He was high on marijuana. He drove his Lexus at nearly 90 miles per hour and ran a red light. His car hit another and three people died. He was charged with and convicted on three counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to three concurrent prison terms of 15 years to life. He appealed, arguing he had no intent to murder and that his marijuana use could not imply malice, a required element of his conviction. He asked for a new trial on the lesser charge of vehicular manslaughter. His appeal was denied.

In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals, Division One, District Seven, Judge Noel Wise affirmed the conviction and sentencing judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The opinion also directed the trial court to correct an error in the judgment terms that failed to state that his sentences were to be served concurrently.

The key question before the appellate court is whether defendant/appellant Daviann L. Murphy’s use of marijuana implies intent. In California, second-degree murder is defined in the Penal Code as “the unlawful killing of a human being that is done without deliberation and premeditation, but with malice aforethought.” Murphy argued that he could not show intent because he was “subjectively unaware” that he was endangering human life. He asked the court to retry him for gross vehicular manslaughter, which while still a felony, carries a lower sentence of four to ten years. At trial, he also claimed that he was not driving at the time of the crash.

Judge Wise’s opinion extensively reviews the trial court’s testimony, which reads like a scientific primer on the effects of marijuana on the brain. This is necessary because “there is not yet a commonly administered and standardized medical test equivalent to a blood alcohol concentration test that accurately determines a person’s level of impairment.” Without such a test, expert witnesses are necessary to weigh in on whether marijuana use can imply malice.

Since Murphy’s marijuana use must first have been established, the Court’s opinion begins with a recount of the extensive evidence that proved the defendant was using marijuana on the day of the fatal collision. Video surveillance films and testimony from several witnesses demonstrated that marijuana could be smelled when the car went for an oil change and car wash and that Murphy and his companions were “laughing and having a good time” and behaving in other ways consistent with that of marijuana users. Three marijuana cigarettes and a container of marijuana, which carried a warning about the dangers of driving while intoxicated, were also found in his car after the accident.

Testimony from several nearby drivers and neighbors described how Murphy’s vehicle was speeding and ran a red light at an intersection before the defendant’s car broadsided a Subaru and caused the death of its three passengers from “multiple blunt force traumatic injuries.” No one in Murphy’s car was hurt.

At the trial, evidence showed Murphy’s received previous warnings about using drugs and driving. In 2014, he attended a “multi-day educational program for at-risk youth.” Also, to obtain his driver’s license, he had to acknowledge that he knew that alcohol or drug use “impairs his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.”

Extensive evidence about the toxicology of marijuana followed. A forensic scientist from the Orange County crime lab said Murphy’s blood was tested after the accident and that the chemical hydroxy was detected, proving that marijuana had been smoked. She said that studies show such results can cause “cognitive impairment.” She also explained that impairment is present when “mental or physical capabilities are so greatly affected that the person cannot drive a vehicle with the necessary caution and safety of someone who is sober.”

She then linked the evidence of Murphy’s marijuana use on the day of the accident to his physical and mental condition and concluded he was “within the window of active impairment from marijuana use at the time of the accident.” Testimony from an accident reconstruction expert concluded that Murphy was traveling at the speed of 88 miles per hour.

After reviewing the trial court record, Judge Wise wrote that Murphy’s appeal was based on his belief that “no reasonable jury could have found he acted with implied malice.” He admitted that he met the standard for gross vehicular manslaughter because he “would have been aware of the risk involved,” but believed that “was not enough to sustain the jury’s finding that (he) was subjectively aware his actions endangered human life.”

Wise explained the standard of review required the Court to view the evidence in “the light most favorable to the prosecution” to determine whether any rational juror could have found enough “reasonable, credible, and of solid value” evidence to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt. He then turned to a lengthy discussion of malice, explaining that it is “expressed” when deliberate intention is shown and “implied” when an act that is dangerous to life is performed and the “defendant knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life.”

The court gave detailed descriptions of several relevant precedents that described the relationship between intoxication and implied malice. Looking at the “totality of circumstances,” he found adequate evidence of Murphy’s marijuana use along with the expert witness’s explanation that he had smoked enough marijuana to be physically impaired. There was no doubt that he was speeding and that his driving was also “exceedingly reckless” before the collision.

He cited a similar case that found, “It takes no leap of logic for the jury to conclude that because anyone would be aware of the risk, defendant was aware of the risk.” He also stated that evidence was presented that showed Murphy knew about the hazards of driving under the influence. Murphy had countered that while all this was correct, the prosecutor still failed to prove that he was “subjectively aware of his impairment at the time of the accident.” Wise found no legal authority that demands such awareness. He also found these arguments “unconvincing” because of both the toxicology expert and evidence of Murphy’s “voluntary impairment.”

In the words of Judge Wise, “it takes no leap of logic” to understand the link between marijuana use and driving. Just don’t do it.