negligent,
but he insists he did not endanger Cecil with a conscious disregard for his life. In his
view, the evidence of implied malice is insufficient to support the jury verdict. He argues
on appeal, as he did to the jury, that he too lived in the same squalid conditions as Cecil,
as though a messy house was all the evidence revealed. He points out he had no medical
training and therefore did not recognize the severity of the symptoms; he believed Cecil
was showing signs of aging. Moreover, he argues the evidence demonstrates that he
attempted to help Cecil by asking for advice from his mother and sister, both of whom
were medically trained, and by calling for emergency personnel when Cecil became
unresponsive. It was the jury’s prerogative to accept this narrative, the same narrativetwice: once soon after emergency personnel arrived
and later that evening by a different detective and a lieutenant. He made equivocal

                                              10
references to an attorney during both interrogations. We point out, however, that he was
not in custody during the first interview. A deputy approached defendant while he was
sitting outside his trailer “just to find out what was going on.” There is no evidence
defendant was handcuffed or otherwise restrained or that he was told he was under arrest.
To the contrary, he refused an invitation to