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

No question identified. : ade wuesnons Presented >| An Peopte v, Watsonll4B81)30 Cal. 3d 240,4he Appellate covurt 3 IAvamatically exoanded du law of homicides a dafendait Whost 4 Joonductwould once hove WC nur vulnerable a conviction of 5 Neila manslaughter might nm fac a murder Charge on dry 6 Meo Wat her cmduc crossed the line Between reckussnwss and 7 Jmol crousmass Lesoite disenansion newer Hu Cou caishoned 8 aaa Ss He overuse of tho wew doctrine. “Moreover, ur neuer 9 beontemplate noc encour get vourting charging of second dgaree. 10 mud in velhiculeer manslananter cases ." (\diat 201). The passag 11 fot time nas rewtalid Utte remect Ry that caution and not one of 12 é man velnveutaur rdcr cases draw a mianingful line vohwes 13 HIconduck that constrtudes wecleissrwss Gnd thatwhich emehthites 14 Iympalicigusness. The Appellants case 15 a perfect yoluctey ibis a “15 | “close case’ (Opn 1B) wnuse Lacks fall Short of those Hat howe 16 upruld a Cindina of Malice the past. |e +e facts of Vis 17 [CQaL Qmount +o malice Wy A~hue 15 no AiEFer ence ladkweun 18 HY tWo crimes. and &@ murdur Conviction can lee spuahk Wndir 19 LViruollu any Circuimébanct involwing DOL. Appellant vies _ 20 Has court to Qcant resin) ainck +o7ppld thatHu Pact / 7 JOure INSUEFiCiunt +0 SUDDEC O COMICON oF prude —_ on A dipcives Har dalendanter Aut process undir bs = 3 Iskate anck fed constriitthos. Glacksen v Vira 2 FAYHYD VS. BV7.BI8 Peoole v Sohnéon 143) Za Ad 5315591 51-517 26 . 27 28 ; _ ; LISTOF PARTIES oe , pA All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. ' [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all