People v. CunninghamPeople v. Cunningham
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC CUNNINGHAM, Defendant and Appellant.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Allison V. Hawlеy and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RAMIREZ, P. J.—A jury convicted defendant and appellant,1 Eric Cunningham, on one count of attempted murder (
The trial court imрosed a term of 25 years to life for count 1 and a term of 25 years to life for count 2, to run consecutively to the sentence in count 1. In addition to other enhancements, the trial court imposed a consecutive five-year enhancement in count 1 and a concurrent five-year enhancement in count 2 based on the jury finding that defendant‘s attack caused the victim to become comatose due to brain injury. The trial court stayed the enhancement in count 2 pursuant to
Defendant appeals, contending the evidence that the victim‘s treating physicians sedated her to conduct surgery and relieve pain assoсiated with use of a respirator was insufficient evidence to support the jury‘s finding that the victim was comatose. We affirm.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2013, defendant entered a smoke shop, attacked Chaula Patadia, one of the owners, and stole cash and merchandise from the store. A video surveillance camera capturеd the attack, and the prosecution showed the recording to the jury. The video recording shows defendant removing a mallet from his waistband and using it to hit Patadia in the head twice. Patadia fell to the ground, and defendant took cash from two cash registers. Defendant then hit Patadia a third time, took several items, and left the store.
Patadia was taken to an emergency room, where Dr. Gregory Guldner treated her. Dr. Guldner testified at trial about Patadia‘s condition and treatment. A CAT scan revealed Patadia had suffered several injuries to her skull and brain. She “had a broken skull bone that had been pushed down and
When Patadia returned from the CAT scan, her doctors reassessed her brain function and found “there were periods where she was becoming less awake and more sleepy. And our big concern with brain injury is that if your brain isn‘t functioning terribly well, you can either slow your breathing, in which case, of course, you don‘t get enough oxygen, or you don‘t control the secretions in your mouth, whether that‘s vomit, which is very common with a head injury, or even just saliva, and they will run down the back of the throat and go down thе wrong tube into the lungs and cause pneumonia, which can itself be fatal.” Based on these dangers and the fact that Patadia was “seeming to get worse from a neurologic standpoint,” Dr. Guldner decided “to place her on life support with a ventilator” and “gave her medications to sedate her, and I placed a tube through her mouth between her vocal cords into her lungs to breathe for her and prevent any of those secretions from getting into her lungs.”
The prosecution asked Dr. Guldner, “When you say you sedated her, is that another way of saying an induced coma?” He responded, “Yeah. We don‘t typically use the term in medicine ‘medically induced coma.’ That‘s a layperson‘s term. But it would be consistent. The medications we use are designed to completely suppress your consciousness so you are unaware of what‘s happening so that you cannot experience this tube in the back of the throat. It‘s quite painful when it‘s there and you‘re awake and you know it‘s there. So indeed we induce a complete loss of consciousness through medication.”
Patadia then underwent surgery for her injuries. Dr. Guldner testified: “The bleeding that was developing between the skull and the brain, of course, has a risk that as it develops it can push the brain farther away just by pressure. And therе‘s not much space inside the skull. And as that pressure builds up, you can develop problems where you essentially can lose all your nerve function.” He testified that “the neurosurgeon . . . lifted up some of the pieces of bone, removed blood that was between the skull and the sac that lines the brain called the dura . . . аnd then also removed blood between the sac and the brain itself and left a drain in and then tried to get the pieces of bone together again.”
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Guldner, “When you saw [Patadia] before you sedated her, she was conscious?” Dr. Guldner responded, “Yes, sir.” On redirect, the prоsecution asked him, “In your medical opinion,
On February 19, 2015, the jury found defendant guilty on one count of attempted murder (
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial record does not contain substantial evidence that defendant caused his victim to become comatose for purposes of
“In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to thе judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could havе reasonably deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact‘s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] ‘A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluatеs a witness‘s credibility.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59-60 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 244 P.3d 1062].)
Since
In this case there was substantial evidence to support the jury‘s finding that Patаdia was comatose. Dr. Guldner testified a CAT scan revealed several serious injuries to her skull, including a displaced broken bone in her skull that required surgery. He testified he and his colleagues decided to put Patadia on life support with a ventilator because she had declining neurological functioning and there was а risk to her health from lack of oxygen and pneumonia caused by her brain injuries. Dr. Guldner also testified that after she was sedated, Patadia underwent surgery to repair her skull and relieve bleeding in her brain and that she was kept unconscious for 11 days. The prosecution asked Dr. Guldner, “When you say you sedated her, is that another way of saying an induced coma?” He agreed, and explained that while the term “medically induced coma” is “a layperson‘s term,” it is true that the medications he and the other doctors gave Patadia “are designed to completely suppress your consciousness.” This testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to conclude that Patadia was comatose, in the sense that she was in a profound state of unconsciousness, due to her brain injuries.
Defendant contends the Tokash decision is distinguishable because in that case the doctor‘s testimony “unambiguously established that the victim was in a coma” as well as that the coma was induced by “both sedatives and paralytics.” These are distinctions without difference. It does not matter that the physician in Tokash testified his patient was “chemically in a coma” whereas Dr. Guldner characterized the phrase “medically induced coma” as a
Defendant contends we should reach a different result than the court in Tokash because here “no reasonable juror could conclude from Dr. Guldner‘s testimony, when viewed as а whole, that the sedation was necessary to save Ms. Patadia‘s life.” He argues that Dr. Guldner testified “she was sedated to prevent her from experiencing the pain and discomfort associated with having the ventilator tube inserted into her throat . . . .” This argument ignores Dr. Guldner‘s testimony that Patadia underwent brain surgery in which a neurosurgeоn “lifted up some of the pieces of bone, removed blood that was between the skull and the sac that lines the brain . . . and then also removed blood between the sac and the brain itself and left a drain in and then tried to get the pieces of bone together again.” It also ignores Dr. Guldner‘s testimony that Patadia‘s brain injuries rеduced her brain functioning, putting her at risk that she would not “get enough oxygen” or that she would lose “control [of] the secretions in [her] mouth . . . and they will run down the back of the throat and go down the wrong tube into the lungs and cause pneumonia, which can itself be fatal.” Finally, it ignores Dr. Guldner‘s testimony that in his medical opinion it was necessary tо sedate Patadia to save her life. The jury could reasonably have concluded from this testimony that Patadia would have died if she had not been sedated to undergo surgery and that her physicians kept her on the ventilator for 11 days after surgery to allow her to recover sufficiently so that she no longer faced thе risk of dying from secondary conditions brought on by reduced brain functioning. We do not disturb such inferences on appeal. (Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 435, 462-463 [120
Defendant contends concluding Patadia became comatose merely because she was sedated for surgery would mean “every victim of crime who undergoes surgery will be deemed to have been comatose for purposes of
Delgado, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th 660, cited by appellant, does not compel a different result. In Delgado, the Court of Appeal struck a
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
Hollenhorst, J., and McKinster, J., concurred.
Appellant‘s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 20, 2016, S232709.