People Vs Knoller Case Study

Case Brief:
People V Knoller
Raigan J Holland
Prairie View A&M University

Case Brief
People v Knoller
Cal. Sup. Ct. 41 4th 139, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 157, 158 P.3d 731 (2007)

STATEMENT OF FACTS: In 1999, Knoller and Noel who were attorneys at the time representing a guard, met some inmates named Paul Schneider & Dale Bretches who were in jail who were affiliated with a prison gang and also engage in the business of buying, raising, and breeding Presa Canario dogs. So, to continue doing their “dog fighting” business the prisoners Schneider and Bretches contacted Brenda Storey and Janet Coumbs and asked if they could raise and house their four Presa Canario dogs. May 1990, those dogs Bane, Isis, Hera, and Fury who were originally owned

Knoller was charged with second-degree murder. The jury convicted Knoller based on a theory of implied malice. Knoller moved for a new trial and the trial court granted the motion. The trial court held that implied malice required a finding that Knoller was aware of the high probability that her conduct would cause another’s death, and ruled that Knoller lacked this awareness. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision granting a new trial, holding that implied malice only requires a conscious disregard of the risk of serious bodily injury to another, not an awareness that another person would likely die. The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reconsider its decision on Knoller’s motion for retrial in light of its definition of implied malice. Knoller appealed the Court of Appeal’s

Express malice, the obvious intention to cause damage, is absent in this case, but implied malice is shown by the conditions. Under the law, killing done by a person with an unrestrained (void of upright feeling) and spiteful (having a wicked feeling) heart is implied malice.
*** Yes. When a second-degree murder gets a new trial built on a philosophy of implied malice, the court mishandles its decision by demanding that the suspect must be shown to know that there was a high chance of subsequent death to others from the behavior of the perpetrator. The new trial was settled because of the fault in grasping the term “implied malice. The combination of these components of implied malice makes the trial court’s explanation a flawed one, and therefore a new trial created on this definition is a misuse of choice. The case is remanded for reconsideration on the basis of this