People v. Tate CA4/1, D081982

Defendant Elvis Eugene Tate was convicted of second-degree murder (Watson murder) and DUI causing bodily injury after causing a fatal car crash while intoxicated with both alcohol and marijuana.
The evidence showed Tate was driving erratically, at high speeds, ran red lights, and caused a collision that killed another driver and injured a passenger.
Tate admitted knowledge of the risks and legal consequences of driving under the influence from previous DUI education, coursework for a commercial license, and a prior misdemeanor DUI conviction.
At trial, the jury was instructed only on murder and not on gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, as the prosecution objected to providing the manslaughter instruction.
Tate appealed, arguing the jury should have been instructed on gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as a lesser included or related offense.
The trial court's denial of the lesser offense instruction was based on established California Supreme Court precedent distinguishing lesser included from lesser related offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as a lesser included offense of murder	Not required, as precedent holds it is only a lesser related offense, not included	Should instruct on manslaughter as a lesser included offense to avoid unjust "all-or-nothing" verdict	No error; trial court cannot instruct on lesser related offense without prosecution's agreement
Whether the refusal to give the instruction caused prejudice	There was no instructional error, so no prejudice	Instructional error prejudiced Tate by eliminating lesser offense option	No prejudice analysis required because there was no instructional error
Whether Supreme Court precedent (Birks & Sanchez) should be reconsidered	Precedent is binding—no basis to revisit	Court should urge reconsideration to avoid unjust results	Court is bound by precedent; declines to urge reconsideration
Whether the evidence supported an instruction on gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated	Not relevant, as offense is not lesser included by law	Evidence supported a manslaughter instruction	Legal classification governs; not lesser included

People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (established basis for implied malice (Watson) murder in DUI fatalities)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (trial court’s sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offenses)
People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) (no right to instruction on lesser related offenses without consent)
People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2001) (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is not a lesser included offense of murder)
People v. Manriquez, 37 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 2005) (standard of review for instructional error claims)