California Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated Law - California Penal Code Section 191.5(a)

California Penal Code § [Section] 191.5(a) – Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

California Penal Code [CPC] §191.5(a) – Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated – Section 191.5(a) makes it illegal to kill while driving a vehicle in violation of one of the enumerated Vehicle Code sections[1] and while committing an unlawful act not amounting to a felony with gross negligence. It is also illegal to kill while driving any vehicle unlawfully in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, with gross negligence. Section 191.5(a) applies only to killings that occur without malice.

If you're convicted of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, the penalty may be a term of up to ten years in a state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

What Does California Penal Code §191.5(a) [Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of violating the Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated law under CPC §191.5(a), you must:

Drive under the influence of alcohol or a drug; OR,

Drive under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug; OR,

Drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher; OR,

Drive under the influence of alcohol or a drug or their combined influence when under twenty-one; OR,

Drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under twenty-one; AND,

Commit a misdemeanor, infraction, or an otherwise lawful act that might cause death; AND,

Act with gross negligence; AND,

Cause the death of another person.

Defining “Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated” Under California Penal Code §191.5(a)

To convict you under CPC §191.5(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

DROVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE: You drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug; OR,

DROVE UNDER COMBINED INFLUENCE: You drove under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug; OR,

BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.08 OR HIGHER: You drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher; OR,

DROVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE/UNDER TWENTY-ONE: You drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug when under the age of twenty-one; OR,

BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.05 OR HIGHER/UNDER TWENTY-ONE: You drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of twenty-one; AND,

COMMITTED A MISDEMEANOR, INFRACTION, OR LAWFUL ACT/MIGHT CAUSE DEATH: While driving under the influence, you committed a misdemeanor, an infraction, or otherwise lawful act that might cause death; AND,

GROSS NEGLIGENCE: You committed the misdemeanor, or the infraction, or the otherwise lawful act that might cause death with gross negligence;[2] AND,

CAUSED DEATH: Your grossly negligent conduct caused[3] the death of another person.

Note: “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.”[4]

Example: Defendant Dawna is walking along Sunset Boulevard when Drunk Motorist's vehicle jumps the curb nearest Dawna and heads straight for her at high speed. Dawna's first reaction is to leap aside. In so doing, she collides with Victim Vern. He falls into the street and is killed by a truck. Now facing a charge under CPC §191.5(a), Dawna insists that she can't be guilty on these facts. Is Dawna correct?

Conclusion: Dawna caused Vern's death by pushing him, but this is the only element of the charge present here. Dawna wasn't under the influence at the time of the accident; Drunk Motorist was. While Dawna was walking (a lawful act), it isn't an act that might cause death. Finally, Dawna responded as most would under the circumstances, though she pushed Vern. She wasn't negligent. Dawna is correct.

Penalties For Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated Under CPC §191.5(a)

If you're convicted of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, the penalty may be:

A term of up to ten (10) years in a state prison;[5] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[6]

As stated above, if you're convicted of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, you face up to ten (10) years in a state prison[7] and a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[8]

Defenses Against California Penal Code §191.5(a) – Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

Four common defenses against a charge of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated under CPC §191.5(a) are:

Your Negligence Didn't Cause The Death

Example: Defendant Don is driving the speed limit along a residential street. He comes to a stop sign. He makes a full stop. Then he proceeds. As he does, Victim Valentina speeds down the bisecting street and collides with Don's car. Valentina, who is high on a cocktail of cocaine and various alcohols, is killed. Valentina's family subsequently charges Don with violating CPC §191.5(a). Should Don be convicted?

Conclusion: The facts provide no reason to question the propriety of Don's driving. Don drove at the speed limit on a residential street; these are usually quite low. He stopped completely at the sign before being struck by Valentina. Thus, Don wasn't even at fault for the collision. Valentina, however, drove in a grossly negligent manner and condition. Don should be acquitted. His negligence didn't cause the death.

You Weren't Grossly Negligent

Example: Defendant Damian drives along Pico Boulevard. His phone rings. Damian looks over to the passenger's seat and tries to pick up the phone. But he struggles for a moment. As he does, Victim Vero runs into the street from behind a car. Damian strikes Vero with his car and kills Vero. While he admits some negligence, Damian insists that he shouldn't be convicted under CPC §191.5(a). Is Damian correct?

Conclusion: Damian, when driving, owed duties of care to all he might encounter. These duties include the duty to pay attention to the road when operating his vehicle. He failed to perform that duty. But Damian did little more than endeavor to pick up a phone. While it resulted in a fatal accident, Damian's failure was simply being inattentive for an instant. Thus, Damian is correct. He wasn't grossly negligent.

You Were Facing An Emergency

Example: Defendant Dick is driving at legal speed along an LA street. Car Thief is being chased by police and is heading towards Dick. Car Thief strikes a different vehicle, causing a sudden accident. Dick barely sees the accident in time to swerve and avoid hitting both cars and the police. But he runs into Victim Vince, who's waiting for a bus, and kills him. Should Dick be convicted of a charge under CPC §191.5(a)?

Conclusion: Dick turned his vehicle in a negligent way, resulting in a death. But Dick didn't do so before encountering the accident and the police. He did what most persons would do when suddenly confronted with both an accident and the possibility of hurting police. Sadly, this killed Vince. Yet Dick acted reasonably under an immediate threat. Dick shouldn't be convicted. He was facing an emergency.

You Weren't Intoxicated

Example: Defendant Dee works a twelve-hour day. She didn't sleep the night before. Driving home, she begins to feel sleepy. She thinks herself capable of getting home safely, so she continues along. But she gets into an accident that kills Victim Vic. Dee has been charged under CPC §191.5(a). She says that she can't be convicted under these circumstances, even though she was negligent. Should Dee be acquitted?

Conclusion: Dee drove under circumstances that could be described as grossly negligent, considering how little sleep she had. (She also admits negligence.) Vic was killed in the accident. These are elements of the charge. But a key element of the offense is being under the influence. The facts do not say that Dee had consumed alcohol and/or a drug. Therefore, she should be acquitted. Dee wasn't intoxicated.

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §191.5(a) and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

California law includes multiple offenses related to Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated: Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(b)), DUI Murder (“Watson Rule” Murder) (CPC §§ [Sections] 187, 189 (a),(b)), Vehicular Manslaughter (CPC §192(c)(3)), Murder (CPC §187(a)), Attempted Murder (CPC §§187(a), 664(a)), Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)), and Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)).

Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(b)) makes it illegal to kill a human being without malice aforethought while driving a vehicle and being intoxicated. The driving has to violate one of the enumerated sections of the Vehicle Code. The killing must be the proximate result of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, performed with negligence, or the proximate result of a lawful act that might produce death being performed in an unlawful manner and with negligence.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 191.5(b) is a “wobbler”[9] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[10] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[11]

More information can be found in the California Violent Crime Defense Lawyers section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.

California Jury Instructions – Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

To convict you under CPC §191.5(b), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug or you drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher or you drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug when under age of 21 or you drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21. While driving that vehicle and being under the influence, you also committed a misdemeanor, or an infraction, or an otherwise lawful act that might cause death. You committed the act with negligence. Finally, your negligent conduct caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Darwin turns twenty-one. He drinks alcohol that night. Darwin drives home. He gets into an accident with Victim Victoria, killing her. Later, when tested at a hospital, Darwin's blood alcohol level is revealed to have been 0.05 at the time of the accident. Darwin faces charges under §191.5(b). He says that he was old enough to have this much alcohol in his system, so he isn't guilty. Is Darwin guilty?

Conclusion: Darwin drove with enough alcohol in his bloodstream to generate a misdemeanor charge. He got into an accident that killed a person. These are elements of the crime. While the law does allow persons over twenty-one to have more alcohol in their blood than younger persons, one may violate the Section with the presence of any amount. Presuming that his conduct was negligent, Darwin is guilty.

DUI Murder (“Watson Rule” Murder)

DUI Murder (CPC §§187(a), 189(a),(b)) is a form of second-degree murder originating with the People v. Watson[12] case. Watson held that a person with a prior California DUI conviction can be charged with murder if he or she subsequently kills a person while driving again under the influence. This is because driving under such circumstances creates “implied” malice[13] under California criminal law.

If you're convicted of DUI Murder, the penalty may be:

A term of up to fifteen (15) years in a state prison;[14] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[15]

DUI Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[16] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[17]

California Jury Instructions – DUI Murder

To convict you under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus or you had a legal duty to help, care for, rescue, warn, maintain the property of, or perform some other action for another person and failed to perform that duty, with that failure causing the death of another person or a fetus. When you acted or failed to act, you had a state of mind called malice aforethought. Finally, you killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Example: Defendant Demi has been convicted of a DUI. She gets into an accident one year later. Victim Vera, the person in the other car, is killed. Demi was speeding and driving highly erratically at the time. She is charged later under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b). Demi admits that she had no excuse for the death. Nonetheless, she says that she can't be convicted, on these facts. Should Demi be convicted?

Conclusion: Demi drove in a dangerous manner that resulted in a death. She admits that she had no legal excuse for doing so. These are elements of the offense. But – while Demi has a DUI conviction on her record – the facts don't state that Demi was under the influence at the time of the accident. Being under the influence is one of the defining elements of the charge. Therefore, Demi should be acquitted.

Vehicular Manslaughter

Vehicular Manslaughter (CPC §192(c)(3)) involves driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, with or without gross negligence or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and acting unlawfully with gross negligence. The Section also makes it illegal to cause a death while producing a vehicular collision or accident for financial gain.

If you're convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

A term of up to ten (10) years in a state prison;[18] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[19]

California Jury Instructions – Vehicular Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(c)(3), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You drove a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, with or without gross negligence, resulting in a death or you drove a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and acted unlawfully with gross negligence, resulting in a death.

Example: Victim Virgil tries to produce an accident so that he can make an inflated insurance claim. He runs into Defendant Daria's rear bumper at high speed when she's idling at a stoplight. The accident causes Virgil to slam his head into his steering wheel. Virgil later dies. Daria is facing an allegation of violating §192(c)(3) as a result of the collision. Should Daria be convicted, under these circumstances?

Conclusion: The facts don't state that Daria did anything negligent, much less grossly negligent. It was Virgil who struck Daria's car in an effort to generate an illegal insurance claim. Daria had no knowledge of this plan; she was in fact its victim. Thus, since she wasn't engaged in any sort of crime, Daria can't be said to have done anything that qualifies as an element of the charge. Daria should be acquitted.

Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought. Penal Code Section 187(a) applies to murders that are premeditated or specified in the criminal statutes. The Section also applies to killings that occur during the commission of dangerous felonies via ‘the Felony-Murder Rule.'

If you're convicted of Murder, the penalty may be:

A life term in a state prison without the possibility of parole;[20] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[21]

Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[22] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[23]

More information can be found in the Murder section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Murder

To convict you under CPC §187(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

Example: Defendant Derrek admits to shooting Victim Vincente to death. He admits that he decided to kill Vincente. However, now that he faces a charge of violating CPC §187(a), Derrek insists that he isn't guilty of murder because he had to defend himself when Vincente attacked Derrek with “a barrage of fists.” Therefore, Derrek says he had the right to shoot and kill Vincente. Should Derrek be convicted?

Conclusion: Derrek committed an act that led to Vincente's death. Having elected to do so, Derrek had malice aforethought. These are elements of the crime. The only question is whether Derrek had the right to defend himself. Derrek could legally meet force with like force; in other words, he had the right to use his fists to protect himself. Derrek exceeded the right by using a gun. Derrek should be convicted.

Attempted Murder

Attempted Murder (CPC §§187(a), 664(a)) occurs whenever anyone attempts to commit a murder but fails, is prevented, or is intercepted in its perpetration. To be guilty, you must take a direct step towards killing someone who does not die.

Attempted Murder is prosecuted as a form of first-degree offense. If you're convicted of Attempted Murder, the penalty may be:

A term of life in a state prison;[24] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[25]

Attempted Murder is also punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[26] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[27]

More information can be found in the “Everything You Need To Know About California Attempted Murder” Blog on the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That is our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Attempted Murder

To convict you under CPC §§187(a), 664(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person or a fetus and you intended to kill that person or fetus.

Example: Defendant Dallas doesn't want Victim Vicki to carry her fetus to term. Dallas tries to push Vicki down a flight of stairs but Vicki resists. Later, Vicki learns that she isn't pregnant. Then she presses charges of violating CPC §§187(a), 664(a), against Dallas for trying to kill her. He says that he was trying to kill a nonexistent fetus, making killing Vicki “just a necessary part of it.” Should Dallas be convicted?

Conclusion: Dallas took a direct step towards killing both Vicki and a fetus by pushing Vicki down the stairs. He intended to end the pregnancy. The step was ineffective owing to Vicki's resistance. These are elements of the crime. That Vicki wasn't pregnant doesn't make it impossible for Dallas to violate the law. He attempted to murder Vicki in order to kill Vicki's fetus. Dallas, it follows, should be convicted.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter under Penal Code Section 192(a) of the Penal Code makes it illegal to kill a human being without malice. When the crime occurs “upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion” (or when the accused had an honest but incorrect belief that she or he had to kill in self-defense), it's punished as “Voluntary Manslaughter.”[28]

If you're convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[29] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[30]

Furthermore, Voluntary Manslaughter is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[31] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[32]

More information can be found in the Voluntary Manslaughter section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's a guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Voluntary Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You were provoked and acted under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning. Additionally, you were provoked in a way that would cause the average person to act from pure passion.

Example: Defendant Dixie has endured Victim Vinton's infidelity with several women over the years. She vows that he'll never again cheat on her. When she catches Vinton in their bed with Mistress, she buys a gun. Then she waits to catch Mistress alone and shoots her to death four nights later. Facing a charge of violating CPC §192(a), Dixie says that she is a killer – but she is not guilty. Is Dixie correct, on these facts?

Conclusion: Dixie may have been provoked into killing Mistress, but the provocation took years and involved women other than Mistress. Catching Mistress with Vinton didn't generate an immediate and overwhelming emotional response; Dixie planned killing Mistress, first by buying a weapon, then by waiting to kill her. These are the acts of a malicious killer, not a manslaughterer. Thus, Dixie is correct.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) involves killing a human being or a fetus while committing an unlawful act not amounting to a felony or killing while committing a lawful act which might produce death and acting unlawfully or without due caution.

If you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[33] AND,

A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[34]

More information can be found in the Involuntary Manslaughter section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's always our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Involuntary Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(b), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed a crime or a lawful act in an unlawful manner. You also committed the crime or act with criminal negligence. Finally, your act caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Dave rides his bicycle with Victim Vina clinging onto his back. She's barely able to fit on the seat. Dave begins to ride at an illegal speed and starts going over hills. Eventually, he throws Vina clear of the bike. She's killed on landing. Dave feels terrible. Nonetheless, Dave doesn't believe that he's guilty of a charge under CPC §192(b) because he was not operating a motor vehicle. Is Dave correct?

Conclusion: Dave performed a lawful act (riding a bicycle) in an unlawful way. Under the circumstances, he should've exercised significant caution in order to protect Vina's person. But, knowing that she was “barely able to fit on the seat,” he rode in a dangerous manner. This killed Vina. These are the elements of the charge. The statute does not require a means of death, vehicular or otherwise. Dave is incorrect.

What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated?

The State of California treats Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.

Remember, a professional criminal defense attorney may be able to:

Negotiate a lesser charge in a plea bargain;

Reduce your sentence;

Or even get charges dismissed completely.

The attorneys at the Kann California Law Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Law Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

References

[1] These are: California Vehicle Code [CVC] §§ [Sections] 23140, 23152, and 23153.

[2] “Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross negligence when: [¶] 1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; [¶] AND [¶] 2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. [¶] In other words, a person acts with gross negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act. [¶] The combination of driving a vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or a drug and violating a traffic law is not enough by itself to establish gross negligence. In evaluating whether the defendant acted with gross negligence, [the jury or judge must] consider the level of the defendant's intoxication, if any; the way the defendant drove; and any other relevant aspects of the defendant's conduct. [¶] Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 590 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[3] “An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, [the jury or judge must] consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence. [¶] There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that causes the death.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 590 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[4] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 590 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[5] See California Penal Code [CPC] §191.5 (c) (1).

[6] See CPC §672.

[7] See Endnote 5.

[8] See Endnote 6.

[9] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definitions” at USLegal.com.

[10] See CPC §191.5 (c) (2).

[11] See Endnote 6.

[12] See People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981)at SCOCAL (Supreme Court Of California Resources).

[13] See CPC §188 (a) (2).

[14] See CPC §190 (a).

[15] See Endnote 6.