People v. Cravens, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40

Cravens was convicted of second degree murder along with other assaultive offenses arising from a May 23, 2007 incident at a La Jolla bar and subsequent assault on Emery Kauanui.
Kauanui, intoxicated and fatigued, was beaten outside his home after a confrontation at the bar; the beating involved multiple attackers and a deadly punch.
Cravens delivered a single, powerful punch to Kauanui while Cravens stood on a curb with Kauanui in the street, after which Kauanui hit the pavement and suffered fatal blunt-force head injuries.
Pathologists attributed death to blunt-force head injuries with skull fracture; the autopsy indicated the fatal injury occurred from the head striking concrete.
Witnesses described the punch as extremely hard and capable of causing unconsciousness, with Branded evidence of Cravens’ prior sucker punches at other events offered to demonstrate a pattern.
Court of Appeal reversed Cravens’ second degree murder conviction for lack of implied malice; the Supreme Court granted review to reconsider sufficiency of the evidence.
The majority held the evidence supported both the objective and subjective components of implied malice, reversing the Court of Appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is substantial evidence of implied malice for second degree murder	Kauanui’s death resulted from a dangerous act with conscious disregard, supported by the punch’s force and vulnerability of the victim.	The single punch did not establish a high probability of death nor conscious disregard for life; the evidence fails the implied malice standards.	Yes; substantial evidence supports implied malice.
Whether the manner of the assault and surrounding circumstances satisfy the objective component	The punch, delivered from a height with a curb, created dangerous consequences and foreseeable death, satisfying the objective test.	The evidence does not show a high probability of death from a single punch; the beating by others is not causally linked to death.	Yes; objective component satisfied.
Whether the defendant knew his conduct endangered life (subjective component)	Defendant’s actions before and after the punch show awareness and conscious disregard for life.	Past pattern of sucker punches does not prove knowledge at the moment of the blow; post-incident conduct is irrelevant to the time of the act.	Yes; subjective component satisfied.

People v. Knoller, 41 Cal.4th 139 (Cal. 2007) (defines implied malice and both objective and subjective components)
People v. Phillips, 64 Cal.2d 574 (Cal. 1966) (describes the standard 'dangerous to life' and conscious disregard)
People v. Thomas, 41 Cal.2d 470 (Cal. 1953) (articulates high probability of death in implicit malice (concurring opinion))
People v. Munn, 65 Cal. 211 (Cal. 1884) (recognizes fists can be deadly under aggravating circumstances)
People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (reiterates 'dangerous to life' standard for implied malice)
People v. Dellinger, 49 Cal.3d 1212 (Cal. 1989) (discusses implied malice and jury instruction standards)
People v. Gray, 37 Cal.4th 168 (Cal. 2005) (affirms inference of subjective knowledge from circumstances)
People v. Balcom, 7 Cal.4th 414 (Cal. 1994) (evidence of plan or scheme in repeated sucker punches)
People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38 (Cal. App. 1958) (supports consideration of after-the-fact behavior in implied malice)
People v. Alexander, 62 Cal.App.308 (Cal. App. 1923) (upholds murder where unprovoked blow leads to fatal head injury)