California v. Batchelor
Annotate this CaseDefendant Larry Jason Batchelor appealed his conviction after two separate trials of implied malice murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. As to the first trial, defendant argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter; and (2) the prosecutor improperly commented on defendant's exercise of his right to a jury trial and improperly vouched for the State's case. As to the second trial, defendant argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of implied malice murder; (2) former section 224 violated principles of due process because it authorized disparate treatment for the prosecution and defense with respect to the admission of evidence of voluntary intoxication to prove implied malice; (3) the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to read or present to the jury section 188 and case law regarding implied malice; (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on gross vehicular manslaughter and/or to inform the jury that defendant had been convicted of that offense in the first trial; (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing to the jury that if it did not convict defendant of murder he would be a free man and by appealing to the passion and prejudice of the jury; (6) he was denied due process by being sentenced by a judge who had not presided over either trial and who had failed to read the trial transcripts or the defense sentencing memoranda; and (7) the cumulative error doctrine required reversal. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in its instruction to defendant's second jury. The Court held that the jury was instructed in a manner to give that jury a false impression that defendant would have been left entirely unpunished for his actions if it did not convict him of murder. Moreover, the trial court's error was compounded by the prosecutor's argument to the jury. As a result of this error, the Court of Appeal reversed as to second degree murder. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.