20 Cal.App.5th 673
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 4, 2013, Kelly Wolfe drove from a bar with an estimated BAC of .34–.35% and struck pedestrians on Pacific Coast Highway, killing Marthann and injuring her blind grandson; Wolfe’s BAC at testing was ~.31–.314% and experts estimated she consumed 14–16 standard drinks.
- Wolfe had prior DUI experience (1994 Nevada plea), attended a victim impact panel, and signed a DMV renewal form warning driving under the influence can lead to murder charges.
- After the collision Wolfe drove home, parked, and entered her residence; officers later found vehicle damage and glass with hair/scalp; she performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested.
- The prosecution charged Wolfe with implied-malice (Watson) second-degree murder and related DUI/vehicle offenses; the jury convicted and the court sentenced her to 18 years to life.
- At trial the court refused Wolfe’s requests to instruct the jury on involuntary or vehicular manslaughter as lesser included offenses and instructed that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to implied-malice murder (statutory §29.4(b)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for implied-malice murder | Evidence shows Wolfe acted with conscious disregard for life (prosecution) | Wolfe: no proof she subjectively knew her conduct endangered life | Guilty verdict supported; substantial evidence (BAC, prior knowledge, driving and flight) sustains implied malice |
| Failure to instruct on manslaughter (equal protection) | State treats vehicular homicide defendants rationally; charging discretion valid | Wolfe: denying manslaughter instruction creates unequal, all-or-nothing risk vs. non-vehicular defendants | No equal protection violation; manslaughter not necessarily included and charging scheme survives rational-basis review |
| Right to lesser-included instructions generally | Prosecutor may decline lesser related charges; court follows Sanchez/Breverman | Wolfe: entitled to manslaughter instruction because jury might reject malice | Court: trial court correctly refused; vehicular manslaughter not a necessarily included offense and prosecutor’s consent required for related-offense instruction |
| Exclusion of voluntary intoxication as defense (due process) | Section prohibiting intoxication defense for implied malice serves legitimate legislative judgment | Wolfe: barring intoxication evidence denied her ability to negate mens rea, violating due process | Instruction upheld; §29.4(b) constitutional under Egelhoff and related authority; exclusion not a due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (establishes implied-malice murder liability for DUI drivers in appropriate cases)
- People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2001) (vehicular manslaughter is not necessarily a lesser included offense of implied-malice murder)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (upholds statute barring voluntary-intoxication evidence to negate mens rea against due process challenge)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (rules on when courts must instruct on lesser included offenses)