Hit and Run Conviction not Supported by Evidence

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v, ESTEBAN JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant. D081267:Filed 1/3/2024— Cal.Rptr.3d —

Summary: Jimenez was convicted of evading an officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) and found true a prior strike allegation. Jimenez appealedcontending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident (“hit and run”) in violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a). The Court of Appeal agreed.

Evidence at Trial

During a police pursuit, Jimenez committed multiple traffic violations. As the Officers pursued him, Jimenez’s Corolla collided with a short cinder block wall, causing a large cloud of smoke and debris. The Officers parked their vehicle. A patrol officer responded to a radio request at the crashed vehicle’s location. He  saw the Corolla on the sidewalk, crashed into the wall. The driver’s seat of the vehicle was empty, and the passenger seat was occupied by an individual other than Jimenez. There was a property management sign on the property containing the wall into which the vehicle crashed.

Standard of Review

“ ‘When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for “ ‘substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value’ ” that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.’

Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a)

To establish a violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a), the People must prove that a defendant driver: “ ‘(1) knew he or she was involved in an accident; (2) knew damage [to any property] resulted from the accident; and (3) knowingly and willfully left the scene of the accident (4) without giving the required information ….’ ” The driver must immediately either give the required information to the owner or person in charge of the property or leave a written notice in a conspicuous place on the damaged property and notify the police department. (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)

The evidence supports a finding that Jimenez had left the scene of the accident but there was no evidence at trial as to how long after the accident the officer arrived; whether Jimenez had departed the scene knowingly and willfully; or whether Jimenez had provided the information to the wall owner and police as required by Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a)(1)–(2). It would not have been possible for the jury to come to any reasonable inferences from the evidence. A rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to convict Jimenez of a violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a).

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.