Note based on People v. Watson

Note based on People v. Watson, 637 P.2d 279 (Ca. 1981)

In Watson, the defendant was charged with second degree murder after driving between 70 and 80 in a 35 MPH zone, ultimately killing the driver and six-year-old passenger of another car. Thirty minutes after the incident defendant’s BAC was .23 percent. The California Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to charge Watson with reckless homicide: “Defendant had consumed enough alcohol to raise his blood alcohol content to a level which would support a finding that he was legally intoxicated. He had driven his car to the establishment where he had been drinking, and he must have known that he would have to drive it later. It also may be presumed that defendant was aware of the hazards of driving while intoxicated.”

In dissent, Chief Justice Bird disagreed:

The fact that respondent was under the influence of alcohol made his driving more dangerous. A high percentage of accidents is caused by such drivers. No one holds a brief for this type of activity. However, a rule should not be promulgated by this court that driving while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to establish an act “likely to kill.” Death or injury is not the probable result of driving while under the influence of alcohol. “Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Californians each week reach home without accident despite their driving intoxicated.”

The majority also fail to demonstrate that it is reasonable to infer that respondent had a conscious disregard for life. Can a conscious disregard for life be established by the fact that several hours before the accident respondent drove his car to a bar? The majority hold as a matter of law that he “must have known” he would have to drive his car later and that he wilfully drank alcohol until he was under its influence.

How does respondent's state of mind at the time he drove to the bar and began drinking justify an inference that he had a reckless state of mind at the time of the accident? This meager evidence does not justify the inference that by drinking alcohol he harbored a conscious disregard for life when he later drove his car! I submit that the majority's reasoning that such an inference may be drawn to support a finding of implied malice will be used to establish second degree murder in every case in which a person drives a car to a bar, a friend's home, or a party, drinks alcohol so that he is under its influence, drives away and is involved in a fatal accident.

Who do you think has the better argument here?