People v. Zylstra CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the crime are fully discussed in our prior opinion. We see no need to repeat them here. (People v. Zylstra, supra, D067474.)

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Principles The court in Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 290, held that a person who drives under circumstances that demonstrate a willful disregard for human life, and unintentionally kills another person, may be found guilty of implied malice murder (second degree murder). In such cases, the defendant is the actual killer whose liability does not derive from conduct of a perpetrator. Thus, concepts of felony murder or natural and probable consequences from an underlying felony are not relevant. Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to “ ‘amend[ ] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the

3 underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842.) When a trial judge reviews a petition for…