This isn't about what should/shouldn't be, I'm talking about how the legal system views these things. Vehicular homicide has a requirement of negligence, because traditionally the justice system sees a qualitative difference between a grandpa who backs over a grandchild who runs behind the SUV and someone who chooses to drive despite being blind drunk.

In terms of the hit-and-run == negligence...the two things correlate...a drunk driver may be so drunk that they don't realize they've killed someone. Or more maliciously, they do realize it but don't want to take a breathalyzer at the scene of the crime. However, there are cases (which does not seem to apply to the case in question) in which otherwise well-behaved drivers have killed someone unknowingly or for some reason panicked and left. It's still a crime, but it's not "homicide"