Kroncke

People v. Kroncke

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 284·70 Cal. App. 4th 1535·83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 493·99 Daily Journal DAR 3078·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2373
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1999A077974California35,239 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Parrilli, J.

J.A jury convicted appellant Mark A. Kroncke of failing to stop and report an auto accident (Veh. Code, §§ 20001, 20003), 1 a felony, and giving false information to a police officer (Veh. Code, § 31), a misdemeanor.

The principal issue is whether sections 20001 and 20003 require that a driver involved in an injury-producing accident identify himself as the driver, when that is not reasonably apparent. As we shall explain, the pertinent sections do impose such a duty. We further conclude that requiring the driver to inform investigating officers that he or she was the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident does not violate the driver’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. We affirm the judgment.

*1539 I

Facts

Overview

This case arises from the death of Martin Jacobsen, a 21-year-old Danish tourist. According to Kroncke, he met Jacobsen in the early morning hours in San Francisco and offered to drive him to Marin County. Immediately after they drove across the Golden Gate Bridge, Jacobsen suddenly jumped from Kroncke’s pickup truck and suffered injuries that were eventually fatal. Kroncke got off at the next freeway exit and returned to where…

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

A jury convicted appellant Mark A. Kroncke of failing to stop and report an auto accident (Veh.Code, §§ 20001, 20003), [1] a felony, and giving false information to a police officer (Veh.Code, § 31), a misdemeanor.

The principal issue is whether sections 20001 and 20003 require that a driver involved in an injury-producing accident identify himself as the driver, when that is not reasonably apparent. As we shall explain, the pertinent sections do impose such a duty. We further conclude that requiring the driver to inform investigating officers that he or she was the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident does not violate the driver's constitutional right against self-incrimination. We affirm the judgment.

This case arises from the death of Martin Jacobsen, a 21-year-old Danish tourist. According to Kroncke, he met Jacobsen in the early morning hours in San Francisco and offered to drive him to Marin County. Immediately after they drove across the Golden Gate Bridge, Jacobsen suddenly jumped from Kroncke's pickup truck and suffered injuries that were eventually fatal. Kroncke got off at the next freeway exit and returned…

Concurrence in Part

Corrigan, J.

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of my learned colleagues with regard to appellant’s felony conviction. This case involves a very narrow issue: the scope of a motorist’s responsibility to stop and provide identifying information under Vehicle Code section 20003.

Vehicle Code section 20003 as enacted by the Legislature essentially requires a motorist involved in an accident causing death or injury to do two things, 1) stop at the scene and 2) provide identifying information about himself, the car and the owner. 1 The majority adds an additional requirement: the affirmative disclosure to a police officer that the motorist was involved in the accident. In amending the statute by judicial gloss, the majority ignores settled rules of statutory construction, violates the separation of powers and runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

I. Judicial Legislation

The first difficulty is that the majority seeks to make criminal something . the Legislature has not. The duly enacted law makes it a crime to fail to stop and provide identifying information. The majority would declare it a crime to fail to explicitly admit involvement in an accident resulting in death or injury. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.