From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Vanessa A.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jul 10, 2008
No. D051964 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2008)

Opinion


In re VANESSA A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VANESSA A., Defendant and Appellant. D051964 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division July 10, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J215646, Francis M. Devaney, Judge.

McDONALD, J.

The juvenile court found true beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations that 16-year-old Vanessa A. unlawfully drove a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2) and, as the driver of a vehicle, was involved in an accident causing property damage and left the scene without leaving notice of the incident in violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a) (count 3). The court designated the true finding on count 2 as a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), and dismissed count 1. Vanessa was committed to the Short Term Offender Program for a period not to exceed 90 days and, on completion of the commitment, placed with her mother. Vanessa timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal Vanessa contends the true finding on count 2 should be reversed. She argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding on count 2 because there was no evidence she drove the vehicle without the consent or permission of the owner, and (2) the admission into evidence of a police officer's testimony that he obtained information the vehicle was a stolen vehicle violated her rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Vanessa does not challenge on appeal the true finding on count 3.

FACTS

On February 23, 2007, an Oldsmobile vehicle struck a fire hydrant, causing the metal to rupture and the release of a geyser of water. Shortly after the accident, the vehicle that struck the fire hydrant was found several blocks away. Three people were standing near the vehicle: Vanessa, an unidentified teenage male, and her friend Ana. Items of personal property belonging to Vanessa were found in the front seat of the vehicle. An investigating officer submitted the vehicle's identification number to a central record facility and received a response that the vehicle was registered to an owner in Las Vegas, Nevada and had been reported stolen.

Vanessa was questioned by the investigating officers and stated she noticed the vehicle parked on the street in front of her house several days earlier. The keys were in the ignition and she drove it to school on several occasions. On the day of the accident, she was driving the vehicle home from school, lost control of the vehicle, and struck a fire hydrant and nearby wall. She then drove the vehicle several blocks from the accident, where it was found by the police. She sought help from her friend Ana, who came to the scene, as did Vanessa's brother. Her brother left the scene before the officers arrived and took the ignition keys with him.

Vanessa left no information about the accident or her name, insurance or address at the scene of the collision with the fire hydrant before driving away.

In her defense at trial Vanessa contended she was not the driver of the vehicle. She presented the testimonies of her brother Hector and friend Ana. Hector testified that on February 23, 2007, he drove the vehicle in question, giving Ana a ride to her home. Returning to his home, he lost control of the vehicle and struck the fire hydrant and nearby wall. Following the accident he left the vehicle and went home, taking the vehicle's ignition key with him. To his knowledge no other members of his family had driven the vehicle and the day of the accident was the first time he drove the vehicle. The vehicle had been parked in front of his house for about a week and he knew it was a stolen vehicle.

Ana testified that on February 23, 2007, Hector drove her in the vehicle in question to a friend's house. After leaving her he drove down the street and struck a fire hydrant. Hector then left the area. Ana telephoned Vanessa and related the incident to her. She then met Vanessa and her friend Eman at the vehicle.

THE TRIAL COURT DECISION

Following closing argument the trial court verbally issued its decision:

"I think the corpus rule is not a problem in light of all the evidence that has been presented. So the problem I have, Miss Trieu [defense counsel], is that we have evidence that the vehicle was stolen, that the minor's property is found in the vehicle and the minor says that she was the driver and takes responsibility right after the accident occurred.

"We have her brother now coming here and saying no, I'm the driver, I was the driver. But he didn't tell anyone after she was arrested, didn't tell anyone for the longest time; but he comes here today and says that he did it. Now, his credibility was challenged. He says he did tell one person, his mother. Mother doesn't testify. There is no corroboration for his statement after this happened taking responsibility.

"I cannot believe she was never in that vehicle. If you believe her brother's testimony, she was never in that vehicle to his knowledge, so never drove it; so how did her property get in there. Well, she showed up, met her friend. There was this accident and fire hydrant "exploded." And I'm supposed to believe that then she put her property in there. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. So I find that the people have met their burden of proof."

DISCUSSION

Although Vanessa's defense at trial was that she was not the driver of the vehicle, she contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding that she violated Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). She argues that the prosecution presented no evidence that she drove the vehicle without the permission or consent of the owner and that the evidence the vehicle was stolen was erroneously admitted in violation of her rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. She raised these arguments in the trial court in support of her motion to dismiss the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1 following presentation of the prosecution case.

Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), provides that "[a]ny person who drives . . . a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner . . ., and with intent either to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner . . . of his or her title to or possession of the vehicle, . . . is guilty of a public offense . . . ." To sustain a true finding of a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), there must therefore be substantial evidence the defendant drove the vehicle without the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Substantial evidence is evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make a true finding beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307.)

Here, there was evidence the vehicle was a stolen vehicle at the time it was driven by Vanessa. From this evidence there is an inescapable inference that the vehicle was being driven without the consent of the owner. There were two sources of evidence the vehicle was a stolen vehicle. The officer testified he reported the vehicle's identification number to a central record facility and received a response that the vehicle was registered to an owner in Las Vegas, Nevada and had been reported stolen. Vanessa contends this information was testimonial out-of-court evidence inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. The People properly note that no objection to this evidence was made at trial and, under People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 186, the admissibility of the evidence may not be raised on appeal as a ground for reversal. However, even if the computer report evidence had been the subject of an objection at trial, there was other evidence the vehicle was stolen: Vanessa's brother testified the vehicle was a stolen vehicle.

Because there was no conflicting evidence that the vehicle was a stolen vehicle, the trial court could reasonably find the vehicle was a stolen vehicle and conclude that Vanessa was therefore driving the vehicle without the consent of the vehicle's owner.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

In re Vanessa A.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jul 10, 2008
No. D051964 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2008)
Case details for

In re Vanessa A.

Case Details

Full title:In re VANESSA A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jul 10, 2008

Citations

No. D051964 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2008)