California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Camargo, F064077 (Cal. App. 2014):
The evidence in the instant case overwhelmingly supports a finding of implied malice. Camargo had two prior convictions for allegations involving drinking while driving, he had attended classes on the consequences of driving under the influence and was repeatedly advised that he could be charged with murder if he killed someone while driving under the influence. Unfortunately, he drove again while drinking. He drove with a blood-alcohol content greatly in excess of the legal limit, he was speeding in excess of 75 miles per hour, and he ran a stop sign before tragically ending the life of an innocent individual. He then ran from the scene and hid to avoid detection. It is not reasonably probable a jury would have found that he did not appreciate the risk involved in his actions or act in wanton disregard for human life. (People v. Ortiz, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 109-110.) Camargo's conviction for implied malice second degree murder will not be disturbed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.