California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Howard, 104 P.3d 107, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, 34 Cal.4th 1129 (Cal. 2005):
Nothing here should be read as saying that a motorist who kills an innocent person
[23 Cal.Rptr.3d 314]
in a hazardous, high-speed flight from a police officer should not be convicted of murder. A jury may well find that the motorist has acted with malice by driving with conscious disregard for the lives of others, and thus is guilty of murder. (See generally People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 179 Cal.Rptr. 43, 637 P.2d 279.) But, as we have explained, not all violations of section 2800.2 pose a danger to human life. Therefore, the prosecution may not (as it did here) resort to the second degree felony-murder rule to remove from the jury's consideration the question whether a killing that occurred during a violation of section 2800.2 was done with malice.5[23 Cal.Rptr.3d 314]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.