Tuesday, July 14, 2026
Page 1
DUI With Injuries Is Not Lesser-Included Crime Of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter—C.A.
Opinion Disagrees With This District’s Contrary Decision, Says Fact That Latter Crime Includes Accidents Where Minor Kills Another While Only ‘Affected’ by Alcohol Separates Offenses
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has held that the crime of injuring another person while driving under the influence of alcohol is not a lesser-included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, rejecting a defendant’s assertion that he was improperly convicted of both crimes relating to a 2022 deadly crash outside a casino.
Friday’s opinion, authored by Justice Amy K. Guerra, acknowledges the contrary holding in the 1994 Sixth District decision in People v. Miranda but highlights that the case involved an incident that predates amendments to the vehicular manslaughter statute, which added to the underlying qualifying offenses violations of Vehicle Code §23140, which criminalizes driving while under the age of 21 while “affected by” alcohol.
Reasoning that the “affected by” standard “encompasses at least some states of lesser impairment” than the “under the influence” threshold required for adult drunk drivers, Guerra declared:
“Because gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated can be committed in this manner without also committing DUI with injury, the latter is not a necessarily included offense.”
Guerra noted that the court also “respectfully disagree[d]” with the 2007 decision by Div. Six of this district in People v. Binkerd, remarking:
“Binkerd reasoned that the vehicular manslaughter statute was written in the disjunctive such that a violation of Vehicle Code section 23140, 23152, or 23153, would suffice….But this fact militates against the holding of Binkerd. The broader the conduct that qualifies as vehicular manslaughter, the more likely there are some ways for that crime to be committed without necessarily committing another offense.”
Gross Vehicular Manslaughter
The question arose after Santana Yanez pled no contest to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter, in violation of Penal Code §191.5(a), and DUI-with-injury charges, filed under Vehicle Code §§23153(a) and (b), as well as to certain sentencing enhancements in May 2025. Penal Code §191.5(a) provides:
“Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.”
In July 2022, Yanez, while driving at approximately 100 miles per hour, collided with a Nissan outside the Tachi Palace Casino in Kings County, killing both occupants of the other vehicle. His blood-alcohol content (“BAC”) was found to be 0.17, well above the legal limit, and he also tested positive for cannabis.
After Kings Superior Court Judge Kathy Ciuffini sentenced him to nine years in prison in July 2025, he appealed, arguing that his DUI convictions should be reversed because that crime is a lesser-included offense of §191.5(a).
Friday’s decision, joined in by Presiding Justice Brad Hill and Justice Kathleen Meehan, affirms the judgment.
Two Separate Offenses
Guerra noted that a defendant may not be convicted of two separate offenses if one cannot be committed without also violating the other and said that, under §191.5(a), “there are three primary ways to establish culpable driving: (1) being ‘under the influence of’ alcohol, (2) being ‘affected by’ alcohol, and/or (3) having a particular blood alcohol content.”
Saying that “we are aware of no jury instruction for being merely ‘affected by’ alcohol and that “[w]e will not endeavor to craft one here,” she remarked that “[i]t is sufficient to observe that, whatever its precise contours, ‘affected by’ encompasses at least some states of lesser impairment below being ‘under the influence.’ ”
Based on that observation, the jurist opined:
“[Sec. 23140] can be violated when a person under 21 drives with a 0.05 BAC and while ‘under the influence of’ or ‘affected by’ alcohol. In contrast, DUI causing injury requires either that the driver be ‘under the influence of’ alcohol, drugs, or both, or have a BAC of 0.08….While there is significant overlap in scope between these two crimes, the former is not fully subsumed within the latter….Because gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated can be committed in this manner without also committing DUI with injury, the latter is not a necessarily included offense.”
Reliance on Hypothetical
Continuing, she added:
“Defendant challenges the reliance on a hypothetical concerning section 23140 because he was charged and convicted on a different theory of committing gross vehicular manslaughter—i.e., by violating section 23153….Because we compare the elements in the abstract, and not with reference to their ‘factual predicate’ in defendant’s specific case, we reject defendant’s contention.”
As to the Binkerd decision, she said:
“[N]either the disjunctive language in the vehicular manslaughter statute nor anything else in Binkerd undermines the reasoning we have relied on here.”
In a footnote, she referenced other cases that have found that driving-under-the-influence charges are not lesser-included offenses to vehicular manslaughter in cases where there are two or more victims but declared that “[w]e do not rely on that line of reasoning.”
The California Supreme Court has granted review in one such case, the 2024 decision by Div. One of the Fourth District’s Court of Appeal in People v. Meno.
The case is People v. Yanez, 2026 S.O.S. 2045.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company