Lou Limon’s Amazing Collection of Case Briefs
The People vs. Marjorie Knoller (2007)
Supreme Court of California
41 Cal. 4 th
139. [Case Book: ClaraNet Materials]
Facts: Defendant and Co-defendant’s (abbreviated Def and Co-Def respectively) dog attacked and killed
Dianne Whipple on January 26, 2001 in their apartment hallway. Def Marjorie Knoller was charged and convicted of (i) 2 nd
degree murder, (ii) negligent homicide, and (iii) owning a mischievous animal that caused the death of a human being. Co-Def Noel (Knoller’s husband) was charged and convicted of (i) negligent homicide and (ii) owning a mischievous animal. Defs moved for a new trial on all counts, but trial court granted motion for new trial only for the 2 nd
degree murder charge. Everyone appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s order for new trial (affirming all other motions). Defs petitioned for review, and Supreme Court granted only defendant’s appeal.
Procedural Context: After a change of venue to LA County, def and Co-def were charged and convicted on aforementioned claims. They were sentenced to four years imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter. There, def and Co-def motioned for a new trial on all counts, but trial court granted only new trial for 2 nd
degree murder charge (denying Co-def’s motions). The people, def, and co-def appealed to Court of Appeals, who reversed the trial court’s order for new trial on 2 nd
degree murder charge. Def and Co-def petitioned Calif. Supreme Court for review.
Issues: What mental state will satisfy the definition of “implied malice” with respect to a 2 nd
degree murder charge: (i) “conscious disregard for human life” or (ii) “awareness that an act is likely to result in great bodily injury”? Also, did the trial court and Court of Appeals err in granting/denying new trial?
Holding: Knoller’s conviction for a 2 nd
degree murder charge based on “implied malice” requires proof that she acted “with conscious disregard of danger to human life”. (Acting without giving a shit about the danger it could cause to another person’s life.) Thus, trial court erred in setting bar too low, and
Court of Appeals erred setting bar too high—decision remanded to trial court with direction.
Rule: In order to be convicted of a 2 nd
degree murder charge based on a theory of “implied malice,” he or she must act with “conscious disregard of danger to human life.”
Reasoning: [KENNARD] Court relies on People v. Phillips derived standard for implied malice: “requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another.” Or else, “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life .
Court of Appeals set bar too low by saying def only needed to know his/her conduct risked causing death or serious bodily injury. Trial Court set bar too high saying “implied malice” requires def to know that his or her conduct has a “high probability of resulting in death.”
Concurring/Dissenting: Concurring: GEORGE, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, MORENO, and CORRIGAN.