What is the law on circumstantial evidence in a motor vehicle accident case?

The case law relied upon by defendant does not dictate a different result. In People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at page 885, the court concluded it was error to limit

Page 16

the circumstantial evidence instruction to issues of intent or mental state because the prosecution relied substantially on circumstantial evidence to prove the identity of the perpetrator. Likewise, in People v. Davis (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 214, 224-225, the circumstantial evidence at issuetestimony by a ballistics expertwas offered to prove identity and not to prove that the defendant possessed a particular mental state. Where, as here, the only contested elements involve the defendant's state of mind, CALCRIM No. 225 is wholly adequate.

Defendant contends she had a right to an instruction on her theory of the case. As a general matter, "a defendant has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense [citations]; however, a trial judge must only give those instructions which are supported by substantial evidence." (People v. Ponce (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1386.) The principle relied upon by defendant is inapplicable. She did not ask for a pinpoint instruction focused on her theory of the case. Instead, she asked the court to read a general circumstantial evidence instruction because she claimed her accident defense was supported by circumstantial evidence. The instruction she sought is generally addressed to the situation in which an element of the prosecution's case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence. Intent was the only element of the prosecution's case that rested primarily on circumstantial evidence.