THE MAJORITY OF STATES PROSECUTE HOMICIDES WHICH OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF DRUNKEN DRIVING BY MEANS OF THEIR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE OR MANSLAUGHTER STATUTES. TEXAS, OHIO, KANSAS, AND ARIZONA HAVE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED A MURDER CONVICTION FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING. THE STATE LAWS DISTINGUISH THE LESSER OFFENSES FROM THE CRIME OF MURDER BY THE LACK OF MALICE, MALICE BEING A NECESSARY ELEMENT FOR A MURDER CONVICTION. COURTS IN GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND ALABAMA HAVE SUSTAINED THE EQUIVALENT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS FOR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE WHILE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. THE REQUISITE MALICE MAY BE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR IN GEORGIA, EVEN PRESUMED BY THE ACT OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. THE REASONING USED BY COURTS WHICH HAVE SUSTAINED SECOND DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS DOES NOT REST ON SPECIFIC INTENT BUT PRESUMES THAT A PERSON WHO DELIBERATELY BECOMES INTOXICATED AND DRIVES AN AUTOMOBILE IN A CARELESS MANNER WHICH ENDANGERS HUMAN LIFE DISPLAYS A DISREGARD OF OTHERS WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO MALICE. THE DEPRAVITY OF MIND NECESSARY FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER MAY BE EVIDENCED BY THE COMBINED ACTS OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION AND RECKLESS DRIVING, ACCORDING TO TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA COURTS. USE OF THE FELONY-MURDER DOCTRINE, THAT A KILLING WHICH OCCURS DURING THE COMMISSION OF FELONY MAY BE MURDER, COULD SUSTAIN MURDER CONVICTIONS IN SEVERAL STATES WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE VEHICULAR HOMICIDE WHILE INTOXICATED IN THEIR MURDER STATUTES. BOTH CALIFORNIA AND OKLAHOMA HAVE SUSTAINED SECOND DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS ON THE RATIONALE OF THE FELONY-MURDER DOCTRINE, AS BOTH STATES CONSIDER DRUNKEN DRIVING TO BE FELONIOUS. FURTHER DISCUSSION CONSIDERS INTOXICATION AS A DEFENSE IN HOMICIDE PROSECUTION. IT IS FELT THAT AN ACT MUST BE DONE WITH AN AWARENESS OF ITS LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSING HARM IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED MALICIOUS. REFERENCES AND CITED CASES ARE FOOTNOTED. (TWK)