P. v. MacKinnon
Filed 1/22/08 P. v. MacKinnon CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL R. MacKINNON, Defendant and Appellant. | D050714 (Super. Ct. No. SCE265823) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Allan J. Preckel, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury convicted Michael R. MacKinnon of causing bodily injury to another person while driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)); committing that same offense with a blood alcohol level higher than .08 percent (id., 23153, subd. (b)); reckless driving (id., 23103, subd. (a)); and driving with a suspended license (id., 14601.1, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced MacKinnon to three years in prison.
MacKinnon contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. As we will explain, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the verdict, and accordingly, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A traffic accident occurred on Wildcat Canyon Road in San Diego County, in which a truck containing three people flipped over as a result of the truck being driven in a reckless manner on the winding road. The occupants of the truck were MacKinnon, Clifford Walker and Donald Boone. MacKinnon's blood alcohol level shortly after the accident was .12 percent, and his driver's license was suspended at the time. Boone sustained injury as a result of the accident.
Boone and Walker both testified at trial that MacKinnon was the driver of the truck. A paramedic who treated MacKinnon at the scene testified that MacKinnon admitted to being the driver of the truck. Further, MacKinnon sustained bruising that was consistent with being on the left side of the truck at the time of the accident. MacKinnon testified at trial. He denied that he was the driver of the truck, and he claimed that he did not tell the paramedic that he was the driver.
The jury convicted MacKinnon of causing bodily injury to another person while driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)); committing that same offense with a blood alcohol level higher than .08 percent (id., 23153, subd. (b)); reckless driving (id., 23103, subd. (a)); and driving with a suspended license (id., 14601.1, subd. (a)). By finding MacKinnon guilty of those counts, the jury impliedly found that MacKinnon was the driver of the truck.
II
DISCUSSION
MacKinnon's sole argument on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he was the driver of the truck at the time of the accident.
" 'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence . . . , we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] 'The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 464.) Reversal is not warranted "unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' " (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) "[I]t is not within our province to reweigh the evidence or redetermine issues of credibility." (People v. Martinez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 400, 412 (Martinez).)
Here, the testimony of several witnesses provides sufficient support for a finding that MacKinnon was the driver.
First, both of the other occupants of the truck, Boone and Walker, testified at trial that MacKinnon was the driver. MacKinnon argues that Boones's testimony "is suspect" because Boone "was intoxicated at the time and suffered some sort of head injury that caused him to have a seizure." MacKinnon argues that Walker's testimony "is suspect" because it is "wholly self-serving" in that he had a motive to avoid being arrested. We reject these arguments as they relate to the credibility of the witnesses, which is a matter that we will not reweigh on appeal. (Martinez, supra,113 Cal.App.4th at p. 412.) It " ' "is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends." ' " (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739 (Smith).)
Second, the paramedic who treated MacKinnon at the scene of the accident testified that MacKinnon told him that he was the driver of the truck. MacKinnon argues that because the paramedic's "attention was directed towards treating injuries[,] and responses to irrelevant questions are, at best, filed away or tucked away in the mind and may not be recalled with any accuracy," there is a "strong . . . likelihood that the paramedic simply had an innocent misrecollection of fact." We reject this argument because it too relies on a credibility assessment, which is exclusively within the province of the jury. (Martinez, supra,113 Cal.App.4th at p. 412; Smith, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 739.) We also reject the premise of MacKinnon's argument because it was clear from the paramedic's testimony that he was not merely relying on his memory of events, but that he had recorded MacKinnon's statement in a report approximately 45 minutes after speaking with MacKinnon.
Third, a California Highway Patrol officer who responded to the accident testified to the bruising he observed on MacKinnon's body, which was consistent with MacKinnon having been seated on the left side of the truck at the time of the crash. MacKinnon argues that this evidence does not prove that he was sitting in the driver's seat because the bruising could also have occurred because he was sitting in the rear left passenger seat. We reject MacKinnon's argument as a basis to question the sufficiency of the evidence. In the context of the evidence presented at trial, the officer's testimony plays the role of lending support to a reasonable finding that MacKinnon was the driver. It provides circumstantial support for the direct evidence contained in the testimony of Walker, Boone and the paramedic that MacKinnon was the driver of the truck.[1]
Based on the evidence we have discussed, we conclude that the testimony presented at trial provides substantial evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that MacKinnon was the driver of the truck.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] Even if we were to look at the testimony in isolation, we would apply the rule that " '[i]f the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.' " ( People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 850-851, italics added.)
