Have you been accused of a crime?
Call for a free consultation 24/7 toll-free:
(888) 744-7730

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

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

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

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”[2] 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 years in a state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  

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

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

  • Drive under the influence of alcohol or a drug; OR,
  • Drive under the 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 negligence; AND,
  • Cause the death of another person.

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

To convict you under CPC §191.5(b), 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 THE 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,
  • ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE: You committed the misdemeanor, or the infraction, or the otherwise lawful act that might cause death with ordinary negligence;[3] AND,
  • CAUSED DEATH: Your negligent conduct caused[4] 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.”[5]

Example: Defendant Dawn drinks alcohol at a party. She swerves when driving home and gets into an accident that kills Victim Vinton. Dawn's blood alcohol is measured a half-hour later. It is 0.04. Dawn, forty, defends herself against a charge under §191.5(b) by pointing out that a person her age is allowed to have that much alcohol in her blood and drive. She says she mustn't be guilty. Is Dawn innocent?

Conclusion: Dawn drove while under the influence of alcohol. When she swerved the car, which was a negligent act, she got into an accident that killed a person. These are the elements of the offense. That Dawn didn't have a blood alcohol level above 0.08 doesn't prevent prosecution under CPC §191.5(b. An accused person can be guilty with any amount of alcohol in his or her system. Thus, Dawn is guilty.

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

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”[6] 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;[7] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[8]

If, however, you're convicted of the misdemeanor form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail;[9] AND,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars).[10]

As stated above, if you're convicted of felony Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, you face up to four (4) years in a state prison[11] and a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[12] If you're convicted of the misdemeanor form, however, the penalty may be as much as one (1) year in a county jail[13] and a fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars).[14]

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

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

You Didn't Cause A Death

Example:  Defendant Dominic admits that he got into an accident after drinking at a tavern. He admits that the accident put Victim Vern in the hospital. Dominic admits that Vern almost died. Dominic even admits that he was drunk and drove negligently at the time of the accident. Nonetheless, Dominic insists that he's innocent of a charge of violating CPC §191.5(b). Should Dominic be convicted or is he correct?

Conclusion: Dominic drove negligently while under the influence of alcohol. These are elements of the offense. But the final element of the charge – causing a death – isn't present. Vern survived. When any component of an accusation can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the California criminal courts, the accused must be found innocent. Dominic shouldn't be convicted. He didn't cause a death.

You Didn't Act Negligently

Example: Defendant Dieter drives slowly along San Fernando Road. His windows are rolled up because it's raining torrentially. He can't see or hear Victim Vinnie, who comes speeding around a corner (against a red light) just as Dieter pulls gingerly into traffic. They collide. Vinnie is killed. Dieter, facing a charge under CPC §191.5(b), says that he's innocent even though Vinnie is dead. Should Dieter be convicted?

Conclusion: Dieter drove slowly under conditions which would cause most people to drive at decreased speed. This shows attention to driving duty. Vinnie, on the other hand, sped in the rain and turned against a red light. Then he collided with Dieter, who couldn't hear his approach because he had to have his windows rolled up. Vinnie was responsible. Dieter shouldn't be convicted. He didn't act negligently.

You Were Not Under The Influence

Example: Defendant Devers gets into a speedboating accident that kills Victim Vic. Now Devers faces a charge under §191.5(b). He admits that he negligently operated the boat. But Devers insists the accident occurred because he had never before taken the speedboat out on the water. Blood tests administered after the accident show that he had neither drugs nor alcohol in his system. Is Devers guilty? 

Conclusion: Devers operated a vessel – a lawful act - in a negligent manner that killed a person. These are elements of the charge. But Devers had to have consumed alcohol or a drug to violate the Penal Code section. The facts make it clear that he had neither in his system. Thus, an element of the offense can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Devers must be innocent. He was not under the influence.  

Related Offenses

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

California law includes multiple offenses related to Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated: Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(a)), 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)), Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) and Driving Under The Influence (California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23152(a)).

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(a)) 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 gross negligence, or the proximate result of a lawful act that might produce death being performed in an unlawful manner and with gross negligence.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 191.5(a) is a “wobbler”[15] 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 ten (10) years in a state prison;[16] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[17]

More information can be found in the Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated 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 that.

California Jury Instructions – Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

To convict you under CPC §191.5(a), 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 twenty-one or you drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of twenty-one. 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 gross negligence. Finally, your grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Darwin, twenty, has a shot of alcohol before driving. He's in a car accident soon after getting behind the wheel. Victim Villa is killed. Now, facing a charge of violating §191.5(a), Darwin admits that he caused Villa's death through his grossly negligent vehicle operation. Still, Darwin insists he wasn't intoxicated. His blood alcohol level was only 0.01 when tested. Should Darwin be convicted?

Conclusion: Darwin drove in a grossly negligent fashion. Villa's death was caused by Darwin's driving (an otherwise lawful act that could cause death). These are elements of the crime. The remaining question is whether Darwin had to be “intoxicated” to violate the law. Section §191.5(a) permits punishing those under twenty-one who drive with any amount of alcohol in their blood. Darwin should be convicted.

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[18] 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[19] 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;[20] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[21]

DUI 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]

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 is a paid lifeguard who has rescued Victim Virginia from drowning three times. Demi often says that Virginia is a poor swimmer. Nonetheless, Demi ignores Virginia's presence one afternoon while Virginia is swimming. Demi leaves the pool area for a half-hour. Virginia drowns. Now Demi faces a charge of violating §§187(a), 189 (a),(b). Should Demi be convicted, on these facts?

Conclusion: As a paid lifeguard, Demi was under a duty to protect Virginia. She failed to do so even though she had forewarning of Virginia's limitations. In fact, Demi herself said Virginia wasn't a good swimmer. Yet Demi left Virginia alone to swim for a long period. Virginia drowned. These are elements of the charge. Still, the facts don't say that Demi was under the influence - so Demi must be innocent.

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;[24] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[25]
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 is carjacked[26] by Defendant Daryl. Virgil resists. Daryl shoots him to death and steals Virgil's car. Later, when apprehended, Daryl is charged with crimes including a violation of CPC §192(c)(3). Daryl insists that he can't be guilty of this particular offense. Should Daryl be acquitted?

Conclusion: Daryl committed an act that resulted in Virgil's death. This is an element of the charge. But Daryl didn't cause Virgil's death by driving; he shot Virgil and then drove. Furthermore, carjacking is too serious an offense to be prosecuted under this Section. Multiple elements of the charge can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. While Daryl is guilty of multiple crimes, he isn't guilty under CPC §192(c)(3).

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;[27] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[28]

Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[29] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[30]

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:

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 Derick admits that he shot Victim Vina to death. He admits that he had no legal excuse for doing so. Nonetheless, facing a charge under CPC §187(a), Derick defends himself by saying that he didn't “meditate” before killing Vina; he “took only a few moments before deciding to kill her.” Should Derick be acquitted, under these circumstances?

Conclusion: Derick committed an act that caused Vina's death. He had no lawful excuse or justification. These are elements of the offense. The only question is how much thought he had to exercise if it's to be said that he had “a state of mind called malice aforethought.” If Derick thought about whether to kill for even a split-second, he manifested the requisite guilt. This Derick did. Thus, he 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;[31] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[32]

Attempted Murder is also punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[33] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[34]

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 is divorced by Victim Vincente. Relations between herself and Vincente deteriorate to the point where she threatens to murder Vincente with her pistol. But Dallas instead ends her own life without so much as contacting Vincente. Police later learn of the threat and are deciding whether to recommend charges of violating CPC §§187(a), 664(a) against Dallas. Should she be charged?

Conclusion: Dallas made a threat against Vincente. But she took no steps towards realizing the murder. Dallas didn't even communicate with Vincente before she used the weapon. Most importantly, Dallas didn't kill another person; she killed herself. While she intended this result, completed acts of suicide aren't punished under the Penal Code. Therefore, Dallas can't be convicted. She shouldn't be charged.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter under California Penal Code Section 192(a) 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.”[35]

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

  • A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[36] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[37]

Furthermore, Voluntary Manslaughter is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[38] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[39]

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. Finally, you killed a person or a fetus.

Example: Defendant Dixie despises Victim Valerie, her ex-wife. This feeling has grown over ten years of terrible arguments and physical altercations. Finally, Dixie decides to kill Valerie. She stabs Valerie to death. Later she's charged under CPC §192(a) for Valerie's death. Dixie insists that she isn't guilty of the offense, irrespective of the fact that she killed Valerie. Is Dixie correct or should she be convicted?

Conclusion: Dixie killed Valerie. This is an element of the charge. But Dixie developed her hatred of Valerie over a decade-long period. Furthermore, the facts reveal no provocation to trigger a loss of self-control, which would be consistent with the offense. It appears instead that Dixie acted cold-bloodedly. Given these facts, Dixie is correct only because she should be charged with a murder, not manslaughter.

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;[40] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[41]

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 admits reckless operation of his boat. He was above the LA Harbor speed limit. He followed other boats closely enough that his vessel almost capsized in their wake. He turned so fast that Victim Villem, his passenger, demanded they go back to shore. Still, Dave says he isn't guilty under CPC §192(b) even though Villem died of a hemorrhage when Villem got home. Is Dave guilty?

Conclusion: Dave committed a lawful act (operating his boat) in an unlawful manner. His conduct might be described as criminally negligent. However, the facts do not connect Villem's death to Dave's manner of sailing his vessel. For Dave to be guilty, Villem's death would have to follow at least proximately from Dave's sailing. Villem's hemorrhage could well be wholly unrelated to Dave. Therefore, Dave is innocent.

Driving Under The Influence

California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23152(a) states that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle while impaired due to being under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both. Prosecutors will attempt to substantiate this charge by reported driving patterns and other supposedly objective symptoms of intoxication that will be included in the officer's report.

If you're convicted of Driving Under The Influence (Section 23152(a)) for the first time in at least ten years, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; AND,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars).[42]

More information can be found in the California DUI Law 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 – Driving Under The Influence

To convict you under CVC §23152(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You drove a vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, a drug, or an alcoholic beverage and a drug.

Example: Defendant Dane drives rides his motorcycle on a public highway after drinking a beer. He speeds and is stopped by a police car. Police Officer smells alcohol and administers a Breathalyzer test. When Dane's results show that he has a trace amount of alcohol in his system, he's charged under CVC §23152(a). Dane insists that his blood alcohol level was too low to convict him. Is Dane correct?

Conclusion: Dane drove his vehicle on a public highway. He consumed alcohol before doing so. These are the elements of the offense. That Dane's blood alcohol level wasn't 0.08 or above isn't relevant for subpart (a) of the Vehicle Code section; Dane needed only to have alcohol in his system and drive. Thus, Dane is incorrect. He had enough alcohol in his system to be convicted of Driving Under The Influence.

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

The State of California treats Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with 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, 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. Call us at 888-744-7730 or use our online confidential contact form.      

References

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

[2] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.     

[3] “Ordinary negligence […] is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to oneself or someone else. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 591 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[4] “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 591 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[5] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 591 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[6] See Endnote 2.     

[7] See California Penal Code [CPC] §191.5 (c) (2).

[8] See CPC §672.

[9] See Endnote 7.

[10] See CPC §19.

[11] See Endnote 7.

[12] See Endnote 8.

[13] See Endnote 7.

[14] See Endnote 10.

[15] See Endnote 2.     

[16] See CPC §191.5 (c) (1).

[17] See Endnote 8.

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

[19]  See CPC §188 (a) (2).

[20] See CPC §190 (a).

[21] See Endnote 8.

[22] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (1).

[23] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).  

[24] See CPC §193 (c) (3).

[25] See Endnote 8.

[26] See “Carjacking,” Kannlawoffice.com.

[27] See Endnote 20.

[28] See Endnote 8.

[29] See Endnote 22.  

[30] See Endnote 23.  

[31] See CPC §664 (a).

[32] See Endnote 8.

[33] See CPC §667.5 (c) (7).

[34] See Endnote 23.

[35] See CPC §192 (a).

[36] See CPC §193 (a).

[37] See Endnote 8.

[38] See Endnote 22.

[39] See Endnote 23.

[40] See CPC §193 (b).

[41] See Endnote 8.

[42] See California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23536 (a).

Menu