Not a good analogy. When you shoot into a crown, your intent is to harm someone. Once that intent is there, under the law, it transfers to whomever you actually hit.
OTOH, when you drive drunk, your intent is to drive home, or to another bar, etc.
Quibble: it can also be intent to harm, with the consequence of that intent to harm being the death of another.
Narrad has stated the law pretty much accurately, so nothing needs to be said about that. So allow me to pontificate about one of my pet concepts. 
Our intent-based criminal justice system is, IMO, rather flawed. It flows from the concept of punishment of sin, which, while a good goal, shouldn’t be the first priority of a criminal justice system. What should be the first priority is protection of the innocent.
In some ways, a murderer is less dangerous than a drunk driver. Putting serial killers, etc., aside, murderers have a motive to kill their victim - a love affair gone bad, money problems, etc. That generally means that they don’t have a motive to kill the rest of us, and we are safe from them. It also gives us some control - don’t give another person reason to kill us, and we won’t get killed.
A drunk driver, OTOH, or a kid who drops rocks off of overpasses, or other such miscreants, are effectively motiveless. That means they pose a risk to all of us, and there is very little we can do to reduce our risk.
But such negligence-type crimes are generally punished less severely than intent-based crimes. The rationale is that the perpetrator “didn’t mean to.” So? Hell, in my opinion, a person so careless or indifferent that he/she kills without meaning to is more dangerous to the rest of us than a cold-blooded Mafia hit man. And they should be sent away for as long, if not longer.
Sua