• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Vehicular Manslaughter

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

nykizzle

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

At my cousins second Preliminary Hearing for vehicular manslaughter w gross neg for each boy. For a FATAL collision where two Prominent Teens ran a stop sign not wearing SEAT BELTS causing their early death.

My cousin had the right of way. But now they are saying he was going 90mph on a 55 mph and are saying he is an Associated cause. They said the other driver (teen) is 51% fault 49 % shepherds fault.

can they still get him for VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER ? JUDGE BIRD DISMISSED ALL HIT AND RUN CHARGES IN THE FIRST PRELIMINARY HEARING. BUT PROSECUTORS REFILED WITH MORE SERIOUS HARSHER CHARGES.

ONCE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED THE JUDGE USED A PAST FELONY CHARGE THAT RESULTED IN PROBATION NOT JAIL TIME. BUT HE USED THE PAST CHARGE TO BEAR WEIGHT IN BAIL READJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO HOLD HIM.
 
Last edited:


sandyclaus

Senior Member
First and foremost - take your cousin's real name out of the post, for his own protection.

Secondly, YES. Since your cousin was significantly exceeding the speed limit (90 in a 55 mph zone), it would be considered a contributing factor to the extent of the injuries that caused the deaths of the other two teens. Had he been going closer to the speed limit, it's entirely possible that the injury could have been much less severe and not resulted in death.

The prosecutor was absolutely within their discretion to hold your cousin at least partially responsible for the senseless deaths that happened here.
 

nykizzle

Member
Even though he had a right of way? his two female passengers said he was going no faster then 70 mph. But they say MATHEMATICS determined different. he wasn't drinking ... and it really would not have mattered if it was 55 or 105 they ran a stop sign and out in the country which caused them to get broadsided without seat belts. according to statistics you are toast broadsided at 55mph right? so should we have to panic while driving in the country every time we see a car approaching a stop sign?
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
Even though he had a right of way? his two female passengers said he was going no faster then 70 mph. But they say MATHEMATICS determined different. he wasn't drinking ... and it really would not have mattered if it was 55 or 105 they ran a stop sign and out in the country which caused them to get broadsided without seat belts. according to statistics you are toast broadsided at 55mph right? so should we have to panic while driving in the country every time we see a car approaching a stop sign?
Your information doesn't change my response.

The speed at which a vehicle is traveling determines the force at impact with another vehicle. It also determines the amount of time one might have had to react to a hazard, such as someone running a stop sign in front of you. If your cousin had been driving the speed limit, the chances are that the accident might not have even happened, because he wouldn't have been in the same place at the same time as the party that ran the stop sign. Or if he was, he might have collided with the other vehicle at a different angle, which might have caused less or different damage and injury to the parties involved in the accident.

Look at the BIG picture, and you can see what difference going nearly twice the speed limit could have made.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Your relatives need a lawyer. Previous criminal records can certainly be used against you in bail determination (whether you went to jail or not). Up until the trial (not the prelims) actually starts, charges can be dismissed, refiled, amended.

While I don't see any thing that waives right of way for excess speed in Texas (this does exist in other states), the fact that he was more than trivially over the limit certainly shows negligence that could be contributing to a vehicular homicide charge.

It actually may work out to their advantage on Veh. Manslaughter. That is a tougher charge to justify. Unless the driver was intoxicated, they need to show intent rather than just criminal negligence on this.
[Oh, or is it that they were under the influence of drugs, you omitted that fact though you alluded to it in another thread. This is why we want EVERYTHING IN THE SAME THREAD. It's also why we can't really give legal advice that means much in a case like this because WE DON'T EVEN HAVE 10% of the necessary information.]
 
Last edited:

nextwife

Senior Member
Even though he had a right of way? his two female passengers said he was going no faster then 70 mph. But they say MATHEMATICS determined different. he wasn't drinking ... and it really would not have mattered if it was 55 or 105 they ran a stop sign and out in the country which caused them to get broadsided without seat belts. according to statistics you are toast broadsided at 55mph right? so should we have to panic while driving in the country every time we see a car approaching a stop sign?
A defensive, attentive driver going the posted speed might also be able to notice the party failing to slow as it approached the intersection and perhaps totally avoid a collission, or significantly minimize the speed and direction at which impact occurs. As someone who has themselves managed to avoid hitting parties who blew stop signs/lights I am speaking from experience. IT is entirely possible that if he'd been traveling a safe speed and been attentive to traffic approaching from the intersections, he might have avoided collission altogether, or hit at a reduced speed (reduced from posted, not from 90MPH). 90 mph is totally irresponsible on any road that would have cross traffic.
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
Your relatives need a lawyer. Previous criminal records can certainly be used against you in bail determination (whether you went to jail or not). Up until the trial (not the prelims) actually starts, charges can be dismissed, refiled, amended.

While I don't see any thing that waives right of way for excess speed in Texas (this does exist in other states), the fact that he was more than trivially over the limit certainly shows negligence that could be contributing to a vehicular homicide charge.

It actually may work out to their advantage on Veh. Manslaughter. That is a tougher charge to justify. Unless the driver was intoxicated, they need to show intent rather than just criminal negligence on this.
[Oh, or is it that they were under the influence of drugs, you omitted that fact though you alluded to it in another thread. This is why we want EVERYTHING IN THE SAME THREAD. It's also why we can't really give legal advice that means much in a case like this because WE DON'T EVEN HAVE 10% of the necessary information.]
FYI, Ron... this occurred in California, not Texas.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
FYI, Ron... this occurred in California, not Texas.
Ooops...don't know why I had Texas on the brain.

Vehicular manslaughter is easier to prove in California. The prosecution will argue you were operating both unlawfully and dangerously (either one is sufficient in its own).
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
Ooops...don't know why I had Texas on the brain.

Vehicular manslaughter is easier to prove in California. The prosecution will argue you were operating both unlawfully and dangerously (either one is sufficient in its own).
Well, driving 90 MPH in a 55 zone meets both of those criteria. Although... Reckless speed doesn't start until 100 MPH here, but still. (Can one be driving "dangerously" but not rise to the level of "reckless"? Hmm.... )
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
In CA "reckless" (as defined in VC 23103 et seq) cannot be solely the function of speed - even if over 100 MPH.

What specific code section is the defendant being charged with? This DOES make a difference, because it will change the elements of the offense that the state must prove to a jury.

Typically the state will have to show that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle and committed a misdemeanor or infraction or some other lawful act in an unlawful manner, that the act was dangerous to human life under the circumstances, that the act was committed with negligence ("ordinary" for a misdemeanor, "gross" for a felony), and the act caused the death of another person.

The problem the state will have is proving that the act (speeding, in this case) would not have happened had it not been for the speed of the defendant. The state can certainly prove that the speed contributed to the cause of death, but showing that death would not have happened absent the speed of the suspect is going to be tough, I would think.

Of course we do not have all the details, and there may very well be some additional pieces present that are not known or related here.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
If you read his other thread that he started, there appears to be a "influence of drugs" charge in play here as well. That makes Unlawful Driving and Dangerous come in to play both.

The part where I stated we can't do much more than guess with less than 10% of the pertinent information still stands.
 

Mnemosyne

Member
From what I gather from the press, the defendant was charged with Penal Code 192(c). The press is also reporting that the defendant could be facing trial for leaving the scene (he fled on foot), driving without a license and causing great bodily injury to the two female passengers.

The CHP's reconstruction expert testified at the prelim hearing that the collision wouldn't have happened had the defendant been operating within the speed limit.

In CA "reckless" (as defined in VC 23103 et seq) cannot be solely the function of speed - even if over 100 MPH.

What specific code section is the defendant being charged with? This DOES make a difference, because it will change the elements of the offense that the state must prove to a jury.

Typically the state will have to show that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle and committed a misdemeanor or infraction or some other lawful act in an unlawful manner, that the act was dangerous to human life under the circumstances, that the act was committed with negligence ("ordinary" for a misdemeanor, "gross" for a felony), and the act caused the death of another person.

The problem the state will have is proving that the act (speeding, in this case) would not have happened had it not been for the speed of the defendant. The state can certainly prove that the speed contributed to the cause of death, but showing that death would not have happened absent the speed of the suspect is going to be tough, I would think.

Of course we do not have all the details, and there may very well be some additional pieces present that are not known or related here.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
If the CHP concluded that the collision was the fault of the OP's cousin, then who is the "they" that opined that the other driver was 51% at fault? Granted, that wouldn't have been the CHP since we cannot apportion fault like that in CA. We assign the PCF and then articulate associated factors.

If they assigned the PCF to the speeding driver, then we might assume that the dead driver did NOT blow a stop sign. Or, they blew it at such a low speed as there would have been sufficient visibility and time to stop had the OP's cousin been traveling at the posted speed that the collision would not have happened.

It'd be interesting to know where this occurred.

As for PC 192 ... which subsection? It can also be charged as a misdemeanor.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top