Authorities have arrested a suspect in the Halloween hit and run that left three teenagers dead last Friday, October 31, 2014.. The incident occurred on Friday at around 7:00 p.m. at the intersection of Grand Street and Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, California. Twins Lexia and Lexandra Perez were crossing the street with their friend Andrea Gonzales when they were hit by a car. The driver left the scene and police later found the car at a parking lot. The Honda CR-V had front end damage; the police do not know if the driver had been under the influence at the time of the accident. They did know that there were passengers in the Honda. Later that weekend on Sunday, police made several arrests but only kept the suspect, Jaquinn Bell. His mother, half-sister, daughter and son were arrested, but only he was held and charged with a felony hit and run charge (Vehicle Code Sections 20001 to 20003). Currently he is facing an additional charge of voluntary manslaughter and looking at up to 17 years in prison. (Penal Code Sections 192, 192.5 and 193).

Bell has a record in Orange County for driving related offenses. In 2009 he was charged with DUI and driving with a suspended license. In August of this year he was convicted of a misdemeanor hit and run and driving under the influence and was sentenced to 10 days jail. His license has been suspended since October. Felony Hit and Run causing death can cause a person to be sentenced for up to 4 years in prison.

Notably, the actual accident which caused the death of the children is NOT the crime in this instance; the crime is leaving the scene. Many accidents occur with the unfortunate result of people dying but that does not make it a crime. Making a mistake also known as simple negligence that results in someone dying is not a crime and is usually handled through the insurance companies like any other car accident as a civil matter.

Oftentimes people flee the scene of the accident because they are under the influence. In that case, if the authorities find them to have killed someone, while under the influence, they can also be sentenced to state prison. Importantly, people with prior convictions for drunk driving who commit another drunk driving offense and kill someone may now be charged with murder under the Watson Rule, referring to the case of People v. Watson. A conviction in that instance can lead to a sentence of 15 years to life.

A recent case in Arizona had a father leave his infant child in the vehicle while he went to work for an hour and smoked marijuana with a friend. The outside temperature was at 100 degrees meaning inside the car it was even hotter. The child was non-responsive when the father found him and efforts to revive the baby failed. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. This man will probably be charged with manslaughter.

Sometimes parents in a hurry will leave their children in a car while they run an errand. This is never a good idea no matter how inconvenient it is for the child to go with the parent. I also hear parents say they left the child in the car because he was napping and they locked the doors. The problem with this is that the child could be subject to harm from heat in the car or other injury; also, what if something happens to the parent and no one knows that a child is alone in the car? Regardless of the reason, in Orange County, unattended children left in vehicles even for short periods of time can result in an arrest for Penal Code Section 273(a) b. Obviously this is a very ugly charge since it falls under the child abuse statute.

In some cases I have been able to get the case dismissed if there are factors in mitigation like the parent was relatively close by and the time the child was left alone was relatively short. Also, the fact that the child was napping may be something considered in mitigation although it is not a defense. A poorly thought out decision is better then no thought being given to leaving the child unattended. Often passersby will see the child unattended and contact authorities. Taking parenting classes also often helps get a favorable result.

The bottom line is that regardless of the season infants should never be left unattended in a car and older children should only be left unattended if they will not be harmed or harm themselves.

For those unversed in the law the killing of an unarmed person who was not committing any crime might seem like a slam dunk for conviction. However, an understanding of self defense laws which are very similar across the nation, helps explain why a conviction was never a foregone conclusion.

Deadly force may be used against someone in Florida if the person feels like he may suffer death or great bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. In California the force used may be deadly if it is necessary for the person to protect himself against the threat. In the Trayvon Martin matter Mr. Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head that were bleeding and a swollen nose. He claimed that Trayvon slammed his head into the sidewalk multiple times and punched him in the nose. An independent witness said that he saw Trayvon on top of Mr. Zimmerman giving him a “MMA style” “ground and pound”. That description can be summarized by saying that Mr. Zimmerman appeared to be receiving a severe beating from Trayvon. During this altercation, Mr. Zimmerman shot Trayvon through the heart and killed him.

The jurors were probably conflicted in that Trayvon was unarmed and Mr. Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Trayvon or get involved. He ignored them and apparently confronted Trayvon when the altercation broke out. One significant gap in the evidence is that we only have Mr. Zimmerman’s recollection of his initial physical contact with Trayvon: he claims Trayvon jumped out and punched him. The fact that Mr. Zimmerman killed the only other witness to that initial confrontation angers many. Regardless, the jurors had to make a decision on the facts offered at trial. It seems clear that given Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his being attacked and that the bullet wound to Trayvon was also consistent with Mr. Zimmerman being on the bottom, it makes sense that a jury could have found that he was acting in self defense. Even if a juror was skeptical as to whether Mr. Zimmerman was acting in self defense, the juror might have had felt there was a reasonable doubt because Zimmerman may have been acting in self defense.

In the emotion that followed this case it is important to keep in mind that Mr. Zimmerman was not found innocent, he was found not guilty. This does not mean he did not commit a crime, it just means that the Government failed to prove its case or for whatever reason there was simply insufficient evidence to convict. See People of the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman(2013).

Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of Orange County Defense Lawyer William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636

Related Articles

• Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death (utsandiego.com)
• George Zimmerman acquitted of second-degree murder in shooting death of Trayvon Martin (jacksonville.com)

One of the most confusing areas of criminal law is the area of murder versus manslaughter. Both murder and manslaughter involve the Defendant willfully killing another person. Notably, self defense is a defense to murder and manslaughter.

First degree murder is the classic fact scenario where the Defendant plans to kill someone and executes on that plan. It can be a plan that took years to go into effect or one that only took five minutes. If a mobster sees another mobster speaking to police and assumes he is cooperating with them and kills him on the spot that is first degree murder. He planned to kill the individual and followed through with the plan to the point of killing.

Second degree murder is when the Defendant kills someone without planning it out. For example, two neighbor’s have a dispute. They decide to discuss it. In the middle of the discussion one person gets angry and shoots the other. This would probably be considered second degree murder, because although he killed the person the Defendant did not go into the meeting planning to do so.

Manslaughter is trickier still and presents a difficult analysis for the jurors. In order to be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, there must be evidence which shows that there was some sudden event which caused the Defendant to lose his normal reasoning and kill the person. The classic law school example is the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with this best friend and he kills his best friend or his wife or both. In that situation the “heat of passion” caused the individual to lose his reasoning and kill the person. The law requires that there be evidence that: (1) there was a sudden quarrel or the killing occurred in the heat of passion; (2) there was no planning or a reckless disregard for human life amounting to malice; (3) the Defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning and judgment; (4) the provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation.

Notably, the California Supreme Court recently held in People v. Beltran (2013 DJDAR 7016) that the test is not whether a reasonable person would have killed but whether it reasonable for the Defendant to have killed under that condition or provocation. As you can see, deciding whether the Defendant committed manslaughter versus murder is not an easy decision for the jurors. Yet few would disagree that a lesser crime then murder should be available to Defendants acting out of extreme provocation instead of those planning to kill or those acting knowing that their actions could likely result in death.

Here’s ABC News September 29, 2012, video coverage.

If you are having trouble viewing the video you can see it here.

Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of Orange County Criminal Defense Lawyer William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636

Related Articles

• Connecticut teen fatally shot by dad called a good kid (foxnews.com)
• Masked Conn. Teen Killed by Dad Called a Good Kid (abcnews.go.com)
• Dad kills masked son by mistake (cnn.com)
• Masked Teenage Intruder Unknowingly Shot To Death By Father In New Fairfield (newyork.cbslocal.com)

The Officers could be charged with manslaughter or even murder if the warranted by the facts. Unusual for a case of this nature is the number of witnesses who seemingly without exception found the conduct of the police to be extreme and unnecessary. See Penal Code Sections 187 and 193.

Here is a video provided by VoiceofOC:

None of the jurors would speak to the media but an alternate juror who heard all the evidence but did not deliberate stated that he was surprised by the public’s reaction because he did not believe that the state had proved its case. While it was clear that Ms. Anthony had lied the juror said no motive for killing Caylee was presented and that they had no idea how Caylee died. The latter is important because a murder finding requires that a specific intent to kill be proven by the prosecution. In addition, a manslaughter charge generally requires a killing involving sudden passion or a death resulting from an illegal act. The jurors apparently felt that this could have been an accident which might cause it to fall short of murder or manslaughter. The alternate juror, who is a high school teacher, said that there was evidence from Ms. Anthony’s friends who testified that she was a good mother. The alternate juror felt then that this implied that the death could have been accidental. The alternate juror did not comment on his opinion of her failing to report the child missing for 30 days as a reflection on her mothering ability.

Notably, the prosecution did face a considerable challenge since the body was so badly decomposed they could not establish how the child died. This left open the possibility of an accidental death. Regardless, many Americans are clearly outraged at Ms. Anthony’s failure to report the child missing for so long and her partying during that time period. While acquitted in the court of law she was clearly found guilty in the court of public opinion. See Penal Code Sections 187 and 192.

An 18-year-old driving a gray Ferrari crashed into a tow truck killing his passenger on December 24, 2009 in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Luicci Nader, the driver, remains in critical condition and is unable to speak to authorities after having lost control of his vehicle due to excessive speed. No alcohol was involved in the accident; however, Nader still faces possible charges of manslaughter if he recovers.

Under California Penal Code Section 192, manslaughter is “he unlawful killing of a human being without malice.” There are three types of manslaughter- 1) Voluntary, 2) Involuntary, and 3) Vehicular. The above case would most likely fall under the category of vehicular manslaughter as the driver was driving the vehicle while unlawfully speeding and it resulted in the death of his passenger. Because Nader was grossly negligent, he could be convicted for vehicular manslaughter and receive up to 6 years in prison.