People v. Gemmill CA3
Filed 11/27/23 P. v. Gemmill CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----
THE PEOPLE, C096541
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 17F5858, 18F2309) v.
DEREK ANTHONY GEMMILL,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted defendant Derek Anthony Gemmill of domestic violence against a dating partner, A.A., and child abuse of her daughter, M.M. The jury found true that in one incident defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on A.A. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (e).)1 Defendant contends that finding is not supported by substantial evidence, arguing it was based solely on A.A.’s loss of consciousness when defendant
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
strangled her. Defendant maintains that loss of consciousness without more does not constitute great bodily injury. He is mistaken. Evidence of loss of consciousness is sufficient to support a finding of great bodily injury. We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2018, A.A. started dating defendant. At first, the relationship was good. But in mid-April, defendant and A.A. argued and he headbutted her in the back of the head. A.A. lost vision and experienced several days of back and neck pain. On the night of April 23, 2018, defendant and A.A. argued because she wanted him to leave the house she shared with her friend, Rebecca D. and Rebecca’s boyfriend, Tommy P. Defendant initially refused to leave. Once he agreed to leave, A.A. went with him. They took A.A.’s car — with two-year-old M.M. in the backseat — because defendant did not have a car. Defendant drove. On the drive, defendant and A.A. again argued. While driving, defendant hit A.A. multiple times in the nose and mouth. She bled on her sweatshirt and used baby wipes to stop the bleeding. Defendant drove to the house of Joshua S. A.A. had met Joshua a few times before. When they pulled in the driveway, there were people outside. Defendant spoke to Joshua, who told him to go into the house. Joshua asked A.A. if defendant had hit her and she said he had. Joshua went into the house and defendant came back outside. Defendant asked A.A., “Are you trying to get me fucking stabbed?” Defendant got into the car and drove off with A.A. and M.M. On the way, defendant again punched A.A. four to six times in the face and she lost consciousness. As defendant struck A.A., her daughter was in the back seat yelling, “Mommy.” At an intersection, defendant grabbed A.A.’s hair and hit her again. He asked, “Are you trying to get me killed? Because I will kill all of us.” Defendant was driving 60 to 70 miles an hour when he abruptly turned the steering wheel and drove the car off a cliff into a ditch. In the ditch, defendant punched and kicked the windshield, cracking it.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)