People v. Moore
187 Cal. App. 4th 937, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1461 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Driving at excessively high speeds, running a red light, and causing a fatal collision can constitute second-degree murder based on implied malice, even without intoxication or police pursuit, if the driver exhibited a subjective awareness of the high probability of death. A prior conviction for driving under the influence is admissible to establish this subjective awareness of risk.
Facts:
- On November 29, 2006, Hal Lee Moore was driving his Nissan Pathfinder through Pasadena at excessive speeds, angry about his apartment being burglarized.
- Moore drove northbound on Hill Avenue, a 35 mph zone, at an estimated 80-90 mph, crossing into the southbound lane and straddling the double yellow line, forcing oncoming cars to move.
- As Moore approached the intersection of Hill Avenue and Washington Boulevard, he was going approximately 70 mph, saw the red traffic signal for Hill Avenue, and observed a white Toyota Corolla crossing the intersection.
- Moore did not attempt to stop and struck the Toyota Corolla, causing it to collide with a black BMW waiting in the left turn lane.
- Bertha Vasquez Arias, a passenger in the Toyota, was killed, and Zaruhi Ovesepyan, the driver of the BMW, suffered a broken arm.
- Moore immediately continued driving north on Hill Avenue without checking on the victims.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury convicted Hal Lee Moore of second degree murder, vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, evading a peace officer, two counts of reckless driving with bodily injury, and resisting a peace officer.
- Moore, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal, contending that the murder conviction was not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is a conviction for second-degree murder based on implied malice supported by substantial evidence when a driver speeds excessively, runs a red light, and causes a fatal collision, even without intoxication or police pursuit? 2. Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior driving under the influence conviction to establish subjective awareness of the risk for implied malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J.
1. Yes, a conviction for second-degree murder based on implied malice is supported by substantial evidence when a driver speeds excessively, runs a red light, and causes a fatal collision, even without intoxication or police pursuit, because the driver exhibited a wanton disregard of the high probability of death and subjective awareness of the risk. The court found Moore's actions—driving 70 mph in a 35 mph zone, crossing into opposing traffic, causing other drivers to avoid him, running a red light, and striking a car without braking—demonstrated a wanton disregard of the near certainty of death, well beyond gross negligence. The court reasoned that it "takes no leap of logic for the jury to conclude that because anyone would be aware of the risk, Moore was aware of the risk." It distinguished this case from others like People v. Watson, People v. Fuller, and People v. Contreras, noting that while those cases involved additional factors (intoxication, near-misses, police pursuit, defective brakes, numerous prior citations), those factors are not prerequisites for finding implied malice; rather, implied malice is decided "in light of all the circumstances." The court affirmed that the absence of such factors does not preclude a finding of malice. 2. No, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Hal Lee Moore's prior driving under the influence conviction, as it was relevant to establishing his subjective knowledge of the risk created by his reckless driving. The court agreed with People v. Ortiz that a prior conviction for reckless driving (including DUI) is relevant to a defendant's subjective knowledge and implied malice. Even without evidence of specific class content, the jury could reasonably conclude that the prior conviction put Moore "on notice of the consequences of driving with extreme recklessness." The court found no abuse of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 because the probative value of demonstrating subjective awareness outweighed any potential undue prejudice, especially given the severity of the current offense and Moore's callous post-accident statements.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that implied malice vehicular murder convictions do not solely depend on factors like intoxication or police pursuit. It broadens the scope for prosecutors to pursue murder charges in cases of extreme reckless driving by emphasizing that subjective awareness of risk can be inferred from the objective circumstances of the driving itself, coupled with past relevant driving offenses. The decision clarifies the admissibility of prior driving convictions, particularly DUI, as highly probative evidence for establishing the subjective element of implied malice, making it easier to overcome prejudice objections in future cases. This ruling contributes to a growing trend of holding drivers accountable for extreme recklessness under more severe criminal statutes.
