DUI VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER & WATSON MURDER CHARGES IN ORANGE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S "TOP-RATED" DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Facts About DUI Manslaughter: Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Under the Influence

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITHOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is divided into two categories: P.C. § 191.5(a) (with gross negligence) and P.C. § 191.5(b) (without gross negligence).

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE

P.C. § 191.5(a) (Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated With Gross Negligence) has the following elements:

  1. Unlawful killing of a human;
  2. Without malice;
  3. In the driving;
  4. Of a vehicle;
  5. In violation of CVC §§ 23140, 23152 or 23153;
  6. Proximately caused by the commission of:

An unlawful act, not amounting to felony

OR

A lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner,

  1. With gross negligence.

CALCRIM has consolidated the numerous instructions in this area. CALCRIM 590 is the instruction for Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated.

Unlike CALJIC 3.36, CALCRIM 590 does not require the jury to find that the death was the natural and probable result of an aggravated, reckless or flagrantly negligent act.

CALCRIM 591 covers Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated With Ordinary Negligence. This instruction contains a very useful optional paragraph on the “sudden emergency doctrine” which provides: “A person facing a sudden and unexpected emergency situation not caused by that person’s own negligence is required only to use the same care and judgment that an ordinarily careful person would use in the same situation, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer.”

CALCRIM 591 has an optional introductory sentence when it is used as a lesser included offense for a Pen. C. §191.5.

CALJIC 3.36 defines gross negligence and CALJIC 8.94 permits the jury to consider the overall circumstances, including the degree of intoxication, in determining whether or not the defendant was grossly negligent.

PUNISHMENT: A person convicted of P.C. §191.5(a) (vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence) is subject to 4, 6, or 10 years in state prison. P.C. §191.5 (c) (1). If the defendant has one or more prior convictions of this section, or of P.C. § 192(c)(1) or P.C. § 192.5(a) or (b) (vehicular manslaughter), or two or more prior convictions of CVC § 23152, or one prior conviction for CVC § 23153, he or she is subject to 15 years to life in state prison. P.C. § 191.5(d).

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITHOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is divided into two categories: P.C. § 191.5(a) (with gross negligence) and P.C. § 191.5(b) (without gross negligence).

P.C. § 191.5(a) (Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated With Gross Negligence) has the following elements:

  1. Unlawful killing of a human;
  2. Without malice aforethought;
  3. In the driving;
  4. Of a vehicle;
  5. In violation of CVC §§ 23140, 23152 or 23153;
  6. Proximately caused by the commission of:

An unlawful act, not amounting to felony

OR

A lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner,

  1. Without gross negligence.

PUNISHMENT: A violation of this section is subject to a misdemeanor or felony filing of criminal charges. Thus, the defendant convict- ed of this section is subject to 1 year in the county jail or 16 months, 2 years or 4 years in state prison. P.C. §191.5(c)(2).

Vehicular manslaughter cases are some of the most difficult cases to defense in the area of DUI Defense. In addition to understanding the science behind DUI, along with the usual legal and/or factual defenses to a DUI, proper defense of a Vehicular Manslaughter case also requires and understanding of accident reconstruction and causation because to be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical cause. There may be more than one proximate cause of the death. When the conduct of two or more persons contributes concurrently as the proximate cause of the death, the conduct of each is a proximate cause of the death if that conduct was also a substantial factor contributing to the result. There are also complex issues of intervening causes, which can be categorized as either “dependent” or “independent” intervening causes, the latter of which may clear the defendant of the charge or charges and result in a dismissal of the Vehicular Manslaughter charges or DUI Manslaughter charges.

281fe0d0c34752ab42c1fbe747d4e203_1n3t
1b8ede8abd2c28f1cce9e6d187de3158_fusk

Facts About DUI Death & Watson Murder Cases

DUI DEATH - DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING WHILE INTOXICATED

A person cannot be killed without also being injured in the process (People v. Miranda (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1464). Thus, a person may be convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (G.V.M.I.) (P.C. § 191.5(a)) and also be convicted of either injury drunk driving (CVC § 23153) or plain vehicular manslaughter (Pen. C. § 192(c)(1)), all as a result of the death of one person. G.V.M.I. necessarily includes a conviction of these lesser offenses according to the Miranda Court.

DUI DEATH - WATSON MURDER (SECOND DEGREE MURDER)

The most serious charge related to driving under the influence is that of second degree murder, P.C. §187, based on the implied malice theory. Murder is defined as the killing of a human being or fetus with malice afore- thought. There are two types of malice aforethought: (a) express malice; and (b) implied malice. Proof of either one is sufficient to establish the state of mind necessary for murder. Express malice requires an intent to kill, whereas implied malice requires the following:

  1. The defendant intentionally committed an act;
  2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;
  3. At the time of the act, the defendant knew the act was dangerous to human life; and
  4. The defendant deliberately acted with a conscious disregard for human or fetal life. 

THE PEOPLE V. WATSON DECISION

In People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal 3rd 290, the California Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances, vehicular homicides may be charged as second degree murder under the implied malice theory.

In attempting to distinguish and define the difference between acts that constituted implied malice from gross negligence, the Watson Court stated:

The requisite culpability for the vehicular manslaughter charged here is gross negligence which has been defined as the exercise of so light a degree of care as to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. On the other hand, malice may be implied when a person, knowing that his conduct endangers the life of another, nonetheless acts deliberately with conscious disregard for life. Though these definitions bear a general similarity, they are not identical. Implied malice contemplates a subjective awareness of a higher degree of risk than does gross negligence, and involves an element of wantonness, which is absent in gross negligence. Id., at 296.

Implied malice is defined in CAIJIC 8.11 and CALCRIM 520. In essence, both instructions state that malice is implied when the natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life and the act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger, and that a reasonable person would know of the likely and probable consequences.

Malice is implied when the circumstances of the killing show that it was done with an “abandoned and malignant heart” Penal Code § 188. Implied malice requires that the defendant act with a wanton disregard of the high probability of death. People v. Schmies (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 38.

Numerous cases have followed the Watson decision and have attempted to define the difference between implied malice and gross negligence. Each of the cases had some common characteristics: all involved high blood alcohol levels; most of the defendants had numerous prior DUI convictions; and most of the defendants had knowledge regarding the danger of drinking and driving.

THE WATSON ADVISEMENT & OTHER FORMS OF NOTICE OF THE DANGERS OF DUI 

Another factor the prosecution can now use to prove the subjective awareness of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the act of driving is CVC §23593. This new statute requires courts to advise all persons convicted of CVC §§ 23152, 23153, or 23103 pursuant to C.V.C § 23103.5 (alcohol-related reckless driving) of the dangers of drinking and driving and that they may be charged with murder if they kill someone while driving under the influence. Thus, not only is a jury informed about a defendant’s prior conviction, but it will also likely be informed that this admonition was specifically given to the defendant on a prior occasion.

In recent years, the Orange County District Attorney's Office has used traffic school references containing the Watson Advisement and even a student's attendance in a DUI Awareness Class at High School or College as a basis to charge a defendant with a Watson Murder instead of Vehicular Manslaughter.

PUNISHMENT: A defendant convicted of P.C. § 187 (second degree murder) faces an indeterminate sentence of 15 years to life. P.C. § 190 (a). The defendant faces 25 to life if the victim is a police officer killed in the performance of his duties and the defendant knows or should have known the victim is a police officer. P.C. §190(b). Such knowledge can be evidenced by the presence of a marked police car and/or uniformed officer.

DUI Death and Watson Murder cases are some of the most difficult cases to defend in the area of DUI Defense. In addition to understanding the science behind DUI, along with the usual legal and/or factual defenses to a DUI, proper defense of a DUI Death or Watson Murder case also requires and understanding of accident reconstruction and causation because to be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical cause. There may be more than one proximate cause of the death. When the conduct of two or more persons contributes concurrently as the proximate cause of the death, the conduct of each is a proximate cause of the death if that conduct was also a substantial factor contributing to the result. There are also complex issues of intervening causes, which can be categorized as either “dependent” or “independent” intervening causes, the latter of which may clear the defendant of the charge or charges and result in a dismissal of the DUI Death charges or Watson Murder charges.

ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY

Many agencies have their own traffic accident reconstruction investigators and/or officers; however, some of the smaller agencies enlist the services of the Major Accident Reconstruction Team or M.A.R.T. from the Orange County Sheriff's Department for assistance with investigating fatal or major injury, high-profile or complex collision incidents.

The Orange County Sheriff's Department's Major Accident Reconstruction Team, or M.A.R.T., is a group of trained experts in the traffic and accident reconstruction fields. M.A.R.T. is comprised of six sergeants and twelve deputies.

Some of the local agencies, like the Irvine Police Department, the Newport Beach Police Department, and the Fullerton Police Department, have gained reputations for handling their own traffic accident reconstruction investigations.

AN EXPERIENCED ORANGE COUNTY DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEY CAN HELP

fm_f_12828

ORANGE COUNTY DUI VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER & DUI WATSON MURDER DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Trusting a Vehicular Manslaughter or DUI Manslaughter case to a DUI Defense Attorney is not something that should be taken lightly as the punishments are extreme, often resulting in sentences nearing 15 years to life in State Prison. You need an attorney who has familiarity in dealing with cases involving Vehicular Manslaughter in addition to DUI Defense generally. With Peter F. Iocona and the DUI Defense Attorneys of The SoCal Law Network, you get the benefit of both skillsets and it is for this reason that we are Orange County’s preferred choice in representing those charged with Vehicular Manslaughter. 

We have a long-history of successful outcomes to cases involving Vehicular Manslaughter because we know the science and the law behind the charge of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter or DUI Manslaughter.

Do not trust your Gross Vehicular Manslaughter case to just any DUI Defense Attorney, only trust your Gross Vehicular Manslaughter case to the DUI Defense Lawyers of Peter F. Iocona and the DUI Defense Attorneys at The SoCal Law Network - Orange County's Recognized Leaders in DUI Defense.

AN EXPERIENCED ORANGE COUNTY DUI ATTORNEY CAN REVIEW THE EVIDENCE TO TRY TO AVOID THE HARSH ORANGE COUNTY DUI PENALTIES

Thus, if you were arrested for DUI in any of the Orange County Cities listed below, and are concerned about the DUI penalties you are facing, click the appropriate City Page Link for information on the types of DUI Evidece your Orange County DUI Defense Attorney to review to try to find defenses to your Orange County DUI Case:

Click To Call
Set Appointment