Hangout #2 Cases Flashcards
People v. Watson (CA)
F)
1) Drove to bar, got drunk and drove home
2) First ran a red light and narrowly missed a collision
3) Got into a collision at another intersection killed TWO people
4) BAC .23 Speed=84 or 50-60 on a 35 limit
5) Henke testfied of lower speed and green light
P)
1) Preliminary hearing found probable cause for mansalughter, NOT second degree murder
2) Prosecution put murder in the information anyway
3) Watson motion to dismiss, Judge granted.
4) P, appeals the dismissal of the charges (Interlocutory appeal(not gone to trial yet))
5) Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the murder charge
6) P appealed again to high court
H/R:
Majority (Justice Richardson) REVERSED the appellate court’s affirming of the trial courts dismissal of the murder charge and reinstated those charges
-Manslaughter does not preclude murder
-Gross negligence does NOT include malice
-Facts imply Malice (knowingly to drink and drive(disregard of safety))
Dissent(Judge BIRD): Agree with trial courts dismissal.
- Majority applied the wrong legal standard; facts were disputed so the appellate court should defer to the trial court
- Only looked at case in De Novo
- Not dangerous or a conscious disregard to speed a little through a green light
- brakes showed that he wanted to avoid danger
- POLICY: all drunk driving killings are murder
Issue: Distinguish Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter (implied malice or gross negligence)
-Are similar but differ on the degree of awareness of the risk of harm
CA Penal code S192 - Involuntary manslaughter while intoxicated
An aggravated form of involuntary manslaughter - “in driving of a vehicle - in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, with gross negligence OR in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, with gross negligence”
Williamson Rule
Prevents you from getting charged for two crimes from one
Watson:(Justice RICHARDSON) Does not apply since the TWO crimes contemplate different kinds of culpability
Mental state for implied malice Murder (elements)
1) when a person
2) Does an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life
3) Does the act deliberately and knows that his conduct endangers the lives of others
4) does the act with conscious disregard for life
People v. Albright (conscious disregard for human life)
Implied malice does not require awareness of life-threating risk to actual victim, but to lives of others, generally
Watsons Majority Conclusion
Conclusion(Richardson):
- Rational ground for concluding that Watson’s conduct was sufficiently wanton to hold him to secondary-degree murder (implied malice)
- WHY? he drove extremely fast and dangerously through city streets & extensive skid marks show how reckless he drove
THUS: was aware of the hazards of driving while intoxicated.
Dissent (cheif Justice BIRD)
- Argues that the majority rewrites the law of implied malice and makes it virtually certain that anyone who has a few drinks and gets in a deadly accident will be charged with murder
- WHY?
1) They ignored the facts
2) Henke(says he was going 50-60) but was never found credible
3) By watson driving to the bar does . not determine state of mind later
Lesser included offense
Two offenses are the same if the greater offense CANNOT be committed without also committing the lesser offense
EX: Assault is LIO of murder
Assault and Larceny are LIO of robbery
Not EX:
- Assault w/ deadly weapon is NOT LIO of murder b/c deadly weapon is not an element of murder, you can commit murder w/o committing assault with a deadly weapon
- Same reasoning is why vehicular manslaughter isnt an LIO of murder (dont need to be driving to kill someone)
People v. Sanchez
CA supreme court upheld defendants’s dual conviction for second degree murder and Gross negligence, from the same accident b/c manslaughter requires proof of elements (driving AND Drunkenness) that are DISTINCT from murder
- Gross vehicular manslaughter is NOT an LIO of murder
- BUT ordinary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated are all the same offence for the purpose of Double Jeopardy
(Allows Watson to be charged with four counts of homicide but is blocked by CA penal code 654)
People v. Whitfield (CA)
F) Whitfield had three prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Day of crash, drank and picked up his kids, dropped him off, drank (while driving), passed out from alchol, crashed, and killed a person. BAC 0.27.
P) Trail:
1) Whitfield was convicted of second-degree murder.
2) WHitfield appealed the jury instructions
3) Appellate Court affirmed
4) Defendant appealed again to the high court
H/R)
Majority(Justice GEORGE) Affirmed the appellate court’s affirmation of the conviction
-Trail court erred in Whitfield’s favor with the jury instruction (let the jury consider intoxication when deciding malice)
-Implied malice is specific intent crime
-Voluntary intoxication does not acquit WHitfields, only reduce the crime
-Gross negligence is objective and implied malice is subjective
Dissent(Justice MOSK)
Would have affirmed, but for different reasons
-Express malice is a specific intent crime
-Implied malice is general intent crime.
-Voluntary intoxication gives drunk drivers an excuse
-Legislative history got rid of diminished capacity
-Implied malice is not goal-oriented like express malice (which was later agreed by legislature)
Issue:Whether the evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible in 2nd degree murder prosecution when the prosecutor seeks to establish malice aforethought on an implied malice theory
(i.e. When the prosecutor seeks to prove that the defendant acted with knowledge of the danger to human life and in conscious disregard of life )
People v. Whitfield’s Defendant argument
Argues that he could NOT have implied malice because he was unconscious at the time of the crash
- He was more drunk at the time of the crash (took blood two hours after the crash)
- A drunk person could be capable of operating a motor vehicle even though they are incapable of conscious decision making
People v. WHitfields’s Prosecutors argument
- Whitfield could NOT have been that drunk based on how much beer he old the police he drank
- Prosectuor’s expert says that the amount of alcohol he admitted to consuming could not produce BAC of 0.24%
- Trail court instructed the jury on SPECIFIC INTENT and allowed them consider the degree of intoxication and whether the has the required degree of intoxication
Malice Aforethought (CALJIC S8.10)
“Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought is guility of the crime of murder - malice may be expressed or implied”
People v. Whitfield Procedure: Trial Court
- Refused to give Whitfield’s jury instruction that IF they found that he 1) killed without intent to kill 2)W/O malice aforethought, while unconscious as a result of voluntary intoxication, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter
- Jury found whitfield guility of 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 18 years to life
People v. Whitfield Procedure: Appellate Court
-Whitfield argued that the trail court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on unconsciousness
-Affirmed the conviction b/c it said voluntary intoxication is only defense to SI crimes and second degree implied malice is NOT an SI crime
-Affirmed trial courts refusal to jury instruction on unconsciousness
(Court of appeal said the trail court erred in WHitfield’s favor by allowing the jury to consider his voluntary intoxication in deciding whether he harbored implied malice)
People v. Whitfield Procedure: Supreme Court
-Granted review to resolve conflict whether voluntary intoxication can be used to knockout SI(mitigating factor)
-Concludes that the court of appeals misinterpreted S22B when it ruled that voluntary intoxication is INadmissible to prove absence of implied malice
CA supreme court says that implied-malice murder requires specific intent, thus the evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to prove the absence of implied malice for 2nd degree murder
Cal Penal code S22B
Can use voluntary intoxication as a defence in only specific intent crimes
Voluntary Intoxication as defense
Is inadmissible to negate general intent crimes
-defense for SI not GI crimes
People v Hood (application og GI and SI rule)
Whether Hood’s voluntary intoxication could be considered in determining whether they committed assault
-General rule of SI and GI should not be applied mechanically b/c assault could equally be GI or SI crime.
People v. Whitman’s Majority conclusion
Justice GEORGE:
- Trail court did not err by allowing jury to consider voluntary intoxication for implied malice
- Trail court properly refused Whitfield’s unconsciousness jury instructions b/c malice could have been formed BEFORE unconsciousness
- Whitman did appreciate the risk, when there was beer cans in his car
People v. Whitman’s Dissent conclusion
Justice MOSK:
- Concurs that Whitman is guilty but the majority opinions gives wasted drivers an unanticipated defence to murder based on unconsciousness
- Creates huge road blocks to prosecutors trying to punish drunk drivers who kill innocent ppl
- 2nd degree murder based on implied malice is GI crime
- S22 is not ambiguous and only includes express malice
People v. Whitman’s Majority Overruled
CA State legislature overruled WHitfield by statute in 1995: Voluntary intoxication is no longer relevant to murder based on implied malice
People v. Rocha
(Diffrence between GI and Si offenses since 1969)
Reject that assault with a deadly weapon is a SI crime.
Assault is a GI crime because voluntary intoxication naturally lends it self to its commission
Whitfields majority: Understands this rule backyards( Implied-malice murder cannot be said to be SI intent b/c the elements do not require the intent to do a further act)
Montana v. Egelhoff
Vice of divided opinions, which results as a HOLDING not a RULE for other cases.
People v. Superior COurt (Caudie)
ALthought DUI vehicular manslaughter is not considered a lesser included of murder, there is still a sound efficiency basis for a prosecuion-side interlocutory appeal of the pretrail ruling dismissing the murder charges
People v. Fuller
F) Defendants sped through an intersection to evade cops, killing the other driver durig the collision
Takeaway compared in Watson(dissent-BIRD): They differ in the fact that there was no evidence that Watson drove through a red light. Fuller drove through the lights with a conscious disregard of life. Charged with 2nd degree murder on an implied malice theory.
