An People v. Watson(1481)30 Cal. 3d 240,4he Appellate covurt IAvamatically exoanded du law of homicides a dafendait Whost Joonductwould once hove WC nur vulnerable a conviction of Neila manslaughter might nm fac a murder Charge on dry Meo Wat her cmduc crossed the line Between reckussnwss and Jmol crousmass Lesoite disenansion newer Hu Cou caishoned aaa Ss He overuse of tho wew doctrine. "Moreover, ur neuer beontemplate noc encour get vourting charging of second dgaree. mud in velhiculeer manslananter cases ." (\diat 201). The passag fot time nas rewtalid Utte remect Ry that caution and not one of é man velnveutaur rdcr cases draw a mianingful line vohwes HIconduck that constrtudes wecleissrwss Gnd thatwhich emehthites Iympalicigusness. The Appellants case 15 a perfect yoluctey ibis a "close case' (Opn 1B) wnuse Lacks fall Short of those Hat howe upruld a Cindina of Malice the past. |e +e facts of Vis [CQaL Qmount +o malice Wy A~hue 15 no AiEFer ence ladkweun HY tWo crimes. and &@ murdur Conviction can lee spuahk Wndir LViruollu any Circuimébanct involwing DOL. Appellant vies Has court to Qcant resin) ainck +o7ppld thatHu Pact JOure INSUEFiCiunt +o SUDDEC O COMICON oF prude on A dipcives Har dalendanter Aut process undir bs Iskate anck fed constriitthos. Glacksen v Vira FAYHYD VS. BV7.BI8 Peoole v Sohnéon 143) Za Ad 5315591 51-517

Whether the Appellate court's dramatic expansion of the law of homicides in People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 240 violates the defendant's due process rights under the state and federal constitutions