Back to Cases

People v. Chen - Vehicular Manslaughter (2024)

Analysis ID: c9f4g36-ide5-ed4d-1e2270g747i1
Predicted Outcome
Guilty
Confidence Score: 88%
Analysis Type
Criminal Case
Jurisdiction:State
Citations:5

Probability Distribution

Guilty88%
Not Guilty7%
Guilty - Lesser Charge5%

Legal Reasoning

1

Blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.12% exceeds legal limit of 0.08%, establishing driving under the influence.

2

Toxicology report shows presence of prescription medications (likely benzodiazepines) that impair driving ability.

3

Cell phone records and forensic analysis demonstrate defendant was actively texting at time of collision.

4

Accident reconstruction evidence shows defendant crossed center line into oncoming traffic.

5

Combination of alcohol, medication, and distraction establishes gross negligence.

6

Fatal collision resulting in victim's death directly caused by defendant's impaired and distracted driving.

7

Multiple forms of impairment (alcohol + drugs + distraction) demonstrate willful disregard for safety.

Tribunal Logo

Legal Citations

State Penal Code § 191.5(a) - Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

Statute

Unlawful killing of a human being without malice while driving under the influence, with gross negligence.

State Vehicle Code § 23152(a) - DUI Alcohol

Statute

It is unlawful to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

State Vehicle Code § 23152(b) - DUI Per Se

Statute

It is unlawful to drive with BAC of 0.08% or higher.

People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981)

Case Law

Establishes implied malice in DUI cases where defendant acts with conscious disregard for life.

People v. Autry, Distracted Driving Precedent

Case Law

Precedent establishing texting while driving as evidence of gross negligence.

Counter-Arguments

  • •Defense may argue victim contributed to accident through their own negligence or actions.
  • •Defense could challenge accuracy of BAC test or claim contamination/improper testing procedures.
  • •Defense may argue prescription medication was taken as directed and defendant was unaware of impairment.
  • •Defense could dispute timing of text messages, claiming they occurred before or after collision.
  • •Defense may present alternative accident causation theory (mechanical failure, road conditions).

What Could Flip the Verdict

  • 1.Evidence emerges showing victim was also impaired or driving recklessly, contributing significantly to collision.
  • 2.Successful challenge to blood test results showing procedural errors or contamination.
  • 3.Expert testimony demonstrating prescription medication at therapeutic levels shouldn't cause impairment.
  • 4.Cell phone forensic expert testifies messages were received, not sent, or occurred outside critical time window.
  • 5.Mechanical inspection reveals critical vehicle defect that could have caused accident regardless of impairment.