State v. Chalmers
100 Ariz. 70, 1966 Ariz. LEXIS 217, 411 P.2d 448 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A death caused by the grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle cannot sustain a murder conviction, as gross negligence alone is insufficient to prove the implied malice element of "an abandoned and malignant heart" required for murder. Such killings are properly prosecuted under the specific vehicle manslaughter statute.
Facts:
- On April 24, 1963, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Defendant was driving his Chevrolet automobile on Oracle Road in Pima County, Arizona.
- Defendant was traveling at a speed estimated to be between eighty and one hundred miles per hour on the two-lane highway.
- To pass other cars, Defendant repeatedly crossed into the oncoming southbound lane.
- Defendant's driving forced two southbound vehicles, including a Pima County Sheriff’s patrol car, to leave the roadway to avoid a collision.
- After forcing the patrol car off the road, Defendant again swerved into the southbound lane and collided with two vehicles.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of two individuals, Adeline Huerta and Rosalina Apodaca, and injuries to three others, Joe S. Huerta, Joey A. Apodaca, and Jerry Kaufman.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in a trial court with two counts of murder, two counts of manslaughter, and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon.
- The defendant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the state's case was denied by the trial court.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of second-degree murder and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon.
- The jury did not return a verdict on the two manslaughter counts.
- The trial court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for dismissal or a new trial.
- Defendant appealed the final judgment of guilt to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can the malice aforethought required for a murder conviction be implied solely from evidence of gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle that results in death?
Opinions:
Majority - Lockwood, Justice
No, the malice aforethought required for a murder conviction cannot be implied solely from evidence of gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. While murder requires malice aforethought, and manslaughter is a killing without malice, the element of implied malice requires more than just recklessness. The court held that malice may be implied 'when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart,' but this phrase connotes a higher level of culpability than gross negligence. Referencing prior cases, the court defined an 'abandoned and malignant heart' as conduct involving the brutal and bloodthirsty use of a weapon or other deadly appliance. Since there was no evidence that the defendant deliberately used his vehicle as a weapon to inflict injury, but only that he operated it with gross negligence, his conduct does not rise to the level of murder. Therefore, the vehicle manslaughter statute is the appropriate charge for a death caused by a vehicle without malice aforethought.
Concurring - Udall, Justice
No, but the jury's finding of malice should have been upheld based on the facts. The author agrees with the majority's statement of the law but disagrees with its application. He argues that 'an abandoned and malignant heart' is synonymous with a 'reckless and wanton disregard of obvious human risk,' and the determination of malice is a question of fact for the jury. Given the defendant's conduct—driving 80-100 mph, drinking, forcing other cars off the road, and driving in the wrong lane—the jury had sufficient evidence to find his actions surpassed mere negligence and demonstrated the wanton conduct characteristic of implied malice. However, despite believing the conviction should be affirmed, the author yields to the majority's opinion and concurs in the judgment to reverse.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction in vehicular homicide cases between murder and manslaughter in Arizona. By ruling that gross negligence alone cannot satisfy the 'abandoned and malignant heart' standard for implied malice, the court significantly raised the evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking a murder conviction. The decision effectively channels most vehicular homicide cases, even those involving extreme recklessness, toward manslaughter charges. For a murder charge to succeed, the prosecution must now present evidence that the driver used the vehicle with a more direct, weapon-like intent, rather than just showing a general disregard for human life through reckless operation.
