People v. Talamantes
14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 311, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10068, 11 Cal. App. 4th 968 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for second degree murder based on implied malice can be sustained in a drunk driving death case when the defendant acts with a conscious disregard for human life, as evidenced by a high blood-alcohol level, pre-drinking intent to drive, knowledge of the hazards of driving while intoxicated, and highly dangerous driving.
Facts:
- On Tuesday, April 9, 1991, around 4 a.m., John Forbes observed appellant driving a dark Audi without lights, speeding west on Sunland Boulevard at least 45 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone.
- The Audi, driven by appellant, went airborne after crossing railroad tracks on Sunland Boulevard.
- The Audi then collided with a yellow Volkswagen, driven by Todd Makowski, on the wrong side of the road while still moving at a high rate of speed.
- Todd Makowski sustained major injuries and died on the operating table at 7:20 a.m.
- Appellant was found behind the wheel of the Audi, obviously intoxicated, and police discovered three empty twelve-ounce beer containers in the car.
- Appellant's blood alcohol content was measured at .31 percent about an hour after the accident, with an expert estimating it was .32 percent at the time of the collision.
- Appellant had previously attended a 10-week court-referral driving-under-the-influence course from November 1989 to March 1990, which emphasized the dangers of drunk driving, including injuries and death.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was charged in state trial court with second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily injury, and driving while having .08 percent blood alcohol causing great bodily injury, along with two prior DUI conviction allegations.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.
- The trial court granted appellant's motion to bifurcate trial of the allegations, after which he admitted the prior DUI allegations.
- A jury convicted appellant of all four counts.
- Appellant's motion to modify his conviction of second degree murder was denied by the trial court.
- The trial court sentenced appellant to 15 years to life for second degree murder, stayed the sentences on counts III and IV, and dismissed count II (gross vehicular manslaughter) on the People's motion.
- Appellant appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
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 sufficient evidence of implied malice exist to sustain a second-degree murder conviction when a defendant, with a very high blood alcohol content and prior knowledge of DUI dangers, engages in highly dangerous driving that results in a fatality?
Opinions:
Majority - Woods, J.
Yes, sufficient evidence of implied malice exists to sustain the second-degree murder conviction. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence indistinguishable from other cases upholding drunk-driving-murder convictions. Citing People v. Watson, the court reiterated that implied malice is established 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. The court identified four factors supporting such convictions: (1) a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit (appellant's was .32 percent); (2) a pre-drinking intent to drive (inferred from driving alone at 4 a.m. with prolonged drinking); (3) knowledge of the hazards of driving while intoxicated (appellant had attended a DUI course); and (4) highly dangerous driving (speeding, driving without lights, on the wrong side of the road, going airborne, causing skid marks). The court concluded that substantial evidence of all four factors was present, establishing implied malice.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the viability of second-degree murder charges for fatal drunk driving incidents in California, particularly when the defendant exhibits a high degree of culpability. It clarifies that implied malice can be inferred from a combination of factors, including extreme intoxication, prior knowledge of DUI risks, and highly reckless driving, even without explicit proof of intent to drive before drinking. The decision serves as a significant deterrent and provides guidance for prosecutors seeking to charge drunk drivers with murder rather than just manslaughter, emphasizing the conscious disregard for life inherent in such actions.
