## Facts

- Michael V. Jeffries drove a vehicle while intoxicated after drinking throughout the day.
- Jeffries was on probation with conditions prohibiting alcohol use and nonetheless consumed alcohol.
- During the incident, the primary contemporaneous driving misconduct proved at trial was that Jeffries made a left turn directly in front of an oncoming car, causing a collision that killed his passenger.
- Jeffries had numerous prior convictions for driving while intoxicated.
- Jeffries’s driver’s license had been revoked for approximately ten years at the time of the crash, yet he drove anyway.
- Jeffries had repeatedly refused to participate in court-ordered alcohol treatment programs.
- After initially charging manslaughter, the State obtained a new indictment charging second-degree murder, plus driving while intoxicated and driving with a suspended or revoked license.
- A jury convicted Jeffries of second-degree murder and the related driving offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove second-degree murder based on recklessness “manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life” in a drunk-driving homicide.
2. Whether “extreme indifference” may be inferred from the defendant’s history of repeat DUI offenses, license revocation, probation violations, and refusals of treatment, rather than solely from the egregiousness of the immediate driving conduct.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed Jeffries’s conviction for second-degree murder and the related driving offenses.
- The court held that “extreme indifference to the value of human life” is not limited to the defendant’s conduct during the immediate driving episode and may be inferred from the defendant’s course of conduct and prior history.
- The court concluded that, viewed as a whole, the evidence permitted a rational jury to find the heightened form of recklessness required for second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska law, manslaughter requires reckless causation of death, while second-degree murder under AS 11.41.110(a)(2) requires a heightened recklessness that manifests “extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
- Extreme indifference may be proven through circumstantial evidence showing the defendant’s awareness of lethal risk and persistent decision to engage in the same dangerous conduct despite sanctions, restrictions, and opportunities for rehabilitation.
- In drunk-driving homicides, the State may rely on a defendant’s recidivist DUI history, long-term license revocation, probation violations, and refusals of treatment, together with the charged driving conduct, to establish extreme indifference.
- For sufficiency review, the question is whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, allows a reasonable juror to find the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a second-degree murder conviction arising from a fatal drunk-driving crash, ruling that a jury may infer “extreme indifference to the value of human life” not only from the immediate driving error but also from a defendant’s repeated DUI conduct, disregard of legal restrictions, and refusal of court-ordered treatment demonstrating conscious disregard of a very high risk of death.


Jeffries v. State, 90 P.3d 185 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004)