People v. Knoller

Supreme Court of California · 2007 · Criminal Law

158 P.3d 731 (2007)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawimplied malicesecond degree murderconscious disregard for lifedanger to human lifesubjective awarenessnew trialabuse of discretion

Facts

Knoller and her husband kept large Presa Canario dogs in their apartment building despite repeated warnings and numerous incidents showing the dogs were aggressive, dangerous, and difficult to control. Knoller knew she lacked the strength to control at least one of the dogs, Bane, and there had been multiple prior episodes in which the dogs threatened or attacked people and animals. On January 26, 2001, Knoller took Bane unmuzzled through the apartment building hallway, where Bane attacked and killed Diane Whipple. After the jury convicted Knoller of second degree murder on an implied malice theory, the trial court granted a new trial on that count because it believed implied malice required Knoller to have subjectively known her conduct had a high probability of causing death.

Issue

Does implied malice require only a defendant's awareness that the act is likely to result in serious bodily injury, or does it require conscious disregard for human life? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting Knoller a new trial on the murder count based on its understanding of implied malice and on the prosecutor's failure to charge Noel with murder?

Rule

Implied malice exists when a killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, deliberately performed by a person who knows that the conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. The required mental state is awareness of engaging in life-endangering conduct—no more and no less; it is not enough that the defendant consciously disregarded only a risk of serious bodily injury, and it is not necessary that the defendant subjectively know the conduct had a high probability of causing death.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Lena Ortiz stores industrial acid in open buckets in the hallway of her small apartment building while renovating her unit. After neighbors complain that the fumes are so strong they make breathing difficult, Lena says she knows the setup could seriously hurt someone but insists she does not think it threatens anyone's life. A child later inhales the fumes, collapses, and dies.

If Lena is charged with second degree murder on an implied malice theory, which is the strongest argument against the murder charge?

Explanation. Implied malice requires that the defendant deliberately perform an act whose natural consequences are dangerous to life, knowing the conduct endangers the life of another, and acting with conscious disregard for life. Awareness of only serious bodily injury is not enough. The rule does not require subjective knowledge of a high probability of death, so B is wrong. Nothing in the majority opinion limits implied malice to direct force or excludes hallway conduct categorically.