People v. Chavez

Citation: Not availableDocket: B307951

Court: California Court of Appeal; September 22, 2021; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dylan W. Chavez challenges his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in permanent serious injury to Juan Torres, Jr., under California Vehicle Code § 20001. At trial, evidence showed Torres sustained significant injuries, requiring two surgeries for his broken leg, which had not healed nine months post-accident, leaving him with an open wound and impairing his ability to walk, balance, and work. The treating surgeon testified that Torres's leg would likely never recover to its pre-accident condition. Chavez contended the evidence was insufficient to establish that Torres suffered a permanent serious injury, arguing that the medical expert's opinions were speculative. The court rejected these claims, affirming the conviction. The incident occurred on December 13, 2019, when Torres was struck by Chavez’s speeding Hyundai while inspecting a flat tire. Despite being warned by his mother, Torres was unable to escape the vehicle's path. After the collision, Chavez fled the scene but was apprehended by Torres's family before police arrived, during which he denied responsibility, claiming Torres was jaywalking.

Torres detailed the injuries he sustained in an accident nine months prior to the trial, which led to two surgeries on his left tibia and fibula. The first surgery involved placing a metal plate and screws in his leg, followed by a second surgery six months later. At the time of the trial, Torres was 26 years old and presented his injuries to the jury, indicating that he still had an open wound and experienced significant pain levels, initially rated at 10 out of 10, and currently averaging 4 to 5 by day’s end. He underwent painful physical therapy to regain mobility but had to discontinue it due to the COVID-19 pandemic. His injuries severely impacted his ability to walk, sit, sleep, and perform his job in construction.

Dr. Justin Tilan, Torres’s orthopedic surgeon, testified about Torres’s ongoing treatment for a left open tibia fracture characterized by delayed union or nonunion. Dr. Tilan explained that such an injury complicates healing due to damage to the blood supply, requiring potentially multiple surgeries—typically between four and seven. He discussed the procedures performed during both surgeries, including the placement of a titanium rod and screws and the removal of some screws in an effort to promote healing. If Torres’s bone did not heal post-surgery, additional surgical interventions might be necessary, including new hardware or bone grafts from other areas of his body. Dr. Tilan expressed uncertainty about the need for further surgeries but was prepared for escalated treatment if healing did not occur, emphasizing that the assessment of healing would rely on clinical examinations and x-ray findings.

At Torres's follow-up appointment, a decision regarding further surgery would be made based on his healing progress, with the process involving shared decision-making between Torres and Dr. Tilan. Dr. Tilan indicated that if no further surgery was needed, Torres could face risks of chronic pain and joint stiffness, impacting his ability to engage in normal activities. Should further surgery be required, Torres would be at risk for complications, including stiffness, scar tissue, and chronic pain, and multiple surgeries might not yield effective results. Dr. Tilan expressed concern that Torres's leg might never heal to the condition it was in before the accident, agreeing that complete healing was unlikely. 

The appellant recounted the accident occurring during a food delivery, during which he mistakenly drove over an obstacle without noticing Torres. After pulling over, he was confronted by Juan and others, leading to a physical altercation. The appellant later provided false statements to the police out of fear, claiming Torres was jaywalking and misidentifying the driver at the time of the accident. 

In the discussion, the appellant argued that the evidence did not sufficiently support the jury's finding of Torres suffering a permanent, serious injury under section 20001(b)(2). The review emphasizes that the evidence must be viewed favorably toward the judgment, affirming that substantial evidence exists to uphold the jury's findings. The judgment will not be reversed if the circumstances reasonably support the jury's conclusions.

A reviewing court does not reassess evidence or witness credibility; it must affirm a conviction if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Section 20001, subdivision (a), a driver involved in an accident causing injury or death must stop immediately and fulfill further legal requirements. Subdivision (b)(2) states that if the accident results in death or serious, permanent injury, the violator faces imprisonment ranging from 90 days to four years. Permanent, serious injury is defined as the loss or permanent impairment of a bodily function. 

Dr. Tilan provided expert testimony regarding the potential permanent impairment of Torres's leg due to the accident, suggesting it was likely the leg would not heal to its pre-accident condition. Although the appellant did not dispute Dr. Tilan's qualifications or the relevance of his testimony, he argued that the doctor's opinions were largely conjectural and insufficient to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court clarified that while an expert opinion must be based on reasonable evidence, the lack of absolute certainty does not invalidate the opinion's evidentiary value. Medical diagnoses based on probability are admissible in criminal cases, and Dr. Tilan's opinion regarding the leg's impairment was not speculative despite his acknowledgment that it was premature to determine the need for further surgeries. The appellant's conflation of the impairment opinion with uncertainty about healing was deemed erroneous.

The doctor, Dr. Tilan, concluded that the function of Torres's leg is permanently impaired, despite uncertainty about the full extent of the impairment dependent on healing. The court noted there is no indication that Dr. Tilan's expert opinion, given nine months post-injury when Torres still had an open wound and was unable to run or work, was unreliable. Torres testified about the severity of his injuries, which included difficulties with walking, balancing, and sleeping, and confirmed he had not returned to work. Although no case law directly addresses the criteria for a permanent, serious injury under subdivision (b)(2) of section 20001, the People compared it to mayhem, where a disability must be more than slight or temporary. The evidence presented, including the prolonged healing of Torres's broken leg bones and expert testimony from Dr. Tilan, supported the jury's finding of a permanent, serious injury resulting from the accident. The judgment was affirmed.