Drunk-Driving Law Is Tangled in Budget Crisis

California’s budget crisis may interfere with legislative efforts to toughen the penalties for drunk drivers who kill people.

A state Senate panel has passed a bill that would increase penalties for vehicular manslaughter involving gross negligence. In a drunk-driving case, that is the most serious charge possible besides second-degree murder, which is rarely invoked because of the difficulty of getting a conviction.

Under the bill, sponsored by Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), the penalties for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence would be four, eight or 12 years, depending on the circumstances of the offense, instead of the current four, six or 10 years.

Raul Perez, an aide to Kopp, said the bill was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and is considered to have widespread support in the full Senate. But because the measure would almost certainly add to prison costs, it is stalled until the Legislature approves a budget. Then legislators will know whether enough prison money is available to pay costs associated with the measure.

Kopp originally proposed legislation aimed at making it easier to get second-degree murder convictions in drunk-driving homicides. Second-degree murder carries a maximum term of 15 years to life in prison. Kopp’s measure would have removed what Perez called “one of the biggest ironies in the law,” the right of a defendant to use the fact that he was intoxicated as a defense.

Under a 1st District Court of Appeal ruling, the judge in a drunk-driving murder trial must instruct the jurors to consider whether the defendant’s drunkenness made him incapable of harboring malice. In issuing the ruling, the appeal court reversed the second-degree murder conviction of a Bay Area man who killed a 15-year-old girl in a head-on crash.

“That argument can always be used in drunk-driving cases,” Perez said. But Kopp’s effort to remove drunkenness as a defense faltered because of constitutional concerns.

Margaret Pena, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said her group opposed the bill. She argued that the key issue in a drunk-driving murder case is the defendant’s state of mind. Evidence of intoxication usually would have a bearing on the state of mind, she said, but Kopp’s bill would prevent the jury from even considering it.

“Our point is, let the jury decide,” she said.

Her concerns were echoed by Charles V. Fennessey, legal consultant for Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita). He said Davis, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, supports tougher penalties for drunk drivers but feared that Kopp’s original proposal would probably be challenged in court.