California DUI Dean Larry Taylor has certainly been the leading and most thoughtful voice in showing how the “DUI exception to the Constitution” dangerously throws the Constitution out the window for those accused of drunk driving. The tragic death of California Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart after an accident with a drunk driver has received a tremendous amount of publicity. The driver was charged with murder. I have previously written about this case- Driver in Adenhart Death Pleads Not Guilty. In another outstanding blog post, Taylor explains why California’s allowing prosecutors to proceed with murder charges is both unfair and lowers the bar on the burden that the prosecution is supposed to have in any murder trial in America. Click this link to read Taylor’s post “DUI as murder.”
With such a definition, the prosecution does not have to prove malice as it has traditionally been defined when choosing to try a drunk driver for murder. Thus, the element distinguishing murder from involuntary manslaughter is non-existent in such prosecutions.
Taylor’s point is not that the driver did not deserve to be prosecuted. Taylor’s point is not that the public should not be outraged by someone who gets behind the wheel after consuming enough alcohol to be 3X’s the legal limit and ends the life of an extremely talented young man. Taylor’s point is that the driver should not have been prosecuted for murder. He points out that there already is a felony offense for being drunk and being responsible for killing someone-involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter does not require any intent on the part of the accused to kill the individual. By allowing the prosecution to proceed on a murder charge, one of the elements is that the killing must be done with “malice.” The problem is that California has defined the word malice in very vague, almost impossible to define terms. Furthermore the California appellate courts have held that the prosecution could satisfy its burden of proving malice by showing that the driver knew that drunk driving could be dangerous. As Taylor states:
Duh…Don’t we all know that?
With such a definition, the prosecution does not have to prove malice as it has traditionally been defined when choosing to try a drunk driver for murder. Thus, the element distinguishing murder from involuntary manslaughter is non-existent in such prosecutions.
