See FORECITE National™ 53.4 [Unconstitutional To Infer Recklessness From Speeding].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.2.3 [Equating Violation Of Speed Law With Inherent Dangerousness Is Improper Mandatory Presumption].

    See FORECITE National™ 105.3.3 [Driving And Traffic Violations: Defenses And Defense Theories].

    See FORECITE National™ 53.4 [Unconstitutional To Infer Recklessness From Speeding].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.2.3 [Equating Violation Of Speed Law With Inherent Dangerousness Is Improper Mandatory Presumption].

PRACTICE NOTE: The CALJIC (California) speed law instructions state that a violation of a speed law is "an act inherently dangerous to human life and safety, amounting to a misdemeanor or an infraction." (CALJIC 8.95 (Basic); CALJIC 8.96 (Prima Facie); CALJIC 8.97 (Maximum).) These instructions create an impermissible mandatory presumption in violation of settled principles of due process. (See People v. Hammond DEPUBLISHED (CA 1992) 9 CA4th 1523 [12 CR2d 205]; see also FORECITE National™ 53.4 [Unconstitutional To Infer Recklessness From Speeding].) In a homicide case this presumption undermines the defendant's right to a jury determination of all essential elements of the charge.

     See also FORECITE National™ 53.2 [Negligence May Not Be Presumed From Violation Of Traffic Safety Statute].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.3.3 [Vehicular Manslaughter: Defense Theory That Imminent Peril Affects The Standard Of Care Which The Defendant Must Exercise].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.3.4 [Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated: Lack Of Causal Relationship Between Intoxication And Death Of Victim As Defense Theory].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.3.5 [Gross Negligence: Defense Theory That Defendant Did Not Have Knowledge Of The Risks Of Drinking And Driving].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.3.5 [Gross Negligence: Defense Theory That Defendant Did Not Have Knowledge Of The Risks Of Drinking And Driving].

    See FORECITE National™ 92.5.3.5 [Gross Negligence: Defense Theory That Defendant Did Not Have Knowledge Of The Risks Of Drinking And Driving].