Woman Guilty of Murder in Drug Lab Fire

In a landmark verdict, a jury on Wednesday convicted a 40-year-old mother of second-degree murder for the deaths of three of her young children because they were killed when she was manufacturing methamphetamine.

The precedent-setting verdict now allows prosecutors to bring second-degree murder charges when someone dies in the methamphetamine-making process, even if prosecutors cannot prove that the defendant knew the dangers involved, according to Riverside County Deputy Dist. Atty. John Davis.

But criminal defense lawyers said they expected Wednesday’s verdict to be appealed because the trial judge unilaterally decided that the manufacture of methamphetamine is an “inherently dangerous” felony likely to cause death, and that specific intent to kill did not have to be proved.

Such a finding, they argued, should be made by the state Legislature or by jurors considering the specific circumstances of the case.

“The Legislature should make the law, the judge instructs the jury on the elements of the law, and the jury should find if those elements exist,” said Tom Lundy, a Santa Rosa attorney and an expert on jury instructions. “But in this case, the judge did it all.”

In the case, Kathey Lynn James was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine Dec. 26 in her mobile home in Aguanga, a rural hamlet east of Temecula. A fire erupted, turning the structure into an inferno that killed three of her children, ages 1, 2 and 3. A 7-year-old boy escaped, as did James and two men.

Judge W. Charles Morgan instructed the jurors that they could convict James of second-degree murder simply if they found her guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if her intent to kill was not proved.

The jury reached that verdict in a day. But the jury also found that James showed conscious disregard for the safety of her children--a finding of “implied malice” that is more conventional but harder to prove in second-degree murder cases.

Because of the implied-malice finding, Davis said he was confident that the convictions will withstand appeal. But he and other attorneys said they expected an appeal on the judge’s finding that the mere manufacture of methamphetamine is “inherently dangerous” and sufficient grounds for a second-degree murder conviction.

State law allows first-degree murder prosecutions when deaths occur in the commission of such crimes as robbery, rape and kidnapping, because those crimes have long been considered so dangerous as to be potentially deadly.

But the California Supreme Court has given trial judges latitude in defining what other kinds of felonies are so inherently dangerous that, if deaths occur in their wake, prosecutors can seek second-degree murder convictions.

Under that definition, trial judges have ruled that when deaths occur during such crimes as the reckless or malicious possession of a bomb, or shooting into an occupied building, or fleeing from a police officer in a chase, prosecutors can seek second-degree murder convictions.

In this trial, Morgan extended that “felony murder rule” definition to include the manufacture of methamphetamine. He made his ruling after experts testified to the danger of the process, which involves highly toxic and flammable chemicals.

San Diego criminal defense attorney Elisabeth Semel, former president of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said judges historically have been cautious about expanding the felony murder rule because it removes the jury’s responsibility of determining the defendant’s intent to kill, which typically has to be shown in order to win a murder conviction. Under the inherently dangerous rule, intent to kill does not have to be proved.

By predetermining which crimes are inherently dangerous--without regard to the evidence in a specific case--”justice is less individualized,” Semel said.

The judge’s pretrial ruling--and the jury’s verdict--were hailed by Steve Telliano, spokesman for Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren.

“About one in six meth labs are discovered because they’ve exploded . . . and it’s not uncommon for us to find a dead person at lab sites--someone who inhaled the toxic fumes or was burned,” he said. “It’s not practical for the Legislature to describe every activity that is inherently dangerous. But it is clear that meth labs are, and it makes sense for a judge to make that ruling.”

James--who testified during her defense that she considered herself an expert in making methamphetamine--faces a maximum prison sentence of 54 years to three life terms when she is sentenced Jan. 8.