People v. Whitfield

Whitfield (defendant), who had a history of drunk-driving offenses, collided with another vehicle while intoxicated, killing the other driver, and was found unconscious in his car surrounded by empty liquor cans. At trial, Whitfield argued he lacked implied malice because he was too intoxicated — possibly unconscious — at the time of the crash. The trial court instructed on implied versus express malice and on voluntary intoxication as relevant to specific intent, but refused Whitfield's requested instruction that an unconscious, voluntarily-intoxicated killing without intent or malice is only involuntary manslaughter. The jury convicted Whitfield of second-degree murder, and the court of appeal (before further review) held that voluntary intoxication could not negate implied malice at all, since implied-malice murder is not a specific-intent crime.