People v. Peoples

PIERCE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment after a jury verdict convicting appellant of manslaughter in violation of Penal Code, section 192, subdivision 3(a) (driving a vehicle with gross negligence).

The case arose out of a head-on collision between an automobile driven north by appellant on County Road 102 in Yolo County and a pickup driven south thereon by one Herbert Schuler who was crushed to death as a result of the accident.

The fact that at the time of the accident appellant was under the influence of alcohol was established. Appellant’s brief concedes “The evidence indicated that defendant and appellant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. ’ ’

Appellant did not testify at the trial. He had, however, given statements after the accident during the same afternoon. He informed the police he had been proceeding to Woodland at the time of the accident, that his speed was between 45 and 50 miles per hour; that he was attempting to reach and turn left into County Road 29 (which intersects County Road 102). He then said, “I must have went to sleep. I wasn’t driving, the other fellow was.” In a later statement he repeated that his intent had been to turn into Road 29, but he stated then that he had gone to sleep or had had an attack and could only remember events to a point approximately one-half mile back from the scene of the accident. (He also denied the drinking which, as stated above, was clearly established and is now conceded.)

The point of impact and course of the two vehicles immediately prior to the accident were expressed in opinions included in testimony by Sergeant George W. Miller of the California Highway Patrol. The sole contention of error on

[583]

this appeal is that these opinions, which were received in evidence over objection, were inadmissible. Appellant argues that opinions on the ultimate issues in a case are an encroachment upon the jury’s prerogatives.

Although there is a conflict between the various jurisdictions of this country on the question (see 66 A.L.R.2d 1048), this state is committed to the rule which, in a proper case, permits testimony expressing an opinion on the ultimate fact. It is stated by our Supreme Court in