People v. Limon

DEVINE, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of violation of section 20001 of the Vehicle Code (hit and run in personal injury accident).

; The vehicle of which appellant, Peter Limón, was the driver was seen by the victim of the accident a moment before it struck him. The victim, Samuel Murdock, had been walking along a sidewalk. Murdock saw no one in the car but the driver. At that time the car was only five feet away. Murdock was knocked into a liquor store window.

, Philip Reed, who was driving another vehicle, saw the Limón automobile with only one occupant about twenty feet distant from Reed and approaching on the wrong side of the street. Reed swerved and avoided collision. He saw the Limón vehicle cross the sidewalk and crash into the liquor store. Reed stopped his car about thirty to thirty-five feet from the liquor store and ran back to the scene of the crash. The driver, appellant, was leaning over the steering wheel; the engine was still running in gear, and the wheels were turning. Reed

[577]

shook appellant and told him to “Turn off the car and get out,” which appellant did. There were no other persons in the vehicle. Eeed did not see anyone move away from it.

Limón began to walk away. Eeed instructed him, “Don’t leave, we will call the police and the ambulance.’’ Eeed proceeded to administer aid to Murdock, who was bleeding profusely. The proprietor of the store telephoned for the police and for an ambulance.

Another witness, Don Shepherd, heard the sound of the collision, saw appellant standing about ten feet from the store, and saw him walk away until he was out of sight.

When the police arrived, one of the officers set out to find the driver, going in the direction toward which Limón had departed. He found Limón about thirty-five minutes later. Appellant was walking back in the direction of the accident. Appellant was advised of his rights. He denied being the driver of the vehicle, which was registered to an automobile training school. This denial was repeated by appellant at the trial. No doubt it weighed heavily against him in the jury’s assessment of his asserted reason for leaving the scene. Appellant told the officer he had left the scene to telephone his wife. He said he had made this phone call only. He either failed or neglected to respond to tests for sobriety. It was undisputed that he had been drinking rather freely.