I concur in the decision to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal because, in my view, the *1209evidence supports the trial court’s finding of gross negligence. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that evidence of the defendant’s subjective awareness of the risk was admissible on that issue.
The majority acknowledges, as it must (People v. Bennett (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1032, 1036 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 8, 819 P.2d 849]; People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [179 Cal.Rptr. 43, 637 P.2d 279]), that gross negligence has an objective definition. To be precise, gross negligence is conduct that, when judged by the standards of an objectively reasonable person, reflects so slight a degree of care as to warrant the presumption that the actor was indifferent to the welfare of others. (People v. Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 296; see also People v. Bennett, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1036.)
Having thus tipped its hat to precedent, the majority then essentially ignores it by redefining the objectively reasonable person as one who shares the defendant’s subjective knowledge. The majority attempts to justify this by misinterpreting language in People v. Bennett (supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1036) to the effect that the test is whether “a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved” (italics added). The end result is a test that is no longer truly objective. Rather than evaluating the nature of the defendant’s conduct, the majority actually evaluates his subjective awareness of the risk, as evidenced by his prior conviction for driving under the influence, the terms of his probation, and the warnings he received at an alcohol-awareness class.
The case on which the majority primarily relies, People v. Bennett, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1032, had nothing to do with the admissibility of evidence of the defendant’s subjective awareness of risk. Instead, the question presented was whether the court properly “allowed the jury to find gross negligence from the circumstances of [defendant’s] intoxication alone, without regard to his manner of driving.” (Id. at p. 1035.) Answering this question, we held that “the jury could reasonably have found that [the] defendant’s high level of intoxication led to his reckless manner of driving.” (Id. at p. 1040.) We did not hold that evidence of the defendant’s subjective awareness of risk was admissible. Nor was such a holding implicit because the evidence in question was entirely objective: The defendant had simply had far too much to drink. (Id. at p. 1034.)
Rather than relying on the holding of Bennett, which has nothing to do with this case, the majority relies on Bennett’s use of the phrase “conscious indifference.” However, the majority completely misunderstands the role that the notion of “conscious indifference” has played in defining gross negligence. Until today, “conscious indifference,” or sometimes simply *1210“indifference,” has been nothing more than an aid to help the jury understand the hypothetical, objectively presumed mental state of the person whose conduct is sufficient egregious to be called grossly negligent.
The case on which Bennett principally relied, People v. Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 290, offers the majority no assistance. Bennett cited Watson for the proposition that “[g]ross negligence is the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences.” (People v. Bennett, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1036, citing People v. Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 296.) This statement is completely consistent with an objective definition of gross negligence: If the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently egregious he is presumed to have been consciously indifferent to the consequences, regardless of his actual mental state.
Moreover, the court in Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 290, carefully distinguished between gross negligence, on one hand, and subjective awareness of risk, or implied malice, on the other. The defendant, an intoxicated driver charged with second degree murder, argued that he could properly be charged only with vehicular manslaughter. The defendant reasoned that, in the context of drunken driving, the more specific manslaughter statute implicitly superseded the more general murder statute. We rejected the argument, explaining that gross negligence and subjective awareness of risk were different concepts: “The requisite culpability for the vehicular manslaughter charged here is gross negligence [citation], which has been defined as the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. (See People v. Costa (1953) 40 Cal.2d 160, 166 [252 P.2d 1].) On the other hand, malice may be implied when a person, knowing that his conduct endangers the life of another, nonetheless acts deliberately with conscious disregard for life. [Citations.]” (People v. Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 296, second and fourth italics added.)
The court in Watson was careful to note that “we have applied different tests in determining the required mental states of gross negligence or malice. A finding of gross negligence is made by applying an objective test: if a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness. [Citation.] However, a finding of implied malice depends upon a determination that defendant actually appreciated the risk involved, i.e., a subjective standard. [Citation.]” (People v. Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. 296-297, italics in original.)
Thus, the holdings of Bennett and Watson do not support the majority’s conclusion. Unfortunately, at one point in its opinion the Bennett court *1211alluded to the objective test in the following, imprecise language: “The jury should therefore consider all relevant circumstances, including level of intoxication, to determine if the defendant acted with a conscious disregard of the consequences rather than with mere inadvertence.” (People v. Bennett, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1038.) The lack of precision was excusable in Bennett because the court was not addressing the admissibility of evidence of subjective awareness. However, the majority has transformed the Bennett court’s momentary lack of precision on an immaterial point into a new, subjective test for gross negligence. Under Bennett, the majority now tells us, “the evidence at issue here was relevant to defendant’s awareness of the risk, and was admissible on that basis.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1205-1206.)
The majority’s analysis cannot withstand scrutiny. Bennett, as already noted, did not address the admissibility of evidence of the defendant’s subjective awareness. It is axiomatic that “[cjases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (In re Tartar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 250, 258 [339 P.2d 553].) Nor does Watson, the case on which Bennett relied, authorize the admission of such evidence. The two cases cited by the majority as upholding the admission of such evidence, People v. Costa (1953) 40 Cal.2d 160, 166 [252 P.2d 1], and People v. Von Staden (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1423, 1428 [241 Cal.Rptr. 523], did so with so little analysis that the majority evidently does not consider their analysis on this point, as opposed to their facts, worth repeating.
In any event, because the majority has declared that a defendant’s subjective awareness of the risk is relevant to a charge of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, it necessarily follows that a defendant may introduce evidence to show that he was not subjectively aware. To deny the defendant the right to present relevant evidence would create serious problems under the due process clause. (See, e.g., Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 302 [35 L.Ed.2d 297, 310, 93 S.Ct. 1038]; In re Oliver (1948) 333 U.S. 257, 273 [92 L.Ed. 682, 694, 68 S.Ct. 499]; see also People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 372 [279 Cal.Rptr. 780, 807 P.2d 1009]; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 684 [248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253].)
Mosk, J., concurred.