California Court Uphold Murder Conviction Based Upon Reckless Driving

In a recent case opinion issued on August 23, 2010, entitled People v. Moore, out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the court of appeal held that the defendant’s driving pattern prior to a fatal vehicle collision, even without evidence of alcohol or speeding, are elements to be considered in raising the offense to a second-degree murder.

In this case, the appellant was upset about the break in of his apartment and got in his car and drove at a high rate of speed. He then crossed lanes into traffic coming from the opposite direction and collided with a car in the intersection. The passenger of that vehicle was killed. The appellant then fled from the scene and was arrested after police tracked him down and arrested him using force. Anytime, someone flees from the scene and faces hit and run charges, much less murder charges, at least in Fresno County, a Fresno DUI Attorney should be consulted.

During his questioning, appellant admitted that he knew a fatal car accident occurred and stated that he was in a hurry to get home so he could clean up, suck down a beer, and watch some television. Ultimately, the jury convicted him for second degree murder and vehicular manslaughter. On appeal, appellant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the second degree murder conviction since he was DUI at the time of the accident and was not fleeing the cops.
The court of appeal found otherwise. This case also illustrates the importance of having a competent Fresno DUI lawyer on your side if your facing charges in Fresno to defend serious allegations such as murder and driving under the influence.

The court of appeal’s decision was that appellant exhibited implied malice under the circumstances when he drove his car in a reckless manner with a high degree of probability that a death or injury could occur. Amazingly, however, the court found that the evidence of appellant’s prior conviction for drunk driving was properly admitted even though there was no evidence alcohol was involved. The court of appeal, ridiculously, concluded that the prior conviction was relevant as it served to put him on notice of the possible consequence of operating a motor vehicle in an extremely reckless manner. The court of appeal also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, which prohibits evidence which could be prejudicial from coming before the jury, as the evidence of the prior DUI was insignificant compared with the facts of present crime.

This case highlights the ends justify the means mentality of many of today’s appellant courts. All too often, as a DUI attorney in Fresno, I see this sort of reasoning from the courts. The appellant courts will often do whatever it takes to uphold a conviction; even if means upholding a ruling of the trial court which is obviously prejudicial and skewed the outcome of the trial.