Court of Appeal, Sixth District, 1989.
208 Cal.App.3d 783, 256 Cal.Rptr. 344
Dressler, pp. 266-271
Issue: Is the evidence in the case sufficient to justify a murder charge against the defendant? In particular, does the evidence show that the defendant exhibited an extreme indifference to the value of human life?
Rule: “The test of implied malice…is
actual appreciation of a high degree of risk that is objectively present.” In
Analysis: The court cites several facts which taken together it suggests are sufficient to show recklessness:
1. The defendant kept a fighting dog and told others it was dangerous.
2. The defendant lived near kids.
3. The defendant kept the dog chained to a fence.
Conclusion: The court concludes that there is sufficient evidence that the defendant knew the dog could harm human beings. The court allows the murder case to go to trial.