--- title: "Watson Murder in California: How a DUI Death Becomes a Murder Charge" description: "A fatal DUI crash in California is usually charged as vehicular manslaughter, but prosecutors can charge second-degree murder when they can prove implied malice. Here is how the Watson advisement works, what else prosecutors use, and how Braun's Law expands it in 2027." url: "https://www.thehfirm.com/blog/watson-murder-california" site: "H Law Group" published: "2026-10-29T12:00:00.000Z" --- # Watson Murder in California: How a DUI Death Becomes a Murder Charge A fatal DUI crash in California is usually charged as vehicular manslaughter, but prosecutors can charge second-degree murder when they can prove implied malice. Here is how the Watson advisement works, what else prosecutors use, and how Braun's Law expands it in 2027. Category: DUI Law Author: Nima Haddadi -- One of top-rated California DUI and criminal defense lawyer In California, a DUI crash that kills someone is usually charged as vehicular manslaughter. Prosecutors can also charge it as second-degree murder. People call that a "Watson murder," after the 1981 California Supreme Court case that allowed it, and the difference in exposure is large: the standard sentence for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated tops out at 10 years, while second-degree murder carries 15 years to life. What moves a case from one charge to the other is usually not the crash itself. It is what the prosecution can prove the driver knew before getting behind the wheel. The Watson advisement, the warning a court gives at a DUI conviction, is often the most important piece of that proof. ## What a Watson murder is Murder requires malice. Most murder cases involve express malice, an intent to kill. A Watson murder rests on implied malice instead, which Penal Code 188 describes as a killing where the circumstances show "an abandoned and malignant heart." In People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, the defendant had been drinking heavily at a bar, then drove, ran a red light and collided with another car, killing a woman and her six-year-old daughter. His blood alcohol level shortly afterward was 0.23%. He argued the facts showed at most gross negligence, which is the standard for manslaughter. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that a drunk driver who kills someone can be charged with second-degree murder when the evidence shows implied malice. ## Implied malice vs. gross negligence This is the distinction the whole charging decision turns on. - Gross negligence is an objective test. The question is whether a reasonable person in the driver's position would have known the conduct was dangerous to life. - Implied malice is a subjective test. The prosecution has to prove this driver actually knew the conduct endangered human life and drove anyway, in conscious disregard of that risk. Being drunk at the time of a fatal crash does not, by itself, prove implied malice. Prosecutors need evidence of what the driver personally understood about the danger. That is where the advisement comes in. ## How the Watson advisement works When someone is convicted of DUI in California, [Vehicle Code 23593](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=23593) requires the court to advise them that alcohol and drugs impair the ability to drive safely, that driving under the influence is extremely dangerous to human life, and that if they drive under the influence again and someone is killed as a result, they can be charged with murder. The advisement can appear on the written plea form or be stated on the record, and the court notes on the abstract of the conviction that it was given. The advisement adds no jail time or fine to the DUI case. Its purpose is evidentiary. If that person later drives impaired and someone dies, the prosecutor can put the earlier plea form or court record in front of the jury and argue: this driver was told, in a courtroom, that driving drunk could kill someone and lead to a murder charge, and did it anyway. That is close to direct proof of the subjective knowledge implied malice requires. ## The advisement is not required for a murder charge A common misunderstanding is that a person who never received the advisement cannot be charged with murder. That is wrong. Watson itself was decided long before the statutory advisement existed. Prosecutors can build implied malice from other evidence, and courts look at the full picture of the driver's conduct before, during and after driving. Evidence that often comes up includes: - Prior DUI arrests or convictions, even without a formal advisement. - Completion of a DUI education program or a victim impact panel, where the dangers of impaired driving are discussed. - A very high blood alcohol level, extreme speed, running red lights, or driving on the wrong side of the road. - Near-collisions before the fatal crash, or warnings from passengers or bartenders. - Fleeing the scene afterward. The advisement matters because it is clean, documented and hard to argue with. A case without one can still be charged as murder, but the prosecution has more work to do. ## How Braun's Law expands the advisement in 2027 Until now, the advisement attached to a DUI conviction. A DUI charge that was negotiated down to a wet reckless under Vehicle Code 23103.5, or to another lesser offense, could end without it. Starting January 1, 2027, [Braun's Law (SB 907)](/blog/brauns-law-2027-california-dui-plea-deals) requires the court to give the same advisement when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a different or lesser offense in place of a DUI charge. In practice, that means more people will leave court with the advisement on their record, and more future fatal crashes will have the kind of evidence prosecutors rely on to charge murder. It does not change the definition of murder. Our overview of [the new California DUI laws for 2027](/new-california-dui-laws-2027) covers the other bills signed alongside it, and our page on the [wet reckless](/dui/wet-reckless) explains how that plea works. ## Watson murder vs. gross vehicular manslaughter | | Second-degree (Watson) murder | Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated | | --- | --- | --- | | Statute | Penal Code 187 and 188 | Penal Code 191.5(a) | | Mental state | Implied malice: the driver actually knew the danger to life and consciously disregarded it | Gross negligence: a reasonable person would have known the conduct was dangerous | | Standard sentence | 15 years to life (Penal Code 190(a)) | 4, 6 or 10 years in state prison | | With certain prior DUI-related convictions | 15 years to life | 15 years to life under Penal Code 191.5(d) | | Role of the Watson advisement | Often central evidence of knowledge | Not needed to prove the charge | Penal Code 191.5 itself says it does not prevent a murder charge where the facts show implied malice, so prosecutors sometimes file both and let the jury decide. You can read the [Penal Code 191.5](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=191.5) text directly, and we explain the charge in more detail on our [gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated](/penal-codes/pc-191-5-gross-vehicular-manslaughter-while-intoxicated) page. For murder charges generally, see [Penal Code 187](/penal-codes/penal-code-187-murder). ## What a Watson case looks like in Los Angeles The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office files Watson murder charges in fatal DUI cases, particularly where the driver has prior DUI history. The case behind Braun's Law is one example: in December 2025 the DA charged the driver in the crash that killed 18-year-old Braun Levi in Manhattan Beach with murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. That case is still pending, and the driver has pleaded not guilty. On the defense side, these cases are usually fought over the mental-state evidence. Whether the advisement was actually given and documented, what a prior DUI program covered, how reliable the BAC testing was, and whether the driving pattern really shows conscious disregard rather than bad judgment are all questions that can decide whether a case stays a murder case or is resolved as manslaughter. ## Frequently asked questions ### What is a Watson advisement? It is the warning a California court gives a person convicted of DUI under Vehicle Code 23593: that driving under the influence is extremely dangerous to human life and that if they do it again and someone is killed, they can be charged with murder. Starting in 2027 it also applies to pleas that substitute for a DUI charge, such as a wet reckless. ### Can you be charged with murder for a first DUI? Yes. A prior DUI or a prior advisement is not legally required. A prosecutor can charge murder on a first offense if other evidence shows the driver knew the risk to human life and consciously disregarded it, though such cases are less common. ### What is the sentence for a Watson murder in California? Second-degree murder carries 15 years to life in state prison under Penal Code 190(a). A murder conviction is also a strike under California's Three Strikes law. ### What is the difference between Watson murder and vehicular manslaughter? The mental state. Manslaughter requires negligence judged by what a reasonable person would have known. Watson murder requires proof that the driver personally knew the danger to life and drove anyway. ### Does signing the advisement mean I will be convicted of murder if there is a later crash? No. The advisement is evidence, not an automatic conviction. A murder charge still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense can challenge both the advisement and the rest of the prosecution's case. ## About the author Nima Haddadi is a California DUI and criminal defense attorney and the founder of H Law Group in Los Angeles. Before going into defense work, he was a prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. He represents clients facing DUI, felony and misdemeanor charges, including cases involving serious injury and death. [Read more about Nima Haddadi](/nima-haddadi). ## Disclaimer This article is general information about California law. It is not legal advice for any specific situation and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Charging decisions and outcomes depend on the facts of each case. If you or someone you know is facing charges after a DUI crash, talk with a criminal defense attorney about the details. ## About Nima Haddadi Nima Haddadi is a leading California DUI and criminal defense attorney with deep expertise in handling complex cases. Known for strategic defense and courtroom strength, he is a trusted choice for clients facing DUI, felony, and misdemeanor charges. --- ## Contact H Law Group - Phone: (888) 499-4948 (phones answered 24/7) - Email: info@thehlawgroup.com - Free consultation: https://www.thehfirm.com/free-consultation - Contact form: https://www.thehfirm.com/contact-us ### Offices - Los Angeles Branch: 714 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 803, Los Angeles, CA 90015 -- (213) 463-5888 - San Diego Branch: 600 W Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101 -- (619) 257-6655 - San Jose Branch: 333 W San Carlos St, San Jose, CA 95110 -- (408) 547-9982 - Orange County Branch: 2030 Main St, Suite 1300, Irvine, CA 92614 -- (949) 356-9818 - Riverside County Branch: 41593 Winchester Rd, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 -- (951) 327-7161 - Santa Barbara Branch: 1117 State St, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 -- (888) 499-4948 ### Disclaimer This website provides general legal information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice about your specific situation, contact H Law Group directly.