People v. Superior Court (Costa)
2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 471, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576, 183 Cal.App.4th 690 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Implied malice, sufficient to support a second-degree murder charge, may be inferred from circumstantial evidence demonstrating a defendant's subjective awareness of the great risk of harm created by their actions and a conscious disregard for life, even in the absence of intoxication or high-speed pursuit.
Facts:
- Marcos Barboza Costa, holding a class A commercial driver’s license, operated a 25-ton semitrailer truck carrying vehicles on the Angeles Crest Highway, a steep, winding, two-lane mountainous road with signs prohibiting vehicles over three tons.
- A pre-trip inspection, legally required for commercial drivers, would have revealed that five of the truck's 10 brakes were inoperable or out of adjustment, necessitating the truck be taken out of service.
- Juan Palomino, a County firefighter, observed Costa’s truck traveling at 15 mph, emitting a continuous cloud of white smoke from its rear left wheels, and crossing the center dividing line multiple times.
- Palomino pulled Costa over and explicitly warned him that the Highway was unsuitable for such a large truck, his brakes were smoking, the road ahead was steeper and narrower with sharper turns, rush hour traffic was approaching, and he should turn around at that moment.
- Despite Palomino's warnings, Costa continued driving the truck down the Highway, and others later observed thick, white-gray smoke billowing from the truck’s tires, indicating ongoing brake failure.
- As the truck descended into La Cañada, its brakes appeared to fail completely, and it gained speed to approximately 60 mph in a 45 mph zone, with no indication of the horn or Jake Brake system being used.
- The truck ran a red light on Foothill Boulevard, collided with multiple vehicles, killing Angel Posea and his 12-year-old daughter Angelina Posea, and crashed into a bookstore and nail salon.
- Deputy Peterson, an expert in commercial vehicle inspections, testified that the pre-existing brake problems, combined with continued operation on the challenging Highway, caused the brakes to overheat and fail, and that a properly functioning brake system would have allowed Costa to stop the truck.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned an indictment against Marcos Barboza Costa, charging him with two counts of second-degree murder.
- Costa filed a motion under Penal Code section 995 to dismiss the murder charges, arguing insufficient evidence of implied malice.
- The trial court granted Costa's motion, concluding that warnings received did not create sufficient subjective awareness of risk.
- The People filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, challenging the trial court’s ruling.
- The Court of Appeal stayed the pending trial and issued an alternative writ of mandate.
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 evidence indicating a commercial truck driver operated a heavily-laden truck with known defective brakes on a dangerous mountain highway, after being explicitly warned of the risks, constitute sufficient probable cause to infer implied malice for a second-degree murder indictment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bigelow, P.J.
Yes, evidence indicating a commercial truck driver operated a heavily-laden truck with known defective brakes on a dangerous mountain highway, after being explicitly warned of the risks, constitutes sufficient probable cause to infer implied malice for a second-degree murder indictment. The court found that the evidence presented to the grand jury established a rational ground for inferring the possibility that Costa was actually aware of the grave risk of harm posed by continuing to drive his truck and consciously disregarded that risk, meeting the standard for implied malice under California law. Implied malice exists when a person performs an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, with knowledge that their conduct endangers the life of another, and acts with conscious disregard for life (People v. Watson). The court emphasized that malice can be proven by circumstantial evidence and that a driver's subjective awareness of risk can be inferred from their actions and the warnings they received. Specifically, Costa's possession of a commercial driver's license implied knowledge of safety requirements and brake inspections. The pre-trip inspection should have revealed the critical brake defects. The continuous smoke from the brakes, visible and smelled by others, coupled with Palomino's detailed warnings about the truck's condition, the hazardous road, and impending rush hour traffic, provided ample circumstantial evidence for the grand jury to infer Costa's subjective awareness of the danger. His decision to continue driving past available turnouts despite these warnings and visible signs of brake failure supported the inference of a conscious disregard for life. The court reiterated that intoxication or high-speed pursuit are not prerequisites for a finding of implied malice in vehicular homicide cases (People v. Contreras).
Analysis:
This case clarifies that a finding of implied malice in vehicular homicide does not require intoxication or flight from pursuing officers, expanding the scope of when such charges can be brought. It emphasizes that a defendant's subjective awareness of risk can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including professional knowledge, observable vehicle defects, and direct warnings from others. The ruling significantly lowers the bar for indicting individuals for second-degree murder in cases involving extremely reckless driving, particularly for commercial drivers who are held to a higher standard of care. This precedent could lead to more aggressive prosecution of severe traffic offenses where a driver demonstrates a conscious disregard for known dangers, impacting how such cases are investigated and charged.
