Murder Conviction Upheld in DUI Case, Party Planning
The following summary of a recent published decision, we predict, will open up a “Pandora’s Box” of new theories for charging and convicting even a first-time DUI offender with second degree murder. As such, we are concerned that the following opinion will bring disrespect to our legal system and saddle some defendants with undeserved second degree murder convictions.
On May 13, 2017, at approximately 4:00 a.m., California Highway Patrol Sergeant N. Hunt received a call of a possible traffic collision in Tulare County. She went to the location, arriving at about 4:11 a.m. and came upon a silver Ford Focus in a grassy area alongside the highway.
The roof of the car had been detached and was missing. Near the car, Sergeant Hunt found a female, who appeared to have been ejected from the sedan a few feet in front of the car. She was dead.
Hunt then began looking for the driver of the sedan and found a severely damaged chain link fence around an agricultural equipment lot. She entered the lot and spotted a man sitting in the cab of a trailer. She walked up the steps and knocked on the door of the trailer and announced herself. She told the man to come out. After some discussion, he did. Hunt allegedly detected the strong odor of alcohol in the man.
The man was Jesus Suazo. He admitted to driving the sedan involved in the crash. He stated he was returning home from his sister-in-law’s birthday party at a nearby restaurant. He acknowledged he had been drinking. He was not injured except for a few minor cuts.
Mr. Suazo then submitted to a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test and his breath alcohol level was measured at 0.139% and 0.149%. He was then arrested and submitted to a blood test, which measured his blood alcohol content at 0.14%.
In the course of his arrest, he explained that he drove himself to the party, but he planned on getting a ride back home with someone else at the party. He did not intend to drive after drinking.
Evaluation of the Ford Focus’s “black box” computer revealed that Mr. Suazo was driving at about 100 miles per hour before losing control of the car and crashing.
Mr. Suazo had a prior conviction for DUI from 2013, or just four years earlier.
The case went to trial in Tulare County Superior Court and Mr. Suazo was convicted of second degree murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Penal Code § 191.5(a)), driving under the influence and causing bodily injury (Vehicle Code § 23153(a)), driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or more and causing bodily injury (Vehicle Code § 23153(b)), leaving the scene of an accident (Vehicle Code § 20001(a)) and driving on a suspended license due to his prior DUI (Vehicle Code § 14601.2(a)).
The judge sentenced Mr. Suazo to a term of fifteen years to life on the second degree murder count, plus four years (the upper term) for leaving the scene of the accident.
Mr. Suazo appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District in Fresno. Mr. Suazo argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder because he drank without intending to drive, but then later drove while not conscious of doing so, so he lacked subjective awareness of the danger to life posed by his actions and did not act with deliberate and conscious disregard for life.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal began its analysis by noting that for second degree murder based on implied malice, the evidence must establish that defendant deliberately committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to life, with knowledge of its danger to life and conscious disregard of that danger. People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 290, 300.
For implied malice in driving under the influence cases, courts look for “(1) blood alcohol levels above the 0.08 percent legal limit; (2) a predrinking intent to drive; (3) knowledge of the hazards of driving while intoxicated; and (4) highly dangerous driving.” People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 351, 358 – 359.
Here, the Fifth District found substantial evidence supporting a finding that Mr. Suazo had a predrinking intent to drive since he drove himself to the birthday party with the intent to drink and with no plan to avoid driving himself home.
Furthermore, Suazo’s testimony at trial that he planned to leave his car at the restaurant and ride home with another guest conflicted with earlier testimony that he had no confirmed plan to get home.
Thus, there was substantial evidence that Suazo deliberately drove himself to the birthday party without formulating a plan to avoid driving and engaged in highly dangerous driving with a blood alcohol content well above the legal limit.
Therefore, the conviction and the sentence were affirmed.
While we certainly do not condone this conduct of Mr. Suazo, we find the court’s evaluation that he had no firm plan to avoid driving home ambiguous and seems to permit future rulings that also find lack of firm planning insufficient. After all, what is sufficient to have a plan? Must the plan be in writing and confirmed by another person? Must one’s keys be given to the other driver? The opinion leaves open future rulings that are equally ambiguous on this issue and that is not good.
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona