People v Knoller
Court: Supreme Court of California
Date: May 30, 2007
Citation: No. S134543
Justice Kennard, J
Facts: The defendant (Knoller) and her husband (Noel) were the registered owners of
two Presa Canario dogs who mauled their neighbor, Diane Whipple, to death on January
26, 2001. The defendant was present at the time of the attack, which happened in the
hallway between the victim and defendants’ apartments. Knoller was bringing the dog
(un-muzzled) back from a walk. Knoller was charged with 2nd degree murder, negligent
homicide and owning a mischievous animal that cause a human’s death. Her husband was
a co-defendant, who although not present at the time of the attack, was charged with
negligent homicide and owning a mischievous animal. The plaintiff (People) provided
evidence and expert testimony documenting the fact that the couple’s dogs were
dangerous, out of control and had a history of threatening humans. The defendant and codefendant were found guilty by a jury on all respective charges.
Procedural Context: The defendant was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court,
City and County of San Francisco, of 2nd Degree murder, negligent homicide and owning
a mischievous animal that caused the death of another human. The defendant and codefendant moved for a new trial, and the trial court granted the motion as to the
defendant’s conviction for 2nd Degree murder, but denied the motion on all other counts.
The People, defendant and co-defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the
order granting the defendant a new trial on 2nd Degree murder and otherwise affirmed.
Defendant and co-defendant petitioned for review, and the Supreme Court of California
granted only the defendant’s petition on the 2nd Degree murder charge, superseding the
opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Issue: At issue is how to properly define “implied malice”, which is the key factor in
determining whether defendant Knoller should be eligible of conviction of a 2nd Degree
murder charge.
Holding:
-The conviction for 2nd Degree murder against Knoller, based on theory of implied
malice, required proof that she acted with conscious disregard of danger to human life.
-The trial court abused its discretion by using the wrong standard of implied malice.
-More serious charges against defendant Knoller (as opposed to the co-defendant Noel)
qualified as a permissible exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
-The Court of Appeal also erred in its standard for implied malice.
-The failure to properly define the terms upon which a conviction of 2nd Degree murder
lead the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand the case to that court,
with directions to return the case to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant
Knoller’s new trial motion.
Rule(s): A conviction for 2nd Degree murder, based on the theory of implied malice,
requires proof that the defendant acted with conscious disregard of the danger to human
life. The Supreme Court cites the two decisions from The People v Thomas and The
People v Phillips as the foundation for the definition of implied malice as acting with a
“conscious disregard for human life”. Finally, the court finds that both the trial court and
court of appeals erred in their respective scope and definition of implied malice.
Reasoning/Analysis: The Supreme Court ruled that both the trial court and court of
Appeals erred in their respective definitions of implied malice. The Supreme Court
defines implied malice requiring the defendant of engaging in conduct that endangers the
life of another. The court feels that the court of appeals “set the bar too low” in defining
implied malice meant the defendant was acting with the knowledge that her conduct
risked causing death or serious bodily injury. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial jury
had conversely “set the bar too high”, in defining implied malice as engaging in behavior
with the knowledge that it had a high probability of leading to human death. Furthermore,
it disagreed with the trial court’s rationale that the court granted a re-trial based on equal
administration of justice (citing the fact that the codefendant was not charged with 2nd
Degree murder). The Supreme Court specifically addresses the 3 cases (Conley, Poddar
& Coddington) that the court of appeals cited as precedent guiding their definition. The
Supreme Court states that the language the Court of Appeal cited from Conley, Poddar
and Coddington were misinterpreted in application and more so lacked authoritative
force. Based on the precedents and the Thomas and Phillips’ tests, the court states that
juries should consider a “conscious disregard for human life” as the qualifying
characteristic of implied malice. The Supreme Court feels that is uncertain whether the
trial court would have reached the same result using correct legal standards. The failure
to properly define the terms upon which a conviction of 2nd Degree murder lead the Court
to reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand the case to that court, with
directions to return the case to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Judges George, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno
and Corrigan concur.