People v. Contreras
26 Cal.App.4th 944, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 757, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5376 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Implied malice, sufficient to support a second-degree murder conviction in vehicular homicide cases, requires proof of a defendant's subjective awareness of a high risk to human life and conscious disregard for that risk, even in the absence of intoxication or a high-speed police chase.
Facts:
- Heriberto Contreras worked as an illegal 'bird-dogger' tow truck driver, illegally monitoring emergency calls and racing to accident scenes to secure towing jobs.
- Between May 1990 and February 1991, Contreras received numerous traffic citations for speeding, running red lights, unsafe lane changes, and following too closely, was arrested for reckless driving, and caused a prior traffic accident.
- On January 19, 1991, Contreras was formally advised by the Department of Motor Vehicles that his driver's license was suspended/revoked and he was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle.
- On February 9, 1991, Contreras told his employer and friend, Anthony Reedburg, that his tow truck's brakes were malfunctioning and borrowed Reedburg's truck.
- On the morning of February 10, 1991, Reedburg drove Contreras's truck and found the brakes to be 'no good,' with the pedal going to the floorboard, and informed Contreras that the truck could not be driven safely above 10-15 miles per hour.
- Later on February 10, 1991, an accident report was broadcast over a police scanner.
- Despite knowing his brakes were defective and having been warned they were not repaired, Contreras took his own tow truck and left to race to the accident scene, without being stopped by Reedburg.
- Contreras raced another tow truck northbound on Denker Avenue at 60-70 miles per hour (in a 25 mph zone), went airborne over a dip, and rear-ended a car stopped at a red light at the intersection of 54th and Denker Avenue.
- The collision resulted in the death of thirteen-year-old Jerry Williams, a passenger in the struck vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Heriberto Contreras was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187).
- Contreras also pleaded guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 14601, subdivision (a), and admitted two prior convictions for violations of the same section.
- The trial court sentenced Contreras to a term of 15 years to life in state prison.
- Contreras, the defendant and appellant, appealed the judgment entered following his conviction.
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 a non-intoxicated driver who causes a fatal traffic collision while racing with defective brakes and a documented history of reckless driving demonstrate sufficient 'implied malice' to support a second-degree murder conviction under California law?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P.J.
Yes, a non-intoxicated driver who causes a fatal traffic collision while racing with defective brakes and a documented history of reckless driving can demonstrate sufficient 'implied malice' to support a second-degree murder conviction under California law. The court affirmed that malice is implied 'when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart' (Pen. Code, § 188). Drawing on People v. Watson, the court reiterated that implied malice requires a 'subjective awareness of the risk involved' and a 'conscious disregard for life,' distinguishing it from gross negligence, which applies an objective 'reasonable person' standard. The court held that the absence of intoxication or a high-speed police chase does not preclude a finding of implied malice if other evidence demonstrates a 'wanton disregard for life' and a defendant's 'subjective awareness of the risk created.' In this case, Contreras's extensive history of reckless driving, his prior accident, his awareness of his driver's license suspension, his direct knowledge that his tow truck's brakes were defective (and being explicitly warned by Reedburg not to drive it at speed), and his decision to race at 60-70 mph in a residential area, provided substantial evidence for the jury to rationally conclude that he subjectively appreciated the severe risk to human life and consciously disregarded that danger. The jury was entitled to reject Contreras's argument that his intent was merely to secure a towing job or that he believed the brakes had been repaired, especially given evidence that the brakes would have failed upon first application, indicating immediate knowledge of their disrepair.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and potentially broadens the application of implied malice murder in vehicular homicide cases beyond scenarios involving intoxication or police pursuits. It underscores that a pattern of extreme recklessness, coupled with direct knowledge of a severe vehicle defect and conscious disregard of the inherent danger, can satisfy the subjective 'conscious disregard for life' standard. This ruling establishes that courts will examine the totality of the circumstances preceding a fatal act to determine culpability, making it more challenging for defendants to argue for a lesser manslaughter charge when their actions demonstrate a profound indifference to public safety, even if sober. This precedent may encourage prosecutors to pursue murder charges in a wider range of vehicular deaths where egregious and knowing disregard for safety is evident.
