Can a jury consider relevant aspects of defendant's conduct at the time of the collision to assess gross negligence?

CALCRIM No. 590 correctly instructed the jury to consider relevant aspects of defendant's conduct in determining whether defendant was grossly negligent, as expressly permitted in People v. Bennett (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1032, 1039. Nevertheless, defendant argues that allowing consideration of the level of defendant's intoxication, the way he drove and any other relevant aspects of his conduct at the time of the collision in order to assess gross negligence was misleading because jurors may not have known the "unlawful act" that they found to be grossly negligent under Penal Code section 191.5 had to be an offense other than driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. However, CALCRIM No. 590 said the People had to prove, among other things, that defendant drove while under the influence and that while driving under the influence, he also committed an infraction or misdemeanor with gross negligence. The jury was further instructed that "[t]o support a finding that defendant committed an infraction or misdemeanor with gross negligence . . . the circumstances of the violation and not the offense, must be dangerous to human life and safety." The instruction said the combination of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and violating a traffic law was not enough to establish gross negligence. The instructions

Page 7

went on to describe the elements for each alleged Vehicle Code violation. We presume a jury is intelligent and able to understand and correlate the instructions provided by the trial court. (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918.) Together, the instructions were accurate and would not permit a reasonable juror to misconstrue how to apply the standards to the evidence.