## Facts

- A California Highway Patrol officer observed Evert Keith Howard driving a Chevrolet Tahoe without a rear license plate and initiated a traffic stop.
- Howard initially stopped, then restarted the vehicle and fled, leading officers on a high-speed pursuit.
- During the chase, Howard drove at very high speeds, ran multiple stop signs and red lights, and at points drove on the wrong side of the road; at times he drove with his headlights off.
- The pursuit was terminated due to safety concerns as the chase neared more populated areas.
- Shortly after termination, Howard ran a red light and collided with another vehicle, killing the driver and seriously injuring a passenger.
- The Tahoe had been stolen earlier that day.
- Howard was convicted of second-degree murder and other offenses on a theory that the death occurred during felony evasion under Vehicle Code § 2800.2.

## Issues

1. Whether Vehicle Code § 2800.2 (felony evasion with willful or wanton disregard for safety) is an inherently dangerous felony in the abstract for purposes of the second-degree felony-murder rule.
2. Whether a second-degree murder conviction may be sustained under a felony-murder theory predicated on a violation of § 2800.2.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that Vehicle Code § 2800.2 is not an inherently dangerous felony when evaluated in the abstract.
- Because § 2800.2 is not inherently dangerous, it cannot serve as the predicate felony for second-degree felony murder.
- The court reversed the second-degree murder conviction to the extent it rested on the felony-murder instruction and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The court noted that deaths caused during dangerous flight may still support second-degree murder under an implied-malice theory if malice is proven.

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree felony murder dispenses with proof of malice only when the killing occurs during the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life.
- Inherent dangerousness is assessed “in the abstract” by examining the statutory elements, not the defendant’s specific conduct in the case.
- A felony is not inherently dangerous in the abstract if it can be committed in a way that does not create a substantial risk of death.
- Vehicle Code § 2800.2 is not inherently dangerous in the abstract because its “willful or wanton disregard” element can be satisfied through combinations of point-count traffic violations and/or property damage that do not necessarily entail a substantial risk to human life.
- Limiting felony murder preserves the jury’s role in determining malice where the predicate felony does not categorically require life-threatening conduct.

## Conclusion

Vehicle Code § 2800.2 is not an inherently dangerous felony under the abstract-elements test, so a killing occurring during felony evasion cannot be treated as second-degree felony murder; prosecutors must instead prove malice (such as implied malice) to sustain a second-degree murder conviction for a death caused during flight.


People v. Howard, 34 Cal. 4th 1129 (Cal. 2005)