Filed 2/10/22 P. v. Ritter CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRANDON CHRISTOPHER RITTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D078368

 (Super. Ct. No. SWF1800017)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, 

Charles W. Campbell, Jr., Judge. (Retired Judge of the Ventura Sup. Ct. 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Affirmed.

Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Susan Elizabeth Miller, 

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Brandon Christopher Ritter appeals a judgment convicting him of 

second degree murder and driving under the influence of a drug after he

crashed his truck into a line of stopped cars, killing a driver of one of the cars

and breaking the back of another. Ritter claims the trial court prejudicially 

erred by refusing to instruct the jury on unconsciousness and involuntary 

manslaughter and by precluding his counsel from arguing he was guilty of 

manslaughter rather than murder. He also claims the prosecutor committed 

misconduct by trivializing the reasonable doubt standard of proof during 

closing argument. We disagree with Ritter and affirm the judgment.

I.

BACKGROUND

A.

Automobile Collision

Ritter drove his truck at 70 to 80 miles per hour on a road where the 

speed limit was 45 miles per hour and weaved in and out of traffic, causing 

other motorists to have to swerve out of the way to avoid collision. Ritter

ultimately crashed his truck at full speed into a line of cars stopped at a 

traffic light. The driver of the car that Ritter’s truck struck was killed, and 

the driver of the next car in line broke his back. Ritter himself broke a femur 

and facial bones, suffered extreme pain, and repeatedly told first responders 

he wanted to die and asked to be shot. 

B.

Trial Court Proceedings

1.

Charges

The People charged Ritter with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187,

subd. (a)) and one count of driving under the influence of a drug and causing 
3

bodily injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f)). As an enhancement 

to the driving under the influence charge, the People alleged Ritter

personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim who broke his back. 

(Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a).)

2.

People’s Case

Several eyewitnesses testified about Ritter’s reckless driving and the 

resultant collision, as described in part I.A., ante. 

Ritter’s roommate testified that on the day of the accident, Ritter 

passed him, waved, and said, “I’ll see you on the other side.” In prior 

conversations, Ritter had told the roommate he wanted to visit a dead friend 

and used “the other side” to refer to dying. 

A deputy sheriff testified that about nine months before the fatal 

collision, he had been dispatched to Ritter’s residence in response to a call 

from his mother about erratic behavior. The deputy found Ritter locked in a 

room from which he said, “Unless you’re here to shoot me in the head, go 

away.” Another deputy sheriff testified that about eight months before the 

collision, he and his partner found Ritter sitting on the wall of a freeway 

overpass, and when the partner pulled Ritter off the wall, Ritter said he 

wanted to die. 

A forensic toxicologist testified that blood drawn from Ritter about 30 

minutes after the collision contained methamphetamine, a central nervous 

system stimulant, at a level that indicated he was an abuser of the drug and 

was under its influence at the time of the crash. The toxicologist explained 

an abuser who is under the influence of methamphetamine has poor impulse 

control and may speed and drive erratically, and as the influence wears off

the abuser may fall asleep inappropriately. 
4

A vehicle inspector found no defects in Ritter’s truck that would have 

caused the crash. A collision scene investigator found no skid marks that 

would have indicated Ritter had attempted to slow or stop his truck before 

the collision. Deep gouge marks in the roadway indicated significant speed 

and force were involved in the crash. 

3.

Ritter’s Case

Ritter testified that on the day of the fatal collision he was “com[ing] 

down” from the high from the methamphetamine he had used the previous 

few days. While he was driving his truck to a restaurant at approximately 60 

miles per hour, he changed lanes several times to pass slower vehicles. He 

proceeded through an intersection and then “dozed off for a couple of seconds” 

until sound from his truck’s exhaust pipe reflected off another car and 

awakened him. Ritter realized he was headed for some cars ahead of him,

looked at his right sideview mirror, changed lanes, and crashed into the line 

of vehicles in that lane. On cross-examination, Ritter admitted he was “cool, 

calm, and collected” and had a detailed memory of the events preceding the 

crash. He also admitted he knew reckless driving could cause fatal collisions

and agreed the driving described by the eyewitnesses who testified at trial 

was reckless, but he denied driving that way. 

A forensic consultant who reviewed the witness statements, Ritter’s 

medical records, the toxicology report, and scientific literature testified Ritter 

did not have enough methamphetamine in his system to be under the

influence at the time of the fatal collision. 
5

4.

Jury Instruction Requests

Based on his testimony he fell asleep right before the crash, Ritter 

requested the trial court instruct the jury on unconsciousness (CALCRIM No. 

3425) and on involuntary manslaughter as a result of voluntary intoxication 

causing unconsciousness (CALCRIM No. 626). The court refused to give 

either instruction. 

5.

Closing Arguments

The prosecutor urged the jury to find Ritter guilty of implied malice 

murder for “driving like a maniac” and killing another motorist. The 

prosecutor argued Ritter was suicidal and high on methamphetamine, knew 

driving recklessly could cause a fatal collision, and deliberately weaved 

through traffic at high speed and crashed into a line of cars stopped at a 

traffic light. 

Ritter’s counsel wanted to argue the case was one of manslaughter, not 

murder, but the prosecutor objected, and the trial court would not allow 

counsel to argue manslaughter. Counsel instead argued the prosecutor had 

not met the burden of proof on implied malice and in describing the 

reasonable doubt standard told the jury: “[I]t has to be a decision that you 

can live with, not just today or tomorrow, . . . but it’s going to be a decision 

that stays with you for the rest of your life. You don’t make it in a vacuum. I 

think it’s the type of decision you really got to be sure about, like when you 

decided who[m] to marry or whatever other important decision you make. 

It’s got to sit right with you.” 

In rebuttal, the prosecutor disagreed with Ritter’s counsel’s description 

of the reasonable doubt standard. She argued proof beyond a reasonable 
6

doubt “is what the jury instruction says, an abiding conviction the charges 

are true. You decide what that means to you. It is not an impossible 

standard, not compared to marriage. It is an abiding conviction that the 

charges are true. You decide what that is.” 

6.

Verdicts and Sentence

The jury found Ritter guilty of murder and driving under the influence 

of a drug causing bodily injury, and found the great bodily injury 

enhancement allegation true. The trial court sentenced him to prison for 21

years to life. 

II.

DISCUSSION

A.

Instructional Errors

Ritter claims the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing to instruct 

the jury on unconsciousness (CALCRIM No. 3425) and on voluntary 

intoxication causing unconsciousness (CALCRIM No. 626). He contends 

unconsciousness, if not caused by voluntary intoxication, would have been a 

complete defense to the murder charge; and if caused by voluntary 

intoxication, unconsciousness would have reduced the murder to involuntary 

manslaughter. The court was required to give the requested instructions, 

argues Ritter, because there was substantial evidence from which the jury 

could have found he fell asleep before the crash and either was or was not 

voluntarily intoxicated. He contends the erroneous refusal to give the 

requested instructions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and 

therefore requires reversal. On de novo review (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 
7

Cal.App.4th 73, 78), we find no error for the reasons discussed below, and 

therefore need not address Ritter’s harmless error contention.

1.

Unconsciousness

“Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious 

thereof” are not “capable of committing crimes.” (Pen. Code, § 26, par. Four.) 

Unconsciousness not caused by voluntary intoxication operates as a complete 

defense to a criminal charge. (People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 463.) 

The trial court must instruct the jury on unconsciousness following

introduction of substantial evidence that the defendant was unaware of the

charged act when it was performed. (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 

379, 417 (Halvorsen); People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 887-888.) In 

deciding whether substantial evidence supports the defense, the court does 

not assess the credibility of the evidence. (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 

967, 982; People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49.) To warrant an

instruction on unconsciousness, the evidence must be sufficient to raise a 

reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that the defendant was aware of 

his acts when he committed them. (Salas, at p. 982; People v. Heffington 

(1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 1, 9 (Heffington); CALCRIM No. 3425.) The evidence at 

Ritter’s trial was insufficient to warrant an unconsciousness instruction.

The pertinent conduct of which Ritter must have been aware at the 

time of its commission for him to be criminally liable was the reckless driving 

that resulted in the fatal collision. (See People v. Moore (2010) 187 

Cal.App.4th 937, 939 [reckless driving that caused fatal collision supported

implied malice murder conviction].) Several eyewitnesses testified Ritter 

weaved his way through traffic at high speed and nearly collided with several 

other vehicles before he crashed his truck into a line of cars stopped at a 
8

traffic light. Ritter acknowledged that type of driving was dangerous and 

could cause a fatal collision. He testified he was coming down from a 

methamphetamine high when he got into his truck; he recalled in detail the 

route he traveled and the driving maneuvers leading up to the crash; he

admitted he was in command of his faculties except for the couple of seconds 

he dozed off right before the crash; and when he woke up he attempted 

evasive maneuvers. Ritter’s own testimony about the events preceding the 

collision and “[t]he complicated and purposive nature of his conduct in 

driving” make clear he was aware of his actions as they happened. 

(Halvorsen, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 418.) Ritter’s citation to the testimony of 

the collision scene investigator that it was “a possibility” that Ritter fell 

asleep and for that reason did not apply his brakes before the crash does not 

alter this conclusion. Such speculation is insufficient to require an 

instruction on unconsciousness. (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 

548, 648.) Without sufficient evidence from which the jury could have had a 

reasonable doubt that Ritter was aware of his reckless driving as he was 

driving, the trial court had no duty to instruct the jury on unconsciousness. 

(See People v. Froom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 820, 830 [error to instruct on 

unconsciousness when no evidence from which jury could infer defendant was 

unconscious during commission of criminal act]; Heffington, supra, 32 

Cal.App.3d at p. 10 [unconsciousness instruction properly refused in assault 

case when evidence did not show unawareness coexistent with fight].)

2.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication is not a complete 

defense to a criminal charge, but it may reduce some homicides to 

involuntary manslaughter. (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 423; 
9

CALCRIM No. 626.) As discussed above, however, there was no substantial 

evidence Ritter was unconscious of the reckless driving that caused the fatal 

collision. Hence, whether he was voluntarily intoxicated or not, there was no 

factual basis for a jury instruction on the effect of voluntary intoxication 

causing unconsciousness on homicide crimes.

The request for the instruction was properly refused for other reasons 

as well. The statute defining involuntary manslaughter states it “shall not 

apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.” (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. 

(b).) Ritter killed by recklessly driving his truck into the victim’s car. 

Another statute states that “[e]vidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible 

solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required 

specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the defendant 

premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought.” (Id., 

§ 29.4, subd. (b), italics added.) A “defendant who unlawfully kills without 

express malice due to voluntary intoxication can still act with implied malice, 

which voluntary intoxication cannot negate” under the quoted statute. 

(People v. Turk (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1376 [considering predecessor 

statute]; accord, People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978, 997 

[considering current statute]; see People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 

1107, 1114 (Martin) [statute was enacted “to preclude evidence of voluntary 

intoxication to negate implied malice aforethought”].) “By prohibiting 

evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate implied malice, the Legislature 

apparently agreed . . . that a defendant who acts with conscious disregard for 

life should be punished for murder regardless of whether voluntary 

intoxication impaired his or her judgment.” (People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 

968, 977-978 (Soto).) Ritter was prosecuted for implied malice murder. (See 

People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 293, 300-301 [intoxicated driver who 
10

kills another in collision may be prosecuted for implied malice murder].) 

Since his voluntary intoxication, even to the point of unconsciousness, could 

not have prevented his conviction of that crime, he was not entitled to the 

requested jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter (CALCRIM No. 626). 

(People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469, fn. 40; People v. Carlson (2011) 

200 Cal.App.4th 695, 705-707 (Carlson).)

In his reply brief, Ritter argues that insofar as Penal Code section 29.4 

precludes conviction of involuntary manslaughter based on voluntary 

intoxication causing unconsciousness, the statute violates his due process 

right to present relevant exculpatory evidence on mental state. (U.S. Const., 

14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) Other appellate courts have 

considered the same argument and the same authority Ritter cites and have 

uniformly rejected the argument. (People v. Berg (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 959, 

969-970; Carlson, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. 707-708; People v. Timms 

(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1298-1301; Martin, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1115-1117.) “We agree with these cases. The Legislature has decided, for 

policy reasons, that evidence of voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to proof of 

certain mental states. The Legislature may validly make that policy 

decision.” (Soto, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 981.)

B.

Restriction on Closing Argument

Ritter claims the trial court deprived him of effective assistance of 

counsel (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15) and of liberty 

without due process of law (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, 

subd. (a)) by preventing counsel from arguing Ritter was not guilty of murder 

but might have been guilty of manslaughter. As part of this claim, Ritter 

again contends the court erred by refusing to instruct on involuntary 
11

manslaughter based on voluntary intoxication causing unconsciousness. 

Ritter also contends counsel was entitled to argue Ritter did not act with 

implied malice and so was guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and to use 

manslaughter to illustrate and clarify for the jury the different mental states 

required for different types of vehicular homicide. By preventing counsel 

from doing so, Ritter complains, the court interfered with his right to counsel 

and lessened the prosecutor’s burden of proof. He argues the limitation on 

counsel’s argument was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and so

requires reversal of the murder conviction. As we shall explain, the court did 

not err and we thus need not address Ritter’s harmless error argument.

The trial court has discretion to limit the scope of closing argument to 

relevant and material matters. (Pen. Code, § 1044; People v. Edwards (2013) 

57 Cal.4th 658, 743.) For reasons already discussed, Ritter’s counsel was not 

entitled to argue Ritter was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. (See pt. 

II.A.2., ante.) Nor could counsel argue Ritter was guilty of voluntary 

manslaughter, because there was no evidence he killed the victim “upon a 

sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a).) The only 

potentially arguable type of manslaughter on the facts presented at trial was 

vehicular manslaughter. (Id., §§ 191.5, subds. (a), (b), 192, subd. (c); see 

Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 299 [“a defendant may be charged with second 

degree murder upon facts which also would support a charge of vehicular 

manslaughter”].) That offense, however, was not charged in the operative 

accusatory pleading either explicitly or implicitly, because vehicular 

manslaughter is a lesser related offense of murder, not a lesser included

offense. (People v. Hicks (2017) 4 Cal.5th 203, 209, 211; People v. Wolfe 

(2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 673, 688.) If the defendant is charged with murder but 

not vehicular manslaughter, the trial court may not instruct the jury on 
12

vehicular manslaughter unless the prosecutor agrees, because granting the 

defendant’s unilateral request for instructions on the uncharged lesser 

related offense “would interfere with prosecutorial charging discretion, 

essentially allowing the defendant, not the prosecutor, to choose which 

charges are presented to the jury for decision.” (Hicks, at p. 211; see People v. 

Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 781, 790; Wolfe, at p. 688.) Allowing the 

defendant to argue to the jury that he is guilty of an uncharged lesser related 

offense but not of the charged greater offense would likewise interfere with 

the prosecutor’s charging discretion and is not permitted. (People v. Brown 

(2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1087-1088; People v. Valentine (2006) 143 

Cal.App.4th 1383, 1387-1388.) Because the prosecutor charged Ritter with 

murder but not vehicular manslaughter and objected to argument by Ritter’s 

counsel that he might be guilty of manslaughter but not of murder, Ritter 

was “neither entitled to an instruction on a lesser related offense nor to urge 

his conviction for that offense.” (Valentine, at p. 1388, italics added.)

Ritter’s counsel of course was free to and did argue that the prosecutor 

had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ritter acted with implied 

malice, the mental state required to find him guilty of murder. Counsel 

argued Ritter had no intent to kill, he did not intentionally drive his truck 

into the car whose driver was killed, and he did not deliberately act with 

conscious disregard for human life. Rather, counsel argued, the evidence 

showed Ritter drifted off to sleep while he was driving, he quickly awakened, 

and there was a collision. That was a “horrible tragedy” and an “accident,”

said counsel, but it was not an implied malice murder. Counsel ended by 

reminding the jurors of the reasonable doubt standard of proof and urging 

them to find Ritter not guilty. Thus, counsel was able to argue effectively 

that Ritter was at most negligent and did not kill with implied malice. The 
13

trial court’s ruling preventing counsel from arguing Ritter might have been 

guilty of manslaughter but not of murder “fell within its discretion to control 

the scope of closing argument and did not preclude defendant from making 

his central point.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 854.)

C.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

As his final claim of error, Ritter accuses the prosecutor of misconduct 

for trivializing the reasonable doubt standard of proof during closing 

argument. Ritter contends that by arguing the decision to convict him was 

less weighty than a decision on whom to marry, the prosecutor committed a 

structural error that is reversible per se. Acknowledging the claim of error 

might have been forfeited because trial counsel failed to object to the 

prosecutor’s remark, Ritter argues counsel was ineffective for failing to do so

and urges us to reach the merits. We reject this claim of error.

Ritter forfeited the claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Generally, a 

defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless the 

defendant made a timely assignment of misconduct on the same ground and 

asked the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the misconduct. 

(People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 306 (Silveria).) When 

the prosecutor told the jury the reasonable doubt standard is “not compared 

to marriage,” Ritter neither objected nor requested an admonition. Nothing 

in the record indicates an objection would have been futile, and the court

easily could have cured any misstatement of the law by the prosecutor by 

referring the jury to the instruction on reasonable doubt. Ritter therefore 

may not complain of the prosecutor’s remark on appeal. (People v. Centeno 

(2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674; People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644, 686.) 
14

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s 

remark, because no objection was warranted. A defendant challenging the 

prosecutor’s remarks to the jury must show that in the context of the whole 

argument and the instructions it was reasonably likely the jury understood or 

applied the remarks in an improper or erroneous way. (Silveria, supra, 10 

Cal.5th at p. 306.) By arguing in rebuttal that the reasonable doubt standard 

was “not an impossible standard, not compared to marriage,” the prosecutor

was not suggesting to the jury that a level of certainty lower than that 

needed to select a spouse would suffice to find Ritter guilty. She was merely 

disagreeing with the argument of Ritter’s counsel that the reasonable doubt 

standard applied to “the type of decision you really got to be sure about, like 

when you decided who[m] to marry.” The disagreement was apt. “[S]ince the 

decision to marry is often based on a standard far less than reasonable doubt, 

as reflected in statistics indicating 33 to 60 percent of all marriages end in 

divorce,” this court “strongly disapprove[d] of arguments suggesting the 

reasonable doubt standard is used in daily life to decide such questions as 

whether to . . . marry.” (People v. Nguyen (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 28, 36.) 

Moreover, in disagreeing with Ritter’s counsel’s analogy to the marriage 

decision, the prosecutor directed the jurors to the instruction they had been 

given on the reasonable doubt standard and told them it required them to 

have “an abiding conviction that the charges are true.” That was a correct 

statement of the law. (Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15; People v. 

Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012, 1033; see CALCRIM No. 220.) In thus taking 

exception to Ritter’s counsel’s marriage analogy, the prosecutor did nothing 

likely to mislead the jury on the applicable burden of proof. (People v. Bell 

(2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 111-112; Nguyen, at pp. 36-37.) “There was no 
15

misconduct and therefore no deficiency on counsel’s part in failing to object.” 

(People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 27.)

III.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.