The California Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of Mesrop Kazarian for felony evasion of a police officer. The court ruled that the jury was properly instructed, despite Kazarian's claims of instructional errors. This decision affects Kazarian, who was sentenced to four years in prison, and sets a precedent for how jury instructions are handled in similar cases.
The case, People v. Kazarian, docket number E085048, stems from an incident in January 2023 when Kazarian was pursued by law enforcement after he allegedly failed to stop at a gas station while unresponsive in his vehicle. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for jury instructions in felony evasion cases.
Background
Mesrop Kazarian was involved in a high-speed chase with law enforcement in San Bernardino County. The pursuit began when Deputy Sheriff Gabriel Dominguez responded to a medical aid call at a gas station. Upon arrival, Dominguez found Kazarian unresponsive in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle. When Kazarian woke up, he attempted to drive away, nearly colliding with emergency vehicles present.
Dominguez activated his lights and sirens, pursuing Kazarian, who allegedly reached speeds over 100 miles per hour and failed to stop at multiple stop signs. Kazarian was eventually found hiding in the desert after crashing his truck. He was charged with felony evasion under California Vehicle Code section 2800.2.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeal, in a decision filed on July 30, 2026, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that any instructional errors claimed by Kazarian were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion stated, "the factual and evidentiary questions regarding whether defendant almost doubled the undisputed maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour on a city street... were fully and fairly litigated below."
Judge Miller, alongside Presiding Judge Ramirez and Judge Codrington, concluded that the jury was adequately informed about the necessary elements of felony evasion. The court noted that while Kazarian argued for clearer definitions of traffic violations, the jury was capable of understanding the basic principles involved in the case.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the notion that juries can rely on common understanding of traffic laws without needing exhaustive definitions. The court's decision indicates that even if certain legal definitions are not explicitly provided, the jury can still arrive at a fair verdict based on the evidence presented. This case may influence future cases involving jury instructions, particularly in traffic-related offenses.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that the absence of detailed definitions does not automatically warrant a reversal of a conviction, as long as the jury can reasonably determine the facts based on the evidence. This could impact how future cases are prosecuted and defended in California.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Kazarian plans to appeal the ruling. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.