California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Gutierrez is that a Governor's state of emergency proclamation is subject to independent legal interpretation by courts, not jury determination, and when a proclamation limits emergency zones to specific "high hazard areas" to be identified by state agencies rather than declaring a statewide emergency, the prosecution must prove the crime occurred within those specifically identified areas, under circumstances where the proclamation's plain language directs agencies to identify particular zones rather than declaring the emergency exists throughout the entire state.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Riverside County.

Defendant Appellant was Derek J. Gutierrez — the individual convicted of setting a fire in forested land near the Ortega Mountains in Riverside County during an ongoing state of emergency.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking enhanced punishment for arson committed during and within an area proclaimed to be in a state of emergency.

The suit sounded in criminal law for felony arson of forest land with a sentencing enhancement. Cross-claim for misdemeanor resisting a peace officer.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Gutierrez was observed emerging from bushes near forested land, smoke was seen coming from those bushes shortly after he returned to them, firefighters found evidence of an intentionally set fire with materials arranged to facilitate combustion and spread to nearby vegetation, and Gutierrez was found walking away from the area carrying multiple lighters including an empty butane lighter.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court allowed the jury to interpret whether Governor Brown's 2015 tree mortality state of emergency proclamation applied statewide or only to specific areas, and the jury found true the state of emergency enhancement allegation, ruling that the jury could determine the territorial scope of the emergency proclamation.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1) Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the arson was committed "during and within an area" proclaimed to be in a state of emergency; 2) Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert opinion testimony that invaded the jury's province; 3) Whether the defendant's ability to pay fines and fees was properly considered.

The Appellate Court held that Governor Brown's tree mortality proclamation did not create a statewide emergency but was limited to specific "high hazard zones" to be identified by state agencies, the prosecution failed to prove the fire was set within any such identified zone, and the interpretation of emergency proclamations is a question of law for courts not juries, requiring reversal of the enhancement finding for insufficient evidence while affirming the underlying arson conviction.

The case is inapplicable when the emergency proclamation's plain language declares a statewide emergency throughout the entire territorial jurisdiction, when state agencies have identified specific high hazard zones and prosecution proves the crime occurred within those identified areas, or when the emergency proclamation unambiguously extends to the location where the crime was committed.

The case leaves open whether other open emergency proclamations (such as drought emergencies in specific counties) might provide alternative bases for enhancement allegations, what standard applies when emergency proclamation language is genuinely ambiguous rather than plain, and whether Penal Code section 454 raises constitutional vagueness concerns.