Nevarez v. Superior Court, Case #: D085897, Court: Opinion Date: 10/27/2025 *** Do Not Be the Next LIFER: Don't Trade Holiday Cheer for a California Court Case

As the holiday season gets underway, bringing with it festive gatherings and celebratory toasts, every California driver must face a stark reality: getting behind the wheel while intoxicated carries a risk far greater than a simple DUI. If your choice to drink and drive results in a fatality, you could face not just a vehicular manslaughter charge, but a second-degree murder charge under the Watson doctrine—making you the next defendant in a California courtroom, potentially facing decades in state prison. Keep the roads safe, protect your future, and remember that for the sake of everyone, there is simply no excuse for impaired driving.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Name: Nevarez v. Superior Court, Case #: D085897, Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 4 DCA, Division: 1, Opinion Date: 10/27/2025

 The Court of Appeal affirms the lower court’s ruling that probable cause supports a murder charge where a motorcyclist died after striking defendant’s SUV minutes after it was rendered disabled on the freeway. The SUV became disabled due to an accident caused by defendant who had been driving while intoxicated. 

The court clarifies its decision in People v. Superior Court (Chagolla) (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 499 and holds that liability for murder under the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 does not automatically end the moment an intoxicated driver ceases driving.

 

Summary of Nevarez v. Superior Court

---

Factual Background

• Jose Haro Nevarez was driving while intoxicated and speeding (90–100 mph in a 65-mph zone) on an Interstate when he caused a multi-car collision.
• His vehicle, a Honda Pilot, became disabled and blocked a high-occupancy vehicle lane.
• Minutes later, a motorcyclist struck Nevarez's disabled SUV and was killed.
• Nevarez had a blood alcohol level well above the legal limit and had a prior DUI conviction, during which he received a Watson admonishment (warning him that driving under the influence could lead to a murder charge if someone was killed).

---

Issue and Holding

• Issue: Did the fact that Nevarez was no longer actively driving at the moment of the motorcyclist's death preclude a charge of second-degree murder based on implied malice (People v. Watson)?
• Holding: The Court of Appeal denied Nevarez's petition to set aside the murder charge. The court held that the evidence supported a finding of probable cause for second-degree murder. Liability for murder under the Watson doctrine does not automatically end the moment an intoxicated driver ceases driving, especially when the initial reckless driving and subsequent disabled vehicle are the proximate cause of the death.

---

Key Legal Reasoning

• Implied Malice (Mens Rea): The court found probable cause for implied malice, citing the factors established in Watson:
1. A high Blood Alcohol Content (BAC).
2. Pre-drinking intent to drive.
3. Knowledge of the hazards of intoxicated driving (evidenced by the prior DUI and Watson admonishment).
4. Highly dangerous driving (excessive speeding).
• Proximate Cause (Actus Reus): The court found that Nevarez's drunk driving was the proximate cause of the motorcyclist's death. The fatal impact, which occurred just minutes after the initial crash, was a direct and foreseeable result of Nevarez's criminal act of driving while intoxicated and causing his car to become a disabled obstruction on a freeway.

Clarification of Chagolla: The court clarified its previous decision in People v. Superior Court (Chagolla), explaining that Chagolla did not create a rigid rule eliminating murder liability simply because the defendant was no longer actively driving. Instead, the focus remains on whether the defendant's conduct (driving while intoxicated) was the proximate cause of death and whether there is evidence of implied malice.