In what circumstances will a defendant be successful in his bid to overturn a finding that he violated section 20001 of the Vehicle Code by failing to stop and render assistance at the scene?

In this case, even if we declined to adopt the analysis in Rubics (which we do not decide), the restitution order may or may not have been authorized depending on facts that might have been established during the restitution hearing. Even without the Rubics analysis, victim restitution may be awarded when the defendant is convicted of violating section 20001 if the damages arose from or were exacerbated by his act of leaving the scene. (See People v. Escobar, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1509 [restitution is proper to the extent the victim's injuries are caused or exacerbated by the defendant's leaving the scene].) Thus, if the prosecutor had offered evidence at the restitution hearing showing that the pedestrian's injuries were aggravated or exacerbated by defendant's conduct in fleeing the accident scene, the order might have been properly imposed. However, because the restitution hearing was cancelled at defendant's request, the prosecutor had no opportunity to offer such evidence. The record does not disclose whether the pedestrian's life could have been saved if defendant had immediately stopped and rendered assistance as required under the Vehicle Code. The record reflects that the victim died approximately three hours after the accident. Accordingly, even if Rubics was wrongly decided, the question of whether the restitution order was proper depended upon factual findings. (See Bailey v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 513, 521 ["Reasonable and prompt assistance may prevent aggravation of or further injuries, or may save a life"].) Given all of these these circumstances, defendant's argument is forfeited. (See People v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 26.)

Page 8

The judgment is affirmed.

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur: