Under California Penal Code 192(c), vehicular homicide is a felony that carries a severe punishment of two, three, or four years in state prison, even before any enhancements apply. Depending on the facts and the defendant's prior criminal record, probation may be a possibility.
This offense could also be charged as assault with a deadly weapon, with the 'weapon' being a car. The potential for facing such severe legal consequences should underscore the gravity of implied malice, a legal term that refers to a person, even if they didn't intend to cause harm, acting in a manner that shows they knew their actions were dangerous and could harm others.
Notably, there is a distinction between homicide and manslaughter. Homicide is defined as the intentional or deliberate illegal killing of another person. It is also often simply known as murder, but when a vehicle is involved, it is defined under Penal Code 192(c) as vehicular manslaughter.
Manslaughter is also the killing of another person, but generally not with the prior intention to do so. Under PC 92(c), however, such conduct can be “gross negligence” and thus called vehicular homicide. This level of negligence is extreme negligence, far from normal negligence. Driving "stoned" on marijuana to the point where mental or physical abilities are not at the level of a sober person of ordinary prudence is dangerous.
Gross negligence is typically associated with getting high on marijuana and then driving in an extremely reckless manner, such that it can be assumed the driver had no respect for human life. This is also commonly referred to as having “implied malice.” This type of conduct raises the underlying conduct above manslaughter to homicide.
When the driver has a prior DUI, yet drives while impaired by drugs again and has been previously made aware of the dangers associated with driving on drugs, the prosecutor can bring charges of murder instead (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290). If the jury finds that the driver had a conscious disregard for human life, it can convict the driver of murder.
Legal Marijuana and Homicide
A driver in California can be convicted of second-degree murder (Penal Code 187) based on a finding of implied malice when the circumstances involved in the killing show "an abandoned and malignant heart."
Since California legalized marijuana for recreational use, there has been a significant rise in marijuana-related DUIs. This alarming trend underscores the urgent need for understanding the legal implications of driving under the influence, particularly in the area of 'implied malice.' The urgency of this understanding cannot be overstated, as it is crucial for everyone to be aware of the potential legal consequences.
Simply put, if you use marijuana and get behind the wheel of a car, this can meet the definition of implied malice. Suppose you get into an accident while impaired and are involved in an accident resulting in someone's death. In that case, you could face much more than DUI and vehicular manslaughter charges; rather, you could be charged with second-degree murder.
In other words, driving under the influence of marijuana (or any drug) leading to a fatal accident can result in serious legal consequences, including vehicular homicide or murder charges, particularly when coupled with the concept of 'implied malice.' The potential for facing charges of vehicular manslaughter (Penal Code 192(c) PC) is a stark reminder of the severe implications of driving under the influence. This should serve as a strong cautionary note, emphasizing the serious legal implications of such actions.
DUI Marijuana Quick Facts
- Marijuana can impair driving by affecting psychomotor functions, attention, reaction time, and coordination.
- No established THC level in blood definitively indicates impairment, making marijuana DUI cases more challenging.
- Vehicle Code 23152(f) VC makes it a crime to drive under the influence of drugs.
- Toxicologists support the position that marijuana users can experience cognitive impairment hours after ingesting marijuana.
- Unlike alcohol, marijuana DUIs do not have a particular level at which a person is presumed impaired.
- A biological chemical sample and field sobriety tests (FSTs) are the common ways the prosecution seeks to establish impairment.
- Because marijuana is a lipophilic drug stored in fatty tissue and organs, it is harder to estimate levels and impairment accurately. This complexity in determining impairment levels adds another layer of challenge in prosecuting marijuana-related DUI cases.
- Blood can be tested for marijuana use by detecting the metabolite delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
- There are two types of THC, including Carboxy, which is non-psychoactive, and Hydroxy, which is psychoactive.
- Penal Code 191.5(c) PC gross vehicular homicide while Intoxicated is often charged in DUI marijuana deaths.
What Is "Implied Malice?"
California Penal Code 187 PC second-degree murder does not involve premeditation or deliberation like first-degree murder. Rather, prosecutors must establish that the defendant acted with malice, either express or implied. Implied malice exists when someone:
- Intentionally commits an act.
- Understands that their actions are dangerous to human life.
- Consciously disregards that danger.
This concept is crucial in charging certain DUI fatalities as second-degree murder. Courts have determined that driving under the influence can constitute implied malice, particularly if the driver has received prior DUI education or warnings.
In the context of a DUI-related death, "implied malice" refers to a situation where a driver, despite not intending to kill, acts with a conscious disregard for human life, knowing their actions could endanger others. This concept significantly impacts the legal consequences of DUI-related fatalities, potentially elevating manslaughter charges to murder.
The "Watson Murder" Standard
The principle of implied malice in DUI-related murder cases, known as the 'Watson Murder' Standard, originates from the landmark 1981 court case People v. Watson. This case involved a deadly car crash after consuming alcohol and driving at excessive speeds.
Evidence showed that Watson understood the risks of drinking and driving and disregarded the potential harm. The court ruled that implied malice applied in Watson's case, allowing the district attorney to charge him with second-degree murder, now known as a "Watson murder." Prosecutors typically seek to prove implied malice by showing:
- The driver had prior DUI convictions,
- Attended DUI education programs, or
- Received a "Watson advisement," which is a warning given in DUI cases stating that driving under the influence is dangerous and could lead to murder charges if someone is killed.
PC 187 murder in California is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice. Malice can be expressed or implied. The knowledge of the dangerousness of the conduct is crucial in a DUI-murder case, which includes when a defendant was told of the danger and drove impaired anyway. California law explicitly states that no provocation or malicious intent is required for a conviction to be upheld.
Potential Defense Strategies
Being accused of causing a fatality due to marijuana DUI is a serious matter. However, the prosecution must still meet a high burden of proof, and our experienced Los Angeles DUI attorneys can employ various strategies to achieve the best possible outcome.
Perhaps we can challenge the evidence of impairment. Proving you were under the influence of marijuana during an accident can be difficult. Unlike alcohol, where BAC offers clear evidence, marijuana's effects vary from one person to another. We may argue that the evidence of impairment is inconclusive.
Perhaps we can question the knowledge of risk. For implied malice to apply, the district attorney must show that you knew the risks of driving under the influence. If you have had no prior DUI convictions, we may argue that you don't meet the standard of implied malice because you were unaware that your marijuana use caused the risk of an accident.
Perhaps we can challenge the cause of the accident. Second-degree vehicular homicide only applies if prosecutors can show that your actions directly caused the accident. We might challenge this assumption by showing that other external factors, such as weather conditions, road hazards, or the actions of the other driver, could be argued as the true cause of the crash.
This defense could be used to negotiate for reduced DUI charges as an alternative to vehicular homicide. Having a qualified DUI attorney is critical to properly defending marijuana DUIs. A detectable level of THC should not be sufficient to sustain a DUI charge. For additional information, contact the Hedding Law Firm, located in Los Angeles.
Related Content:
