People?v.?Bennett?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1032?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?8;?819?P.2d?849
[No.?S018584.?Dec?5,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?JOHN?BENNETT,?JR.,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Sonoma?County,?No.?16288-C,?Arnold?D.?Rosenfield,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Fern?M.?Laethem,?State?Public?Defender,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Jeanne?Wolfe,?Deputy?State?Public?Defender,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson,?Morris?Beatus?and?David?D.?Salmon,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
MOSK,?J.
Defendant?appeals?from?a?conviction?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?(Pen.?Code,???191.5,?subd.?(a).)fn.?1?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?conviction.?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erroneously?instructed?the?jury?that?it?could?find?gross?negligence?from?”the?overall?circumstances?of?[his]?intoxication.”?(CALJIC?No.?8.94?(5th?ed.?1988?bound?vol.).)?For?the?reasons?stated?below?we?conclude?that?the?instruction?is?correct,?and?we?therefore?affirm?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
I.
Late?in?the?afternoon?of?December?11,?1988,?defendant,?a?30-year-old?male,?and?2?friends?who?were?each?less?than?21?years?of?age?(see?Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???25658),?began?drinking?from?a?”party?ball”?of?beer-a?keg?approximately?18?inches?in?diameter?and?a?foot?long.?After?an?hour?or?so,?defendant?drove?the?two?teenagers?to?the?beach?in?his?pickup?truck.?There?they?met?another?friend?and?continued?drinking?from?the?”party?ball.”?The?four?”pretty?well?killed?the?entire?thing”?before?they?left?after?sunset.?The?victim?and?one?friend?rode?with?defendant?while?the?third?friend?followed?in?his?own?car.
Described?by?one?witness?as?”pretty?drunk,”?defendant?was?weaving?in?and?out?of?his?traffic?lane?as?he?drove?inland?from?the?beach.?The?third?friend?tried?to?signal?defendant?that?his?truck?was?drifting?off?the?road?by?honking?his?horn?and?flashing?his?lights.?As?defendant?approached?a?blind?curve?on?a?downgrade,?he?crossed?the?double?yellow?line?and?passed?three?cars.?He?was?[54?Cal.3d?1035]?driving?approximately?10?miles?over?the?speed?limit?when?he?lost?control?of?his?vehicle?at?the?bottom?of?the?hill.
Defendant’s?truck?went?off?the?road,?came?back?and?rolled?over?five?or?six?times.?All?three?occupants?were?ejected.?Defendant?and?one?passenger?survived?with?minor?injuries;?the?other?passenger?died.?Defendant’s?blood-?alcohol?level?two?hours?later?was?0.20?percent.
Defendant?was?convicted?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?(??191.5,?subd.?(a).)?Section?191.5?as?charged?defines?the?offense?as?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice,?while?driving?under?the?influence,?in?the?commission?of?an?unlawful?act?not?amounting?to?a?felony,?and?with?gross?negligence.
The?only?contested?issue?at?trial?was?whether?defendant?was?grossly?negligent.?In?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?8.94,?the?jury?was?instructed?to?determine?gross?negligence?from?”the?overall?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication?or?the?manner?in?which?he?drove,?or?both?….”?(Italics?added.)
[1a]?On?appeal,?defendant?challenged?this?instruction.?He?argued?that?it?erroneously?allowed?the?jury?to?find?gross?negligence?from?the?circumstances?of?his?intoxication?alone,?without?regard?to?his?manner?of?driving.?In?affirming?the?judgment,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?the?instruction?was?correct.II.
To?determine?the?propriety?of?the?challenged?instruction,?we?must?examine?the?Penal?Code’s?definition?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?The?history?of?the?legislation?is?instructive.
Manslaughter?is?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice.?Originally,?two?kinds?of?manslaughter?were?defined:?voluntary?and?involuntary.?(Former???192,?subds.?1?&?2.)?In?1945,?the?Legislature?created?the?offense?of?vehicular?manslaughter,?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?while?driving?a?vehicle.?(Former???192,?subd.?3,?added?by?Stats.?1945,?ch.?1006,???1,?p.?1942.)?In?1983,?it?further?defined?vehicular?manslaughter?as?being?with?or?without?gross?negligence?and?with?or?without?some?form?of?intoxication.?(Former???192,?subd.?3,?as?amended?by?Stats.?1983,?ch.?937,???1,?pp.?3387-3388.)
Three?years?later,?the?Legislature?enacted?the?statute?here?in?issue,?defining?the?crime?of?vehicular?manslaughter?with?gross?negligence?while?driving?[54?Cal.3d?1036]?under?the?influence.?(??191.5,?added?by?Stats.?1986,?ch.?1106,???2,?p.?3881.)?Section?191.5,?subdivision?(a),?provides:?”Gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated?is?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice?aforethought,?in?the?driving?of?a?vehicle,?where?the?driving?was?in?violation?of?Section?23152?[driving?under?the?influence]?or?23153?[driving?under?the?influence?with?bodily?injury]?of?the?Vehicle?Code,?and?the?killing?was?either?the?proximate?result?of?the?commission?of?an?unlawful?act,?not?amounting?to?a?felony,?and?with?gross?negligence,?or?the?proximate?result?of?the?commission?of?a?lawful?act?which?might?produce?death,?in?an?unlawful?manner,?and?with?gross?negligence.”fn.?2
The?requirement?of?section?191.5?that?the?defendant?act?with?gross?negligence?is?the?focus?of?this?appeal.?The?gross?negligence?element?was?addressed?in?People?v.?McNiece?(1986)?181?Cal.App.3d?1048?[226?Cal.Rptr.?733]?(hereafter?McNiece),?in?which?the?court?reversed?a?conviction?for?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?with?intoxication?because?the?trial?court?failed?to?instruct?the?jury?that?”gross?negligence?could?not?be?supported?solely?by?facts?which?satisfied?other?essential?elements?…,?namely?(1)?drunk?driving?and?(2)?a?traffic?offense.”?(Id.?at?p.?1057.)?The?court?held?that?”something?in?addition”?was?necessary,?but?did?not?define?what?this?”something”?was.?(Id.?at?p.?1058.)
[2]?Gross?negligence?is?the?exercise?of?so?slight?a?degree?of?care?as?to?raise?a?presumption?of?conscious?indifference?to?the?consequences.?(People?v.?Watson?(1981)?30?Cal.3d?290,?296?[179?Cal.Rptr.?43,?637?P.2d?279].)?”The?state?of?mind?of?a?person?who?acts?with?conscious?indifferences?to?the?consequences?is?simply,?’I?don’t?care?what?happens.’?”?(People?v.?Olivas?(1985)?172?Cal.App.3d?984,?988?[218?Cal.Rptr.?567])?The?test?is?objective:?whether?a?reasonable?person?in?the?defendant’s?position?would?have?been?aware?of?the?risk?involved.?(People?v.?Watson,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?at?p.?296.) [1b]?Defendant?challenges?the?gross?negligence?instruction?given?in?this?case:?”The?mere?fact?that?a?defendant?drives?a?motor?vehicle?while?under?the?influence?of?alcohol?and?violates?a?traffic?law?is?insufficient?in?itself?to?constitute?gross?negligence.?You?must?determine?from?the?overall?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication?or?the?manner?in?which?he?drove,?or?both,?whether?his?conduct?constituted?gross?negligence.”?(CALJIC?No.?8.94,?italics?added.)fn.?3?[54?Cal.3d?1037]The?issue?is?whether?allowing?the?jury?to?find?gross?negligence?from?the?”overall?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication,”?without?more,?is?consistent?with?the?Legislature’s?definition?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?The?cases?reach?different?conclusions.
Defendant?relies?on?People?v.?Stanley?(1986)?187?Cal.App.3d?248?[232?Cal.Rptr.?22]?(hereafter?Stanley),?which?narrowly?defined?gross?negligence.?There?the?court?held?that?the?degree?of?intoxication?could?not?alone?be?used?to?establish?gross?negligence:?”As?written,?the?statute?requires?evidence?of?intoxication?as?one?of?two?predicates?for?liability.?It?cannot,?however,?be?used?again?to?satisfy?the?second?predicate?as?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?negligence?or?gross?negligence.?…?[T]he?jury?must?find?that?in?addition?to?being?intoxicated?the?defendant?was?negligent?or?grossly?negligent?in?the?manner?of?his?operation?of?the?vehicle.”?(Id.?at?p.?253,?italics?in?original.)fn.?4
A?different?approach?was?taken?in?People?v.?Von?Staden?(1987)?195?Cal.App.3d?1423?[241?Cal.Rptr.?523]?(Von?Staden),?from?which?the?challenged?instruction?is?derived.?The?Von?Staden?court?agreed?with?McNiece?that?”gross?negligence?cannot?be?shown?by?the?mere?fact?of?driving?under?the?influence?and?violating?the?traffic?laws.”?(Id.?at?p.?1427,?italics?in?original.)?It?also?agreed?with?Stanley?that?”gross?negligence?can?be?shown?by?the?manner?in?which?the?defendant?operated?the?vehicle,?that?is,?the?overall?circumstances?(rather?than?the?mere?fact)?of?the?traffic?law?violation.”?(Ibid.,?italics?in?original.)
The?court,?however,?disagreed?with?the?holding?of?Stanley?that?gross?negligence?cannot?be?shown?by?the?level?of?defendant’s?intoxication:?”nothing?in?the?history?of?sections?191.5?and?192?suggests?the?Legislature?intended?such?a?restriction.?…?[O]ne?who?drives?with?a?very?high?level?of?intoxication?is?indeed?more?negligent,?more?dangerous,?and?thus?more?culpable?than?one?who?drives?near?the?legal?limit?of?intoxication,?just?as?one?who?exceeds?the?speed?limit?by?50?miles?per?hour?exhibits?greater?negligence?than?one?who?exceeds?the?speed?limit?by?5?miles?per?hour.”?(Von?Staden,?supra,?195?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1428.)?The?court?concluded?that?”The?trier?of?fact?must?determine,?considering?the?overall?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication?or?the?manner?in?which?he?drove,?or?both,?whether?there?was?gross?negligence?….”?(Id.?at?p.?1425.)?[54?Cal.3d?1038]
Defendant?contends?that?Von?Staden,?supra,?195?Cal.App.3d?1423,?and?the?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?the?present?case?are?incorrect:?the?jury?should?not?be?allowed?to?base?its?finding?of?gross?negligence?on?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?overall?circumstances?of?intoxication.?He?argues?that?under?the?plain?language?of?section?191.5,?the?People?must?show?that?the?unlawful?act,?here?the?traffic?violation,?was?performed?with?gross?negligence.?Thus,?he?argues,?only?his?”driving?conduct?at?the?time?of?the?traffic?accident,”?not?his?level?of?intoxication,?is?relevant?to?determining?gross?negligence.
Defendant?fails?to?grasp,?however,?that?a?driver’s?level?of?intoxication?is?an?integral?aspect?of?the?”driving?conduct.”?A?high?level?of?intoxication?sets?the?stage?for?tragedy?long?before?the?driver?turns?the?ignition?key.?”There?is?a?very?commonly?understood?risk?which?attends?every?motor?vehicle?driver?who?is?intoxicated.?[Citation.]?One?who?wilfully?consumes?alcoholic?beverages?to?the?point?of?intoxication,?knowing?that?he?thereafter?must?operate?a?motor?vehicle,?thereby?combining?sharply?impaired?physical?and?mental?faculties?with?a?vehicle?capable?of?great?force?and?speed,?reasonably?may?be?held?to?exhibit?a?conscious?disregard?of?the?safety?of?others.?The?effect?may?be?lethal?….”?(Taylor?v.?Superior?Court?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?890,?896-897?[157?Cal.Rptr.?693,?598?P.2d?854].)
The?jury?should?therefore?consider?all?relevant?circumstances,?including?level?of?intoxication,?to?determine?if?the?defendant?acted?with?a?conscious?disregard?of?the?consequences?rather?than?with?mere?inadvertence.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Costa?(1953)?40?Cal.2d?160,?166?[252?P.2d?1]?[evidence?that?defendant?was?specifically?warned?not?to?speed?a?half-hour?prior?to?fatal?accident];?People?v.?Leffel?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?575,?584?[249?Cal.Rptr.?906]?[evidence?that?defendant?had?not?slept?for?three?nights];?Von?Staden,?supra,?195?Cal.App.3d?1423,?1428?[evidence?that?defendant?was?specifically?warned?not?to?drive?while?intoxicated];?People?v.?Roerman?(1961)?189?Cal.App.2d?150,?159?[10?Cal.Rptr.?870]?[evidence?that?defendant?drove?to?heavily?trafficked?area?with?cast?on?her?right?foot].)?To?the?extent?that?Stanley,?supra,?187?Cal.App.3d?248,?suggests?otherwise,?it?is?disapproved.
Such?an?interpretation?is?consistent?with?legislative?intent.?When?the?Legislature?enacted?section?191.5,?it?stated:?”The?Legislature?finds?and?declares?that?traffic?accidents?are?the?greatest?cause?of?violent?death?in?the?United?States?and?that?over?one-half?of?the?ensuing?fatalities?are?alcohol?related.?…?In?view?of?the?severe?threat?to?public?safety?which?is?posed?by?the?intoxicated?driver,?there?is?a?compelling?need?for?more?effective?methods?to?identify?and?penalize?those?who?voluntarily?consume?alcoholic?beverages?to?the?point?of?legal?intoxication?and?thereafter?operate?a?motor?vehicle,?thereby?combining?sharply?impaired?physical?and?mental?faculties?with?a?[54?Cal.3d?1039]?vehicle?capable?of?exerting?great?force?and?speed?and?causing?severe?damage?and?death.”?(Stats.?1986,?ch.?1106,???1,?pp.?3880-3881.)
Thus?the?Legislature?sought?to?punish?severely?those?who?operate?a?vehicle?when?their?physical?and?mental?faculties?are?impaired?by?voluntary?alcohol?consumption.?To?separate?the?gross?negligence?inquiry?from?the?question?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication?would?undercut?the?Legislature’s?goal?of?preventing?drunk?driving.
The?challenged?instruction?correctly?allowed?the?jury?to?find?gross?negligence?from?the?overall?circumstances?of?defendant’s?intoxication.?[3]?Nevertheless,?to?forestall?objections?to?its?wording?in?future?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?cases?the?instruction?should?more?precisely?advise?the?jury?that?”The?mere?fact?that?a?defendant?drives?a?motor?vehicle?while?under?the?influence?of?alcohol?and?violates?a?traffic?law?is?insufficient?in?itself?to?constitute?gross?negligence.?You?must?determine?gross?negligence?from?the?level?of?the?defendant’s?intoxication,?the?manner?of?driving,?or?other?relevant?aspects?of?the?defendant’s?conduct?resulting?in?the?fatal?accident.”fn.?5
The?case?law?on?which?defendant?relies?does?not?require?a?contrary?result.?The?courts?in?People?v.?Leitgeb?(1947)?77?Cal.App.2d?764,?769-770?[176?P.2d?384],?and?People?v.?Markham?(1957)?153?Cal.App.2d?260,?275?[314?P.2d?217],?found?gross?negligence?from?the?circumstances?of?the?defendant’s?driving?conduct?at?the?time?of?the?accident?but?did?not?consider?whether?other?factors?could?support?a?finding?of?gross?negligence.?People?v.?Hoe?(1958)?164?Cal.App.2d?502,?508?[330?P.2d?907],?held?that?the?defendant’s?manner?of?driving?at?the?time?of?the?accident?must?be?the?proximate?cause?of?the?death,?but?also?stated?in?regard?to?gross?negligence:?”The?jury?could?find?that?her?conduct?in?driving?while?intoxicated?and?in?failing?to?see?either?decedent?or?his?car?as?she?approached?was?grossly?negligent?conduct.”?(Id.?at?p.?509.)
Nor?is?there,?as?defendant?contends,?a?”direct?conflict”?between?CALJIC?No.?8.94?and?CALJIC?No.?8.93,?which?defines?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?CALJIC?No.?8.93,?as?given?in?this?case,?provides?that?one?element?of?the?crime?is?that?”the?driver?of?the?vehicle?committed?with?gross?negligence?an?unlawful?act,?namely?a?violation?of?the?maximum?speed?law?or?basic?speed?law?of?this?state?….”?This?language?merely?clarifies?that?the?element?of?gross?negligence?is?related?to?driving?conduct.?As?discussed?above,?this?is?consistent?with?CALJIC?No.?8.94.?[54?Cal.3d?1040] [1c]?We?conclude?that?the?finding?of?gross?negligence?required?to?convict?a?defendant?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated?may?be?based?on?the?overall?circumstances?surrounding?the?fatality.?Intoxication?is?one?of?those?circumstances?and?its?effect?on?the?defendant’s?driving?may?show?gross?negligence.?In?the?present?case,?the?jury?could?reasonably?have?found?that?defendant’s?high?level?of?intoxication?led?to?his?reckless?manner?of?driving.?It?was?therefore?not?error?to?give?the?challenged?instruction.
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?further?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?The?provision?replaced?former?section?192,?subdivision?(c)(3).
FN?3.?The?jury?was?also?instructed?on?gross?negligence?as?follows:?”[‘Gross?negligence’]?means?conduct?which?is?more?than?ordinary?negligence.?Ordinary?negligence?is?the?failure?to?exercise?ordinary?or?reasonable?care.
“[‘Gross?negligence’]?refers?to?[a]?negligent?act?which?[is]?aggravated,?reckless?and?gross?and?which?[is]?such?a?departure?from?what?would?be?the?conduct?of?an?ordinarily?prudent,?careful?person?under?the?same?circumstances?as?to?be?contrary?to?a?proper?regard?for?[human?life]?or?to?constitute?indifference?to?the?consequences?of?such?act[s].?The?facts?must?be?such?that?the?consequences?of?the?negligent?act[s]?could?reasonably?have?been?foreseen?and?it?must?appear?that?the?[death]?was?not?the?result?of?inattention,?mistaken?judgment?or?misadventure?but?the?natural?and?probable?result?of?an?aggravated,?reckless?or?grossly?negligent?act.”?(Brackets?in?original,?CALJIC?No.?3.36.)
FN?4.?Both?McNiece?and?Stanley?interpreted?former?section?192,?subdivision?(c)(3).
FN?5.?The?causal?connection?required?is?a?broad?one.?(See,?e.g.,?cases?cited?ante,?p.?1038.)