# Murder charges in California derailment case **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 28, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115 "2005-01-28T15:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/1 "2005-01-28T15:31:32Z")
For those who have been living under a rock of late: Man wants to commit suicide, drives his car onto the train tracks in California. At the last minute he changes his mind and tries to drive the car off the tracks. He is unable to do so and abandons his car. The car on the tracks causes two trains to collide, resulting in 11 deaths and numerous injuries. The driver has been charged with numerous counts of murder and faces the death penalty (under California law, there’s an odd provision that allows for the death penalty in train derailment cases). Maybe I’m just ignorant of California law (no, scratch that, I am ignorant of California law), but I was under the impression that in general, murder required _mens rea_ where the person actually intended to cause death to the decedant. In this case, however, I would have thought that manslaughter (or reckless manslaughter) would have been more appropriate, since he didn’t intend to kill anyone (and, at the last minute, tried to prevent the accident). So why was he charged with actual honest-to-goodness murder? (As a side note: I’m not arguing for leniency for the suspect. I’m just curious at how they arrived at the charge they did.) Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/2 "2005-01-28T16:18:24Z")
I have the definite feeling that before this is over the charges will be reduced a considerable degree. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/3 "2005-01-28T16:18:24Z")
Here’s the part of the California Code that defines murder: [http://www.fordhamprep.com/socstud/Cases/code.htm](http://www.fordhamprep.com/socstud/Cases/code.htm) It might help. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/4 "2005-01-28T16:21:07Z")
And, I think the argument is that you did have _mens rea_. In other words, he drove his car on the railroad tracks with the intention of the train hitting it, and he would have to know that this would cause a derailment. ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/5 "2005-01-28T16:42:26Z")
I’m not licensed to practice in CA, but as **Captain Amazing** pointed out, Section 189 reads, in relevant part: > [@](#): > > 1. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive > device or explosive, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to > penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any > other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which > is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, > arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train > wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, > or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a > firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside > of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the > first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree. So it looks like any murder completed during the perpetration of a train wreck is bumped up first-degree murder. As for the act initially having to be qualified as murder instead of manslaughter in order for Section 189 to be applicable, that’s a tougher argument. The prosecution could argue: (1) that the act of leaving a car on a track in the path of an oncoming train satisfied the recklessness standard of “knowledge to a substantial certainty” that the act would create a risk of serious injury or death, or in the alternative, (2) that the act constituted a “depraved heart murder,” which is defined, generally, as a murder that is the result of an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and no regard for human life. Depraved heart murders are generally unintentional killings that result from conduct so outrageous as to justify a full-blown murder charge. Interestingly enough, in CA, as in most other jurisdictions, suicide is a felony, as is attempted suicide, so it seems that a felony-murder charge might also stick… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/6 "2005-01-28T17:06:56Z")
> [@Guy\_Incognito](#): > > Interestingly enough, in CA, as in most other jurisdictions, suicide is a felony, as is attempted suicide, so it seems that a felony-murder charge might also stick… But is suicide one of the predicate felonies for felony murder in California? And as I read this, I had an odd thought… since the accused was trying to kill himself, but failed, would the doctrine of transferred intent apply? Probably not, but you know how fun it is to be creative… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/7 "2005-01-28T17:20:27Z")
Sometimes DA’s do stupid things. Here in Santa Clara County, a couple of biker goons beat a dude up in a strip club, and that killed him. The DA insisted on 1st degree Murder- no Manslaughter charges were made. There was no doubt- no arguement that the goons didn’t beat the dude up, and that the beating didn’t kill him- nor was there any debate that it was “self-defence” on the part of the goons or anything. But they were able to cast convincing doubt that it was pre-meditated- thus all they intended to do was beat the dude. Thus, they walked out free.:mad: If the DA hadn’t made it such a high profile case, really turning it into “County vs Hell’s Angels”, the killers would certainly have been found guilty of manslaughter (IMHO they would have “plead out” to that charge). So- we’ll have to see which the LA DA wants more- publicity or justice. Anyone got a link to the OP’s case? I really haven’t seen any details on it. ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/8 "2005-01-28T18:46:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But is suicide one of the predicate felonies for felony murder in California? > > And as I read this, I had an odd thought… since the accused was trying to kill himself, but failed, would the doctrine of transferred intent apply? > > Probably not, but you know how fun it is to be creative… Of course you know that as predicate felonies go, the qualifier is usually “inherently dangerous.” I didn’t bother to check as to whether California considers killing oneself to be inherently dangerous… As to transferred intent, that’s a creative one. I think he’s probably not culpable under a transferred intent theory, however, as his last-minute efforts to remove the car from the tracks (despite his failure) suggest that at the time of the killings, he lacked the specific intent as to attempted suicide. Of course, this same logic might also counter my previous assertion about felony murder. He’s obviously not guilty of suicide, and in order for him to be guilty of the attempt, he has to have had specific intent. Does the fact that he aborted his suicide attempt at the last minute indicate a lack of specific intent? If so, there’s no underlying inherently dangerous felony to support a charge of felony murder, and the prosecution might do better to simply stick with Section 189 and a “depraved heart” theory. Whatever. I just took a two hour lunch, and I have work to do. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/9 "2005-01-28T18:57:58Z")
> [@Guy\_Incognito](#): > > Does the fact that he aborted his suicide attempt at the last minute indicate a lack of specific intent? The intent at the time of the dangerous action should be what counts. (If the Unabomber changed his mind and called a victim to warn him off but got the answering service, that doesn’t affect his guilt, although it might be a mitigation factor in sentencing.) I’m going with depraved-heart murder. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/10 "2005-01-28T19:14:26Z")
> [@Guy\_Incognito](#): > > As to transferred intent, that’s a creative one. I think he’s probably not culpable under a transferred intent theory, however, as his last-minute efforts to remove the car from the tracks (despite his failure) suggest that at the time of the killings, he lacked the specific intent as to attempted suicide. Don’t agree. Man decides to kill wife for the insurance money. He rigs a trap that will electrocute her the moment she sits down in her favorite chair. Off he goes to play slots at the casino. While there, he hits a jackpot - a million dollars! Now rich, he decides he doesn’t need the insurance money, so he frantically calls home to warn his wife not to sit down in the chair, and doesn’t get her. He calls the cops, tells them the whole story, and begs them to rush over to the house and save her. Meanwhile, a neighbor has popped over for a visit and sits down in the deadly chair. BZZZT! Is the husband guilty of first degree murder in the death of the neighbor? He never had an intent to kill her, after all, and according to what you said, his last-minute effort to undo his plot negates his specific intent… ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/11 "2005-01-28T19:31:21Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > The intent at the time of the dangerous action should be what counts. (If the Unabomber changed his mind and called a victim to warn him off but got the answering service, that doesn’t affect his guilt, although it might be a mitigation factor in sentencing.) > > I’m going with depraved-heart murder. > > –Cliffy But you’re assuming that the unabomber’s act was a completed felony (i.e. that the bomb went off). If you’re arguing that the train-wrecker’s felony of attempted suicide was complete at the time he put the train on the tracks, then I agree with you, although I would want to know where the train was at the moment he completed his suicide attempt (for the sake of this discussion, the attempt would have been complete at the exact moment the car came to a stop across the tracks). Think about it this way (and remember your first crim law exam with sadistic fondness…): Suppose TrainWrecker decides to put the car on the tracks at 12:00pm, with the specific intent to kill himself in the resulting collision. TW doesn’t know, however, that the next train isn’t scheduled to come by until midnight. After a few minutes of sitting on the tracks, he has a change of heart and decides to move his car, but fails. So, he leaves the car across the tracks, completely and consciously disregarding the risk to any approaching train. The car sits across the tracks until 12:00am, is struck by the train, and fatalities result. TW is obviously guilty of second- or third-degree depraved heart murder, and guilty of first degree murder under California’s Section 189, but is TW still guilty of felony murder? The academic argument for FM under an attempted-suicide theory, although it has good arguments on both sides, would be a difficult one for a prosecutor to pitch to a jury. Otherwise, in order to establish FM, a prosecutor would have to show that the act of leaving the car across the tracks, and not the act of attempting suicide, was the dangerous felony. More likely, the legislature would have had to decide that in advance… ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/12 "2005-01-28T19:45:38Z")
In the LA Times today, legal scholars think that it will be difficult for the state to get a first degree murder conviction. But second-degree murder will be more likely. LA County’s Sheriff, Lee Baca, wants a first-degree murder charge, but he is understandably upset as one of his deputies was killed in the derailment. LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley was quoted: > [@](#): > > “The fact that he was distraught or distressed isn’t a defense here,” Cooley said. “So what if he is distressed. So what if he is distraught — that is no excuse for endangering so many lives…. He is not as distraught as the next of kin of 11 murder victims and more than 100 people injured thanks to his actions.” ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/13 "2005-01-28T19:47:43Z")
Curiosity-does anyone know when CA added “train wrecking” to the statute, and was it in response to a specific accident, El Cajon Pass, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/14 "2005-01-28T19:49:28Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > In other words, he drove his car on the railroad tracks with the intention of the train hitting it, and he would have to know that this would cause a derailment. Why would he have to know that? I wouldn’t assume that if a train hit a car that the automatic result would be derailment. In fact I would proabably assume that derailment is rather uncommon is that circumstance, given the weight difference and all. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/15 "2005-01-28T19:56:04Z")
Newspaper stories say the train wrecking part of the penal code is a holdover from the 19th century. Think Butch and Sundance (not that they worked in California). ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/16 "2005-01-28T20:06:28Z")
For a recent treatise on California’s felony-murder law you can read this: [http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/6felonymurder.pdf](http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/6felonymurder.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/17 "2005-01-28T20:22:31Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > For a recent treatise on California’s felony-murder law you can read this: > [Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review | Law Reviews | Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School](http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/6felonymurder.pdf) Thanks **BobT**. So for the purpose of felony murder, an attempt to perpetrate a train wreck is expressly defined as an inherently dangerous felony. Not exactly a stretch, but also not exactly something you’d expect to see expressly mentioned in a statute. Nice. > [@](#): > > Is the husband guilty of first degree murder in the death of the neighbor? He never had an intent to kill her, after all, and according to what you said, his last-minute effort to undo his plot negates his specific intent… Yeah, the husband is guilty of first degree murder. The inherently dangerous felony was the attempted murder of his wife, and it was completed at the moment he electrified the chair. Iill admit that I’m re-thinking my previous argument that TrainWrecker wouldn’t be guilty under transferred intent. If we assume that his felony - attempted suicide - was complete at the moment he parked the train on the tracks, and without knowing all of the facts of the case I’m still not convinced that it was, then that makes it much easier to argue guilt under both transferred intent and FM. But like I said, I need to know all of the facts about the case before I’d be convinced that parking the car across the tracks constituted a completed suicide attempt. Anyway, given Section 189’s specific inclusion of train-wrecking in CA’s felony murder rule, this is all academic. And kinda fun in a morbid way… ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/18 "2005-01-28T20:34:54Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > > > In other words, he drove his car on the railroad tracks with the intention of the train hitting it, and he would have to know that this would cause a derailment. > > Why would he have to know that? I wouldn’t assume that if a train hit a car that the automatic result would be derailment. In fact I would proabably assume that derailment is rather uncommon is that circumstance, given the weight difference and all. Right. In addition the severity of the wreck was increased because two Metrolink trains happened to be passing each other and a Union Pacific freight came along at the same time. He couldn’t possibly know that. What the guy did was bad but it’s hard to expect rational thinking from someone about to try suicide. He’ll probably wind up in the mental section of a prison for a while and then go to the general population there. I think the exact outcome will depend upon how long the trial is delayed from the time of the wreck. ---
**Author:** ![MannyL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MannyL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MannyL)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/19 "2005-01-29T02:38:32Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Right. In addition the severity of the wreck was increased because two Metrolink trains happened to be passing each other and a Union Pacific freight came along at the same time. He couldn’t possibly know that. > > What the guy did was bad but it’s hard to expect rational thinking from someone about to try suicide. > > He’ll probably wind up in the mental section of a prison for a while and then go to the general population there. I think the exact outcome will depend upon how long the trial is delayed from the time of the wreck. Didn’t we se this in 24? ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115/20 "2005-01-29T02:46:31Z")
Except in “24”, the train hit a truck filled with explosives and was a planned derailment. There is no evidence that the accused planned to derail a train. And normally hitting a vehicle on a track won’t cause a derailment, but the way the SUV was lodged on the tracks apparently caused it to get underneath one of the trains and lift it off the rails. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murder-charges-in-california-derailment-case/287115.md?page=2)