Supreme Court of California

In the criminal case arising from the death of Diane Whipple after she was attacked by two dogs owned by defendant Marjorie Knoller and her husband Robert Noel in a San Francisco apartment building, a court of appeals' decision reversing a grant of a new trial on a second degree murder charge is reversed and remanded as the court of appeals mistakenly reasoned that implied malice required only a showing that defendant appreciated the risk of serious bodily injury. However, the Supreme Court of California finds that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial motion because it erroneously concluded both that: 1) defendant could not be guilty of murder, based on a theory of implied malice, unless she appreciated that her conduct created a high probability of someone's death; and 2) that a new trial was justified because the prosecution did not charge a codefendant with murder. The matter is remanded for reconsideration of the new trial order under the proper, reaffirmed test for implied malice.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/31/2007
• Published 05/31/2007

Judges

• KENNARD, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share and Amy Haddix, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Dennis Patrick Riordan, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Riordan & Horgan, Donald M. Horgan, San Francisco, and Dylan Schaffer for Defendant and Appellant.