A night of partying and substance abuse ended tragically for Richard Medeiros and his girlfriend Kelly Beltran when he crashed his truck into an embankment, leaving her with fatal injuries and him with a conviction for 2nd degree murder, recently upheld by the California Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Medeiros, G042120 (Cal.App. 2010).

At about 6:30 A.M. on May 22, 2005, Mr. Medeiros was driving his pickup truck east on Route 62 after staying up all night drinking tequila and smoking marijuana. The road is narrow, with no guard rails and only a sand shoulder and an earthen embankment between the pavement and open desert. The legal speed limit is 65 m.p.h. but Mr. Medeiros was travelling close to 80 m.p.h. and Ms. Beltran was not wearing her seat belt. The truck went off the road and flipped over, sending her through the window and into the desert, where she died of her injuries. When medical help arrived an hour later, Mr. Medeiros was extremely distraught and agitated.  He told a fire captain that he had been partying at Big Bear with Ms. Beltran and that he was planning to drive to the coast before he crashed and killed her. Based on several blood tests, Mr. Medeiros probably had a BAC of 0.16 at the time of the crash, or more than double the legal limit. Tests at the hospital also showed that he had marijuana in his system.

He was charged with second degree murder. In California, there are generally 4 facts that the State needs to prove to convict someone of murder for drunk driving: (1) The defendant's BAC must be above the legal limit, (2) They must intend to drive drunk before beginning to drink, (3) They must be aware of the hazards of driving drunk, and (4) They must drive in a very dangerous way. People v. Talamantes, 11 Cal.App.4th 968 (1992). In this case, the blood tests left little doubt that Mr. Medeiros had had a BAC above the legal limit when the accident occurred, and he had admitted to paramedics that he had been planning to drive after drinking and smoking marijuana. The trial court ruled that by speeding late at night on a country road with alcohol and drugs in his system, Mr. Medeiros was indeed driving very dangerously. The court also ruled that because he had been convicted of DUI 3 times before and completed defensive driving and court-ordered AA programs, he was aware of the hazards of driving drunk.

The California Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence against Mr. Medeiros and agreed with the trial court that there was ample evidence to prove that he acted with reckless disregard for human life. California is one of many states that recognizes a kind of murder where the defendant lacks the specific intent to kill but their actions are extremely likely to result in death or serious harm to other people and acts without any regard to that risk. In the appellate court's view, anyone who had been taught the dangers of driving drunk as thoroughly as Mr. Medeiros had acted with "implied malice" by getting behind the wheel in such an impaired condition. The court affirmed his sentence of 15 years to life in prison.