How is implied malice determined in a motor vehicle accident?

"Implied malice is determined by examining the defendant's subjective mental state to see if he or she actually appreciated the risk of his actions. [Citations.] Malice may be found even if the act results in a death that is accidental. [Citation.] It is unnecessary that implied malice be proven by an admission or other direct evidence of the defendant's mental state; like all other elements of a crime, implied malice may be proven by circumstantial evidence." (Costa, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.) Although four factors relevant to guiding the determination were recently articulated in People v. Batchelor, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at pages 1114-1115, "courts have

Page 19

recognized that there is no particular formula for analysis of vehicular homicide cases, instead requiring a case-by-case approach" (Costa, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 698). Indeed, lack of intoxication or absence of a high speed flight from police "'does not preclude a finding of implied malice'" (ibid.), nor does a finding of implied malice require "a 'predicate act'" such as a prior driving under the influence (DUI) conviction, a DUI-related accident, or a judicial or drug rehabilitation-related admonition of the dangers of driving while intoxicated (People v. Johnigan, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091).