People v. Brogna
248 Cal. Rptr. 761, 202 Cal.App.3d 700, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 614 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and participation in mandatory alcohol education programs is admissible to prove the subjective knowledge element of implied malice in a prosecution for second-degree murder arising from a vehicular homicide.
Facts:
- Rodney Paul Brogna had two prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) in August 1979 and October 1983.
- As a condition of probation for these offenses, Brogna completed a 'first offense driving-while-intoxicated school,' a one-year alcohol abuse program, and attended at least 26 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, which included education on the dangers of drunk driving.
- On the night of February 23, 1986, 17-year-old Alexandra Vincent's car stalled on the shoulder of the Ventura Freeway.
- Vincent's mother, Sandra Loomis, arrived and parked her car behind Vincent's. A tow truck also arrived and parked in front, and all three vehicles had their emergency or flashing lights activated.
- Brogna, driving a truck at 55 to 60 miles per hour, made several un-signaled lane changes before suddenly veering onto the shoulder.
- Brogna's truck collided with Loomis's parked car, which resulted in an impact that threw Alexandra Vincent over a guardrail, causing her death.
- A blood sample taken from Brogna two and a half hours after the collision revealed a blood-alcohol level of .17 percent, which a forensic analyst testified was equivalent to .20 percent at the time of the crash.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Rodney Paul Brogna in a trial court with second-degree murder and two counts of driving under the influence causing injury.
- Prior to trial, the prosecution filed a motion to introduce evidence of Brogna's two prior DUI convictions to prove implied malice for the murder charge.
- The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible for the limited purpose of proving Brogna's knowledge of the dangers associated with drunk driving.
- A jury acquitted Brogna of second-degree murder but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, as well as the two DUI counts.
- Brogna, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second District, challenging the trial court's admission of the prior conviction evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of evidence of a defendant's prior DUI convictions and attendance at mandatory alcohol education programs, for the limited purpose of proving the subjective awareness element of implied malice in a vehicular homicide case, constitute a prejudicial error?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, J.
No, the admission of this evidence was not a prejudicial error because it is highly relevant to proving the defendant's subjective state of mind. To establish implied malice for a second-degree murder conviction, the prosecution must prove the defendant actually appreciated the life-threatening risk of their conduct. Evidence of prior DUI convictions and mandatory participation in alcohol education programs directly proves the defendant's knowledge of the dangers of drinking and driving. The court, citing People v. Watson, affirmed that the criminal act is not the specific traffic violation but the act of driving under the influence with a conscious disregard for life. The trial court correctly determined that the probative value of this evidence in establishing the defendant's subjective awareness outweighed the potential for prejudice, especially since the court provided a limiting instruction to the jury. The fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder and convicted him of the lesser offense of vehicular manslaughter demonstrates that the jury was not improperly prejudiced and followed the court's instructions.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a defendant's history of drunk driving and related education can be used to elevate a vehicular homicide charge from manslaughter to second-degree murder. It strongly affirms the use of prior acts to prove the subjective mental state of 'implied malice,' specifically the defendant's actual awareness of the risk. By doing so, the case provides prosecutors with a clear pathway to argue that a defendant with prior DUIs was on notice of the life-threatening danger of their actions, thus acting with a 'conscious disregard for life.' This precedent has significantly impacted DUI law, making it more likely for repeat offenders who cause fatalities to face murder charges rather than the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Brogna