People v. Sanchez
16 P.3d 118, 24 Cal. 4th 983, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is not a lesser included offense of murder because it requires proof of additional elements (use of a vehicle and intoxication) not necessary to prove murder.
Facts:
- In the early morning hours of April 25, 1995, Richard Conrad and Royal Williams were driving to work when an oncoming vehicle, driven by Juan Jose Sanchez, entered Conrad's lane.
- Conrad swerved to avoid the collision, but Sanchez's vehicle struck Conrad’s car on the passenger side, killing Royal Williams and seriously injuring Richard Conrad.
- Police accident reconstruction confirmed that the collision occurred in Conrad’s lane, and Sanchez gave conflicting accounts of the collision and his alcohol consumption, admitting some drinking but denying intoxication.
- Sanchez's blood-alcohol level two hours after the collision was .17 percent, and he laughingly commented to police about another pending DUI charge and his wife telling him not to drink and drive.
- Sanchez had two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (one in 1988 and one in 1993), and an additional DUI charge was pending against him from February 1995.
- Sanchez had been driving without a valid driver’s license since 1988, when his license was suspended in connection with his first DUI conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Juan Jose Sanchez was charged by information with multiple offenses, including murder (count 1) and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (count 2), based on the death of Royal Williams.
- After a court trial, Sanchez was found guilty of second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury, and driving with a specified blood-alcohol level causing injury. He was found not guilty of hit-and-run, and a perjury charge was dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Sanchez to 15 years to life for second degree murder, with this term to be served consecutively to an eight-month term for driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (plus an enhancement). Sentences for gross vehicular manslaughter and driving with a specified blood-alcohol level were stayed.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment by imposing a two-year term for driving under the influence causing injury but staying the enhancement, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
- The California Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated a lesser included offense of murder under California law?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C.J.
No, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is not a lesser included offense of murder. Under California law, a lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if either the statutory elements of the greater offense, or the facts alleged in the accusatory pleading, include all the elements of the lesser offense, such that the greater cannot be committed without also committing the lesser. Murder requires proof of an unlawful killing with malice, while gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated requires additional elements not found in murder, namely, the use of a vehicle and intoxication (driving in violation of specific Vehicle Code provisions). Therefore, it is possible to commit murder without committing gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The court acknowledged the long-standing tradition of treating general manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder because manslaughter lacks the element of malice. However, this tradition does not extend to specific vehicular manslaughter offenses, which include unique elements. The court distinguished its prior decision in People v. Ortega (regarding theft and robbery) by explaining that gross vehicular manslaughter is not simply a 'degree' of murder, and it contains additional elements not present in murder or other forms of nonvehicular manslaughter. While dual convictions are permissible, the trial court properly avoided dual punishment by staying the sentence for vehicular manslaughter pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is a lesser included offense of murder. For 150 years, California law has consistently treated manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder, with the distinguishing feature being the presence (murder) or absence (manslaughter) of malice. Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is merely a 'form' of manslaughter. The elements of vehicle use and intoxication are distinguishing characteristics of this particular form of manslaughter, but they do not prevent it from being fundamentally a type of manslaughter, and thus, a lesser included offense of murder. The majority's reasoning is inconsistent with People v. Ortega, where different forms of grand theft (e.g., grand theft automobile) were still considered lesser included offenses of robbery because 'theft, in one form or another, always is included within robbery.' Similarly, manslaughter, in whatever form, should be included within murder. The majority's decision denies juries the opportunity to consider the full range of criminal offenses established by the evidence, potentially forcing an 'all-or-nothing' choice between a murder conviction and an acquittal.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
I concur with the majority that second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated are not greater including and lesser included offenses, meaning the convictions for both can stand as non-duplicative. The determination of whether crimes are greater including and lesser included offenses for purposes of avoiding duplicative convictions relies on the 'crime definition test' (statutory elements test), which asks if the greater offense can be committed without necessarily committing the lesser. Murder, defined as an unlawful killing with malice aforethought, can indeed be committed without committing gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, which requires an unlawful killing combined with driving a vehicle while intoxicated, but specifically without malice aforethought. The elements of driving a vehicle and intoxication are unique to gross vehicular manslaughter and are not necessary elements of murder. The long-standing idea that murder and general manslaughter are always lesser/greater included offenses is questionable because manslaughter's unlawful killing element is not identical to murder's, and manslaughter involves specific circumstances beyond just an unlawful killing. While I previously concurred in People v. Ortega, I now have doubts about its soundness and believe it warrants reconsideration in a future case.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'statutory elements test' for determining lesser included offenses in California, particularly for specific statutory offenses like gross vehicular manslaughter. By affirming that murder can be committed without necessarily committing gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the Court emphasizes that additional specific elements (like vehicle use and intoxication) prevent a crime from being automatically considered a lesser included offense, even if it falls under a broader category (like 'manslaughter') that traditionally is. This ruling impacts prosecutorial charging strategies and jury instructions, as it allows for dual convictions (though generally not dual punishment) for these offenses, potentially increasing the number of 'strikes' a defendant might accumulate for future sentencing enhancements. It also marks a departure from the more expansive interpretation of lesser included offenses seen in cases like People v. Ortega concerning theft and robbery, underscoring a stricter interpretation of statutory elements in homicide cases.
