SAN FRANCISCO — Did Marjorie Knoller know that walking her dogs without choke chains or muzzles could mean someone would die?
The answer to that question, now before the California Supreme Court, will decide whether Knoller is returned to prison for the murder of Diane Whipple, 33, who was mauled to death six years ago by Knoller's two Presa Canarios in the hallway of her Pacific Heights apartment.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Thursday April 19, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 51 words Type of Material: Correction
Dog-mauling case: An article in Monday's Section A about a dog-mauling case that could change the legal definition of murder in California said one of the dogs involved in a fatal attack on a San Francisco woman arrived at owner Marjorie Knoller's home April 31, 2000. The date was April 30.
The infamous attack and subsequent trial consumed this city and sparked a nationwide debate over killer dogs.
Now the case may lead to a new standard in California for determining when an unintentional killing can be murder. At issue is the state of mind of someone whose dangerous act triggers a death: How much advance awareness must that person have of the risks?
The courts have already ruled that drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents can be culpable for murder; a change in the law could mean more murder cases against people who unintentionally kill by starting fires, causing industrial accidents, shooting guns in celebration or neglecting children.
Attorney Dennis P. Riordan, who represents Knoller, believes that for the crime to have been murder, Knoller would have had to know: " 'If I go out of this apartment, there is a real chance somebody is going to die.' That has to be a conscious thought in her head."
State Deputy Atty. Gen. Amy E. Haddix contends that dozens of aggressive acts by the dogs made Knoller aware that they could be deadly and satisfied the requirements for what is called an "implied malice" murder -- when the killer has no intent to kill but acts with a conscious disregard of life and the knowledge that his conduct endangers people.
"If you anticipate that level of danger to human life, it doesn't matter that you might hope you could intervene," Haddix said.
"The risk is great enough that you are on the hook for the worst possible result."
Knoller, 51, a lawyer, was convicted of second-degree murder, but the judge threw out that conviction. Before overturning the jury's murder verdict, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren pondered whether Knoller "subjectively knew on Jan. [26, 2001] that her conduct was such that a human being was likely to die."
Turning to Knoller in the courtroom, Warren said: "There was one time on the stand, Ms. Knoller, when I truly believed what you said. You broke down in the middle of a totally scripted answer and you actually, instead of crying, you actually got mad and you said you had no idea that this dog could do what he did and pounded the table. I believed you."
