Opinion
C083885
06-27-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MADHU LATA SINGH, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 14F07769)
Defendant Madhu Lata Singh hit a pedestrian with her pickup truck, and the pedestrian died at the scene. Following the collision, defendant failed to voluntarily disclose that she was a driver involved in the accident and she provided inaccurate information to law enforcement. As relevant to this appeal, a jury found defendant guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 20001, which contains duties for drivers involved in an accident involving injury to a person. Defendant contends the statute is unconstitutionally vague because nothing in it implies the driver has an affirmative duty to identify herself as a driver involved in the collision. We will affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. --------
BACKGROUND
The Accident
In the early morning, defendant hit the victim while driving to work. Defendant and the victim were employees of the same eyeglasses lab.
Moments after the accident, another arriving employee saw something lying on the street. She saw defendant walking from her truck toward the victim. Defendant stood over the victim, calling her name. The coworker asked defendant what happened. Defendant said something happened to the victim. She did not say she had hit the victim.
The coworker called 911. Police arrived 15 to 20 minutes later, and by then about 10 employees had congregated around the accident. An officer asked the group if anyone saw the accident or if the person who hit the victim was there. Defendant was in the group but did not come forward. The officer, however, noticed defendant had a "deer-in-the-headlights" look. Paramedics pronounced the victim dead soon after.
Another officer spoke with defendant shortly after the accident. Defendant told the officer she was driving to work and when she made a turn, she saw someone lying in the road. She saw the taillights of a vehicle driving away but could not tell its type.
When the officer told defendant he needed to take her statement, defendant indicated she was having difficulty understanding what the officer was saying. She, however, provided her name, address, and "different stuff like that."
About five hours after the accident, officers found defendant's truck in a parking lot southeast of the eyeglasses lab. The truck's hood was dented and purple threads were underneath it (the color of the victim's clothing). In the truck bed, there were eyeglasses — later identified as belonging to the victim.
An officer again spoke to defendant. She repeated she was driving to work, came around the corner, and saw the victim in the road. She said the victim had a bad leg and thought she might have fallen. When the officer told defendant about the dent on her truck, the evidence underneath the truck, and the eyeglasses, defendant said, "I hit her," adding, "I didn't see her." She said she did not tell the officers originally because she was nervous, scared, and shy. Jury Instruction , Verdict , and Sentencing
In instructing the jury on the elements of a section 20001 violation, the court instructed, using CALCRIM No. 2140, that a driver must give police officers at the scene information including their name and address and, "[w]hen providing his or her name and address, the driver is required to identify himself or herself as a driver of . . . a vehicle involved in the accident."
The jury found defendant guilty of failing to perform a legal duty following an accident causing death (§ 20001, subd. (a)(2)), as well as misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court granted probation, ordering defendant to serve 365 days in jail. A misdemeanor term was run concurrently.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends section 20001 is unconstitutionally vague. She argues nothing in the statute implies the driver has an affirmative duty to identify herself as the driver involved in the collision. She avers she was distraught over what had occurred, had no idea she was obligated to identify herself as the driver, and was therefore convicted due to her lack of fair warning. We disagree.
Section 20001 directs a driver who has been in an injury or death causing accident to stop and fulfill the requirements of sections 20003 and 20004. (§ 20001.) Section 20003 requires a driver involved in an accident to give the person struck and any officer at the scene information such as their name, address, and vehicle registration number as well as to show their license. (§ 20003, subds. (a)-(b).)
Section 20004 applies where there is a fatal accident, and requires the driver of any vehicle involved — if there is no traffic or police officer at the scene — to report the accident, without delay, to the nearest highway patrol office, or police authority, as well as to submit the information required in section 20003. (§ 20004.)
The contention that nothing in the statute implies an affirmative duty to identify oneself as the driver involved in an accident has been rejected for some time. (See People v. Monismith (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 762, 766 ["It seems equally clear that the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident can furnish such identification [required by sections 20003 and 20004] only by identifying himself as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident"]; People v. Kroncke (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1546 [agreeing with Monismith that, "to comply in a meaningful way with the statute, a driver must identify himself as the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident"].)
We agree that identifying oneself as a driver involved in an accident resulting in injury is implicit in the statute. Accordingly, section 20001 is not unconstitutionally vague and defendant's conduct in failing to identify herself as the driver involved in the accident (and instead providing false and misleading information to investigating officers) violated the statute.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Mauro, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.