions for each injured victim were proper | Modify sentence: strike one §23153 conviction (count 3) and its enhancement; otherwise affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harrison, 35 Cal.4th 208 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Saille, 54 Cal.3d 1103 (pinpoint instruction rule; required only upon request)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (duty to instruct on lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (no constitutional right to instruction on lesser related offenses; prosecutorial charging discretion)
- People v. Marlin, 124 Cal.App.4th 559 (victim’s contributory negligence not a defense to crime)
- Wilkoff v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 345 (cannot sustain multiple §23153 convictions for a single act of driving)