In People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, four men, former football teammates, confronted another man, a professional surfer named Kauanui, outside his home. (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 502-504.) Substantial evidence indicated the four attacked Kauanui and one of them--not the defendant--eventually straddled and punched the defenseless surfer with both fists. (Id. at p. 504.) During a lull in the fighting, Kauanui stood up and walked unsteadily. (Id. at p. 505.) When he asked the defendant a non-threatening question, the defendant "'came flying out' and 'coldcocked'" Kauanui with an "'extremely hard'" punch as defendant stood on a curb striking down at Kauanui, who was standing at street level. (Ibid.) Witnesses thought Kauanui was unconscious from the blow before he hit the ground. (Ibid.) Kauanui's skull hit the ground loudly, leading to a brain injury and his death a few days later. ( Ibid.) The defendant left the scene and later bragged about the punch. (Id. at p. 506.) The Cravens court reviewed whether sufficient evidence satisfied both the physical and mental components of implied malice. The first, which is similar to the "high risk of death or great bodily injury" element defendant raises here, requires that the "'"'natural consequences'"'" of the act performed be "'"'dangerous to life.'"'" (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 508.) The court found substantial evidence met this element. Among other things, it indicated defendant, the larger man, struck a victim who was in a physically vulnerable position with a punch "hard enough to knock Kauanui unconscious . . . even before he hit the ground," regardless of the absence of facial markings on Kauanui from the blow. (Id. at p. 509.) Also, the defendant's conduct in delivering the blow "guaranteed that Kauanui would fall on a very hard surface, such as the pavement or the concrete curb. 'The consequences which would follow a fall upon a concrete walk must have been known to defendant.'" (Ibid.) The court continued, "Perhaps worst of all, defendant decked Kauanui with a sucker punch. The jury could reasonably have found that at the time defendant attacked, Kauanui posed no threat and was not behaving in an aggressive manner" and "intended to catch Kauanui at his most vulnerable." (Ibid.) The Cravens court "categorically rejected defendant's blithe assertion that the 'natural consequence' of his conduct was merely 'a sore jaw'" and concluded the record belied the assumption that the "punch was at all ordinary." (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 510, 511.) Rather, the court concluded, "it was an extremely powerful blow to the head calculated to catch the impaired victim off guard, without any opportunity for the victim to protect his head, and thereby deliver the victim directly and rapidly at his most vulnerable to a most unforgiving surface." (Id. at p. 511.)