People v. Watson
198 Cal. Rptr. 26, 150 Cal.App.3d 313, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2556 (1983)
Rule of Law:
A trial court, when reviewing a jury's verdict on a motion for new trial or modification under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6, must confine its assessment to the evidence presented to the jury and cannot consider judicially noticed facts or other matters not in evidence. Furthermore, manslaughter (including vehicular manslaughter) is a single, necessarily included offense within murder, requiring the court to instruct the jury on it sua sponte when supported by the evidence.
Facts:
- On the evening of January 2, 1979, the defendant, Watson, visited four bars, consumed alcoholic beverages, and became highly intoxicated.
- A bartender at one establishment was so concerned about Watson's ability to drive that he took Watson's car keys away and gave them to Watson's companion.
- Around 1 a.m. on January 3, 1979, Watson was driving his Ford on his way to a fifth bar when it collided with a Toyota, killing Penny Maillet and her six-year-old daughter Michelle.
- Moments before the fatal collision, Watson ran a red light at the intersection of Cypress Avenue and Henderson Road, causing witness Ray Tate to brake suddenly to avoid a collision.
- Watson then sped away from that intersection, passing witness Paul Henke at a very rapid rate of speed (estimated 71-76 mph), significantly exceeding the 35 mph speed limit.
- The fatal collision occurred at the intersection of Cypress and Athens; Watson testified that the traffic light was green for his westbound traffic on Cypress, while the victims' Toyota was entering on Athens with a red light.
- Less than an hour after the incident, Watson's blood-alcohol level was .23 percent.
- Watson testified that although he had been drinking heavily and knew he was exceeding the speed limit, he did not believe he was driving in a way that would create a high probability of death.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged by information with two counts of second degree murder and one count of felony driving while intoxicated resulting in bodily injury.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of second degree murder and one count of felony driving while intoxicated resulting in bodily injury.
- Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the murder verdicts were contrary to the evidence under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial but modified the murder verdicts by reducing them to convictions of the lesser included felony of vehicular manslaughter.
- The People appealed from the trial court's order modifying the verdicts to the California Court of Appeal.
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 trial court, when ruling on a motion to modify a verdict or grant a new trial under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6, err by considering facts not presented to the jury, and is vehicular manslaughter a necessarily included offense of murder, requiring sua sponte instruction when supported by the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
Yes, a trial court errs when, in ruling on a motion to modify a verdict or grant a new trial, it considers facts not presented to the jury. Additionally, vehicular manslaughter is indeed a necessarily included offense within murder, requiring sua sponte instruction when evidence warrants it. The trial court exceeded its statutory authority under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6, by considering facts not presented to the jury when it modified the murder verdicts. The statute clearly confines the trial court's review to "what the evidence shows." The trial court improperly relied on judicially noticed facts, such as limited access to Henderson Road (which led it to doubt witness Tate's testimony regarding Watson running a red light) and typical traffic speeds on Cypress Avenue (which mitigated the significance of Watson's excessive speed), when re-evaluating the jury's finding of implied malice. This conduct overstepped the court's supervisory capacity and invaded the jury's role as the exclusive finder of fact. The court also held that manslaughter is firmly established as necessarily included in murder. For purposes of included offense analysis, manslaughter is a single offense defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, with the subdivisions of Penal Code section 192 merely describing different circumstances, not additional elements. Since vehicular manslaughter is such an unlawful killing, it is necessarily included within murder. Therefore, the trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on vehicular manslaughter, where the evidence warranted it, constituted legal error. Due to these errors, the order modifying the murder verdicts is reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration of Watson's new trial motion based solely on the evidence presented to the jury and with proper consideration of the required jury instructions.
Concurring - Sparks, J.
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Dawson, J.
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of a trial court's power in reviewing jury verdicts, reinforcing that judges cannot introduce extra-record facts into their post-verdict analysis under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6. This ruling protects the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder and ensures the integrity of the trial process. Furthermore, by explicitly affirming vehicular manslaughter as a necessarily included offense within murder, the decision imposes a mandatory duty on trial courts to sua sponte instruct juries on this lesser offense when the evidence supports it, profoundly impacting the prosecution and defense of vehicular homicide cases in California.
