Page 1
Causing Deaths by Driving Under Influence of Marijuana Was Second-Degree Murder—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district, rejecting a contention that the evidence was insufficient to show implied malice, yesterday affirmed the conviction of a man on three counts of second degree murder based on driving at 90 miles per hour while high on marijuana, going through a red light, and colliding with a vehicle, killing its occupants.
Alameda Superior Court Judge Noël Wise, sitting on assignment, wrote the opinion for Div. Seven. While affirming a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daviann Mitchell, it remanded the case for a correction of a clerical error in the abstract of judgment which failed to recite that defendant Davion Demetrious Murphy’s three sentences of 15 years to life in prison are to be served concurrently.
Murphy argued that while the evidence might have been sufficient to sustain a conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter, it was insufficient to show he was subjectively aware that he was endangering human life, and that the implied necessary to establish second degree murder was not established. Wise countered that there was “substantial evidence that Murphy acted with implied malice both when he smoked marijuana with the intent to drive, and when he drove in a manner that demonstrated a conscious disregard for human life.”
Although a blood test can show the level of blood alcohol concentration in a person’s system, there is no such test for users of marijuana, Wise noted. Nonetheless, she said, from testimony “[t]he jury could reasonably infer…that Murphy smoked marijuana several times in the hours before the accident.”
Agreeing with Murphy that that “[t]he standard for implied malice is subjective and requires the defendant appreciate the risk involved,” that doesn’t mean, however, that Murphy is correct in contending that there must have been a subjective awareness on the part of the defendant as to the extent of the intoxication. No authorities were cited in support of the proposition, she said, adding:
“This requirement could give rise to the absurd outcome in which defendants may escape liability for implied malice vehicular murder if they establish they were so intoxicated when they were driving and killed someone that they no longer possessed awareness of their impairment. The law contains no such requirement.”
The case is People v. Murphy, 2022 S.O.S. 2278.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company