People v. Hamidi

Filed 10/2/23

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Appellate Division No.: CA296005 Trial Court Case No.: M280287 Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), Trial Court Location: Central Division

v. DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS ROHULLAH HAMIDI, (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

APPEAL from the October 19, 2022 judgment of conviction following jury trial entered by Superior Court, San Diego County, Robert Amador, Judge. This matter was scheduled for argument and taken under submission on July 27, 2023. AFFIRMED. On May 30, 2023, Appellate Division Judge Maryann D’Addezio issued an Order of Recusal and did not participate in the review or consideration of this appeal. On May 22, 2021, Ms. Magdalena crossed the street at an unmarked crosswalk at the corner of El Cajon Boulevard and Altadena. Mr. Hamidi struck and killed her as he passed a vehicle stopped at the crosswalk in a different lane. After doing so he stopped, turned on emergency lights, and requested someone to call 911. Mr. Hamidi told law enforcement—and testified—that he did not see Ms. Magdalena until she was running into the crosswalk. There were videos from several

DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

angles of the accident showing the stopped car, Mr. Hamidi driving, and Ms. Magdalena going through the crosswalk and being hit. On March 23, 2022, Mr. Hamidi was charged with one count of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter pursuant to Penal Code section 192, subdivision (c)(2). The alleged negligent acts were passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk (Veh. Code, § 21951) and failing to yield to a pedestrian (Veh. Code, § 21950). During trial, the defense requested that the trial court give CALCRIM No. 3404 as an instruction and that the trial court give an instruction regarding the meaning of “overtake and pass.” The trial court denied both of those requests. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on September 27, 2022. Sentencing occurred on October 19, 2022. Mr. Hamidi timely filed his notice of appeal on November 1, 2022. Accident Instruction Appellant requested that the trial court give the instruction CALCRIM No. 3404. CALCRIM No. 3404 is a “pinpoint” instruction, and “on request, a criminal defendant is entitled to pinpoint instructions ... if the instructions are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 542.) When reviewing the denial of a request for a jury instruction, doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence are resolved in favor of the accused. (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 944.) In doing so, we do not weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and we focus on matters that could justify the instruction rather than the “customary summary of evidence supporting the judgment.” (People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 15–16.) However, when the evidence is “minimal and insubstantial ..., the court need not instruct on its effect.” (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684–685, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 138.) As our Supreme Court has cautioned, “unsupported theories should not be presented to the jury” and “[t]rial courts have the duty to screen out invalid theories of conviction, either by appropriate instruction or by not presenting them to the jury in the first place.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1131.) For homicides, the accident defense stems from Penal Code section 195, which states in part: “Homicide is excusable … [w]hen committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful -2- DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT