SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court unanimously decided Thursday that a judge must reconsider whether Marjorie Knoller, who served time for a fatal dog mauling, should have a more serious murder conviction reinstated and be returned to prison.
The state high court said the trial judge who threw out the jury's second-degree murder conviction of Knoller interpreted the murder statute too narrowly. But the standard used by the appeals court that later reinstated the conviction was too expansive, the court said.
"The Court of Appeal set the bar too low ... but the trial court set the bar too high," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.
The decision means that Knoller, who already served 33 months for involuntary manslaughter, could return to prison to serve a 15-year-to-life sentence.
Dennis P. Riordan, who represented Knoller in her appeal, said his client found the court's decision "fair" and believes that a trial judge once again will decide that there was insufficient evidence to support a second-degree murder conviction.
But Deputy Atty. Gen. Amy Haddix said the state was optimistic that the second-degree murder conviction would be revived.
"We're very pleased with the result ... ," Haddix said. "We are pretty optimistic about our chances in Superior Court."
Knoller's conviction stemmed from the death of Diane Whipple, 33, a college lacrosse coach who was attacked while trying to enter her apartment with groceries.
Knoller's dogs, both Presa Canarios, weighed more than 100 pounds each and had threatened and bitten others in the months before the 2001 mauling.
Knoller was tried under a theory of "implied malice murder." In such a murder, the defendant does not intend to kill but acts with conscious disregard of life. One of the issues before the state high court was the degree to which a defendant must know that his or her conduct was potentially deadly.
Retired San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren said the evidence failed to prove that Knoller must have known that walking one of her dogs without a muzzle carried "a high probability" that someone would be killed.
The high court said Warren simply should have examined whether Knoller knew that she was engaging in conduct that endangered the life of another.
"It is uncertain whether the court would have granted the new trial had it used correct legal standards," Kennard wrote.
