• Defendant Must Have Knowledge he/she Was Being Pursued to Sustain a Conviction

Sufficient Evidence that the Defendant Saw or Heard Emergency Lights and Siren for the Purposes of Evading an Officer Causing Serious Bodily Injury (2800.3 V.C.)

Defendant was driving a truck stolen in Pittsburg. He was observed by a Contra Costa County Sheriff deputy leaving a fast food restaurant lot. While awaiting backup before initiating a traffic stop, the deputy followed the vehicle eastbound on Highway 4 at 65-70 MPH. Suddenly, the defendant made a last-minute swerve off the highway, jumped a dirt embankment, onto an exit ramp. He increased his speed to 70-80 MPH. At this point, the deputy followed the suspect vehicle, turned on the patrol car emergency lights and activated the siren to make a stop. The suspect vehicle was 10-15 car lengths ahead.  

The suspect vehicle continued speeding down the off ramp, came to an intersection, ran a red light and “T-boned” with another vehicle. A mother was seriously injured and her daughters, ages 4-years and 2-years were killed. The defendant was ejected from his vehicle. In the opinion of officers at the scene, he was faking unconsciousness. He was alert when placed in an ambulance, complained of pain, and was uncooperative. Two bags of methamphetamine were found is his pocket and evidence of methamphetamine was found in a forensic blood test. Expert testimony was presented as to the effects of methamphetamine use and impacted driving.

The duration of time between the activation of emergency lights and siren and the collision was less than 5 seconds.

At trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of Murder 2nd (15-years to life) and one count of Evading an Officer Causing Serious Bodily Injury (7-years) (2800.3 V.C.) to be served consecutively.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed the evading conviction. The deputy did activate the emergency lights and siren when the defendant’s vehicle swerved off the highway and sped down the off ramp. Given the speed and vehicle distance before the collision, the lights and siren being activated for less than five seconds, there was no evidence the defendant “looked back” at the patrol car or heard the sound of the siren. “Though the Appellant may have accelerated down the off ramp to effect an escape, there was no evidence from which a jury could have inferred he either saw or reasonably could have seen the red lamp”.

Sometimes your just stuck with the evidence you have and an appellate court decides you needed more.

This case points to the need to use your car cam or body worn camera and begin a running, verbalized narration of what you see. Record the time when lights and siren were activated, time and distance of pursuit, speed, Vehicle Code violations, attempts at avoidance, etc., etc. add the details show that there is a reasonable belief a violator knew or should have known he/she was subject to police detention (2800.1 V.C. / 2800.2 V.C.). Or in the present case, failure to stop was the proximate cause of serious bodily injury caused when evading an officer (2800.3 V.C.).

Note: Serious Bodily Injury as defined the same as Great Bodily Injury (243(f)(4) P.C.

A more proper application of 2800.3 V.C. can be found in Peo. v. Beltran (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 684. In this case, two Los Angeles police officers tried to conduct a traffic stop on a car which they noticed had no rear license plate. Instead of stopping, the defendant tossed a plastic bag filled with a white powder (found to be cocaine base) from the window, and drove multiple blocks running numerous stop signs with the patrol car behind operating in a Code 3 mode. He eventually collided with a car wherein one occupant was killed and another seriously injured.

So, Mr. Saucedo is still going to be a guest of the state for many years. The appeals court ruled there was substantial evidence of implied malice in the murder of two victims. In his driving actions, “the Appellant acted with conscious disregard for human life”.

I have linked two past LUPC articles with information connected to this type of investigation:

“Shout Out to the Prosecution and Miranda During Ambulance Transport”, LU Ref. #00182, 10/25/22. A person-of-interest who has not been placed under arrest and is being transported to the hospital for treatment is not in-custody and for the purposes of Miranda. Pursue investigative questioning.

“Fleeing by Car and Fleeing by Foot Are Two Separate Crimes”, LU Ref. #CAB00152, 5/23/2022. Two criminal complaints. Document the corpus evidence for both offenses.

Stay Safe,

RH