People v. Castro CA6
H051479
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Angel Castro Castro was convicted of second-degree implied malice murder and related charges after driving drunk and causing a fatal collision that killed Manuel Garcia, with prior incidents of DUI convictions on his record.
- The incident involved Castro tailgating, causing a collision with one vehicle but fleeing, then making a dangerous U-turn and colliding with Garcia’s motorcycle, resulting in Garcia's death.
- At trial, Castro was convicted by a jury of murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, DUI causing injury, and hit and run resulting in injury.
- Castro appealed, arguing that the jury instructions on implied malice were deficient because they did not incorporate language from a recent Supreme Court opinion concerning a “high degree of probability” of death.
- He also challenged being convicted of both gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI causing injury, contending the latter was a lesser-included offense and should be stricken.
- The Attorney General agreed the DUI conviction should be stricken but opposed Castro's instructional error claim.
Issues
| Issue | Castro's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied malice murder jury instruction (CALCRIM 520) deficient for omitting "high degree of probability" language | Reyes decision required the instruction to include “a high degree of probability” that death would result; omission was prejudicial error | Instruction was legally correct; Reyes did not alter the long-standing standard, and no prejudicial error existed | No error; existing instruction sufficient under established law |
| Whether “high degree of probability” language needed for both actus reus and mens rea elements of implied malice | Language should apply to both the objective (actus reus) and subjective (mens rea) components | High degree of probability standard only applies to the actus reus (objective) component; subjective awareness does not require it | No error; only actus reus requires this standard |
| Conviction of both gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI causing injury for the same act permissible | Conviction for both violates rule against multiple convictions for lesser-included offenses; DUI causing injury is lesser-included | Agrees DUI causing injury is a lesser-included offense and should be vacated | Conviction for DUI causing injury and its enhancements must be vacated |
| Failure to pronounce sentence on misdemeanor count | Not raised on appeal | Not raised on appeal | Remanded for proper sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (established implied malice in vehicular homicide requires knowledge of and conscious disregard for life)
- People v. Knoller, 41 Cal.4th 139 (Cal. 2007) (clarified objective vs. subjective components of implied malice murder)
- People v. Dellinger, 49 Cal.3d 1212 (Cal. 1989) (affirmed equivalence of "dangerous to life" and "high degree of probability" standards)
- People v. Nieto Benitez, 4 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 1992) (reaffirmed implied malice standards in murder instructions)