People v. Sanchez
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809, 86 Cal. App. 4th 970 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A violation of California Vehicle Code § 2800.3, which criminalizes fleeing a peace officer and proximately causing death or serious bodily injury, is not an inherently dangerous felony that can serve as the predicate for a second-degree felony-murder conviction.
Facts:
- Around 2:00 a.m., Refugio Anthony Sanchez ran a stop sign and two red lights while driving at speeds between 35 and 55 miles per hour.
- A police officer in a marked patrol car activated his lights and siren and began pursuing Sanchez's vehicle.
- The three passengers in Sanchez's car, including Lakisha Davis, pleaded with him to pull over, but Sanchez refused, turned up the car's music, and accelerated.
- Sanchez reached speeds of 85 to 100 miles per hour while driving down a residential street.
- While attempting to navigate a 90-degree turn at approximately 84 miles per hour, Sanchez lost control of the car.
- The car struck a guardrail, flipped upside down, and crashed into a house.
- As a result of the crash, passenger Lakisha Davis died, and the other two passengers, Goldie McGowan and Shanise Shaver, suffered serious injuries.
- Subsequent testing showed Sanchez had a blood-alcohol level of .18 percent, and he had a prior conviction for driving under the influence for which his license was suspended.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of California charged Refugio Anthony Sanchez in a trial court with second degree murder and other offenses.
- At trial, the prosecution argued two alternative theories for the murder charge: implied malice and second-degree felony murder based on a violation of Vehicle Code § 2800.3.
- Over the defense's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that a violation of § 2800.3 is an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of the felony-murder rule.
- A jury found Sanchez guilty of second degree murder.
- Sanchez (appellant) appealed the murder conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the jury instruction on felony murder was incorrect.
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 violation of California Vehicle Code § 2800.3, which makes it a felony to flee a peace officer and proximately cause death or serious bodily injury, qualify as an inherently dangerous felony for the purpose of the second-degree felony-murder rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Scotland, P. J.
No. A violation of Vehicle Code § 2800.3 is not an inherently dangerous felony for the purpose of the second-degree felony-murder rule because the offense, when viewed in the abstract, can be committed without posing a high probability of death. In determining whether a felony is inherently dangerous, a court must look to the elements of the crime in the abstract, not the specific conduct of the defendant. The court must consider all the ways the statute can be violated. The primary element of § 2800.3 is fleeing a peace officer, which can be done in a non-dangerous manner. The element that elevates the crime to a felony is that the flight proximately causes "death or serious bodily injury." The statute's use of the disjunctive "or" is critical, as it separates the life-threatening risk of death from the non-life-threatening risk of serious bodily injury. Because dispositive elements of the statute can be satisfied by conduct that causes only serious bodily injury (e.g., a broken bone) without necessarily posing a high probability of death, the felony is not inherently dangerous in the abstract and cannot serve as a predicate for a second-degree felony-murder conviction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict "in the abstract" approach for determining if a felony is inherently dangerous for the felony-murder rule. It significantly limits the application of the second-degree felony-murder doctrine in cases involving police pursuits by clarifying that statutes using disjunctive phrases like "death or serious bodily injury" will likely fail this test. The ruling forces prosecutors in such cases to prove the defendant acted with implied malice—a conscious disregard for human life—rather than relying on the legal shortcut of felony murder. This ensures that a murder conviction is based on the defendant's mental state, not just the commission of an underlying felony that resulted in a death.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Sanchez