Hit-and-run

Unconscious driver People v. Flores (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1199

People v. Kroncke (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1535

People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000

Wilkoff v Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345.

People v. Holford (1965) 63 Cal.3d 74

People v. Braz (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 425

“Although a violation of section 20001 is popularly denominated ‘hit-and-run,’ the act made criminal thereunder is not the ‘hitting’ but the ‘running.’ The legislative purpose of sections 20001 and 20003 is to prevent the driver of a vehicle involved in an injury-causing accident from leaving injured persons in distress and danger for want of medical care and from attempting to avoid possible civil or criminal liability for the accident by failing to identify oneself. This duty is imposed upon drivers whether or not they are responsible for the accident itself. [Citations.]” (People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 148, 221 Cal.Rptr. 387; see People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1123, fn. 10, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67.)

Fifth Amendment

California v. Byers (1971) 402 U.S. 424.

Accident

it is clear that the lawmakers intended to extend the application of the provisions of section 20002, subdivision (a), to volitional, intended, and purposeful acts, as well as those resulting from unintentional or negligent conduct. (People v. Laursen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7.)

Knowledge

"We therefore believe that criminal liability attaches to a driver who knowingly leaves the scene of an accident if he actually knew of the injury or if he knew that the accident was of such a nature that one would reasonably anticipate that it resulted in injury to a person. People v. Holford (1965) 63 Cal.2d 74, 80.)

"Such knowledge may be imputed to the driver of a vehicle where the fact of personal injury is visible and obvious (People v. Blankenship, 171 Cal.App.2d 173, 177, 340 P.2d 34), or where the seriousness of the collision would lead a reasonable person to assume there must have been resulting injuries." People v. Carter (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 239, 241.)

No-contact

‘It seems clear that the word “involved” is there used in the sense of being connected with (an accident) in a natural or logical manner. The statute relates to a driver thus involved in such accident and is in no way made dependent upon whether or not control of a vehicle is retained or lost, or upon who may ultimately be found to be most at fault.’ “ (Bammes, supra, at p. 631, quoting Sell, supra, at p. 523.) “One can be involved under section 20001 in an accident,” Bammes notes, “without being its legal cause.” (Ibid.) People v. Christiansen (Cal. Ct. App., July 30, 2010, No. F057851) 2010 WL 2978816, at *3

People v. Bammes (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 626

Nor does the statute require that the driver strike or injure a pedestrian or another vehicle. (People v. Kinney (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 232, 238, 82 P.2d 203 [construing former § 482, subd. (a), predecessor to § 20003].) People v. Mysin (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 6, 2004, No. C041604) 2004 WL 737529, at *4

Great bodily injury

PC12022.7 GBI doesn't attach to hit-and-run because the running is the criminal act. (People v. Valdez (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 82.)

Death enhancement

VC20001(c): (c) A person who flees the scene of the crime after committing a violation of Section 191.5 of, or paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, upon conviction of any of those sections, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed, shall be punished by an additional term of imprisonment of five years in the state prison. This additional term shall not be imposed unless the allegation is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted by the defendant or found to be true by the trier of fact. The court shall not strike a finding that brings a person within the provisions of this subdivision or an allegation made pursuant to this subdivision.

People v. Calles (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1200

Civil Compromise

No-People v. Dimacali (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 822

Yes-People v. Tischman (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 174