Opinion
No. CIV S-07-1595 FCD GGH P.
May 28, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On March 25, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations ("F R") herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
The court acknowledges that in this case where petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 2005 conviction for felony hit and run, AEDPA standards require the court to pay a high level of deference to the state court's decision upholding petitioner's conviction. However, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that compelling grounds exist to grant the instant habeas petition. The state court unreasonably determined that a rational jury could have found petitioner guilty of the subject offense on the evidence presented at trial. Indeed, at the crux of this case is the fact that no evidence, other than the prosecutor's closing argument which is clearly not evidence, established any likelihood that a person would be in the parked car at the time of the collision. To establish petitioner's guilt, the prosecution had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that petitioner knew he caused injury to a person or that he knew that the accident was of such a nature that one would reasonably anticipate that it resulted in injury to a person.
Here, there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to establish petitioner's actual knowledge of the person in the parked car, and there was likewise no evidence presented to establish petitioner's constructive knowledge, beyond a reasonable doubt. As the magistrate judge emphasized in his order, contrary to the prosecutor's comments in closing argument that "[p]eople were coming to and fro . . . [in this residential neighborhood]" and that at the time of the collision "people [were] in and about their vehicles and homes and driveways and residences," there was no evidence presented at trial to establish these critical facts. (F R at 7-8.) Rather, the only evidence about the scene of the collision was that it occurred in a residential area; significantly, there were no eyewitnesses to the collision itself. Also particularly significant to the issue of constructive knowledge is that petitioner hit the passenger side of the victim's car, and there was no evidence to support a theory that after the car swung around, petitioner could have easily seen the victim, who was sitting in the driver's seat. The evidence adduced at trial was that the car, even after being hit, only presented itself to petitioner (when he glanced back at the scene) on the passenger side.
It is certainly correct, as found by the state court, that the circumstances of an accident could demonstrate that a person should reasonably anticipate that he had injured someone, but important to this case is whether the circumstances of the accident demonstrate that it was reasonable to anticipate that a person was in the parked car that petitioner hit. Had the prosecutor established by admissible evidence her theory of the case recounted in her closing argument, the result here may well be different. However, such a showing was not made in this case, and the court must therefore grant, as recommended by the magistrate judge and as more fully discussed in his findings and recommendations, petitioner's habeas petition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 25, 2008, are adopted in full; and
2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is granted; within thirty days of the date of this order, respondent shall either release petitioner from custody or initiate proceedings for a retrial.