California Vehicle Code § [Section] 23153(a) – DUI Causing Injury
California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23153(a) – DUI Causing Injury – Vehicle Code §23153(a) makes it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and do anything illegal or neglect any duty if the act or neglect causes bodily injury to anyone other than yourself.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 23153(a) is a “wobbler”[1] 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 $5,000.
What Does California Vehicle Code §23153(a) [DUI Causing Injury] Prohibit?
In sum, to be guilty of violating the DUI Causing Injury law under CVC §23153(a), you must:
- Drive a vehicle or operate a vessel; AND,
- Be under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug; AND,
- Neglect a legal duty; AND,
- Injure a person.
Defining “DUI Causing Injury” Under California Vehicle Code §23153(a)
To convict you under CVC §23153(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
- DROVE/OPERATED: You drove a vehicle or operated a vessel; AND,
- UNDER THE INFLUENCE: When you drove a vehicle or operated a vessel, you were under the influence[2] of an alcoholic beverage,[3] or a drug,[4] or both an alcoholic beverage and a drug; AND,
- ILLEGAL ACT OR NEGLECTED/…LEGAL DUTY: While driving a vehicle or operating a vessel under the influence, you committed an illegal act or neglected to perform a legal duty; AND,
- CAUSED BODILY INJURY: Your illegal act or failure to perform a legal duty caused bodily injury[5] to another person.
Note: Being legally entitled to use a drug is not a defense under this Code section. If you're impaired while driving, additionally, it's nota defense that something else impaired your ability to drive.
Example: Defendant Devon takes a medication as prescribed by Physician. The medication makes Devon sleepy, which he knows will be a side-effect. He drives into oncoming traffic and gets into an accident with Victim Vera, who is injured. Devon is charged under CVC §23153(a). He insists that he's excused because he had to take the drug as prescribed by Physician. Is Devon innocent?
Conclusion: Devon drove a vehicle while he was under the influence of a drug. The medication affected his ability to drive. Devon knew this would happen; thus, he was under a legal duty not to take the medication and drive. But he did so. Then he violated traffic law and caused an injury. These are the elements of the crime. Devon is not excused because he's entitled to use the drug. Devon is guilty.
Penalties For DUI Causing Injury Under CVC §23153(a)
As stated earlier, since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 23153(a) is a “wobbler”[6] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of it more than twice within ten (10) years, the felony penalty may be:
- A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; AND,
- A fine of up to $5,000 (five-thousand dollars); AND,
- Suspension of your driver's license.[7]
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; AND,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); AND,
- Suspension of your driver's license.[8]
As stated above, if you're convicted of felony DUI Causing Injury, you face up to four (4) years in a state prison and a fine of up to $5,000 (five-thousand dollars).[9] If you're convicted of the misdemeanor form, however, the penalty may be as much as one (1) year in a county jail and a fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars).[10] In both cases, your license may be suspended.
Defenses Against California Vehicle Code §23153(a) – DUI Causing Injury
Three common defenses against a charge of DUI Causing Injury under CPC §23153(a) are:
You Didn't Injure Another Person
Example: Defendant Dickie admits that he drank alcohol before getting into a boating accident in which his speed boat collided with Victim Vern's fishing vessel. Dickie admits he was legally drunk at the time. He admits that this was a violation of a legal duty. Nonetheless, Dickie insists he's innocent of a charge under §23153(a) because Vern's vessel was damaged, not Vern himself. Is Dickie guilty, on these facts?
Conclusion: Dickie committed a breach of a legal duty by operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol. He committed a crime by being drunk at the time. Then he got into an accident. These are elements of the offense. But the accident had to physically injure Vern. Vern's vessel was only damaged; Vern himself wasn't hurt. Thus, Dickie is innocent. He didn't injure another person.
You Didn't Commit An Illegal Act
Example: Defendant Damian has one alcoholic beverage before he drives his car. He obeys all traffic laws and does not speed. Nonetheless, he gets into an accident with Victim Valentina, who strikes his car while she's driving illegally through an intersection. Valentina is injured. Damian is then charged under CVC §23153(a). He says he isn't guilty, under the circumstances. Is Damian guilty of the offense?
Conclusion: Damian drove his vehicle after consuming one alcoholic beverage. He got into an accident that injured Valentina. These may be elements of the crime. But Damian didn't violate the law in any way. Valentina, however, drove illegally. Her violation of law and duty actually caused their accident. Therefore, Damian is correct. He cannot be guilty of the offense. Damian did not commit an illegal act.
You Were Not Under The Influence
Example: Defendant Danny gets into an accident with Victim Veronica. She is injured. When Police Officer investigates the crash, he notices that Danny has a cannabis leaf sticker attached to his bumper. Police Officer assumes that Danny is under the influence and charges him under CVC §23153(a). Danny says that he hasn't used a drug in months. Blood tests confirm his claim. Should Danny be convicted?
Conclusion: Danny got into an accident with Veronica, who was injured. These are elements of the crime. But Danny was arrested solely on association with a drug. Testing proves that he didn't consume cannabis before driving. On these facts, Danny should be acquitted. He was not under the influence.
Related Offenses
Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CVC §23153(a) and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
California law includes several offenses related to DUI Causing Injury: Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (California Penal Code [CPC] §191.5(b)), Child Endangerment (CPC §273a(a)), Felony Hit And Run Involving Injury Or Death (CVC §20001), DUI (of Alcohol) (CVC §§ [Sections] 23152(a), (b)), DUI (of Drugs) (CVC §23152(f)), Underage DUI (0.05 Or Higher) (CVC §23140(a)), Underage DUI (Zero Tolerance) (CVC §23136(a)), Reckless Driving (CVC §23103(a)), Evading An Officer (CVC §2800.1(a)), Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (CVC §191.5(a)), and Vehicular Manslaughter (CVC §192(c)(1)).
Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated
Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(b)) law 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”[11] 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;[12] AND,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[13]
More information can be found in the 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 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 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 negligence. Finally, your negligent conduct caused the death of another person.
Example: Defendant Darwin, aged twenty, admits that he drove after drinking with friends. He admits that his vehicle strayed into Victim Vonn's lane while on Pico Boulevard. He admits to striking her car. He admits that he was negligent. He even admits that these are elements of a charge under §191.5(b). Still, he insists that he can't be guilty because Vonn wasn't killed in the serious accident. Is Darwin correct?
Conclusion: Darwin drove negligently with alcohol in his system while under the age of twenty-one. He also committed a vehicular crime when he crossed lanes and struck Vonn's vehicle. These are elements of the offense. But Darwin didn't kill Vonn in the accident. This is required, irrespective of how serious the accident was, under Penal Code Section 191.5(b). Therefore, Darwin is correct.
Child Endangerment
Penal Code Section 273a(a) makes it illegal to permit any child to suffer unjustifiable pain or mental suffering under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The statute applies whether or not you have custody of the child. The law additionally forbids permitting a child to be placed in a situation where the child's health is endangered. The crime is related to DUI Causing Injury because acts that would violate CPC §273a(a) may result in charges under CVC §23153(a) in the same trial.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273a(a) is a “wobbler”[14] 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 six (6) years in state prison;[15] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[16]
Child Endangerment is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[17] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[18]
More information can be found in the California Child Endangerment Attorney 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 guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Child Endangerment
To convict you under CPC §273a(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You willfully inflicted pain on a child or you permitted a child to suffer or you had care or custody of a child and permitted the child to suffer or you permitted the child to be injured or you permitted the child to be somewhere dangerous. You hurt the child, permitted the child to suffer, or permitted the child's injury when it was likely to produce great bodily harm or death or you were criminally negligent. Finally, you weren't reasonably disciplining the child.
Example: Defendant Douglass is teaching Victim Vara to roller skate. Vara is six years old. She falls down numerous times. Yet she continues, desiring to learn. But Vara injures herself by scraping her knees. Now Douglass faces a charge under CPC §273a(a) because Neighbors saw Vara's injuries and reported Douglass for committing a crime. Should Douglass be convicted, under these circumstances?
Conclusion: Douglass was teaching Vara to skate. He had to supervise her to do this. Thus, he was not negligent. The facts do not state that he willfully caused or permitted her to suffer injury; falling down is a natural part of child's learning to roller skate. Nor did the fall generate great bodily injury. There are elements of the charge that are missing, on these facts. Therefore, Douglass shouldn't be convicted.
Felony Hit And Run Involving Injury Or Death
Vehicle Code Section 20001(a), Felony Hit and Run makes it illegal to fail to stop, to fail to report an accident, or to fail to provide personal information if you're involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to another person. The offense does not require the presence of drugs or alcohol.
If you're convicted under Section 20001(a) for an accident that results in death, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[19]
More information can be found in the Hit and Run 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. Guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Felony Hit And Run Involving Injury Or Death
To convict you under CVC §20001(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
While driving, you were involved in a vehicle accident that caused death or serious injury to someone else. You knew that you had been involved in an accident that injured another person or knew from the nature of the accident that it was probable that another person had been injured. You willfully failed to perform one or more of the following duties: immediately stop at the scene of the accident; provide reasonable assistance to any person injured in the accident; give to the person struck, the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, or any peace officer at the scene of the accident all of the following information: your name and current residence address; the registration number of the vehicle you were driving; the name and current residence address of the owner of the vehicle, if you are not the owner; the names and current residence addresses of any occupants of your vehicle who were injured in the accident; when requested, to show your driver's license (if available) to the person struck, the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, or any peace officer at the scene of the accident; without unnecessary delay, notify either the police department of the city where the accident happened or the local headquarters of the California Highway Patrol if the accident happened in an unincorporated area.
Example: Defendant Dimi gets into an accident that seriously injures Victim Vincente. Dimi stops at the scene. He provides reasonable assistance to Vincente. He provides information, including his license, to both Vincente and Police Officer, who stops at the scene. But Dimi doesn't tell either person about Son, who's injured in Dimi's car. Should Police Officer charge Dimi under CVC §20001(a), on these facts?
Conclusion: Dimi got into an accident that seriously injured Vincente. Thus, he had several statutorily imposed obligations. Dimi did what was required of him – up to a point. He had to do more than provide his identifying information and reasonable assistance to the injured Vicente. Dimi had to reveal the identity and addresses of all persons injured in his car. Therefore, Police Officer should charge Dimi.
DUI (Driving Under The Influence) (of Alcohol)
DUI (of Alcohol) (CVC §§ [Sections] 23152(a), (b)) occurs when anyone under the influence of any alcoholic beverage drives a vehicle. The Section further specifies that it's illegal “for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.”[20]
If you're convicted of DUI three times within a ten-year span, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; AND,
- Attendance at a DUI school for at least three (3) months; AND,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); AND,
- Suspension of your driver's license.[21]
More information can be found on the Vehicle Code Section 23152 page 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.It is guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – DUI (of Alcohol)
To convict you under CVC §§23152(a),(b), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You drove a vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.
Example: Defendant Dix eats a cannabis infused candy and drives a few miles to visit Friend. He's stopped along the way. Police Officer arrests and charges Dix for violating CVC §23152(a). Dix says that he isn't drunk; therefore, he couldn't be guilty of DUI as charged. Is Dix correct about the law?
Conclusion: Dix drove a vehicle while under the influence of cannabis. This is illegal. However, Section 23152(a) punishes only driving under the influence of alcohol. Dix, therefore, is correct. He shouldn't be convicted because he has been mischarged.
DUI (Driving Under The Influence) (of Drugs)
DUI (of Drugs) (CVC §23152(f)) occurs when anyone under the influence of any drug drives a vehicle. This includes cannabis, whether used for recreational or medicinal purposes, in California.
If you're convicted of DUI three times within a ten-year span, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; AND,
- Attendance at a DUI school for at least three (3) months; AND,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); AND,
- Suspension of your driver's license.[22]
More information can be found in the California Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs Attorneys 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 guarantee that.
California Jury Instructions – DUI (of Drugs)
To convict you under CVC §23152(f), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You drove a vehicle while under the influence of a drug.
Example: Defendant Dix eats a cannabis infused candy and drives a few miles to visit Friend. He's stopped along the way. Police Officer arrests and charges Dix for violating CVC §23152(f). Dix says that he isn't drunk; therefore, he couldn't be guilty of DUI. Is Dix correct about the law?
Conclusion: Dix drove a vehicle while he was under the influence of cannabis. Section 23152(f) punishes driving under the influence of drugs. While cannabis possession and use are legal in California, it is unlawful to operate a vehicle while under the influence of it. Dix is incorrect, even though he isn't drunk.
Underage DUI (0.05 Or Higher)
Underage DUI (0.05 Or Higher) (CVC §23140(a)) occurs when any person under the age of twenty-one drives a vehicle while having 0.05 percent of alcohol, or more, by weight, in his or her blood.
If you're convicted of Underage DUI (0.05 Or Higher) within one year of two or more convictions for violating CVC §23140(a), the penalty may be:
- Attendance at a DUI school for at least three (3) months;[23] AND,
- A fine of up to $300 (three-hundred dollars);[24] AND,
- Suspension of your driver's license.[25]
More information can be found in the California Underage DUI Defense Attorneys 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 guarantee it.
California Jury Instructions – Underage DUI (0.05 Or Higher)
To convict you under CVC §23140(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You drove a vehicle when your blood alcohol level was 0.05 percent or more by weight. You were also under twenty-one years of age at the time.
Example: Defendant Dallas is twenty. He is stopped for speeding. Police Officer asks Dallas if he has been drinking. Dallas admits that he “got super drunk” a week before, but hasn't had any alcohol since. Then Police Officer learns that Dallas isn't twenty-one. She arrests Dallas for violating CVC §23140(a). He insists that his alcohol level wasn't measured the week prior, so he can't be guilty. Is Dallas correct?
Conclusion: Dallas consumed alcohol a week before being pulled over by Police Officer. To violate Section 23140(a), he had to have alcohol in his system when arrested. (His blood alcohol level would also have to be measured, proving that he had no alcohol in his system.) Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Dallas's blood was analyzed when he was drunk a week before. Dallas must be innocent.
Underage DUI (Zero Tolerance)
Underage DUI (Zero Tolerance) (CVC §23136(a)) occurs when any person under the age of twenty-one drives a vehicle while having 0.01 percent of alcohol, or more, by weight, in his or her blood.
If you're convicted of Underage DUI (Zero Tolerance), the penalty may be:
- Suspension of your driver's license for at least one (1) year.[26]
California Jury Instructions – Underage DUI (Zero Tolerance)
To convict you under CVC §23136(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You drove a vehicle when your blood alcohol level was 0.01 percent or more by weight. You were under twenty-one years of age at the time.
Example: Defendant Drake has a beer at a college frat party to celebrate that's he's turning twenty-one in a few days. Driving home that night, he's stopped. Police Officer administers a breathalyzer test. The results show that Drake has a 0.01 blood alcohol level. Drake is arrested and charged. He insists that he can't be guilty under CVC §23136(a), since his blood alcohol level was far below 0.05. Is Drake correct?
Conclusion: Drake, who was still twenty when he drank at the party, drove with enough alcohol in his system that its presence registered when tested by Police Officer. This is all that Section 23136(a) requires. Since he was not twenty-one years of age, Drake was not entitled to consume any amount of alcohol. Nor was he permitted to drive after drinking. Drake, it follows, can be convicted as charged.
Reckless Driving
Reckless Driving (CVC §23103) involves driving a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The crime is related to DUI Causing Injury because acts punishable under CVC §23153 can also result in charges under Section 23103 in the same trial.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 23103(a) is a “wobbler”[27] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of Reckless Driving that results in serious injury, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[28] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars);[29] OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[30]
More information can be found in the Reckless Driving 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 guarantee that.
California Jury Instructions – Reckless Driving
To convict you under CVC §23103(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property on a highway or in an off-street parking facility.
Example: Defendant Deena and her friends are part of a car club. They meet in parking lots and drive in circles as fast, and for as long, as the lot surface can withstand. One night, they make so much noise that Police Officer is attracted to the scene. He sees Deena spinning around her car and cites Deena under CVC §23103(a). Deena says that, since she wasn't on a street, she can't be guilty. Is Deena correct?
Conclusion: Deena intentionally drove her vehicle with wanton disregard for the lot as property. These are elements of the crime. The only question is whether she had to be on a public street to violate the Code Section. Off-street parking facilities are also subject to Section 23103(a). Thus, Deena is incorrect.
Evading An Officer
The Evading An Officer (CVC §2800.1(a)) law makes it illegal to willfully flee a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle if: the officer's vehicle exhibits at least one lighted red lamp visible from the front; you either see or reasonably should have seen the lamp; the vehicle is sounding a siren; the vehicle is distinctively marked; and the vehicle is operated by an actual peace officer wearing a distinctive uniform. The crime is related to DUI Causing Injury because acts punishable under §23153 can also result in charges of Evading An Officer in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Evading A Peace Officer In A Vehicle, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail;[31] OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000; OR,
- Both jail time and a fine.[32]
More information can be found in the Evading An Officer 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 – Evading An Officer
To convict you under CVC §2800.1(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You were being pursued by a peace officer driving a motor vehicle. You, while also driving a motor vehicle, willfully fled from, or tried to elude, the officer, intending to evade the officer. Finally, all of the following were true: there was at least one lighted red lamp visible from the front of the peace officer's vehicle; you either saw or reasonably should have seen the lamp; the peace officer's vehicle was sounding a siren as reasonably necessary; the peace officer's vehicle was distinctively marked; and, the peace officer was wearing a distinctive uniform.
Example: Defendant Dominic is driving along Sunset Boulevard when his car passes Off-Duty Officer's aging pickup truck. Dominic is wanted for questioning in a crime. Off-Duty Officer begins following Dominic. He honks his horn and waves. Dominic sees only a man in civilian garb. He continues driving. Later, when he's arrested, Off-Duty Officer charges him under CVC §2800.1(a). Is Dominic guilty?
Conclusion: Dominic was driving a vehicle and was pursued by a peace officer. These are elements of the crime. But Off-Duty Officer wasn't in a marked police car. He didn't use a red lamp when approaching Dominic's vehicle. He was honking, not sounding a siren or klaxon. Finally, he was in civilian attire. Thus, Dominic can't be said to have willfully evaded an officer as required by the law. Dominic is not guilty.
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”[33] 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;[34] AND,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[35]
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.It's always guaranteed.
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 Dick admits that he drove a car while he had a blood alcohol level of 0.20. He admits that he swerved across lanes illegally because of his intoxication. He admits that this was grossly negligent. He even admits to causing an accident that put Victim Velma on life support. But Dick insists that he can't be guilty of a charge under CPC §191.5(a). Is Dick guilty, under these circumstances?
Conclusion: Dick drove while having a blood alcohol level well above 0.08. He committed an illegal act with gross negligence. These are elements of the crime. But Velma, on life support, is not dead. Dick's gross negligence had to have resulted in her death, if he's to be guilty. Thus, Dick must be innocent.
Vehicular Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter (CPC §192(c)(1)) involves driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, with gross negligence or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and acting unlawfully with gross negligence.
If you're convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to ten (10) years in a state prison;[36] AND,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[37]
More information can be found in the Vehicular 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.It's always guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Vehicular Manslaughter
To convict you under CPC §192(c)(1), 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 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: Defendant David speeds along a dark road one night. He doesn't have his headlamps on. He collides with Victim Virgil's car. Virgil is killed in the accident. David is charged under CPC §192(c)(1). He defends himself by pointing out that he wasn't drunk, didn't see Virgil's car, and didn't know Virgil, so he had no malice against Virgil. Should David be acquitted, on these facts?
Conclusion: David committed an unlawful act not amounting to a felony when he sped along a dark road without using his headlamps. This was grossly negligent and caused a death. These are the elements of the crime. David didn't need to be intoxicated to violate the law involved. Malice is not an element of manslaughter. Finally, not seeing Virgil's car is itself evidence of negligence. David should be convicted.
Felony DUI in California
While a DUI usually results in misdemeanor punishment, the offense can be charged as a felony. This may occur under any of three circumstances.
- DUI Causing Injury or Death
If another person suffers injury or dies because you drove under the influence and then violated the Vehicle Code or drove in a negligent way, you can be charged with Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CVC §191.5(a)), Driving Under The Influence Causing Serious Injury (CVC §23513), or even DUI Murder (“Watson Rule” Murder) (CPC §189). All are felonies.
- Four or More DUIs
DUI is a “priorable” offense that calls for increased penalties for subsequent convictions involving identical or similar crimes. If you're convicted of three or more DUIs within a ten-year period, you'll probably be charged with a felony DUI in the event of further violations. The law defines the following as “priorable”: DUI convictions; out-of-state convictions that would equate to DUIs in California; and “Wet Reckless” convictions.
- Having a Prior Felony DUI
If you commit a DUI and have a prior felony drunk driving conviction on your record, you can expect to be charged with a felony if your prior drunk driving conviction caused injury and was charged as a felony or if it was charged as a felony because you had multiple DUI convictions.
What Can I Do If I'm Charged With DUI Causing Injury?
The State of California regards DUI Causing Injury as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with DUI Causing Injury, 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, DUI Causing Injury, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.
Contact our attorneys here at the Kann California Law Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation. The best way to contact us is through our confidential contact form. One of our DUI attorneys will call you back right away. You can also call us at 888-744-7730.
[1] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.
[2] “A person is under the influence if, as a result of drinking or consuming an alcoholic beverage and/or taking a drug, his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle or operate a vessel with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2100 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[3] “An alcoholic beverage is a liquid or solid material intended to be consumed that contains ethanol. Ethanol is also known as ethyl alcohol, drinking alcohol, or alcohol.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2100 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[4] “A drug is a substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol, that could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person that it would appreciably impair his or her ability to drive a vehicle or operate a vessel as an ordinarily cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care, would drive a vehicle or operate a vessel under similar circumstances.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2100 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[5] “An act causes bodily injury to another person if the injury is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the injury 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 judge or jury must] consider all the circumstances established by the evidence. [¶] There may be more than one cause of injury. An act causes bodily injury to another person only if it is a substantial factor in causing the injury. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it need not be the only factor that causes the injury.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2100 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[6] See Endnote 1.
[7] See California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23566 (a).
[8] See CVC §23554.
[9] See Endnote 7.
[10] See Endnote 8.
[11] See Endnote 1.
[12] See California Penal Code [CPC] §191.5 (c) (2).
[13] See CPC §672.
[14] See Endnote 1.
[15] See CPC §273a (a).
[16] See Endnote 13.
[17] For example, see CPC §1192.7 (c) (6).
[18] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).
[19] See CVC §20001 (b) (2).
[20] See CVC §23152 (b).
[21] See CVC §23546 (b).
[22] See CVC §23546 (a).
[23] See CVC §13352.6 (a).
[24] See CVC §42001.25 (c).
[25] See Endnote 23.
[26] See CVC §13353.3 (b) (3). [See Version (Amended (as added by Stats. 2016, Ch. 783, Sec. 11) by Stats. 2017, Ch. 485, Sec. 9.).]
[27] See Endnote 1.
[28] See CVC §23104 (b).
[29] See Endnote 13.
[30] See Endnote 28.
[31] See CVC §2800.1 (a).
[32] See CPC §19.
[33] See Endnote 1.
[34] See CPC §191.5 (c) (1).
[35] See Endnote 13.
[36] See CPC §193 (c) (3).
[37] See Endnote 13.