Is a driver who runs away from the scene of an accident, leaving the scene, with actual or constructive knowledge that a person was injured, has committed the crime of hit and run?

Thus, a person who leaves the scene of an accident in which he or she has been involved, with actual or constructive knowledge that a person was injured, has committed the crime of hit and run, even if the driver was not at fault in causing the accident. (People v. Braz (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 425, 432) "Although a violation of section 20001 is popularly denominated 'hit-and-run,' the act made criminal thereunder is not the 'hitting' but the 'running.'" (People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 148.)

In assessing defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he possessed the requisite actual or constructive knowledge, we apply the well-worn substantial evidence standard of review. "The role of an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is limited. The court must 'review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] [] . . . [Citation.] . . . [Citation.] But it is the jury, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Therefore, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury." (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138-1139.) We do not reweigh the evidence. Even if the circumstances "might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding[, this] would not warrant reversal of the judgment." (People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 529.)

Page 8