Opinion
A130181
05-29-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GINA BARBARA MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-100233-6)
A jury convicted defendant Gina Barbara Martinez of driving a vehicle without the owner's consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of possession. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant appeals and raises two claims: (1) the court erred in granting the prosecutor's request to modify a standard jury instruction on the elements of the offense because the modification lessened the prosecutor's burden of proving defendant's specific intent to deprive the vehicle's owner of possession; and (2) the prosecutor exploited inconsistent positions at trial, first saying that knowledge that a vehicle is stolen is an element of the offense in order to obtain admission of prior crimes to show intent and later taking the opposite position to obtain modification of a jury instruction to state that knowledge that a vehicle is stolen is not an element of the offense. We conclude that the first claim has merit and reverse the judgment and remand for retrial on that basis. We do not reach the second claim.
I. FACTS
A. Trial evidence
The presentation of evidence at trial commenced on May 26, 2010 and was concluded later that same day. A police officer testified that he was patrolling San Pablo in a marked police car on February 3, 2010, around 10:00 p.m. when he saw an older model maroon Nissan Sentra in front of him on Rumrill Boulevard. From prior experience, the officer knew that type of car is "a commonly stolen vehicle." The officer followed the Nissan for a couple blocks, coming within about two car-lengths of it, and used his patrol car's on-board computer to check the Nissan's license plate number against stolen vehicle reports. The officer learned that the Nissan was reported stolen.
The Nissan made "a hard right sudden turn" onto Dover Street and the patrol car followed. The Nissan then made a "normal, average speed" right turn into an alley that runs between houses. At this point, the officer activated the patrol car's overhead emergency lights to make a traffic stop. The driver, later identified as defendant Martinez, stopped the Nissan, immediately opened the driver's door, and stepped out of the vehicle and looked at the officer. The officer ordered defendant to return to the car, which she did, and the officer called for back-up. Other officers responded to the scene, and defendant and a male passenger were arrested without incident.
The Nissan's engine was still running after the two occupants were arrested. The officer turned off the engine with the single key in the ignition and looked at the key. The key was not a Nissan brand key. The key had the insignia "Ilco" on it, which is "an after market company for making spare keys." The officer, who had been a General Motors automobile technician, testified that the key looked like a General Motors door key. The officer also saw that the plastic trim surrounding the ignition was missing, which indicated to the officer that the ignition had been manipulated. A photograph admitted as an exhibit at trial showed that the plastic ring surrounding the metal ignition switch was missing. The officer did not notice anything else unusual or suspicious about the condition of the Nissan.
Three other witnesses testified at trial, all for the prosecution. The Nissan's owner testified that she discovered her car missing from the street outside her San Leandro home on January 14, 2010, about two weeks before defendant was found driving it. The owner reclaimed the vehicle after it was recovered by the police. The owner found personal items in the vehicle that did not belong to her or her husband. The owner also saw that the plastic trim around the ignition was missing but did not notice it until two or three days after she reclaimed the car.
Evidence of prior crimes was admitted. A Richmond police officer testified that in 1997 he arrested defendant while she was sitting in the driver's seat of a parked, stolen vehicle. The vehicle was a Datsun, and its entire ignition system was visibly damaged: the metal part of the ignition switch where one puts the key "was totally pulled out" and missing, the plastic capsule surrounding the steering column was broken and pulled away, and a screwdriver, not a key, was being used in the ignition. Defendant was convicted of unlawful driving of a vehicle for the 1997 incident.
The jury was instructed that evidence of prior crimes was admitted for the limited purpose of proving that defendant acted with the specific intent to deprive the Nissan owner of possession or, as relevant to another charge of receiving a stolen vehicle, knew that the car had been stolen. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).)
Another police officer testified that he arrested defendant driving a stolen Honda in 2007. The vehicle was visibly damaged. "[T]he radio was gone, all the wires were hanging out of the dash and there was a key in the ignition but the key was sticking about half an inch out further than a normal key would normally sit inside of a normal car ignition." The officer turned the key and removed it from the ignition but the engine remained on. The officer saw that the key was filed down along the edges. The officer used a knife in the car's ignition to turn it off. Defendant was convicted of unlawful driving of a vehicle for the 2007 incident.
B. Jury instructions
Defendant was charged with two counts: (1) unlawfully driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and (2) receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d). The prosecutor requested modification of the standard jury instruction on the first count for unlawfully driving a vehicle (CALCRIM No. 1820) to add the following statement from People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 180 (Green): "[K]nowledge that the vehicle was stolen is not an element of the offense. Such knowledge is merely one of various alternative factors evidencing an intent to deprive the owner of title and possession." Defense counsel objected to any modification of the standard instruction. The court overruled the objection and modified the instruction but, for reasons that do not appear in the record, modified the instruction by adding only the first sentence of the Green excerpt presented by the prosecutor.
Defendant had been charged with unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle but the court found insufficient evidence to instruct the jury on a taking theory.
CALCRIM No. 1820, with the modification in italics, was read to the jury as follows: "The defendant is charged in count one with unlawfully driving a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime the People must prove that, one, the defendant drove someone else's vehicle without the owner's consent; and, two, when the defendant did so she intended to deprive the owner of possession or ownership of the vehicle for any period of time. Knowledge that the vehicle is stolen is not required for count one. A vehicle includes a passenger vehicle." (Italics added.)
On count two for receiving stolen property, the jury was instructed pursuant to the standard jury instruction (CALCRIM No. 1750), as follows: "The defendant is charged in count two with receiving stolen property, motor vehicle, in violation of Penal Code section 496(d). To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime the People must prove that, one, the defendant received or withheld from its owner property, a 1993 Nissan Sentra, that had been stolen; and, two, when the defendant received or withheld the property, a 1993 Nissan Sentra, she knew the property had been stolen. Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of the theft [sic] or burglary or robbery. To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Mere presence, near or access to the property is not enough. Two or more people can possess the property at the same time."
C. Closing argument to the jury
Counsel presented their closing arguments to the jury after the jury was instructed on the law. The prosecutor noted that the main questions for the jury on counts one and two were "[d]id [defendant] intend to deprive the owner of possession or ownership of the car and did she know the property was stolen?" On count one, the prosecutor argued that intent to deprive was evidenced by the fact that defendant had possession of the car, which necessarily deprived the owner of possession. The prosecutor recalled the time she borrowed her boyfriend's truck to pick up a Christmas tree. The prosecutor said: "When I drove [that] truck I knew exactly what I was doing. I intended to use and [have] possession of that truck and I intended for [the owner] to be unable to use the truck because obviously we both can't be driving it somewhere at the same time. Only one of us can take it. So if we apply that scenario to the count one here of driving a vehicle, the third element, I'm totally guilty of. I intended to deprive [the owner] of the use of the car. But I haven't committed a crime because [the owner] consented." The prosecutor also argued that defendant's intent to deprive the car's owner of possession (count one) and knowledge that the car was stolen (count two) were supported by defendant's prior unlawful driving convictions because defendant knew, from prior experience, that a damaged ignition is an indicator of a stolen car. The prosecutor also maintained that defendant's "evasive conduct" in turning sharply off the boulevard and into an alley with a police car behind her showed consciousness of guilt.
Defense counsel started her argument with the prior offenses and argued that the vehicles involved in those offenses had visible damage that would be apparent to any driver, whereas the Nissan involved in the present offense had only trim missing from the ignition and was otherwise in a condition that was not suspicious. Defense counsel denied that defendant's behavior when stopped by a police officer was unusual or showed any consciousness of guilt. Counsel turned to the element of intention to deprive the car's owner of possession (count one) and argued that unlawful driving of a vehicle "is not a strict liability crime." "In order to specifically intend to deprive an owner of something you need to know that you're depriving the owner of something. What I mean when I say that is it can't just be proving that the car is stolen and that you're driving it, you need that third element. You need to say it's stolen, you're driving it and here is why we know that you intended to keep it from the owner."
D. Jury deliberations, questions and verdict
The jury began its deliberations late in the morning of May 27, 2010. After about an hour of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the court with three questions: (1) "In regards to Count 1: Does owner refer to the legal owner of the vehicle or an implied owner?"; (2) Does intended to deprive the owner of possession or ownership of the vehicle refer to the legal owner or an implied owner?"; [and] (3) "Does intent refer to the mere act of driving the vehicle?"
The court discussed the questions and its proposed responses with counsel. Defense counsel argued that the modified jury instruction on count one confused the jury and that the court should inform the jury, in response to the third question, that intent to deprive the car's owner cannot be met by the mere act of driving. The court said: "Well, you have to drive. You're driving without the owner's consent. And when you did so, you intended to deprive the owner of possession or ownership for any period of time. So what does the mere act of driving mean different from that?"
The court rejected defense counsel's request for elaboration on the intent element on count one and provided the following written response to the jury's questions: "In questions #1 and #2: What do you mean by 'implied owner'? This was not a phrase used by anyone during the trial. What difference do you mean between the phrases 'legal owner' and 'implied owner?" [¶] For purposes of VC 10851, Vehicle Code section 460 defines 'owner' as follows: [¶] An 'owner' is a person having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal title of a vehicle whether or not such person lends, rents, or creates a security interest in the vehicle. [¶] I don't really understand question #3. I would refer you to page 8, paragraph numbered 252, of the jury instructions, 'The crimes charged in Counts 1 and 2 require proof of the union, or joint operation of the act and wrongful intent.' And page 11, paragraph number 1820, clearly lists the elements of Count 1. What I find confusing is the phrase 'the mere act' of driving the vehicle.' "
Just seven minutes after the court made these statements, the jury reached a verdict. The jury found defendant guilty of unlawfully driving a vehicle (count one) but not guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle (count two).
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court committed instructional error by modifying the standard jury instruction on unlawful driving of a vehicle with a variant instruction that was misleading and lessened the prosecution's burden of proving specific intent to deprive the vehicle's owner of possession. Defendant also asserts that the prosecution took inconsistent positions at trial, first saying that knowledge that a vehicle is stolen is an element of the offense in order to obtain admission of prior crimes to show intent and later taking the opposite position to secure a jury instruction saying that knowledge that a vehicle is stolen is not an element of the offense. The first claim is dispositive.
A. The court erred in modifying the standard jury instruction
The trial court erred in modifying the standard jury instruction on unlawful driving of a vehicle. Standard jury instructions are approved for use as the "official instructions for use in the state of California" after an exhaustive vetting process to insure accuracy, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050.) Use of these standard instructions "is strongly encouraged." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) Of course, a trial court is not compelled to administer standard jury instructions. (People v. Runnion (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 852, 858.) A trial court's "obligation is to state the law correctly," and the court may meet that obligation with a modified instruction. (Ibid.) The People also note that the prosecution may request amplifying instructions to clarify or pinpoint issues raised by the facts of a particular case. (See People v. Hunter (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 261, 275, fn. 3 [collecting cases].) But modification of a standard jury instruction with an excerpt from an appellate court opinion should be approached with caution because an opinion excerpt, while a correct statement of the law, "does not necessarily make a good jury instruction." (People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205.) So it is here.
The trial court modified CALCRIM No. 1820 concerning unlawful driving of a vehicle by adding an excerpt from Green, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 165. In assessing the propriety of adding a statement from Green to CALCRIM No. 1820, it helps to understand the factual and legal context in which the statement was made. In Green, the appellate court reversed a jury conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) because the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte on the lesser included offense of joyriding (Pen. Code, § 499b). The evidence was that the vehicle had been carjacked by thieves and, days later, defendant (who was not one of the carjackers) came into possession of the vehicle either with the consent of a man defendant believed had lawful possession (defense theory) or by taking and driving the vehicle without the consent of the legal owner or the man defendant claimed had lawful possession (prosecution theory). (Green, supra, at pp. 172-174, 179.) The court found that, if the prosecution's evidence were believed, the jury could have found defendant guilty of either joyriding (by temporarily taking the vehicle from a man defendant believed had lawful possession) or unlawful driving of a vehicle (by driving a vehicle without the legal owner's permission with the intent to deprive the owner of possession). (Id. at pp. 179, 181.) The court reversed the judgment and remanded for retrial. (Id. at p. 183.) In doing so, the court rejected defendant's alternative argument that the unlawful driving conviction was unsupported by the evidence and could not be retried. (Id. at p. 180.)
The court noted that a violation of Penal Code section 10851, subdivision (a) for unlawful driving of a vehicle is established where: "(1) the person either obtains lawful possession of the vehicle and thereafter forms the specific intent to deprive the owner of possession; or, (2) obtains the vehicle under circumstances which indicate the perpetrator has knowledge, absent his or her actual taking of the vehicle, that the use or operation of the vehicle is depriving the owner of possession of the vehicle." (Green supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at pp. 179-180.) Evidence that a defendant knows "the vehicle had previously been stolen" supports "a finding of the second circumstance." (Id. at p. 180.) But "knowledge that the vehicle was stolen is not an element of the offense. Such knowledge is merely one of various alternative factors evidencing an intent to deprive the owner of title and possession." (Ibid., citing People v. Hallman (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 638, 641.). Such factors may include the time, place, and manner of possession of a stolen vehicle. (Hallman, supra, at p. 641.) In Hallman, sufficient evidence of guilt was established where the defendant was found driving a stolen vehicle within four hours of its theft and within a couple miles of where the car had been parked. The Hallman court noted: "To conclude that defendant did not know the car was stolen, the trier of fact would have to draw the unlikely inference that someone other than defendant stole it some time between 8 and 11:40 p.m., remained in—or left and returned to—the neighborhood where the theft occurred and then loaned the vehicle to defendant. The evidence was sufficient to show defendant's knowledge that he was driving a stolen car." (Ibid.) In Green, the evidence failed to prove that defendant knew the car was stolen (the jury acquitted him of receiving stolen property), but the court found that other factors evidenced an intent to deprive the lawful owner of possession: defendant operated the car without an ignition key and by means of a screwdriver, a method common to car thieves; defendant took evasive action to avoid the police when he saw them following him; defendant was discovered driving the car within four days of its theft; and defendant gave vague and inconsistent statements about how he acquired the car. (Green, supra, at p. 179, fn. 7, 180-181.) It was held that this circumstantial evidence supported an inference that defendant knew that the use or operation of the vehicle was depriving the owner of possession of the vehicle.
In reliance on Green, the prosecution proposed supplementing CALCRIM No. 1820 with the following statement: "[k]nowledge that the vehicle was stolen is not an element of the offense. Such knowledge is merely one of various alternative factors evidencing an intent to deprive the owner of title and possession." (Green, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 180.) "An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law." (People v. O'Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574.) "To establish a defendant's guilt of violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), the prosecution is required to prove that the defendant drove or took a vehicle belonging to another person, without the owner's consent, and that the defendant had the specific intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of title or possession. [Citation.] Knowledge that the vehicle was stolen, while not an element of the offense, may constitute evidence of the defendant's intent to deprive the owner of title and possession." (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
The problem with the proposed modification of the standard jury instruction for unlawful driving of a vehicle is that knowledge that the vehicle was stolen, while not an element of the offense, is a common way of proving the element of intent—if a defendant knows the vehicle he or she is driving was stolen, then defendant intends to deprive the legal owner of possession. (Green, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 180; People v. O'Dell, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574.) Also, the prosecution's theory was that defendant knew the vehicle was stolen, which is why the prosecution charged defendant with receiving a stolen vehicle and introduced evidence of prior crimes to show defendant's familiarity with the condition of stolen vehicles, like the presence of broken ignitions. The proposed modification confuses the issues on trial by minimizing the importance of the defendant's state of knowledge concerning the status of the vehicle. Confusion was deepened by the decision to drop the second sentence in the Green excerpt, so that the jury was told only that "[k]nowledge that the vehicle was stolen is not an element of the offense" and not told that "knowledge is merely one of various alternative factors evidencing an intent to deprive the owner of title and possession," which would have at least reminded the jury of the necessity of finding a specific intent to deprive the car's owner of possession, whether by knowledge of the stolen status of the car or other circumstances. (Green, supra, at p. 180.)
The confusion engendered by the modified jury instruction was compounded by the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury. The prosecutor argued that intent to deprive was evidenced by the fact that defendant had possession of the car, which necessarily deprived the owner of possession. The prosecutor recalled the time she borrowed her boyfriend's truck to pick up a Christmas tree. As noted earlier, the prosecutor said: "When I drove [that] truck I knew exactly what I was doing. I intended to use and [have] possession of that truck and I intended for [the owner] to be unable to use the truck because obviously we both can't be driving it somewhere at the same time. Only one of us can take it. So if we apply that scenario to the count one here of driving a vehicle, the third element [intent to deprive], I'm totally guilty of. I intended to deprive [the owner] of the use of [the] car. But I haven't committed a crime because [the owner] consented." The argument wrongfully suggested that defendant could be found guilty of unlawfully driving a vehicle if defendant (1) drove the vehicle and (2) did not have the lawful owner's permission—regardless of whether defendant thought the vehicle was lawfully possessed by another and that person gave her permission to drive the car.
The jury was plainly confused, as evidenced by the course of deliberations. Shortly after the start of deliberations, the jury submitted three questions to the court: (1) "In regards to Count 1: Does owner refer to the legal owner of the vehicle or an implied owner?"; (2) Does intended to deprive the owner of possession or ownership of the vehicle refer to the legal owner or an implied owner?"; [and] (3) "Does intent refer to the mere act of driving the vehicle?" These questions show that the jury was grappling with the question of intent and confused about whether a violation of unlawful driving is established by the bare act of driving a vehicle without the legal owner's permission (as the prosecutor wrongly suggested in her closing argument) or whether driving a vehicle with the permission of one whom you mistakenly believe to be the legal owner negates the element of an intent to deprive the legal owner of possession. The court's answers did nothing to lessen this confusion.
B. The instructional error was not harmless and requires reversal
Instructional error is subject to harmless error review. (People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 490, 502-503.) Under California law, instructional error requires reversal only if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have been different had the trial court properly instructed the jury. (Id. at p. 490 [applying harmless error standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837].) But jury instructions that improperly describe or omit an element of the crime violate the defendant's rights to due process under the federal Constitution, and thus implicate federal law. (Flood at pp. 491, 502-503.) Under federal law, such instructional error requires reversal unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the jury's verdict. (Id. at p. 504; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)
We cannot conclude that the instructional error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction was confusing, and the confusion it created concerning the element of intent was compounded by the prosecution's argument that wrongly suggested that a violation of unlawful driving is established by the bare act of driving a vehicle without the legal owner's permission. The jury was plainly confused by the instruction, as its questions during deliberation demonstrate. That the confusion persisted, and impacted the verdict, is strongly suggested by the split verdict that found defendant guilty of unlawful driving of a vehicle but not guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle. In finding defendant not guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle, the jury determined that defendant did not know the vehicle was stolen. (Green, supra, 34 Cal.App4th at p. 179, fn. 7.) Knowledge that a vehicle was stolen evidences an intent to deprive the legal owner of possession and, while other factors may evidence that intent, those factors are not present here.
The People maintain that the conviction can be sustained because the evidence supporting the unlawful driving conviction is "extremely strong." We disagree. Defendant was found driving the vehicle over two weeks after it was stolen. She was operating the car with a key, and the car's condition did not immediately suggest that it had been stolen. It is true, as the People observe, that the ignition was "altered" but the alteration was minor: the plastic ring around the metal ignition switch was missing. The "altered" ignition was sufficiently minor that the car's owner characterized the ignition as "slightly damaged" and did not immediately notice it when she reclaimed the car. It is possible that one driving the vehicle would not have seen the alteration or, if one had seen it, would not have regarded the missing part as suspicious given that the car was 17 years old.
The People argue that defendant showed consciousness of guilt by taking evasive action when followed by the police. The People state: "Shortly after McClaflin started following [defendant], she made two right turns in quick succession, moving from a four-lane road into a one-lane, dirt-and-gravel driveway about a mile from her home." But the evidence of purposeful evasion is not clear cut. There was no evidence that defendant knew she was being followed. The patrol car followed defendant from about two-car lengths back and had her in sight for only a short time before she made "a hard right sudden turn" off the four-lane boulevard. The next turn that defendant made, into a one-lane alley that runs between houses, was not sudden but executed at a "normal, average speed," according to the arresting officer.
We are also not persuaded by the People's claim that "[i]n light of [defendant's] multiple prior convictions for unlawful taking or driving, the jury had little choice but to find that [defendant] had intended to deprive the owner of the car of title or possession." Defendant's prior convictions were admitted for a limited purpose: to show her familiarity with the indicia of stolen vehicles, like missing ignitions and stereos, and thus to prove the elements of intent and knowledge relevant to the charged crimes. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The evidence was not admitted, and may not be considered on appeal to prove defendant's bad character or propensity to unlawfully drive vehicles. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) When rightfully considered, the evidence of defendant's prior convictions is not compelling because those convictions concerned a different situation, where the vehicles had more obvious signs of theft. One of the prior convictions concerned a car in which the ignition switch "was totally pulled out" and missing, the plastic capsule surrounding the steering column was broken and pulled away, and a screwdriver, not a key, was being used in the ignition. The other prior conviction concerned a car in which "the radio was gone, all the wires were hanging out of the dash and there was a key in the ignition but the key was sticking about half an inch out further than a normal key would normally sit" and could not turn off the engine—a knife had to be used to turn off the engine.
In summary, the evidence highlighted by the People, while probative of guilt, is not sufficient to meet the high standard of harmless error applicable here. We cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the instructional error did not contribute to the jury's verdict.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for retrial and other proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
_________________________
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 4, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.